When to Blame Victims for Negligence: Noncooperators Are Deemed Responsible for Their Own Hardship.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Evolutionary Psychology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1177/14747049241297902
Pascal Boyer, Eric Chantland, Lou Safra
{"title":"When to Blame Victims for Negligence: Noncooperators Are Deemed Responsible for Their Own Hardship.","authors":"Pascal Boyer, Eric Chantland, Lou Safra","doi":"10.1177/14747049241297902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In four preregistered studies, we tested implications from a cooperation model that explains victim-blaming as a strategic move, as a way for people to avoid the costs of helping victims (who seem to be unpromising cooperation partners) without paying the reputational cost of being seen as ungenerous, reluctant cooperators. An implication of this perspective is that, if an individual is identified as a poor cooperation prospect to start with, people would be likely to blame that individual for his/her own misfortune, notably by suggesting that the victim was negligent. The four studies presented here support this interpretation, as participants attributed more negligence to an accident victim if that victim had been initially described as less prosocial, either because they denied benefits to others or because they created costs for others. These results are consistent with a familiar result, that people blame victims more if they feel (or want to be seen as) more socially distant from that victim. The present studies may offer a simple, cooperation-based account of this and other aspects of victim-blaming.</p>","PeriodicalId":47499,"journal":{"name":"Evolutionary Psychology","volume":"22 4","pages":"14747049241297902"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolutionary Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049241297902","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In four preregistered studies, we tested implications from a cooperation model that explains victim-blaming as a strategic move, as a way for people to avoid the costs of helping victims (who seem to be unpromising cooperation partners) without paying the reputational cost of being seen as ungenerous, reluctant cooperators. An implication of this perspective is that, if an individual is identified as a poor cooperation prospect to start with, people would be likely to blame that individual for his/her own misfortune, notably by suggesting that the victim was negligent. The four studies presented here support this interpretation, as participants attributed more negligence to an accident victim if that victim had been initially described as less prosocial, either because they denied benefits to others or because they created costs for others. These results are consistent with a familiar result, that people blame victims more if they feel (or want to be seen as) more socially distant from that victim. The present studies may offer a simple, cooperation-based account of this and other aspects of victim-blaming.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
何时将过失归咎于受害者?不合作者被认为应对自己的困难负责。
在四项预先登记的研究中,我们检验了一个合作模型的含义,该模型将指责受害者解释为一种策略性举动,是人们避免帮助受害者(他们似乎是不具合作前景的伙伴)的成本的一种方式,而无需付出被视为不慷慨、不情愿的合作者的声誉成本。这种观点的一个含义是,如果一个人一开始就被认定为合作前景不佳,那么人们很可能会把自己的不幸归咎于这个人,特别是暗示受害者疏忽大意。本文介绍的四项研究支持这一解释,因为如果事故受害者最初被描述为亲社会性较差,那么参与者就会将更多的过失归咎于该受害者,因为他们剥夺了他人的利益,或者因为他们给他人造成了损失。这些结果与我们熟悉的结果一致,即如果人们觉得(或希望被视为)自己与受害者的社会关系更疏远,他们就会更多地指责受害者。目前的研究可能提供了一种简单的、基于合作的方法来解释这种情况以及指责受害者的其他方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
22
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evolutionary Psychology is an open-access peer-reviewed journal that aims to foster communication between experimental and theoretical work on the one hand and historical, conceptual and interdisciplinary writings across the whole range of the biological and human sciences on the other.
期刊最新文献
The Role of Intrasexual Competition and the Big 5 in the Perpetration of Digital Dating Abuse. The Relation Between War, Starvation, and Fertility Ideals in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Life History Perspective. Jealousy as Predicted by Allocation and Reception of Resources in an Economic Game. When to Blame Victims for Negligence: Noncooperators Are Deemed Responsible for Their Own Hardship. Sex Differences in the Etiology of Victimization in Adulthood.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1