Experimental evidence of subtle victim blame in the absence of explicit blame

Autoři: Carolyn L. Hafer aff001;  Alicia N. Rubel aff001;  Caroline E. Drolet aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227229


We argue that people will often eschew explicit victim blame (e.g., claiming that “X is to blame”) because it is counternormative and socially undesirable, yet they might still engage in subtle victim blame by attributing victims’ suffering to behaviors the victims can control (i.e., “high control causes”). We found support for this argument in three online studies with US residents. In Studies 1 and 2, participants viewed a victim posing either a high threat to the need to believe in a just world, which should heighten the motivation to engage in victim blame, or a low threat. They then rated explicit blame items and attributions for the victim’s suffering. Explicit blame was low overall and not influenced by victim threat. However, participants attributed the high threat victim’s suffering, more than the low threat victim’s suffering, to high control causes, thus showing a subtle blame effect. In Study 2, explicit blame and subtle blame were less strongly associated (in the high threat condition) for individuals high in socially desirable responding. These results are consistent with our argument that explicit and subtle blame diverge in part due to social desirability concerns. In Study 3, most participants believed others viewed the explicit blame items, but not the attribution items, as assessing blame. Thus, attributions to high control causes can be seen as “subtle” in the sense that people believe others will view such statements as reflecting constructs other than blame. Our studies suggest a way of responding to innocent victims that could be particularly relevant in a modern context, given increasing social undesirability of various negative responses to disadvantaged and victimized individuals.

Klíčová slova:

Alcohol consumption – Behavior – Sepsis – Social discrimination – Social research – Social sciences – Sports and exercise medicine – Traffic safety


1. Hafer CL, Bègue L. Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychol Bull. 2005;131:128–67. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128 15631556

2. Ryan W. Blaming the victim. New York: Pantheon Books; 1971.

3. van der Bruggen M, Grubb A. A review of the literature relating to rape victim blaming: An analysis of the impact of observer and victim characteristics on attribution of blame in rape cases. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014;19:523–31.

4. Lambert AJ, Raichle K. The role of political ideology in mediating judgments of blame in rape victims and their assailants: A test of the just world, personal responsibility, and legitimization hypotheses. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2000;26:853–63.

5. Niemi L, Young L. When and why we see victims as responsible: The impact of ideology on attitudes toward victims. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2016;42:1227–42.

6. Kay AC, Jost JT, Mandisodza AN, Sherman SJ, Pertrocelli JV, Johnson AL. Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 39. San Diego, CA: Elsevier; 2007. pp. 305–58.

7. Lerner MJ. The belief in a just world. New York: Plenum; 1980.

8. Hafer CL, Bègue L, Choma BL, Dempsey JL. Belief in a just world and commitment to long-term deserved outcomes. Soc Justice Res. 2005;18:429–44.

9. Ståhl T, Eek D, Kazemi A. Rape victim blaming as system justification: The role of gender and activation of complementary stereotypes. Soc Justice Res. 2010;23:239–58.

10. Alves H, Correia I. A first approach to perceptions of social norms regarding reactions towards innocent and non-innocent victims. Port J Soc Sci. 2009;8:133–45.

11. Alves H, Correia I. Perceptions of the self and most people’s reactions towards innocent and noninnocent victims. Span J Psychol. 2013;16:1–11.

12. Dawtry RJ, Callan MJ, Harvey AJ, Olson JM. Derogating innocent victims: The effects of relative versus absolute character judgments. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2018;44:186–99.

13. Rieck SM. Victim-blaming as normative: Examining prescriptive and descriptive norms regarding victim-blaming. PhD dissertation, Texas A & M University. 2017. Available from ProQuest Dissertations database.

14. Lerner MJ. The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2003;7:388–99.

15. Charlesworth TES, Banaji MR. Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychol Sci. 2019;30:174–92. doi: 10.1177/0956797618813087 30605364

16. Rice S, Hackett H, Trafimow D, Hunt G, Sandry J. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t: Assigning blame to victims regardless of their choice. Soc Sci J. 2012;49:5–8.

17. Aguiar P, Vala J, Correia I, Pereira C. Justice in our world and in that of others: Belief in a just world and reactions to victims. Soc Justice Res. 2008;21:50–68.

18. Hafer CL, Gosse L. Preserving the belief in a just world: When and for whom are different strategies preferred? In: Bobocel DR, Kay AC, Zanna MP, Olson JM, editors. The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium. Vol. 11. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. pp. 79–102.

19. Lerner MJ. The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. J Pers. 1977;45:1–52.

20. Hafer CL, Rubel AN. The why and how of defending belief in a just world. In: Olson JM, Zanna MP, editors. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 51. London, UK; 2015. pp. 41–96.

21. Corrigan P, Markowitz FE, Watson A, Rowan D, Kubiak MA. An attribution model of public discrimination towards persons with mental illness. J Health Soc Behav. 2003;44:162–79. 12866388

22. Weiner B, Perry RP, Magnusson J. An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55:738–48. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.55.5.738 2974883

23. Bal M, van den Bos K. Putting the “I” and “Us” in justice: Derogatory and benevolent reactions toward innocent victims in self-focused and other-focused individuals. Soc Justice Res. 2015;28:274–92.

24. Nosek BA. Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005;143:565–84.

25. Anderson JR. The moderating role of socially desirable responding in implicit–explicit attitudes toward asylum seekers. Int J Psychol. 2019;54:1–7. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12439 28675437

26. Callan MJ, Ellard JH, Nicol JE. The belief in a just world and immanent justice reasoning in adults. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2006;32:1646–58.

27. Hafer CL, Gosse L. Predicting alternative strategies for preserving a belief in a just world: The case of repressive coping style. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2011;41:730–9.

28. Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of personality annd social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1991. pp. 17–59.

Článok vyšiel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12