Discussing the Victim Blaming Phenomenon
Blaming victims is upsetting to many people, understandably so, yet what drives it, why are people so confident in their assumptive conclusions and how can society reframe thinking to consider other narratives?
The behavior is a curious one and for a part of society, a natural one.
Alex J. Anderson-Kahl
“Victim blaming is a complex phenomenon rooted in both psychological and sociological factors,” says Alex J. Anderson-Kahl, Ed.S. , who is a nationally-certified school psychologist and the founder of the blog “Healing Little Hearts.”
“One of the primary reasons is the ‘just world hypothesis,’” he says, going on to explain that, “This is a cognitive bias where individuals believe that the world is fair and people get what they deserve. When something bad happens to someone, this belief system can lead people to think that the victim must have done something to deserve it.”
There’s additional default thinking that he points out.
“Heuristics — mental shortcuts our brains use to make quick decisions — can play a role. The ‘availability heuristic,’ for instance, can make events or behaviors that come to mind easily seem more frequent or probable than they actually are,” Anderson-Kahl says.
“Sociologically, cultural norms and values can perpetuate victim-blaming attitudes, especially in societies where power dynamics and traditional roles are deeply entrenched.”
Eileen P. Anderson
“There are multiple underpinnings of victim blaming, most organized around ideas and behaviors to keep people thinking they are safe,” says Eileen P. Anderson, Ed.D., an associate professor at Case Western Reserve University and founding director of the Medicine, Society and Culture (MSC) concentration and the center for Medicine, Society and Culture.
“A common form is when people become aware that some unfortunate event — from a house fire, to a robbery, to assault and beyond has happened to someone. Others may try to analyze how the victim contributed to or even caused their own misfortune.”
In brief, she adds, “This allows bystanders and others to think they are immune to the same risks because they would have made safer decisions.”
Anderson illustrates how this can play out in conversations.
“For example, they (the critic or perpetuator of victim blaming) would have been holding their purse tightly, and therefore not have it stolen. They would never dress in a ‘provocative’ manner so they would not be assaulted,” she says. “It happens in almost every crime and misfortune that someone will blame the victim.”
Anderson, like Anderson-Kahl, alludes to the just world hypothesis as a common default way of thinking and a figurative lens in which many of us view society.
“Psychologists describe the ‘just world hypothesis’ as a heuristic for why victim blaming happens,” she says. “That is the belief that the world is fair. If you act well, only good things will happen. If you make mistakes or act badly, bad things will happen.”
This is important, Anderson contends, because of how people prefer to emotionally think and psychologically conclude.
“If bad things can happen to good people, our own sense of safety can be compromised,” Anderson says. “For example, if (a man) acted typically by putting a wallet in a back pocket at a baseball game and got pickpocketed, then it could happen to me. If we can say he should know better than to have anything at all within reach at a crowded venue, then we can feel like it won’t happen to us.
“If a child is injured in a sports game, many will examine what that child or parents of the child could have done differently to prevent the injury. This allows other families to feel safer about their children.”
What is often more obvious and troublesome is when a certain psychology is detected.
“One important category of victim blaming comes from those with personality disorders such as narcissistic personality disorder,” Anderson says. “In the case of psychopathology, all problems are someone else’s fault.
“People in families, friendships or workplaces with someone with a personality disorder have probably experienced how the person never feels at fault and can put the blame elsewhere every time,” she says, adding that, “These people have a neuropsychological structure that is fragile and threatened by taking responsibility for missteps or mistakes.”
Those who easily blame a reported victim can be supremely confident in their assessments of a story. There can be different reasons for it.
“There is huge variation in how people respond to stories of misfortune,” Anderson says, explaining that, “This variation may be based on structural factors like social class, gender or racial identification, political affiliation, etc., in addition to regional, familial or individual differences.
“Most of our opinions are formed based on many layers of experience and observation that may change across the life course. Moreover, the media can spin a story to make it look like victimization or more like someone was irresponsible. The storytelling aspect can influence our analysis.”
She explains how this often can work in the minds of media consumers.
“Sometimes news stories trigger something consciously or unconsciously that has happened in our lives or that we fear will,” Anderson says.
“For example, when there is a missing child, people often try to evaluate what happened that they would never do, as a defense mechanism, to the fear of losing their own child.”
“In most stories that hit the media, we will never understand all the nuance that created the event. A stance of humility, that we outside the event will never fully understand it, is important.”
“Overconfidence in our assessments often stems from cognitive biases,” Anderson-Kahl states. “The ‘confirmation bias,’ is particularly relevant here. It’s our tendency to search for, interpret and remember information in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs.
“If someone already has a predisposition to blame victims, they are more likely to interpret information in a way that supports this belief.
“Personal experiences and values also shape our perceptions. If someone has been falsely accused in the past, they might be more skeptical of victims’ accounts.
“Additionally, societal narratives and stereotypes can influence our judgments. For instance, a society that often portrays certain groups as deceitful or untrustworthy, individuals might be more inclined to doubt stories from members of those groups.
There are the costs that accumulate when societal assessments are inaccurate or completely wrong observers feed into false narratives.
“Victim blaming and shaming can re-traumatize someone who has already been through so much difficulty,” Anderson says. “We see this regularly in sexual assault cases. “Victims in these cases are critiqued for their clothing, their choice of when or where to go out, their ingestion of a substance and so on.”
There’s smarter, more evolved thinking and a more helpful response, she says. “Rather, people should not be assaulted. In public or in private, when someone is told it’s their fault a trauma like this happened to them, it further injures them psychologically.”
“Trying to prevent future crimes and traumas is very different from blaming and shaming an individual.”
There are the costs that accumulate when societal assessments are inaccurate or completely wrong observers feed into false narratives.
Critical observers are not realizing the double punishment victims — or as they may prefer to be called, survivors — are having to endure.
“The costs of victim blaming are profound,” says Anderson-Kahl. “For the victim, it can lead to feelings of shame, guilt and isolation, exacerbating the trauma they've already experienced.”
That’s bad news for society and the survivor.
“This can deter victims from reporting crimes or seeking help, perpetuating cycles of abuse,” Anderson-Kahl says. “Societally, victim blaming can reinforce harmful stereotypes and power imbalances, making it harder for marginalized groups to find justice.”
“When we feed into false narratives, we not only harm the individual victim but also undermine the credibility of other genuine victims, creating a culture of skepticism and mistrust.”
Anderson does feel we need to objectively look at situations and be honest about what we learn.
“Victim blaming is different from assessing how we contribute to our own misery,” Anderson says. “If we repeatedly let someone cross over our boundaries and feel resentment, then it could be true that both those people should not take advantage of us and that we should work on setting better boundaries to be treated as we would like.
“If something is a repeated pattern in our lives, it is worth looking at our contribution,” she says. “If it is a one-off misfortune, chances are greater that we might be an unfortunate victim.”
Anderson is quick to point out that we can and should remain true to accuracy and humanity.
“In the case of someone else, we can hold a stance of humility and empathy and look to how to prevent future cases of these misfortunes, assaults and other criminal behaviors, rather than focus on retroactive judgment,” she asserts.
“Objective analysis of how we can keep people safer is very different from a tone of moral judgment and blame. The former helps us make better decisions on individual, group and institutional levels, while the latter generally causes suffering and harm.”
“To examine situations more intelligently, we must first be aware of our biases and actively work to counteract them,” says Anderson-Kahl. “This involves seeking out diverse perspectives, questioning our initial reactions, and being open to changing our minds.”
Two pursuits and commitments can be valuable to improved judgments.
“Critical thinking and empathy are essential,” he says. “Instead of jumping to conclusions, we should gather as much information as possible and consider the context in which events occurred.”
There are more helpful reactions and responses to learning of people’s situations and emotional, psychological and maybe, physical suffering.
“A stance of compassion or even benefit-of-the doubt would be a healthier response,” Anderson says.
Going deeper, it would be more honorable, Anderson-Kahl says, to focus on less on our emotions and more on what the people negatively impacted most need.
“It’s beneficial to foster a culture of listening and support, where victims feel safe to share their stories without fear of judgment or blame,” he says.
We can also come to ask ourselves questions to put on trial our thinking that might not be leading us to accurate judgments and conclusions.
“If there’s a story that pulls one’s attention and emotional energy, we have to ask, ‘why that one?’” Anderson asks. “We can consider ‘what could have been done better’ but also ‘what was done right’ or at least (what was) at no increased risk compared with things that we do.”
###
Publisher’s Notes:
*If you’d like to advertise in this section or this particular feature, contact the publisher (Michael) at CIM.writer.publisher@gmail.com
*Advertising in Communication Intelligence is available through (paid) links for your service or products, ads in articles, section sponsorships, expanded business listings, the book store and job and collaboration listings.
*Communication Intelligence also now offers professional writing services: email the publisher — see the upper right-hand corner of this website — with questions or to get started.
NEW: Click here to see the front page of the newsletter or subscribe for free.
