The Effects of Mind Perception and the Belief in A Just World on Innocent Victim-Blaming

Wang Yue; Li Zhengqing; Wang Kun; Li Ying

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230613

PDF(659 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2023, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (6) : 1375-1382. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230613

Social，Personality & Organizational Psychology

The Effects of Mind Perception and the Belief in A Just World on Innocent Victim-Blaming

Wang Yue¹, Li Zhengqing^1,2, Wang Kun³, Li Ying¹

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Abundant research on the Theory of Dyadic Morality has shown that the perceived harm is the core of moral judgment. The pain of the victim is one of the constituent elements of the perceived harm, and the judge's assessment of the pain of the victim is affected by mind perception. There are two important elements in mind perception, including agency and experience. Agency is corresponding to the moral responsibility, while experience is corresponding to the moral rights. The Theory of Dyadic Morality sticks to the view that agents are blameworthy, and patients deserve sympathy. In other words, the judge will blame the perpetrators more and sympathize with the victims more. However, the Belief in A Just World Theory gives different suggestions. The justice threat posed by the innocent victim suffering more serious harm is very likely to lead the judge to stay away from and blame the victim instead of sympathizing. This study explored the effects of mind perception, the effects of mind perception and belief in a just world on innocent victim-blaming through two studies.

Study 1 used a single-factor between-subject design. The independent variable was the victim's minds(including agency and experience), and the dependent variable was the degree of blame on the innocent victim. According to the mind perception,113 participants were randomly divided into the agency group and experience group to read a story about an agency victim or an experience victim. After reading the victim scenario ,they were required to score the degree of blame on the victim. A two(BJW: the high BJW threat, the lowBJW threat)*two(mind perception: agency, experience)between-subject design was made in study 2, and the dependent variables were the degree of blame on victims and the willingness to help the victims.178 participants were subjected to different manipulations of the BJW threat and mind perception. A story about an unjust world was used to prime the high BJW threat, and another story about an just world was used to prime the low BJW threat.

The results were as follow: (1) Mind perception affects the observers’ behavior of innocent victim-blaming, and the experience victim got less blaming than the agency victim. (2) The BJW and mind perception had an interactive effect on the behavior of blaming in the low-threat condition. That is, the experience victim got less blaming from observers who were not threatened by injustice than the agency victim. In contrast, in the high-threat condition, the observers were threatened by strong injustice and might be in an irrational state, so the agency victim got less blaming than the experience victim. (3)There was no interaction effect between the BJW and mind perception on the willingness to help victims. Observers with high BJW threat were more willing to help victims than observers with low BJW threat.

The present study suggests that mind perception influences the behavior of innocent victim-blaming, which may be limited by observers’ Belief in A Just World.

Key words

theory of dyadic morality / mind perception / belief in a just world theory / innocent victim-blaming

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Wang Yue, Li Zhengqing, Wang Kun, Li Ying. The Effects of Mind Perception and the Belief in A Just World on Innocent Victim-Blaming[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2023, 46(6): 1375-1382 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230613

References

[1] 杜建政, 祝振兵, 李兴琨. (2007). 大学生公正世界信念量表的初步编制. 中国临床心理学杂志, 15(3), 239-241.
[2] 姬旺华, 张兰鸽,寇彧. (2014). 公正世界信念对大学生助人意愿的影响: 责任归因和帮助代价的作用. 心理发展与教育, 30(5), 496-503.
[3] 李薇, 陈晓梅, 金晓君, 赵妍, 李丽娜. (2014). 大学生公正世界信念与利他行为的相关性. 中国健康心理学杂志, 22(6), 946-948.
[4] 李霞, 侯木兰, 吴茜玲, 秦浩轩. (2019). 大学生个人公正世界信念对紧急助人倾向的影响: 共情的中介作用. 江西科技师范大学学报, 1, 104-110, 103.
[5] 邵晓露. (2019). 受害者反应特征对受害者印象评价的影响(硕士学位论文). 浙江大学,杭州.
[6] 孙学博. (2020). 基于责备路径模型和身份效应的道德判断研究(硕士学位论文). 电子科技大学, 成都.
[7] 詹泽, 吴宝沛. (2019). 无处不在的伤害: 二元论视角下的道德判断. 心理科学进展, 27(1), 128-140.
[8] 张洁婷, 王晓钧, 潮萌. (2018). 无辜受害事件对公正世界信念的威胁: 观察者的角色偏倚. 心理学探新, 38(5), 451-456.
[9] 周春燕, 郭永玉. (2013). 公正世界信念——重建公正的双刃剑. 心理科学进展, 21(1), 144-154.
[10] Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556-574.
[11] Au, R. H. Y., & Ng, G. T. T. (2021). Mind perception and stereotype attribution of corporations andcharities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(1), 271-293.
[12] Bal, M., & van den Bos,K. (2015). Putting the "I" and "Us" in justice: Derogatory and benevolent reactions toward innocent victims in self-focused and other-focused individuals. Social Justice Research, 28(3), 274-292.
[13] Callan M. J.,& Ellard, J. H. (2010). Beyond victim derogation and blame: Just world dynamics in everyday life In D R Bobocel, A C Kay, M P Zanna, & J M Olson (Eds ), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The ontario symposium(pp 53-77) Psychology Press Just world dynamics in everyday life. In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds. ), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The ontario symposium(pp. 53-77). Psychology Press.
[14] Correia, I., & Vala, J. (2003). When will a victim be secondarily victimized? The effect of observer's belief in a just world, victim's innocence and persistence of suffering. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 379-400.
[15] Ferrão M. C., Gonçalves G., Giger J. C., & Parreira T. (2015). Judge me, judge me not: The role of eye size and observer gender on acquaintance rape. Anales de Psicología, 32(1), 241-249.
[16] Gravelin C. R., Biernat M., & Bucher C. E. (2019). Blaming the victim of acquaintance rape: Individual, situational, and sociocultural factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2422.
[17] Gray H. M., Gray K., & Wegner D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619.
[18] Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505-520.
[19] Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). To escape blame, don't be a hero—Be a victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 516-519.
[20] Gray K., Young L., & Waytz A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101-124.
[21] Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128-167.
[22] Hafer C. L., Bègue L., Choma B. L., & Dempsey J. L. (2005). Belief in a just world and commitment to long-term deserved outcomes. Social Justice Research, 18(4), 429-444.
[23] Hester, N., & Gray,K. (2017). Dyadic reversal:Implicit causality reveals when victims are seen as perpetrators (Unpublished manuscript). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
[24] Hirschberger, G. (2006). Terror management and attributions of blame to innocent victims: Reconciling compassionate and defensive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 832-844.
[25] Kaiser C. R., Vick S. B., & Major B. (2004). A prospective investigation of the relationship between just-world beliefs and the desire for revenge after September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15(7), 503-506.
[26] Kogut, T. (2011). Someone to blame: When identifying a victim decreases helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 748-755.
[27] Kozak M. J., Marsh A. A., & Wegner D. M. (2006). What do I think you’re doing? Action identification and mind attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 543-555.
[28] Lerner, M. J. (1980). In the belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion(pp. 9-30). Springer.
[29] Malle B. F., Guglielmo S., & Monroe A. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 25(2), 147-186.
[30] Mancini, C., &Pickett, J. T. (2017). Reaping what they sow? Victim-offender overlap perceptions and victim blaming attitudes. Victims and Offenders, 12(3), 434-466.
[31] Marsh, A. A., & Cardinale, E. M. (2014). When psychopathy impairs moral judgments: Neural responses duringjudgments about causing fear. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 3-11.
[32] Niemi, L., & Young, L. (2016). When and why we see victims as responsible: The impact of ideology on attitudes toward victims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1227-1242.
[33] Robbennolt, J. K. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of "responsibility": Ameta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(12), 2575-2609.
[34] Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32-70.
[35] van Prooijen, J. W., & van den Bos,K. (2009). We blame innocent victims more than Ido: Self-construal level moderatesresponses to just-world threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1528-1539.