Can the Victim Be to Blame? Research Paper

Abstract

By definition, stereotyping is an ideological process used in system justification theory that serves to justify the status quo and reinforce the existing social order. From earlier times, the high-status groups have been represented as agentic and achievement-oriented and the low-status groups as communal and inter-personally oriented. Stereotypes of such ideologies are evident based on regional and ethnic groups around the world. The commonness of stereotyping has led to the postulate of a long list of cognitive, motivational, and societal functions that are suggested to be served by discrimination and bigotry (Cialdini, 1984).

Further studies demonstrated that since stereotypes are automatic and uncontrollable judgments, they serve to simplify social reality and reduce effortful thought processes. In addition, people have no doubt about the social system affecting them and they believe that it’s a fair and legitimate body, thus they end up sacrificing their interests to bolster such beliefs. This psychological assumption that individuals want to believe in a ‘just world’ is consistent with system justification motives. Such motives are the main cause of negative self-stereotyping and out-group favoritism among members of low-status groups on both implicit and explicit attitudinal measures (McCaul, et al. 1990).

According to the just-world theory, the victim-blaming phenomenon focuses on the means of restoring the belief in a just world as well as maintaining a sense of personal control. On the other hand, system justification theory focuses on a wider range of stereotypes and ideological beliefs that people hold for the sake of rationalizing the status quo. System justification is demonstrated by victim-blaming or victim-enhancing stereotypes. The choice depends on the potential of the system justification. However, most prevalent is when the trait of an individual is related to the outcome such as wealth, intelligence, or poverty. In such a case, victim-blaming stereotypes possess the most system justifying potential. The trait may be irrelevant to the outcome and victim-enhancing stereotypes dominate (Chu & Bowman, 2002).

Introduction

The phrase victim-blaming is holding the victims of a crime, assault such as domestic violence, rape, or any accident fully responsible for what happened in their lives. It may also refer to censuring the victims for their social status such as poverty or intelligence instead of the parties who hurt them or the social system in place. The first person to coin the term, victim-blaming, was the clinical psychologist William Ryan in his book entitled, ‘The Negro Family: The Case for National Action’ which was commonly referred to as the Moynihan Report.

The Moynihan Report is a summary of the ghetto formation and intergenerational poverty among black people in the United States. The main theme of the report circulated on the fact the black poverty was consistent during the 60s and complex blame shifted freely with minimal solutions.

The blacks were naturally blamed for their state of poverty as reflected by the following example of victim-blaming stereotype by Anonymous Blog;

“…it is the Negros own fault that they are poor. Even the Bible says that if you do not work you do not eat. Handouts are bad for people, give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Negros should seek to learn, not accept handouts.” -Anonymous Blog, Year Unknown

A famous passage in Moynihan Report unintentionally contributed to the victim-blaming stereotypes of the black’s poverty.

“The objective should be to strengthen the black family to enable it to raise and support its members as do other families. After that, how this group of Americans chooses to run its affairs, take advantage of opportunities or fail to do so, is none of the nation’s business.” -Moynihan Report, 1965

Ryan urged people to look for a solution to preventing poverty among the blacks rather than blaming them. He further criticized the Moynihan Report for naming culture and racism as the main cause of poverty rather than the social structural factors. Ryan’s term ‘blaming the victim’ is widely used today in the corridors of justice to refer to crime victims such as rape, kidnapped cases, sexual assault, and many more who are accused of being responsible for the act. Two main theories describe victim blame; the Just World hypothesis and the Invulnerability or Assumptive World theory (Zick & Letita, 1975). Assumptive world theory

According to this theory, people have three main ways of evaluating themselves namely self-worth, self-controllability, and luck. A decent person or a person with good ethics is lowlily vulnerable to adverse outcomes. When something bad happens to a victim such as sexual assault an illusion is created that the person was not decent, that is an indecent soul or inner self. This has been linked to characterological self-blame or shame. On the other hand, outcomes are judgmental based on random perceptions. In such cases, luck plays a role in the adverse outcomes. A cognitive approach usually puts all the blame on the victim for the assault and requires the non-victim to be responsible, maintain their safety as well as justice.

Just World hypothesis

Just World hypothesis has been suggested as the main cause of the victim-blaming phenomenon. People, who believe in this hypothesis that the world has to treat the victims fairly, are badly hurt when this is otherwise. However, the situation arises where the victim is suspected to have contributed to his or her fate. In addition, victims are blamed for not protecting themselves. For instance, considerable research by Schneider et al. (1994), suggested that rape victims deserved it or provoked the assault. Moreover, it was seen as a way of feeling safe and reducing vulnerability since the potential victim may avoid the behaviors of an earlier victim (Melvin, 1980).

Most countries however accept the victim-blaming concept toward sexual assault. The blame for rape has been shifted to women who have been deemed to have dressed or behaved unsuitably. Most of these countries have a wide gap between men and women regarding their freedom and status. The just-world hypothesis has been criticized for ignoring subject actions and focusing on the situational attribute contributing to crimes. The victim is blamed for allowing himself or herself to be victimized thus not allowed to cope afterward.

The hypothesis has been tested by a social psychologist called Melvin Lerner. In his papers, he suggested that people believe that winners deserve their benefits whereas the losers deserve their suffering. In a 1966 study, Lerner reported how subjects behaved after watching a simulated videotaped experiment of participants who were subjected to electric shock. People had a low opinion of those participants who were not likely to benefit or win the ordeal.

He thus concluded that “the sight of an innocent person suffering without the possibility of reward or compensation motivated people to devalue the attractiveness of the victim in order to bring about a more appropriate fit between her fate and her character”. However, Lerner’s belief in the just world hypothesis could undermine the commitment to justice (Lerner, 1980).

Another extensive research carried out by Rubin on the traits of people with strong beliefs to just world concluded that such people tend to be more authoritarian, conservative, religious, negative attitudes toward low-class groups among other characteristics. Such people are less likely to engage in activities that may help underprivileged people in society. However, according to Melvin the human rights or other heroes may risk their own lives to help others or restore justice. Perceptions of cultural stereotypes

Approximately a woman is sexually assaulted every minute in the United States. Most of the rape cases go unreported according to the U.S. Department of Justice, 1997. Other institutions have suggested that raped women refuse to identify themselves as rape victims. The main reason why rape victims do not admit to being raped is the societal stereotypes associated with sexual assault. Such stereotypes include; the victim enjoyed the experience, she asked for it and she lied about it.

These stereotypes have contributed to victims shying off from reporting about rape. Rape has been demonstrated as emotionally damaging to the victims. The victims tend to be more depressed and anxious than non-victimized women. Once raped, the victim recalls the tragedy often and blames herself for the fault. This leads to posttraumatic stress disorder (Chemtob, et al. 1988).

The story of the 15-year old Shawn Hornbeck stunned most Americans in the 70s. Hornbeck was mature enough to surf the internet, owned a cell phone, and called the police to report a stolen bicycle. The boy was kidnapped but had all the opportunities to escape but he failed to do so. On his Fox News Channel show, The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly did not mince his words. He argued that the boy was old enough and had the chance of escaping but since he couldn’t, it’s likely that he enjoyed the experience.

His abductor, Devlin, afforded his captive all manner of freedom such as he didn’t have to go to school and could run around and do whatever he wanted. The reason why Devlin afforded Hornbeck such freedom could be the loyalty demonstrated to him by the boy. What Devlin did is the same thing the government does to get information from non-citizen detainees.

Other kidnap stories involve Hearst and Elizabeth who are beaten and raped for months. The process of adaptation and mistreat imposed on them were relatively similar to that of Hornbeck. Both victims ended up conforming to the lifestyle of their captors. Research proved that the phenomenon referred to as ‘learned helplessness is the key factor why the victims identify themselves with the tormenters and victimizers. The terminology most used is ‘Stockholm syndrome’ which explains why victims who are exposed to intermittent kindness by the captor become emotionally dependent on the captor. O’Reilly should retract his flippant and victim-blaming statements if he really understood the psychology of living as a captive. Traumatic experiences

Victim-blaming has to lead to traumatic experiences in our society. The American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders have defined the two major types of psychological disorders resulting from traumatic events. These are post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and acute stress disorder (Allen, 1995). The two disorders require the victim either experienced or were threatened with physical injury and that the victims respond of intense fear or horror.

The diagnosis of trauma for the two disorders requires re-experiencing the event, avoiding the traumatic event, or impairment in social or place of work. There are Four factors determiners on’s reaction toward trauma. These are; past traumatic experience, social support, personality type, and stress level. They determine whether a therapy is required or not and differ from one person to other.

Most commonly, the victims of PTSD suffer from several symptoms that interfere with traits such as trust, emotions, communication as well as effective problem-solving. Problem-solving social or sexual interest may lead to some family partners angry and thus distancing themselves toward the survivor. In others, sleeping is difficult and trauma flashes are prevalent making the victim anxious and more depressed (Koss & Figueredo, 2004). The implications of a psychodynamic perspective

Most people question why the victims of rape or domestic violence fail to put a stop to such kind of abuses. Skindsr & Iacano in 1986 described that most victims are likely to suffer from sanctuary trauma after experiencing a primary assault from the ‘stranger’ and thereafter a secondary trauma follows from trusted authorities such as the police station, courtroom, or therapists clinics. However, a stigma message from therapists has suggested that the victims’ traumatic experiences encompass their psychopathology rather than the perpetrators (Notman & Nadelson, 1976).

Sometimes, the concept of blaming the victim is unfairly employed to the victim, if therapists overlook factors that may have contributed to victimization. In addition, therapist treatment should include both verbal and non-verbal therapy for treating a patient with severe anxiety and depression. This is important in regard to how the brain works. The left side of the brain works with logic and words whereas the right side works with images or illusions.

Recent research has confirmed that PTSD victims lose essential functioning on the left side of the brain. The right side has to take over the function of the left brain leading to poor logic integration. Novel evidence-based research has shown that PTSD victims store the traumatic experiences in image form (Yehuda, 2002). Psychoanalytic perspective or psychodynamic therapy

Psychodynamic psychotherapy uses the basic hypothesis that people have a subconscious mind and experiences held in this part of the mind are painful to be faced. And because of this, victims have devised a method of protecting themselves from pain by living in denial (Harvey & Herman, 1992). According to researchers, this defense mechanism causes harm to individuals, and thus help is needed.

The area of psychoanalytic psychotherapy should always be approached very carefully because it concerns tortured victims (Sheila, 2004). The most important is to get the impression about the quality of mental functioning, the degree to which his or her relationship capacity has been preserved, level of sensibility for the psychic processes, ability to verbalize among others. Certainly, special attention is paid to the impression of the premorbid personality structure as well as to the impression of the quality of overall personality functioning before the torture experience. Analyzing the characteristics of the victims, therapists are in a position to determine whether psychoanalytic psychotherapy would be the best option for the client who has been victimized. Some victims who are disadvantaged by this method have recommended supportive psychotherapy combined with pharmacotherapy (Rockland, 1992).

Several centers throughout the world dealing with different types of victims are reporting difficulties on this level of working with their clients. The majority of the workers in these centers are inspired by the need to advocate for and protect the rights of the clients.

To initiate psychotherapy, the issue of motivation of traumatized victims is a very important specific feature to be considered. The issue of motivation was recognized and defined very early as one of the cornerstones of successful therapy. Sufficiently expressed motivation for change enables both the therapist and the patient to begin and develop the psychotherapeutic process, to successfully overcome expected obstacles and setbacks in its course, and to end it with success.

Motivation for psychotherapy is most often based on the intensity of psychic suffering and a certain degree of recognition that psychological means can affect this suffering. It is also founded on the basic assumption and confidence that another person could help in this process. Other characteristics such as socio-cultural, intelligence, education level, and support of the environment sometimes have even the decisive influence on the success of psychotherapy (Benjamin, 1988).

Psychoanalysis was developed by Sigmund Freud in 1900. This type of therapy is quite costly and demanding. The following have attributed to its costly demands. The patient is required to visit the clinic daily, lie on the couch with the psychoanalyst out of sight, free association is required, the analyst is most of the time silent, no excuse for missing a session as well as the psychotherapy continues for years. On the other hand, psychodynamic psychotherapy is less vigorous than psychoanalysis. The meeting is once per week and the two principals sit face to face. Most of the time psychotherapist talks more than the clients with the treatment being an interactive process.

Conclusion In conclusion, from a psychoanalytic perspective, the victim condition must be seen as a subconscious mode of enjoyment where pain and pleasure are intertwined and mental stability and identity are derived from identification with a specific trait or signifier. Psychoanalysis teaches us that simply wish away the victims of sex assault by blaming them. We need to distinguish the positive and negative representations in ourselves and make the culture more just and reasonable. In addition, a careful thorough understanding of defense mechanisms can help to expose the inner workings of ideological manipulations. This however integrates positive social change, psychoanalysis, and education (Carmil & Breznitz, 1991).

References

Allen, J. G. (1995). Coping with Trauma: A Guide to Self-Understanding. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

Benjamin, J. (1988). The Bonds of love: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and the problem of domination. New York: Pantheon Books.

Carmil, D., & Breznitz, S. (1991). Personal trauma and worldview–are extremely stressful experiences related to political attitudes, religious beliefs, and future orientation? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4(1), 393-405.

Chemtob, L., Roitblatt, H.L., Himada, R.S., Carlson, J.G., & Twentyman, C.T. (1988). A cognitive action theory of post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2(2), 253-275.

Chu , James A. & Bowman, Elizabeth S. (eds.) (2002). Trauma and Sexuality: The Effects of Childhood Sexual, Physical, and Emotional Abuse on Sexual Identity and Behavior. New York: Haworth Medical Press

Cialdini, R. (1984). Influence: The new psychology of modern persuasion. New York: Quill.

Harvey, M. R., & Herman, J. L. (1992). The trauma of sexual victimization: Feminist contributions to theory, research, and practice. PTSD Research Quarterly, 3 (3), 1-3.

Koss, M. & Figueredo, A. (2004). Cognitive mediation of rape’s mental health impact: constructive replication of a cross-sectional model in longitudinal data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28 (4), 273-286.

Littleton, H., Breitkopf, C. (2006). Coping with the experience of rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30 (1), 106-116.

McCaul, K. D., Veltum, L. G., Boyechko, V., & Crawford, J. J. (1990). Understanding attributions of victim blame for rape: Sex, violence, and forseeability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(2), 1-26.

Melvin, J. Lerner & Sally C. Lerner, (1981). The Justice Motive in Social Behavior: Adapting to Times of Scarcity and Change, New York: Plenum Press.

Melvin, J. Lerner, (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion, New York: Plenum Press.

Notman, G. & Nadelson, Y. (1976). The rape victim: psychodynamic considerations, American Journal of Psychiatry, 133(1) 408-413.

Rockland, L.H. (1992). Suportive therapy for borderline patients: A psychodynamic approach. New York: Guilford.

Sheila, W. (2004). A psychodynamic perspective of workplace bullying: containment, boundaries and a futile search for recognition. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 269 – 280.

Yehuda, R. (2002). Post-traumatic stress disorder. New England Journal of Medicine, 346 (10), 108-114.

Zick, R. & Letita Anne P. (1975). Who Believes in a Just World? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65-89.