Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T15:57:30.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Framing, Victim Blaming: Toward an Empirical Examination of Victim Precipitation and Perpetrator Predation Paradigms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

Suzette Caleo
Suzette Caleo*
Affiliation:
E. J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Suzette Caleo, 3000 Business Education Complex, Public Administration Institute, E. J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. E-mail: scaleo@lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) make a compelling case for shifting away from a victim precipitation perspective in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. In addition to noting that victim precipitation potentially violates ethical principles, the authors suggest that such paradigms shape attributions of blame and implications for practice within organizations. This commentary builds upon the ideas discussed in the focal article by encouraging I-O psychologists to collect data on the extent to which victim precipitation appears in the field and experimentally examine how and why the paradigms we use to explain workplace mistreatment might affect attitudes and behavior.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 134 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062–1081.Google Scholar
Cortina, L. M. (2017). From victim precipitation to perpetrator predation: Toward a new paradigm for understanding workplace aggression. In Bowling, N. & Hershcovis, M. S. (Eds.), Research and theory on workplace aggression (pp. 121–135). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cortina, L. M., Rabelo, V. C., & Holland, K. J. (2018). Beyond blaming the victim: Toward a more progressive understanding of workplace mistreatment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (1), 81–100.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225–256.Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.Google Scholar
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 619–634.Google Scholar
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50, 93–109.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.Google Scholar