Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T06:48:48.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Victim Precipitation: Let's Not Silence That Voice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

Mark A. North  and
Spencer Smith
Mark A. North*
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Spencer Smith
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark A. North, Brigham Young University. E-mail: mark_north@byu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cortina, Robello, and Holland (2018) advance a case for the danger of using the victim precipitation model in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology—a model that is interpreted as suggesting that characteristics and behaviors of victims may influence criminals to select them as targets, in effect blaming victims for crimes committed against them. This “victim blaming” found its way into criminology, criminal justice, sociology, and other disciplines, resulting in revictimization and in the exoneration of violent criminals, among other undesirable outcomes. We agree with Cortina and colleagues that these outcomes, then and now, are unacceptable: Victims cannot and should not be blamed for their aggressors’ actions, and aggressors should unequivocally be held accountable for their crimes. This extends to workplace mistreatment. Using the operationalizations of generalized workplace harassment, workplace incivility, sexual harassment, and abusive supervision as guides (Rospenda & Richman, 2004, as cited by Cortina et al., 2018; Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Tepper, 2000; Walsh & Magley, 2014), we define workplace mistreatment as any interpersonal interaction in the workplace that creates an oppressively intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment that extends beyond acceptable evaluative and professional actions given situational demands (e.g., poor performance reviews, layoffs during downsizing/mergers/acquisitions, discipline, etc.). Although an unpopular point of view, we maintain that whether or not victims influence the contexts that facilitate victimization in the workplace is an empirical question. This research continues to be scientifically valuable, relevant, and practical, and it is necessary to more fully understand workplace mistreatment (Barling, 1996; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Two principal reasons drive this position: (a) the lack of scientific, data-driven evidence to support the exclusion of the victim precipitation model and (b) the potential harmful premise of its replacement, the perpetrator predation model. Elucidating our thoughts on these reasons will occupy our commentary.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 137 - 141
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.)

References

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57 (2), 1060–1073. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.12.1060 Google Scholar
Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In VandenBos, G. R., Bulatao, E. Q., VandenBos, G. R., & Bulatao, E. Q. (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10215-001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, E. (1982). A vindication of natural society. Indianapolis, IN: LibertyClassics. (Original work published ca. 1757).Google Scholar
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6 (1), 64–80. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64 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
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56 (10), 803–813. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803 Google Scholar
Rospenda, K. M., & Richman, J. A. (2004). The factor structure of generalized workplace harassment. Violence and Victims, 19 (2), 221–238. doi:10.1891/vivi.19.2.221.64097 Google Scholar
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Ullrich, J. (2008). The role of acceptance and empowerment in promoting reconciliation from the perspective of the needs-based model. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2 (1), 159–186. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2008.00014.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (2), 178–190. doi:10.2307/1556375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, B. M., & Magley, V. J. (2014). An empirical investigation of the relationship among forms of workplace mistreatment. Violence and Victims, 2, 363–379. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00172R1 Google Scholar