Experimental evidence of subtle victim blame in the absence of explicit blame

We argue that people will often eschew explicit victim blame (e.g., claiming that “X is to blame”) because it is counternormative and socially undesirable, yet they might still engage in subtle victim blame by attributing victims’ suffering to behaviors the victims can control (i.e., “high control causes”). We found support for this argument in three online studies with US residents. In Studies 1 and 2, participants viewed a victim posing either a high threat to the need to believe in a just world, which should heighten the motivation to engage in victim blame, or a low threat. They then rated explicit blame items and attributions for the victim’s suffering. Explicit blame was low overall and not influenced by victim threat. However, participants attributed the high threat victim’s suffering, more than the low threat victim’s suffering, to high control causes, thus showing a subtle blame effect. In Study 2, explicit blame and subtle blame were less strongly associated (in the high threat condition) for individuals high in socially desirable responding. These results are consistent with our argument that explicit and subtle blame diverge in part due to social desirability concerns. In Study 3, most participants believed others viewed the explicit blame items, but not the attribution items, as assessing blame. Thus, attributions to high control causes can be seen as “subtle” in the sense that people believe others will view such statements as reflecting constructs other than blame. Our studies suggest a way of responding to innocent victims that could be particularly relevant in a modern context, given increasing social undesirability of various negative responses to disadvantaged and victimized individuals.我们认为，人们通常会规避明确的受害者指责（例如声称"X应受指责"），因为此类行为违背社会规范且为社会所不容，但仍可能通过将受害者的痛苦归因于受害者自身可控制的行为（即"高可控性诱因（high control causes）"），从而实施隐性的受害者指责。我们针对美国居民开展了三项线上研究，结果验证了这一论点。在研究1与研究2中，被试会接触到两类受害者场景：一类对公正世界信念（just world）构成较高威胁——此类场景会强化实施受害者指责的动机，另一类则构成较低威胁。随后被试需对明确指责项与受害者痛苦的归因项进行评分。整体而言，明确指责的评分较低，且不受受害者威胁程度的影响。然而，相较于低威胁场景的受害者，被试更倾向于将高威胁场景受害者的痛苦归因于高可控性诱因，由此体现出隐性指责效应。在研究2中，对于社会期望性应答（socially desirable responding）得分较高的被试，在高威胁场景下，明确指责与隐性指责之间的相关性较弱。这些结果与我们的论点相符：明确指责与隐性指责的差异，部分源于社会期望性顾虑。在研究3中，多数被试认为他人会将明确指责项视作对指责倾向的评估，但不会将归因项如此看待。由此可见，将痛苦归因于高可控性诱因可被视为"隐性"指责，因为人们认为他人会将此类表述解读为指责之外的其他心理建构。鉴于社会对弱势群体与受害者的各类负面反应愈发不为社会所容，我们的研究提出了一种针对无辜受害者的应对方式，该方式在现代社会语境中具有特殊的现实意义。