Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T14:46:51.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

It Takes Two to Tango: Victims, Perpetrators, and the Dynamics of Victimization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

Jaclyn M. Jensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Management & Entrepreneurship, Richard H. Driehaus College of Business, DePaul University
Jana L. Raver
Affiliation:
Smith School of Business, Queen's University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jaclyn Jensen, Department of Management & Entrepreneurship, Richard H. Driehaus College of Business, DePaul University, 1 E. Jackson Blvd., Suite 7100, Chicago, IL 60604. E-mail: [email protected]

Extract

As researchers who have advanced victim precipitation arguments in our own work on victimization and job performance (Jensen, Patel, & Raver, 2014), we agree fully with this statement made by Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018): “A victim's traits or behaviors might help us understand why the instigator chose that particular person for abuse, but we must always emphasize that it was the instigator, not the victim, who did the choosing and abusing” (p. 93). An overemphasis on victim characteristics does deflect attention away from wrongdoers, and theory that encourages us to consider perpetrator motivation and the social environment is needed.

Type
Commentaries
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

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 452471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 10231034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortina, L. M., Robelo, V., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Raver, J. L. (2014). Is it better to be average? High and low performance as predictors of employee victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (2), 296309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (4), 619634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Reilly, J., Aquino, K., & Skarlicki, D. (2016). The lives of others: Third parties’ responses to others’ injustice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (2), 171189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5), 11811197.Google Scholar
Raver, J. L., & Barling, J. (2008). Workplace aggression and conflict: Constructs, commonalities, and challenges for future inquiry. In DeDreu, C. K. W. & Gelfand, M. J. (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 211244). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 387400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raver, J. L., Jensen, J. M., Lee, J., & O'Reilly, J. (2012). Destructive criticism revisited: Appraisals, task outcomes, and the moderating role of competitiveness. Applied Psychology, 61, 177203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed