Article contents
Victim Precipitation: Let's Not Silence That Voice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2018
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018
References
- 1
- Cited by
Target article
Beyond Blaming the Victim: Toward a More Progressive Understanding of Workplace Mistreatment
Related commentaries (11)
A Comprehensive Approach to Empowering Victims and Understanding Perpetrators
Beyond Victims and Perpetrators
Centering the Target of Mistreatment in Our Measures
Considerations Related to Intentionality and Omissive Acts in the Study of Workplace Aggression and Mistreatment
It Takes Two to Tango: Victims, Perpetrators, and the Dynamics of Victimization
Mistreatment in Organizations: Toward a Perpetrator-Focused Research Agenda
Police Shootings and Race in the United States: Why the Perpetrator Predation Perspective Is Essential to I-O Psychology's Role in Ending This Crisis
Research Framing, Victim Blaming: Toward an Empirical Examination of Victim Precipitation and Perpetrator Predation Paradigms
Victim Precipitation and the Wage Gap
Victim Precipitation: Let's Not Silence That Voice
Who Is the Wolf and Who Is the Sheep? Toward a More Nuanced Understanding of Workplace Incivility