Victim Precipitation Research Articles

Victim Precipitation: An Outdated Construct or an Important Forensic Consideration?

ABSTRACT Risk assessment and threat management are important components of crime control and crime prevention, with the results of assessments having a significant impact on personal and community safety. There may also be important legal implications arising from these if individuals are deemed to be a risk to others. There is evidence showing that traditional risk assessment tools do not consider the victim’s role, even though it is important to incorporate into assessment and management to gain a full understanding of the risk and the intervention to decrease or eliminate risk or harm. This paper reviews the construct of victim precipitation, where the victim may actively do something or has characteristics that entice or incite an offender. Victim precipitation is a controversial topic that has not been the subject of much recent research, and its relationship to risk assessment and threat management has therefore been largely ignored. This paper argues that excluding victim precipitation has a negative impact on the conclusions derived from risk assessment and threat management. This is done by analyzing victim precipitation, risk assessment, and threat management in detail which helps understand the role precipitation plays.

Do you only have yourself to blame? A meta‐analytic test of the victim precipitation model

SummaryThe current meta‐analysis sought to evaluate the empirical evidence for the victim precipitation model, which has become an increasingly popular yet controversial theory in the organizational sciences. We did so by testing the prediction that some victim dispositional traits contribute to or provoke experiences of mistreatment. We additionally provided preliminary examinations of two distinct conceptual explanations underlying the empirical relationships between victim personality and mistreatment. Finally, we examined the support for the situational antecedents of experienced mistreatment to compare the relative evidence for each of these dominant theoretical explanations. Results for the tests of the victim precipitation model showed that only victim negative affectivity was consistently related to experienced mistreatment. Examinations of the explanations for the relationships between victim personality and victimization showed relatively weak support for the notion that certain employees are more likely to perceive mistreatment and for the proposition that certain employees are mistreated because they are also more likely to engage in mistreatment. Finally, the situational predictors of mistreatment were all supported, and a test of relative importance revealed that the situational antecedents accounted for more variance in mistreatment than the victim dispositional traits. Implications for the theoretical understanding of the origins of mistreatment are discussed.

Examining the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Exposure to Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying is a common and constantly occurring phenomenon in organizations. Various factors render a workplace conducive to the occurrence of bullying-like features of the work environment and personality traits of the employees. While work environment features are well-established antecedents of workplace bullying, much of the research on personality traits as antecedents of bullying remains inconclusive. Drawing on the victim precipitation theory and the Big Five personality taxonomy, the present study aims to examine the relationship between four personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience) and exposure to workplace bullying. We have excluded neuroticism, as it is a well-established antecedent of workplace bullying, whereas literature suggests mixed findings on the relationships between the remaining four personality traits and workplace bullying. A total of 835 full-time Indian managers working across different Indian organizations served as the sample for our study. The results suggest that conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience negatively correlate with workplace bullying. Implications for theory and practice are also discussed in this article.

When a Woman Kills Her Man: Gender and Victim Precipitation in Homicide.

This research revisited the claim that victim precipitation (VP) is especially prevalent in situations where women kill their male intimate partners. Using administrative data from the Finnish Homicide Monitor (N =1,494), we created a typology of homicide incidents to examine variation in VP across three factors: the gender of the offender, the gender of the victim, and the intimacy of the victim–offender relationship. The results from regression models demonstrated strong support for the assumption that killings by women of their male intimate partners are more likely to have been victim precipitated than other types of homicide. This homicide type stood out as having the strongest association with each measure of VP included in the analysis. We did not observe statistically significant differences in VP among other homicide types. For example, we did not observe gender differences in VP in homicides that did not involve intimate partners. This pattern of results contradicts prior evidence suggesting that VP is a general feature of female-perpetrated killings, independent of the gender of the victim and the intimacy of the victim–offender relationship. As such, the present study underscores the importance of replication in studies of interpersonal violence. Theoretically, the results support the gender–partner interaction hypothesis over gender differences hypothesis of VP.

Investigating experienced supervisor incivility: Does presenteeism play a role?

AbstractThis study investigated the role employees may play in making themselves targets of supervisor incivility. Drawing from Victim Precipitation Theory, and Conservation of Resources Theory, I hypothesized that engaging in presenteeism will be positively associated with experienced supervisor incivility, and that presentees’ experienced productivity loss will mediate this relationship. Furthermore, I hypothesized that presentees’ self-efficacy and perceived control (personal and condition resources, respectively) will each operate as boundary conditions of the presenteeism–productivity loss relationship such that presentees high in each resource will be less likely to experience supervisor incivility. I found that experienced productivity loss mediates the positive relationship between presenteeism and experienced supervisor incivility. Additionally, self-efficacy was found to moderate the presenteeism–productivity loss relationship; however, the relationship was stronger for low self-efficacy presentees, which increased the likelihood of experiencing supervisor incivility. Perceived control did not moderate the presenteeism–productivity loss relationship. I discuss the study’s implications for theory and practice.

Why and when job insecurity breeds abusive supervision

Although job insecurity has become a ubiquitous threat for working adults across organizational levels, we know little about its effects on leadership behaviors. In this study, we aim to examine why and when supervisors’ perceived job insecurity results in their abusive supervision. Adopting the stress perspectives on job insecurity and aggression, we posit that job insecurity evokes workplace anxiety, which in turn leads to abusive supervision. Further, drawing on the victim precipitation theory, we argue that the positive relationship between workplace anxiety and abusive supervision is stronger when subordinate performance is low. A three-wave study of 172 supervisor-subordinate dyads supports our model. We discuss the implications for scholars of job insecurity and abusive supervision, and for practitioners to prevent the occurrence and detriments of job insecurity.

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

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.

Victim Precipitation and the Wage Gap

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) accurately cite the general public's overuse of victim precipitation ideologies, or the notion that victims engage in actions that directly bring about their unfortunate circumstances. These ideologies also have permeated industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology and the study of people in the workplace (e.g., women's choice in clothing leads to sexual harassment, certain target characteristics and actions incite workplace bullying). We agree with Cortina et al. that this ideology unintentionally benefits the perpetrator by placing blame and responsibility for nonoptimal workplace situations directly on the target. The field of I-O psychology needs to move away from this model of victim blaming as a remediation for workplace disparities.

Victim Precipitation: Let's Not Silence That Voice

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.

Centering the Target of Mistreatment in Our Measures

Victim precipitation is embedded deeply within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) are right to challenge the assumptions that have perpetuated victim blaming in our discipline (consciously and unconsciously); however, a significant source of victim precipitation discourse within our field was strikingly absent in their discussion: construct measurement. The nature of how we measure most of our workplace aggression and mistreatment constructs (e.g., incivility, abusive supervision, bullying) have potential to negate the experiences of targeted employees as well as the unique impact of various perpetrator behaviors. Furthermore, how we interpret these measures can result in researchers and practitioners privileging the experiences of some individuals and dismissing the experiences of others. How can we hope to achieve a progressive approach to mistreatment in our disciplines if our measures do not keep pace?

Mistreatment in Organizations: Toward a Perpetrator-Focused Research Agenda

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) have cogently suggested that workplace mistreatment should be viewed through a “lens” that squarely implicates the perpetrator (i.e., the perpetrator predation framework) rather than through a lens that at least partially absolves the perpetrator while blaming the victim for inviting, or not actively resisting, the mistreatment (i.e., the victim precipitation framework). We agree that the perpetrator predation framework provides a better basis for policy, practice, and law. Furthermore, however, the perpetrator predation framework provides a better basis for science. Whereas Cortina et al. allude briefly to the scientific benefits of a perpetrator-focused framework, the current commentary fleshes out these benefits and outlines an agenda for future perpetrator-focused research on workplace mistreatment.

Beyond Victims and Perpetrators

We acknowledge and agree with Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) that the tendency to focus on victims as precipitators of their own negative workplace experiences (e.g. abusive supervision) presents a problematic theoretical paradigm. Using organizational justice as an illustration, we note that even in fields with an orientation toward victims, similar trends with regard to victim precipitation have still emerged. However, we also argue that although the perpetrator predation approach may help to avoid this tendency and encourage a better understanding of the responsibility for and origins of certain organizational experiences, it may fall short when examining complex phenomena that involve more than the dyad of perpetrator and victim. We suggest that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology scholars might be better served by abandoning the language of victim and perpetrator altogether. Though we invoke these two terms when discussing organizational justice, we ultimately come to argue that researchers should utilize different language that better captures the experience and role of employees in these phenomena.

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

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.

When Core Self-Evaluations Influence Employees’ Deviant Reactions to Abusive Supervision: The Moderating Role of Cognitive Ability

Viewing workplace deviance within a victim precipitation framework, we explore how abusive supervisors target subordinates low in core self-evaluations (CSE) to explain when such employees respond by engaging in workplace deviance. We theorize that employees who are lower in CSE receive more abusive supervision, which generates subsequent harmful reactions toward supervisors, peers, and the organization. This occurs primarily when employees lack sufficient cognitive resources in dealing with supervisor abuse. We test, replicate, and extend our theoretical model in three empirical studies. Results demonstrate that lower employee CSE drew more abusive supervision and led low-CSE employees to exhibit workplace deviance. This abusive supervision mediation effect was stronger for employees with comparatively lower cognitive ability levels. The findings are discussed with regard to theoretical and ethical issues in confronting employee abuse.

Legal Protection for Cyber Crime Victims on Victimological Perspective

All this time, a second victimization in a criminal justice system is considered to be an identical problem for the victims of crime. Thus, it is fair if the whole assessment is more oriented to the legal protection for the victims, especially the child victims in the crime of fornication and coition. However, when viewed from different sides, the source of error is not always absolute to the perpetrator but also because of the victim precipitation. This study examines the victim precipitation and its prevention with the aim to understand the degree of victim precipitation and the proportional prevention, that is not only from the aspect of the perpetrators but also from the aspect of the child victim and the community who have the potential to become victims. This research was conducted in the jurisdiction of Purwokerto City and Banyumas Regency, using sociological juridical research and qualitative research approach. The results show that there are several forms of victim precipitation in the crime of sexual fornication and coition to the child. Meanwhile, the prevention must be conducted comprehensively, either from the internal of the victim, or externally from various related parties.

The Prevention of Victim Precipitation in the Criminal Acts of Fornication and Coition Against Children

All this time, a second victimization in a criminal justice system is considered to be an identical problem for the victims of crime. Thus, it is fair if the whole assessment is more oriented to the legal protection for the victims, especially the child victims in the crime of fornication and coition. However, when viewed from different sides, the source of error is not always absolute to the perpetrator but also because of the victim precipitation. This study examines the victim precipitation and its prevention with the aim to understand the degree of victim precipitation and the proportional prevention, that is not only from the aspect of the perpetrators but also from the aspect of the child victim and the community who have the potential to become victims. This research was conducted in the jurisdiction of Purwokerto City and Banyumas Regency, using sociological juridical research and qualitative research approach. The results show that there are several forms of victim precipitation in the crime of sexual fornication and coition to the child. Meanwhile, the prevention must be conducted comprehensively, either from the internal of the victim, or externally from various related parties.

Beyond Blaming the Victim: Toward a More Progressive Understanding of Workplace Mistreatment

Theories of human aggression can inform research, policy, and practice in organizations. One such theory, victim precipitation, originated in the field of criminology. According to this perspective, some victims invite abuse through their personalities, styles of speech or dress, actions, and even their inactions. That is, they are partly at fault for the wrongdoing of others. This notion is gaining purchase in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology as an explanation for workplace mistreatment. The first half of our article provides an overview and critique of the victim precipitation hypothesis. After tracing its history, we review the flaws of victim precipitation as catalogued by scientists and practitioners over several decades. We also consider real-world implications of victim precipitation thinking, such as the exoneration of violent criminals. Confident that I-O can do better, the second half of this article highlights alternative frameworks for researching and redressing hostile work behavior. In addition, we discuss a broad analytic paradigm—perpetrator predation—as a way to understand workplace abuse without blaming the abused. We take the position that these alternative perspectives offer stronger, more practical, and more progressive explanations for workplace mistreatment. Victim precipitation, we conclude, is an archaic ideology. Criminologists have long since abandoned it, and so should we.

Your Connections Made Me Undermine You: Provocative Effect of Coworker Friendship Contact Status

Drawing on victim precipitation theory, we argue that employees are more likely to undermine coworkers who have high friendship contact status–friendship connections with people at high levels within an organizational hierarchy–and are thus targets of unfavorable upward social comparison. As a function of rational-choice considerations that are central to victim precipitation, we further argue that employees are more likely to target coworkers with high friendship contact status for undermining when coworkers have more unfavorable core self-evaluations (CSEs), and that this interactive effect is explained in terms of how unfavorable CSEs make coworkers more easy and deserving targets for employee undermining behavior. Empirical findings of a field study of perpetrator-reported undermining behavior provide support for our predictions.

Victim Precipitation: Why we need to Expand Upon the Theory

Victim Precipitation: Why we need to Expand Upon the Theory

The role of envy in employees abusive supervison perception and contextual performance

The purpose of the study is to filling the gap in the literature by testing the role of employee envy on the abusive supervision perception and contextual performance empirically based on Social Exchange Theory and Victim Precipitation Theory. The study was conducted on the 630 employees from service sector in last quarter of 2016 in Istanbul. Exploratory Factor Analysis with SPSS and Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling were used to test the data in AMOS. Findings show that envy for others that is one of the sub-dimensions of emploeye envy is a statistically significant and negative predictor of contextual performance, it is also a positive and statistically significant predictor of abusive supervision. On the other hand, it was found that being envy is positive and statistically significant predictor of abusive supervision, while the effect of it is not significant on the contextual performance. The study contributes to understanding the role of negative emotions on employees behaviors and perceptions e.g. contextual performance, abusive supervision.