IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v11y2018i01p81-100_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Cortina, Lilia M.
  • Rabelo, Verónica Caridad
  • Holland, Kathryn J.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Cortina, Lilia M. & Rabelo, Verónica Caridad & Holland, Kathryn J., 2018. "Beyond Blaming the Victim: Toward a More Progressive Understanding of Workplace Mistreatment," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 81-100, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:11:y:2018:i:01:p:81-100_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942617000542/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chimaraoke Izugbara & Meroji Sebany & Frederick Wekesah & Boniface Ushie, 2022. "“The SDGs are not God”: Policy‐makers and the queering of the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(2), March.
    2. Jennifer Y. Kim & Alyson Meister, 2023. "Microaggressions, Interrupted: The Experience and Effects of Gender Microaggressions for Women in STEM," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 513-531, July.
    3. Mackey, Jeremy D., 2021. "Why and how predators pick prey: Followers’ personality and performance as predictors of destructive leadership," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 159-169.
    4. Amna Gul & Farooq Ahmad & Shahida Mariam, 2019. "Interactive Effect of Perceived Organizational Politics and Hierarchical Status on Workplace Victimization," Global Political Review, Humanity Only, vol. 4(4), pages 29-40, December.
    5. Wenrui Cao & Peikai Li & Reine van der Wal & Toon Taris, 2023. "Leadership and Workplace Aggression: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(2), pages 347-367, August.
    6. Yejun Zhang & Mark C. Bolino & Kui Yin, 2023. "The Interactive Effect of Perceived Overqualification and Peer Overqualification on Peer Ostracism and Work Meaningfulness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(3), pages 699-716, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:11:y:2018:i:01:p:81-100_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.