چرا گاهی مظلوم به جای ظالم سرزنش می شود؟ پیش بینی سرزنش قربانی از روی سادیسم همگانی با میانجی گری لذت سادیستیک و کمبود همدلی در بزرگسالان (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
تا کنون تنها نظریه ای که پدیده زیان بار سرزنش قربانیان بی گناه را توضیح داده است نظریه عدالت باوری است، اما از آنجا که برخی از یافته ها با این توضیح ناهمساز هستند، پژوهش کنونی برای این پدیده یک توضیح دوم پیشنهاد و آن را آزمون کرد: سادیسم همگانی. با هدف آزمون این فرضیه که سادیسم همگانی، با میانجی گری لذت سادیستیک و کمبود همدلی، با سرزنش قربانی رابطه مثبت دارد، از میان 30 هزار مشترک همراه اول و ایرانسل تهران و کرج، 442 آزمودنی با میانگین سنی 35 سال (202 مرد) با روش در دسترس نمونه گیری شدند. در یک طرح همبستگی، با نسخه 15ماده ای ارزیابی کامل گرایش های سادیستیک و سرزنش قربانی، سادیسم همگانی، لذت سادیستیک و همدلی با قربانی با روش پژوهش های پیشین اندازه گیری شدند. تحلیل های رگرسیون نشان دادند سادیسم همگانی، حتی پس از کنترل عدالت باوری و سه ویژگی تاریک شخصیت، سرزنش قربانی را پیش بینی می کند و الگوسازی فرایند شرطی نشان داد سادیسم همگانی از راه لذت سادیستیک و کمبود همدلی، بر سرزنش قربانی تأثیر معنا دار داشته است، به این شکل که اثر مستقیم سادیسم همگانی بر سرزنش قربانی غیرمعنا دار، اما اثر غیرمستقیم آن معنا دار است. بر پایه این یافته ها، پیشنهادهایی برای کاهش پدیده سرزش قربانی داده شده است.Why is the Oppressed Sometimes Blamed Instead of the Oppressor? Predicting Victim Blaming from Everyday Sadism with the Mediation of Sadistic Pleasure and Lack of Empathy in Adults
So far, the only theory that has explained the harmful phenomenon of blaming innocent victims is the Theory of Belief in Justice. However, because some findings do not support this explanation, the current study proposed and tested another explanation for this phenomenon: everyday sadism. There is a hypothesis that everyday sadism, through the mediation of sadistic pleasure and lack of empathy, has a positive relationship with victim blaming. To test the hypothesis, among 30000 subscribers of the Hamrahe Avval and Irancell in Tehran and Karaj, 442 participants with an average age of 35 years (202 men) were selected using convenience sampling. In a correlational design, everyday sadism was measured by a 15-item version of the Comprehensive Assessment of Sadistic Tendencies (CAST), whereas victim blaming, sadistic pleasure, and empathy with the victim were measured using the methods in previous studies. Regression coefficients showed that everyday sadism, even after controlling for belief in justice and three dark personality traits, has a predicted victim blaming. Conditional process modelling showed that everyday sadism has increased victim blaming through sadistic pleasure and lack of empathy, such that the direct effect of everyday sadism on victim blaming was small, but its indirect effect was large. Based on these findings, suggestions have been made to reduce the phenomenon of victim blaming. Introduction This study explores an alternative explanation to the well-established belief in a just world theory (Lerner, 1980) to find out why people blame innocent victims of war, bullying, and sexual assault. While belief in a just world suggests that people blame victims to restore their sense of justice (Dawtry et al., 2020; Hafer, 2000), the authors propose that everyday sadism—a personality trait characterized by deriving pleasure from others’ suffering and lacking empathy—may also lead to victim blaming. Drawing on prior research linking everyday sadism to aggression, dehumanization, and impaired moral judgment (Buckels et al., 2013, 2019; Paulhus, 2014; Rogers et al., 2018), the study hypothesizes that individuals high in everyday sadism are more likely to blame victims due to reduced empathy and increased sadistic pleasure. Using conditional process modeling, the study tested this hypothesis with everyday sadism as the predictor, empathy and sadistic pleasure as mediators, and victim blaming as the outcome, while controlling for belief in a just world, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism (Moshagen et al., 2018; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Method This study included 442 participants recruited via convenience sampling, with a mean age of 35.03 years (SD = 5.92; age range: 19–57). Among the participants, 202 ones were identified as male. In this correlational design, everyday sadism was assessed using the 15-item Comprehensive Assessment of Sadistic Tendencies (CAST; Buckels & Paulhus, 2014). Victim blaming was measured following the methodology by Sassenrath et al. (2023) and Modesto and Pilati (2017), in which participants read six short stories portraying innocent individuals becoming victims at school, work, or in society, and subsequently rated their tendency to blame the victim. Sadistic pleasure was evaluated after each story through participants’ agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with three items adapted from Lui et al. (2020) and Schumpe and Lafrenière (2016): (1) “While reading [victim’s name]’s story, I couldn’t help but smile,” (2) “[Victim’s name]’s misfortunes were somewhat funny or entertaining,” and (3) “Reading the story was enjoyable.” Empathy was measured after each story using six items from Batson et al. (2007), arranged on a 7-point scale (1 = very little to 7 = very much), including feelings of sympathy, compassion, pity, distress, sadness, and sorrow. Belief in a just world was assessed using the 13-item scale developed by Dalbert (1999). Finally, dark personality traits—psychopathy, machiavellianism, and narcissism— were measured using the 27-item Short Dark Triad Questionnaire (SD3Q; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Results Consistent with the research hypothesis, the correlation between everyday sadism and victim blaming was r = .53, which was statistically significant ( p < .001) and indicated a large effect size (Cohen, 1992). Moreover, the partial correlation between everyday sadism and victim blaming—while controlling for belief in a just world and the Dark Triad traits—was r = .46, which also remained statistically significant ( p < .001) and represented a medium effect size (Cohen, 1992). Multiple regression analysis further confirmed the hypothesis: when everyday sadism, belief in a just world, and the Dark Triad traits were entered simultaneously into the regression model, everyday sadism still significantly predicted victim blaming (see Table 1). Table 1 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Predicting Victim Blaming Predictor β SE p Everyday Sadism .456 .027 < .001 Personal Belief in a Just World .235 .044 < .001 General Belief in a Just World .134 .047 .006 Psychopathy –.008 .038 .830 Machiavellianism .022 .048 .594 Narcissism .019 .055 .666 Consistent with the research hypothesis, everyday sadism increased victim blaming via sadistic pleasure and reduced empathy. Conditional process modeling confirmed that the current dataset fit Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) (see Figure 1). The indirect effects were tested using bootstrapping with 5,000 iterations. In this model, where belief in a just world and the Dark Triad traits were included as covariates, the indirect effect of everyday sadism on victim blaming, as well as through lack of empathy ( b = .25, SE = .11, 95% CI [.05, .47]) or through sadistic pleasure was statistically significant ( b = .32, SE = .06, 95% CI [.20, .44]). This indicates that participants with higher everyday sadism tendencies blamed victims more; because, they experienced greater sadistic pleasure and lower empathy. In other words, everyday sadism predicted victim blaming via increased sadistic pleasure and decreased empathy. Figure 1 The Relationship Between Everyday Sadism and Victim Blaming through Sadistic Pleasure and Lack of Empathy. Numbers Represent Standardized Regression Coefficients *** P < .001, * P < .05 Conclusion For decades, belief in a just world (BJW) has been the primary explanation for the phenomenon of victim blaming (Lerner, 1980). However, the present study introduces and empirically tests a novel psychological explanation: everyday sadism. The study hypothesized that, beyond BJW, individuals with higher levels of everyday sadism may also be prone to blame innocent victims, derive pleasure from their suffering, and lack empathy. Findings supported this hypothesis in two key ways: First, everyday sadism significantly predicted victim blaming even after statistically controlling for BJW and other dark personality traits. Second, this relationship was mediated by sadistic pleasure and low empathy. These findings align with prior research demonstrating that individuals high in everyday sadism tend to find morally questionable behaviors against less reprehensible victims (Trémolière & Djeriouat, 2016), fail to empathize with others’ pain (Buckels et al., 2013), and experience greater pleasure when others suffer more (Chester et al., 2019; Paulhus, 2014). Additionally, Hart et al. (2022) found that such individuals interpret suffering primarily through cold cognition, failing to grasp its emotional salience. The current findings also help reconcile past mixed results on BJW and victim blaming. Some studies found no relationship (Callan et al., 2014; Harvey et al., 2014), while others found a negative one (Callan et al., 2007; Lens et al., 2014). These insights have practical implications. Traditionally, interventions aimed at reducing victim blaming have focused on reframing victims to avoid threatening people’s BJW or providing alternate cognitive routes for BJW restoration (Kay et al., 2005; Savani et al., 2011; van den Bos & Maas, 2009). The current findings suggest an additional strategy: Portray innocent victims in ways that minimize sadistic pleasure and maximize empathy. Moreover, individuals applying for roles involving contact with victims (e.g., judges, police, social workers) should be screened for sadistic tendencies. Training in empathy-enhancement techniques—such as perspective-taking, emotional expression, and exposure to emotional narratives—may also reduce sadistic enjoyment and thus victim blaming (Lui et al., 2020; Sassenrath et al., 2023; Weisz & Zaki, 2017). Finally, these findings extend to the broader phenomenon of schadenfreude—pleasure at others’ misfortunes—which overlaps with sadistic pleasure and may also lead to victim blaming (Greenier, 2018; Lange & Boecker, 2019; Wei & Liu, 2020). Although schadenfreude can have adaptive functions such as enhancing self-worth (Boecker et al., 2022), it may also carry harmful social consequences. Ethical Consideration : Compliance with Ethical Guidelines : All ethical considerations were observed, including ensuring the confidentiality of participants’ identities and obtaining informed consent from all participants. Authors’ Contributions : The first author conducted data collection and wrote all sections and edited the initial draft. Conflict of Interest : The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Funding : The authors did not receive any financial support for this study. Acknowledgment : The authors thank all participants for their time and contribution to this study.
تبلیغات
