The present research examines whether distance affects not only how people view victims of injustice, but also group members’ willingness to engage in collective action. Across two experiments, examining both spatial (Experiment 1) and temporal (Experiment 2) distance, distant victims were seen as less familiar and more likely to be viewed at a relatively more superordinate level of identity (less in terms of subgroup identity) compared to near victims. In addition, participants were less willing to engage in collective action on behalf of distant victims, relative to near victims. Across studies, decreased collective action on behalf of distant victims, relative to near victims, was explained by the tendency to view victims in a more abstract way—as less familiar (Experiment 2) and at a more superordinate level (Experiments 1 and 2). Across both studies, results also demonstrated that participants were less willing to engage in collective action on behalf of out-group targets, relative to in-group targets, which was explained by perceptions of familiarity (Experiment 2). Implications for collective action and more broadly social change are discussed.
Extreme poverty, violence, or persecution have traditionally been viewed as legitimate reasons for resettlement in another country. After all, the United States "founding fathers" fled Great Britain in pursuit of religious freedom. However, although countries benefit from incoming immigrants, increasing flows of migration from select "sending" countries has generated hostility from the native-born of "receiving" countries. During migration, the view of immigrants as victims needing humanitarian aid shifts to that of criminals requiring control. This shift perpetuates a feedback loop, confounding the status of immigrants as victims and criminals simultaneously. Migrants experience numerous vulnerabilities that increase victimization risk in their homeland and throughout the migration process. Meanwhile, the perceived threat of immigrants entering the United States (regardless of legality) increase restrictive policies. The enforcement and publicity of such policies simultaneously stigmatize immigrants and fuel the perception of vulnerability, leaving immigrants susceptible to targeting and victimization on U.S. soil. This essay begins with a brief overview of immigration and immigration policy, followed by a discussion on the Minority Threat Framework (MTF) (King and Wheelock 2007) and its present focus on Latinx immigrants. "Solutions" to the immigrant "threat" are then examined in relation to subsequent postmigration immigrant victimization.
The treatment homicide co-victims receive from the criminal justice system often leaves them aggrieved and feeling alienated. A neglected but important area of investigation is the courtroom workgroup’s handling of murder cases. This exploratory study examines the nature and extent to which varying secondary victimization experiences are common among co-victims as the murder cases are processed through the court system. The sample consists of 27 co-victims connected to 24 separate cases where the murders occurred in a major metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. Drawing upon focus group data, Nvivo 10 was employed to identify themes that illustrate common secondary victimization experiences among co-victims along with positive and mixed reactions to court processes and personnel. The findings indicate that court requirements to provide notifications are infrequently met and attorney’s practice to supply information about case progress and counseling to family members regarding plea-bargaining and sentencing decisions are greatly restrictive. When information is offered, it is often perceived as highly technical and when assistance is provided, it is frequently limited or intermittent. Despite the prevalence of negative experiences, there also were reports of positive interactions with the district attorney and victim advocates. The study concludes by identifying ways in which the courtroom workgroup can uphold the rights afforded to co-victims while at the same time meeting the duties and responsibilities of the workgroup.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.