A Theoretical Perspective for Understanding Reactions to Victimization

Abstract

Although specific victimizations may differ, there appear to be common psychological responses across a wide variety of victims. It is proposed that victims' psychological distress is largely due to the shattering of basic assumptions held about themselves and their world. Three assumptions that change as a result of victimization are: 1) the belief in personal invulnerability; 2) the perception of the world as meaningful; and 3) the view of the self as positive. Coping with victimization is presented as a process that involves rebuilding one's assumptive world. Introductions to the papers that follow in this issue are incorporated into a discussion of specific coping strategies adopted by victims.

FEAR OF CRIME AND CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION: Testing a Theory of Psychological Incapacitation of the 'Stressor' Based on Downward Comparison Processes

“…The available empirical evidence provides partial support for this model. In relation to SVR, various studies suggest that assessments of increased risk are a common response to victimization (Bard and Sangrey 1979;Denkers and Winkel 1998;Hale 1996;Janoff-Bulman and Frieze 1983;Perloff 1983). However, there is no evidence regarding the temporal stability of this effect.…”

Stigma, Prejudice, and Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men

“…Feelings of personal loss, rejection, humiliation, and depression are common. Behavioral and somatic reactions include sleep disturbances and nightmares, headaches, diarrhea, uncontrollable crying, agitation and restlessness, increased use of drugs, and deterioration in personal relationships (e.g., Bard & Sangry, 1979;Frieze, Hymer, & Greenberg, 1984;Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983). Additionally, antigay attacks may be interpreted as violations of oneself as a gay person and may revive earlier feelings of "internalized homophobia" (Malyon, 1982).…”

A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts

“…Specifically, if the extremity is too overwhelming, and/or individuals feel a lack of efficacy they will likely become more susceptible and vulnerable, with some members becoming immobilized due to experiences of terror and other emotive responses to fear (Arndt, Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Simon, 1997;Bowlby, 1969;Foa & Kozak, 1986;Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983;Parks, 1971). This type of immobilization may be reversed by a leader who is dominating and aggressive, acting to quickly reduce the ambiguity associated with events and redirecting followers to action (Fodor, 1978).…”