Blaming friends

The aim of this paper is to shed light on the complex relations between friendship and blame. In the first part, I show that to be friends is to have certain evaluative, emotional and behavioral dispositions toward each other, and distinguish between two kinds of norms of friendship, namely friendship-based obligations and friendship-constituting rules. Friendship-based obligations tag actions of friends as obligatory, permissible or wrong, whereas friendship-constituting rules specify conditions that, if met, make it so that two persons stand in a particular type of relationship defined by various friendship-based obligations. I argue that whereas friendship-based obligations apply to actions under direct voluntary control, friendship-constituting rules apply to emotional and evaluative attitudes. The second part develops an account of friendship blame by comparing Scanlon’s account of blame with Wallace’s Strawsonian account of blame. I demonstrate that Scanlon’s account picks out responses that become appropriate when friends’ attitudes are not in agreement with friendship-constituting rules, whereas Wallace’s account picks out responses that become appropriate when friends violate friendship-based obligations. Arguing that the responses picked out by Scanlon’s account do not amount to blame, I show that, when combined, the views give an illuminating picture of possible reactions to friends who fall short of the standards of friendship.

     

Bruno Bettelheim and the concentration camps

The paper analyzes the circumstances under which Bruno Bettelheim's (1903–1990) well-known paper, “Individual and Mass Behavior in Extreme Situations” (1943) came to be written and discusses its central arguments. The authors compare Bettelheim's analysis of the Nazi concentration camps with the interpretations of other authors, particularly those who had experienced the camps themselves, and identify areas of divergence. They also note the later modifications Bettelheim introduced in his own theories on occasions when the original article was reprinted or revised. In conclusion, we investigate the ways in which Bettelheim's analysis of the camps has been received and cited by later scholars. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

General Versus Specific Victim Blaming

Abstract

The authors investigated (a) whether victim blaming is a general variable in a person's make-up or (b) whether the extent of blaming depends on the kind of victim considered. The authors evaluated scales for blaming (a) victims in general, (b) society in general, (c) a specific kind of victim (i.e., AIDS), and (d) the society in which AIDS victims live. The general and specific scales had favorable psychometric properties, including reliability. General and specific victim blaming were significantly and positively correlated, whereas victim blaming and society blaming were not significantly correlated. Multiple regression analyses provided evidence of construct validity for the scales. All blaming variables were significantly related in the hypothesized directions to social distance, social responsibility, and discrimination (regarding persons with AIDS). The general and specific scales made significant and unique contributions. Implications for attribution theory and research are specified.     

Responsibility for Health and Blaming Victims

If we are responsible for taking care of our health, are we blameworthy when we become sick because we failed to meet that responsibility? Or is it immoral to blame the victim of sickness? A moral perspective that is sensitive to therapeutic concerns will downplay blame, but banishing all blame is neither feasible nor desirable. We need to understand the ambiguities surrounding moral responsibility in four contexts: (1) preventing sickness, (2) assigning financial liabilities for health care costs, (3) giving meaning to human suffering, and (4) interacting with health care professionals. We also need to distinguish different kinds of blame, explore the interplay of justice and compassion in avoiding unjustified blaming of victims, and work toward a unified moral-therapeutic perspective that encourages individuals to accept responsibility while avoiding destructive forms of blaming.     

A Reminiscence of My Friendship with Bruno Bettelheim

No abstract available for this article.     

"Blaming the victim" under memory load

When presented with negative outcomes, people often engage in counterfactual thinking, imagining various ways that events might have been different. This appears to be a spontaneous behavior, with considerable adaptive value. Nevertheless, counterfactual thinking may also engender systematic biases in various judgment tasks, such as allocating blame for a mishap, or deciding on the appropriate compensation to a victim. Thus, counterfactuals sometimes require thought suppression or discounting, potentially resource-demanding tasks. In this study, participants made mock-jury decisions about control and counterfactual versions of simple stories. The judgments of two groups of participants, differing in their respective levels of working memory capacity, were compared. In addition, all participants held memory loads during various stages of the primary task. Lower-span individuals were especially susceptible to bias associated with the counterfactual manipulation, but only when holding memory loads during judgment. The results suggest that counterfactual thoughts arise automatically, and may later require effortful, capacity-demanding suppression.     

Blaming the victim: When disease-prevention programs misfire

This study sought to determine whether or not a disease prevention program might have anegative impact on attitudes towards disease victims. Knowledge of, and attitudes towards AIDS and several other serious diseases were assessed before and after college students viewed a filmed educational program on AIDS. Results showed that, compared to a control group, participants who had seen the AIDS film reported significantlygreater fear and dislike of a hypothetical AIDS patient. The film also significantly enhanced participants’ perceptions that AIDS is a preventable disease. Results are discussed in terms of the possibility that health-education programs emphasizing preventability may inadvertently increase peoples’ tendency to blame the victim. Portions of this paper were presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, Dallas, Texas, June 1990.     

Bruno Bettelheim and the Chazon Ish: Toward a New Jewish Psychotherapy

Jeremiah is quoted and cited to show the basic optimism of Judaism. Why did Freud create an “Oedipus Complex,” rather than a “Joseph Phenomenon”?—especially since Freud had such a great knowledge of the Bible, including the Joseph story; and the Biblical Joseph made frequent appearances in Freud's dreams. Many of the advances in psychology and psychiatry were made in part as a rebellion against the ideology of psychoanalysis—this includes family therapy, behavioral therapy, and psychopharmacology. Bettelheim saw the shortcomings of psychoanalysis, both as a theory to explain human behavior and as a cure for psychological problems. The experiences of Bettelheim and of The Chazon Ish can give us new hope. The Chazon Ish and Bettelheim both sought to help in the context of a type of community. Reading of the Bible throws light on people's problems; and people can be helped by identification with Biblical characters. There is often specific advice in the Bible. Bible therapy can strengthen the bond between the therapist and the patient, which is important for patient improvement. There is a need for this type of psychotherapy.     

Blaming the Victim: University Student Attitudes Toward Bullying

Numerous studies have examined adolescent attitudes toward bullying, but limited research has explored college students’ attitudes toward victims of bullying. Using data collected from three southern universities (n = 1,135), the current research investigates demographic, experiential, and behavioral factors that are likely to influence whether university students attribute blame to bullying victims. Findings indicate that most university students report prosocial attitudes toward bullying. Victim blaming and minimizing attitudes were most common among males, heterosexuals, and those with a history of prior bullying perpetration during junior high or high school. Individuals reporting a higher frequency of drug use were significantly more likely to support victim blaming attitudes, and those who engaged in more frequent alcohol use were significantly more likely to minimize bullying.     

Blaming the Kids: Children's Agency and Diminished Responsibility

Children are less blameworthy for their beliefs and actions because they are young. But the relationship between development and responsibility is complex. What exactly grounds the excuses we rightly give to young agents? This article presents three distinct arguments for children's diminished responsibility. Drawing on significant resources from developmental psychology, it rejects views which base the normative adult/child distinction on children's inability to participate in certain kinds of moral communication or to form principled self‐conceptions which guide their actions. The article then argues that children's responsibility ought to be diminished because (and to the degree that) they are less competent at using features of their moral agency to meet social demands. This ‘normative competence’ view is philosophically defensible, supported by research in developmental psychology, and provides us with a method to evaluate whether things like peer pressure are relevant to responsibility.