Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018) make a compelling case for shifting away from a victim precipitation perspective in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. In addition to noting that victim precipitation potentially violates ethical principles, the authors suggest that such paradigms shape attributions of blame and implications for practice within organizations. This commentary builds upon the ideas discussed in the focal article by encouraging I-O psychologists to collect data on the extent to which victim precipitation appears in the field and experimentally examine how and why the paradigms we use to explain workplace mistreatment might affect attitudes and behavior.
Central to this proposal is a consideration of research on framing effects. The literature on framing spans a number of disciplines, including psychology (Tversky & Kahneman, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1981), mass communication (Entman, Reference Entman1993), and political science (Druckman, Reference Druckman2001), and results tend to show that variations in framing and semantics—even if slight and subtle—can shift thinking, attitudes, and decisions. Reflecting upon such work can assist I-O psychologists in understanding how the framing of research on workplace mistreatment can similarly shape reactions and responses to victims and perpetrators. I-O psychologists are ultimately communicators of their research—a role that requires not only attention to clarity and accuracy but also a consideration of how the dissemination of research might shape opinion and action.
Given the recent uptick in the use of victim precipitation, I-O psychologists should take steps toward understanding the antecedents and consequences of adopting such perspectives. Below I discuss two methodologies employed in the framing literature that might shed light on victim precipitation and perpetrator predation framing: the first allowing us to see how frames are set by researchers and the second allowing us to see how frames impact individual and organizational outcomes.
Identifying Trends on Victim Precipitation Through Content Analysis
Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018) illustrate the occurrence of victim precipitation framing in I-O psychology by presenting the results of a Google Scholar search and by reviewing examples of existing articles that use such a framework. Additional research should employ content analysis to assess the extent of this upsurge. This methodology, used frequently when assessing the framing of news content (e.g., Semetko & Valkenburg, Reference Semetko and Valkenburg2000), can similarly be used to identify patterns in the framing of mistreatment research. Though used less frequently in I-O psychology, content analysis has yielded valuable insights regarding research trends in the literature (Cascio & Aguinis, Reference Cascio and Aguinis2008).
In the case of workplace mistreatment, such analyses should begin by collecting all existing academic articles on the subject. With articles as the units of analysis, researchers can then identify variables to be coded within each article—beginning, for example, by classifying the type of paradigm(s) adopted (e.g., victim precipitation, perpetrator predation) and continuing by coding the kinds of implications and recommendations offered by the authors. These represent just two examples of potential variables, but collecting this information would enable researchers to draw links between the type of frame adopted and the kinds of recommendations made.
Understanding the Effects of Victim Precipitation Through Experiments
I-O psychologists can also use experiments to examine the consequences associated with the framing of their research. Because experiments allow for greater control than other methodologies, they offer opportunities to isolate the effects of research frames alone. As a start, such inquiries could involve manipulating whether a research abstract or expert testimony reflects a victim precipitation or perpetrator predation perspective, subsequently assessing perceptions of victim and perpetrator and decisions for intervention.
Doing so would involve careful tailoring to reflect differences in research framing but not differences in research results. Consistent with Cortina's (Reference Cortina, Bowling and Hershcovis2017, p. 128) vision of perpetrator predation as “a guiding frame through which empirical observations can be viewed and interpreted,” researchers designing such experiments should take care to vary only the framing of the research rather than the findings, allowing results to “remain unchanged” while altering “their framing and interpretation” (Cortina et al., Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018, p. 94). Such is the logic underlying equivalence framing (Tversky & Kahneman, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1981), which involves using dissimilar frames that are logically equivalent. Building from an example noted by Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018), a victim precipitation condition might read: “Results indicate that high-performing employees instigate envy from workgroups, prompting aggression,” whereas a perpetrator predation condition might read: “Results indicate that workgroups respond to high-performing employees with envy, prompting aggression” (Kim & Glomb, Reference Kim and Glomb2014).
These experiments should be conducted among individuals or groups who are likely to consume research on workplace misconduct—whether it be other researchers, practitioners, prosecutors, juries, or organizational actors. Dependent measures might vary accordingly and can include individual perceptions of the victim and perpetrator (e.g., blame, empathy, leniency, responsibility), the crafting of new research questions, and decisions regarding who should bear the burden of the mistreatment. In addition to examining such consequences, experimental design would also allow researchers to examine potential mechanisms that mediate the proposed relationship between research framing and outcomes.
Conclusion
I-O psychologists often study how interventions and factors can shift employee attitudes and behaviors. Consistent with the arguments made in this commentary, we also should examine the influence of our own rhetoric on attitudes, behaviors, and organizational practices. To be clear, I do not argue that data collection on victim precipitation and perpetrator predation framing should supplant arguments involving ethics; rather, it would allow us to further understand why our research frameworks might need to be considered critically. Though we do not think empirical evidence should be the ultimate criterion for letting go of this paradigm, it can give us a better handle on why a victim precipitation framework is problematic.
You have
Access
Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018) make a compelling case for shifting away from a victim precipitation perspective in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. In addition to noting that victim precipitation potentially violates ethical principles, the authors suggest that such paradigms shape attributions of blame and implications for practice within organizations. This commentary builds upon the ideas discussed in the focal article by encouraging I-O psychologists to collect data on the extent to which victim precipitation appears in the field and experimentally examine how and why the paradigms we use to explain workplace mistreatment might affect attitudes and behavior.
Central to this proposal is a consideration of research on framing effects. The literature on framing spans a number of disciplines, including psychology (Tversky & Kahneman, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1981), mass communication (Entman, Reference Entman1993), and political science (Druckman, Reference Druckman2001), and results tend to show that variations in framing and semantics—even if slight and subtle—can shift thinking, attitudes, and decisions. Reflecting upon such work can assist I-O psychologists in understanding how the framing of research on workplace mistreatment can similarly shape reactions and responses to victims and perpetrators. I-O psychologists are ultimately communicators of their research—a role that requires not only attention to clarity and accuracy but also a consideration of how the dissemination of research might shape opinion and action.
Given the recent uptick in the use of victim precipitation, I-O psychologists should take steps toward understanding the antecedents and consequences of adopting such perspectives. Below I discuss two methodologies employed in the framing literature that might shed light on victim precipitation and perpetrator predation framing: the first allowing us to see how frames are set by researchers and the second allowing us to see how frames impact individual and organizational outcomes.
Identifying Trends on Victim Precipitation Through Content Analysis
Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018) illustrate the occurrence of victim precipitation framing in I-O psychology by presenting the results of a Google Scholar search and by reviewing examples of existing articles that use such a framework. Additional research should employ content analysis to assess the extent of this upsurge. This methodology, used frequently when assessing the framing of news content (e.g., Semetko & Valkenburg, Reference Semetko and Valkenburg2000), can similarly be used to identify patterns in the framing of mistreatment research. Though used less frequently in I-O psychology, content analysis has yielded valuable insights regarding research trends in the literature (Cascio & Aguinis, Reference Cascio and Aguinis2008).
In the case of workplace mistreatment, such analyses should begin by collecting all existing academic articles on the subject. With articles as the units of analysis, researchers can then identify variables to be coded within each article—beginning, for example, by classifying the type of paradigm(s) adopted (e.g., victim precipitation, perpetrator predation) and continuing by coding the kinds of implications and recommendations offered by the authors. These represent just two examples of potential variables, but collecting this information would enable researchers to draw links between the type of frame adopted and the kinds of recommendations made.
Understanding the Effects of Victim Precipitation Through Experiments
I-O psychologists can also use experiments to examine the consequences associated with the framing of their research. Because experiments allow for greater control than other methodologies, they offer opportunities to isolate the effects of research frames alone. As a start, such inquiries could involve manipulating whether a research abstract or expert testimony reflects a victim precipitation or perpetrator predation perspective, subsequently assessing perceptions of victim and perpetrator and decisions for intervention.
Doing so would involve careful tailoring to reflect differences in research framing but not differences in research results. Consistent with Cortina's (Reference Cortina, Bowling and Hershcovis2017, p. 128) vision of perpetrator predation as “a guiding frame through which empirical observations can be viewed and interpreted,” researchers designing such experiments should take care to vary only the framing of the research rather than the findings, allowing results to “remain unchanged” while altering “their framing and interpretation” (Cortina et al., Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018, p. 94). Such is the logic underlying equivalence framing (Tversky & Kahneman, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1981), which involves using dissimilar frames that are logically equivalent. Building from an example noted by Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018), a victim precipitation condition might read: “Results indicate that high-performing employees instigate envy from workgroups, prompting aggression,” whereas a perpetrator predation condition might read: “Results indicate that workgroups respond to high-performing employees with envy, prompting aggression” (Kim & Glomb, Reference Kim and Glomb2014).
These experiments should be conducted among individuals or groups who are likely to consume research on workplace misconduct—whether it be other researchers, practitioners, prosecutors, juries, or organizational actors. Dependent measures might vary accordingly and can include individual perceptions of the victim and perpetrator (e.g., blame, empathy, leniency, responsibility), the crafting of new research questions, and decisions regarding who should bear the burden of the mistreatment. In addition to examining such consequences, experimental design would also allow researchers to examine potential mechanisms that mediate the proposed relationship between research framing and outcomes.
Conclusion
I-O psychologists often study how interventions and factors can shift employee attitudes and behaviors. Consistent with the arguments made in this commentary, we also should examine the influence of our own rhetoric on attitudes, behaviors, and organizational practices. To be clear, I do not argue that data collection on victim precipitation and perpetrator predation framing should supplant arguments involving ethics; rather, it would allow us to further understand why our research frameworks might need to be considered critically. Though we do not think empirical evidence should be the ultimate criterion for letting go of this paradigm, it can give us a better handle on why a victim precipitation framework is problematic.