Unraveling the Mindset of Victimhood

Scott Barry Kaufman

Scientific American

Originally posted 29 June 2020

Here is an excerpt:

Constantly seeking recognition of one’s victimhood. Those who score high on this dimension have a perpetual need to have their suffering acknowledged. In general, this is a normal psychological response to trauma. Experiencing trauma tends to “shatter our assumptions” about the world as a just and moral place. Recognition of one’s victimhood is a normal response to trauma and can help reestablish a person’s confidence in their perception of the world as a fair and just place to live.

Also, it is normal for victims to want the perpetrators to take responsibility for their wrongdoing and to express feelings of guilt. Studies conducted on testimonies of patients and therapists have found that validation of the trauma is important for therapeutic recovery from trauma and victimization (see here and here).

A sense of moral elitism. Those who score high on this dimension perceive themselves as having an immaculate morality and view everyone else as being immoral. Moral elitism can be used to control others by accusing others of being immoral, unfair or selfish, while seeing oneself as supremely moral and ethical.

Moral elitism often develops as a defense mechanism against deeply painful emotions and as a way to maintain a positive self-image. As a result, those under distress tend to deny their own aggressiveness and destructive impulses and project them onto others. The “other” is perceived as threatening whereas the self is perceived as persecuted, vulnerable and morally superior.

The info is here.

Here is a summary:

Kaufman explores the concept of "interpersonal victimhood," a tendency to view oneself as the repeated target of unfair treatment by others. He identifies several key characteristics of this mindset, including:

• Belief in inherent unfairness: The conviction that the world is fundamentally unjust and that one is disproportionately likely to experience harm.
• Moral self-righteousness: The perception of oneself as more ethical and deserving of good treatment compared to others.
• Rumination on past injustices: Dwelling on and replaying negative experiences, often with feelings of anger and resentment.
• Difficulty taking responsibility: Attributing negative outcomes to external factors rather than acknowledging one's own role.

Kaufman argues that while acknowledging genuine injustices is important, clinging to a victimhood identity can be detrimental. It can hinder personal growth, strain relationships, and fuel negativity. He emphasizes the importance of developing a more balanced perspective, acknowledging both external challenges and personal agency. The article offers strategies for fostering resilience

Taking the moral high ground: Deontological and absolutist moral dilemma judgments convey self-righteousness

Weiss, A., Burgmer, P., Rom, S. C., & Conway, P. (2024). 

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 110, 104505.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104505 

Abstract

Individuals who reject sacrificial harm to maximize overall outcomes, consistent with deontological (vs. utilitarian) ethics, appear warmer, more moral, and more trustworthy. Yet, deontological judgments may not only convey emotional reactions, but also strict adherence to moral rules. We therefore hypothesized that people view deontologists as more morally absolutist and hence self-righteous—as perceiving themselves as morally superior. In addition, both deontologists and utilitarians who base their decisions on rules (vs. emotions) should appear more self-righteous. Four studies (N = 1254) tested these hypotheses. Participants perceived targets as more self-righteous when they rejected (vs. accepted) sacrificial harm in classic moral dilemmas where harm maximizes outcomes (i.e., deontological vs. utilitarian judgments), but not parallel cases where harm fails to maximize outcomes (Study 1). Preregistered Study 2 replicated the focal effect, additionally indicating mediation via perceptions of moral absolutism. Study 3 found that targets who reported basing their deontological judgments on rules, compared to emotional reactions or when processing information was absent, appeared particularly self-righteous. Preregistered Study 4 included both deontological and utilitarian targets and manipulated whether their judgments were based on rules versus emotion (specifically sadness). Grounding either moral position in rules conveyed self-righteousness, while communicating emotions was a remedy. Furthermore, participants perceived targets as more self-righteous the more targets deviated from their own moral beliefs. Studies 3 and 4 additionally examined participants' self-disclosure intentions. In sum, deontological dilemma judgments may convey an absolutist, rule-focused view of morality, but any judgment stemming from rules (in contrast to sadness) promotes self-righteousness perceptions.

A pdf is here.

My quick take:

The authors also found that people were more likely to perceive deontologists as self-righteous if they based their judgments on rules rather than emotions. This suggests that it is not just the deontological judgment itself that leads to perceptions of self-righteousness, but also the way in which the judgment is made.

Overall, the findings of this study suggest that people who make deontological judgments in moral dilemmas are more likely to be perceived as self-righteous. This is because deontological judgments are often seen as reflecting a rigid and absolutist view of morality, which can come across as arrogant or condescending.

It is important to note that the findings of this study do not mean that all deontologists are self-righteous. However, the study does suggest that people should be aware of how their moral judgments may be perceived by others. If you want to avoid being perceived as self-righteous, it may be helpful to explain your reasons for making a deontological judgment, and to acknowledge the emotional impact of the situation.