We then described the victim’s experience with the faulty travel mug. He decided to either keep the money for himself or tell his manager about it. Much like in our field experiment, we manipulated whether the victim – a fictional character – was a good or bad person in a completely unrelated way.įor example, in the travel mug scenario, the coffee-burn victim was a bank employee who found extra money in his bank drawer.
![willing victim psychology willing victim psychology](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/5152158_Explaining_the_Identifiable_Victim_Effect/links/5558b80908ae980ca6105653/largepreview.png)
In all of these scenarios, we made it explicitly clear that the product was faulty. The contexts ranged from burn-related injuries caused by a faulty travel mug to a car accident resulting from failed brakes.
Willing victim psychology series#
In a series of follow-up experiments, we created a number of scenarios about product-failure situations and tested consumers’ responses to them. This initial field experiment supported our hypothesis, but we also wanted to know why this pattern might be emerging, and if it would hold in other product-failure contexts. AP Photo/Julio Cortez Playing the blame game United’s earnings went up in the same fiscal quarter as the Dao incident. While a majority signed the petition in both groups – 66% when Dao’s alleged transgression was mentioned and 85% when it was not – it did seem that consumers used this information to decide whether or not to take action. Sure enough, a subtle mention of Dao’s unrelated transgression was enough to reduce the signing rate by almost 20%. We then asked each participant if they’d be willing to sign a petition against United, effectively punishing the company for its wrongful actions. For the other half, this detail was omitted. For half of the participants, one of those details related Dao’s past immoral behavior. We gave those who obliged a synopsis of the David Dao incident and asked whether or not they were familiar with a few of the related details. We posed as pollsters asking passersby for their opinion about events in the news. Our core prediction was that consumers would fail to live up to this obligation in situations like the one we described. With this background in mind, we conducted some research of our own.Ī self-regulating free-market system works when consumers punish companies that deliver faulty products or services, especially when this failure causes physical harm to other consumers. In fact, we often use irrelevant information about someone’s personal characteristics when making blame judgments. “Should,” of course, is the operative word.Ī large body of research in psychology has consistently shown that people don’t always assign blame rationally. The new information about Dao’s past behavior had no logical bearing on the cause of the United incident, and so should have no impact on consumers’ judgments of blame. Some consumers shifted the blame for the incident away from United and toward the victim. In fact, United’s earnings even went up in that fiscal quarter. Dao was convicted of several charges, though he denies others.Īnd it seemed like for some, United was off the hook. Dao had allegedly traded prescription drugs for sex with one of his patients. How could United possibly justify violence to enforce this unfair – and arguably illegal – practice?īut as quickly as they were ignited, the flames of outrage seemed to be partly doused with new information about the victim of the incident. The defense on the other hand argues that Meiwes “killed on demand.The video showing David Dao getting dragged off the plane went viral. The prosecution has charged Meiwes with murder to satisfy sexual desires. A verdict is expected by the end of the week.
![willing victim psychology willing victim psychology](https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/488211/fpsyg-10-03035-HTML/image_m/fpsyg-10-03035-t002.jpg)
Willing victim psychology trial#
The trial continues on Monday with closing statements.
![willing victim psychology willing victim psychology](https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-inline-half/public/field_blog_entry_images/2018-02/shutterstock_499996879.jpg)
He “fulfilled his dream” by killing the other man, Stolpmann testified. "He calls himself ‘a solitary wolf that’s all alone,’" the psychiatrist said, adding that Meiwes' cannibalistic urges increased after the death of his mother in 1999. His subsequent desire to slaughter consenting young men was based on the wish to get so close to another person that he could never be left again, Stolpmann said. His father left the family when Meiwes was nine years old, causing the boy to develop a relationship disorder. Meiwes has admitted that he killed and ate the other man with the latter’s permission in March 2001.Īccording to Stolpmann, Meiwes’ desire to eat another human being can be traced back to events in his childhood and youth. "What we have here is an inability to have warm and tender feelings toward others," the expert said. Stolpmann added that the 42-year-old man has a “schizoid personality” and has problems forming relationships. "There’s no evidence of a psychological disorder," Georg Stolpmann, a psychiatrist and psychologist said about defendant Armin Meiwes, confirming earlier testimony by another expert.