Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Victim blaming motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hello, The first thing that comes to mind in regards to this is the just world hypothesis

Here are some articles you might find helpful The Role of Political Ideology in Mediating Judgments of Blame in Rape Victims and Their Assailants: A Test of the Just World, Personal Responsibility, and Legitimization Hypotheses EVALUATION OF RAPE VICTIM BY MEN AND WOMEN WITH HIGH AND LOW BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD Victim Blaming and Exoneration of the Perpetrator in Domestic Violence: The Role of Beliefs in a Just World and Ambivalent Sexism --Arlo Porter (discusscontribs) 01:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC) thought that "defensive attribution" may be of relevance to your subject. The theory essentially suggests that our reactions to victims are motivated by our own desire to avoid blame for similar situations we may find ourselves in. It may not be of use to you but I thought I'd throw it over your way just in case! Full text is available through the UC library. Cheers!U3117451 (discusscontribs) 03:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, interesting TED talk you might want to add to your external link section? up to you, it's a victim of assault talking about her experience and the starting of a campaign of people speaking out against assault and victim blaming. --U3117592 (discusscontribs) 05:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

case study[edit source]

Hi there, have you thought about adding a case study example to make the chapter maybe easier to follow or understand? The article below talks about victim blaming in first person of someone's own experience. Maybe you can use that or it may give you an idea for a case study. --JazNF (discusscontribs) 05:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Just world theory and defensive attribution hypothesis[edit source]

I found an article specifically illustrates why the rape victims being blamed by using these two mechanisms. 'RapeCrimesReviewed:TheRoleofObserverVariablesinFemaleVictim Blaming' (discusscontribs) 10:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Book[edit source]


Great topic! I suggest you read the SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination edited by Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, and Esses. My chapter would not have been the same without it, it provided incredibly valuable insight into the current state of psychology theory in these areas. It's actually a pretty easy to read book, and I read about 4 of the 36 chapters all the way through. Most importantly for you is that it has extensive information on issues to do with women. I have the library's copy and will return it later today, the code is HM 1091 S24 2010. It will certainly allow you to have a good discussion around the topics of prejudice against women and sexism, which may enhance your chapter.

I have some ideas for you to consider as well. When you use the terms "right" and "wrong" it would be helpful to define what you mean or put it into context. Some people have a great reverence and trust for authority, and even though they might have egalitarian values as well, they might be secondary to another source of values. You could also compare victim-blaming of rape victims with victims of domestic violence. There are excellent example of the legal position of domestic violence, see information regarding w:Matthew_Hale_(jurist) Sir Matthew Hale, as well as current laws. Australia accepts refugees from Papua New Guinea who are victims of domestic violence (not very many), and when when Rudd offshore refugee detention facility on Manus Island the PNG government passed the first laws that criminalised domestic violence (they were obligated to do this for our interests, otherwise we couldn't detain people there). Many people, even in Australia today, instinctively feel that victims should do more about their own situations, and so in a way it's not all that surprising that people trust their instincts rather than the evidence-based literature that they may know nothing about.

Best of luck,

Daniel J Baxter (discusscontribs) 00:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a good chapter.
  2. The chapter is well under the maximum word count.
  3. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  4. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Engaging example.
    2. Explains why the topic is important.
    3. Consider including focus questions.
    4. Explain what will be covered.
  2. Body
    1. Theory is well described, showing a balanced, critical point of view, with some examples.
    2. Consider the fundamental attribution error
    3. Perhaps providing an example of overcoming victim blaming could be helpful.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Brief but good/clear.
    2. What are some practical, take-home strategies to avoid VBing?

Research[edit source]

  1. Somewhat minimal review and description of relevant research.
  2. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  3. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. Each section should start with at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections.
    2. The chapter is well-structured.
  3. Layout
    1. Some images are used, but the chapter could be improved by adding more images.
    2. Figure captions could be improved by making them more explanatory.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Some integration with other chapters is evident.
  5. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (some general examples are hypothesize -> hypothesise; behavior -> behaviour).
  7. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences needs to be improved for the written expression to be of professional standard (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct use of commas (e.g., "For example" -> "For example, ").
    3. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  8. APA style
    1. The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for paginated journals.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Too brief
    2. Add an Overview slide.
    3. An example could help to set the scene and engage the viewer.
    4. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Include citations.
    2. Addresses a self-help theme.
    3. Well selected content - not too much or too little, but there is a lack of research e.g., what is the single, most important study in this area?
    4. Theory rich; research poor.
    5. Consider using more illustrative examples.
    6. References are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. None provided or too brief/general - drill down to some practical, take-away messages.
    2. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Seems to be missing for title/opening slide?
    2. Explain what victim blaming is.
    3. Audio is well-paced, with some variation in intonation.
    4. Some words could be more clearly pronounced.
  2. Visuals
    1. Basic - approximately half a dozen text-based slides with some images.
    2. Consider including images, figures, and/or tables.
    3. Visuals are clear and easy to read.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic, effective production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Rename the presentation so that it includes the subtitle that matches the book chapter.
    2. Link to and from the book chapter provided.
    3. Expand the Description field (e.g., provide a brief description of the presentation).
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Medium low due to some distortion - check microphone/computer set up.
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)