Karl Aquino et al. (Feb 2026)
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925004775
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925004775
Abstract
We examine how victim signaling, defined as publicly sharing experiences of suffering caused by disadvantage, harm, or limitations, affects how observers perceive the signaler. We conducted four studies (NTotal = 1430) on diverse samples (i.e., online participants and professionals in the Philippines), using different methodologies (i.e., employee-coworker dyads and vignette-based experiments), and ways of victim-signaling (i.e., contentious vs. subtle). Across contexts, we found that people who signal their victimhood were evaluated more negatively than those who did not emit this signal, despite the latter facing similar circumstances. We found this effect on a range of social judgments, including ratings of dark traits (Dark Triad and D) and perceived desirability of the signaler as a social partner (e.g., job performance ratings and perceptions of counterproductive workplace behavior). A post-hoc analysis in Studies 3 and 4 found that political beliefs moderated perceptions of victim signalers from minority groups; compared to conservatives, liberals were less likely to see victimhood signalers (vs. non-signalers) as narcissistic and psychopathic (Study 3) and were less likely to infer entitlement–Machiavellian traits from a victim-signaling candidate (Study 4). Our results contribute to understanding how victim signaling shapes social perception and the complexities of interpreting claims of harm.
-----
"The story of every human life could be told as one of perpetual victimhood. Natural disasters, the loss of loved ones, and perhaps most painful for social creatures, the callousness and malevolence of others, ensure that we all encounter deprivation, injustice, betrayal, despair, or what Hamlet calls “…the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.” These tribulations give us reason to resent the world for inflicting undeserved pain and turning us into victims. A victim is typically defined as someone who experiences harm or injury, and by this definition, everyone can rightly claim victimhood at some time. However, not all who experience harm will see themselves as victims, nor do all communicate harm to others (Clark, 2023; Gabay et al., 2020; Gray & Kubin, 2024). Deliberately communicating that one has experienced injustice, deprivation, challenge, or other harm, thereby inviting a recognition of their disadvantaged position by an audience, has been referred to as victim signaling (Ok et al., 2021). This definition aligns with signaling theory (e.g., Spence, 1973), which describes signals as communicative cues used to convey qualities or states that are otherwise unverifiable to observers. Victim signals may take the form of personal narratives of mistreatment, public claims of disadvantage tied to group membership, or formal reports of unacceptable or illegal treatment. For the purposes of our theorizing, the signal's content and method of delivery can vary so long as it implies some harm to the signaler and is made intentionally.
Victim signaling has many benefits. Most crucially, perhaps, for a person who is harmed or in need, it can elicit concern and sympathy in people who receive the signal, prompting them to help the signaler. Help may include material and socio-emotional support, protection from further harm, or simply an affirmation of the signaler's experience. These benefits arise (e.g., Bates et al., 2025) because humans evolved to help close others and reinforce prosociality (e.g., de Waal, 2008; Kurzban et al., 2015; Trivers, 1971), with this concern expanding as society became more interconnected (Singer, 1981). Victim signaling can also be an effective way to call attention to broader societal injustices or inequities that disproportionately affect certain groups. However, the responses to it may not always be positive or deliver to signalers what they desire because humans also evolved to avoid exploitation, reward reciprocity, and withhold benefits from those who might impose costs (Vohs et al., 2007). Therefore, victim signaling can sometimes be ineffective and even socially costly in ways the signaler may not anticipate.
Our research examines some possible hidden costs of victim signaling by testing whether emitting a strong signal (i.e., one likely to invite recognition by an audience that the signaler is a victim) can lead observers to judge the signaler's personality, behavior, and leadership suitability less favorably than emitting a relatively weaker signal that does not invite such recognition. We focus on traits linked to the Dark Factor of Personality (D traits). D refers to the dispositional tendency to maximize personal utility at others' expense, under the belief that this is legitimate (Moshagen, Hilbig and Zettler, 2018, Moshagen, Zettler and Hilbig, 2020). D is considered the core from which all dark traits emerge (e.g., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, egoism, spitefulness). Drawing on signaling theory, moral psychology, and evolutionary psychology, we derive predictions about how victim signaling may shape these personality inferences and whether inferences might predict expectations of signalers' likely behavior."
"By a signal's strength, we mean the extent to which the signal reduces a recipient's uncertainty about a particular quality or state of the signaler (Spence, 1973)."
"The potential effectiveness of victim signaling as a strategy for eliciting help aligns with signaling theory, which holds that individuals transmit information to influence others' behavior (Dunham, 2011). The impact of such signals depends on their reception and whether they yield benefits for the signaler (Gambetta, 2005; Krebs & Dawkins, 1984). Although truthfulness is not required for a signal to be effective, its persuasive force increases when recipients perceive it as credible, directed to the right audience, or coupled with perceptions of virtue (Graso et al., 2019; Ok et al., 2021). Such signals can secure social resources or advance the signaler's aims by creating an “aura of unimpeachability” that discourages scrutiny (Kubin et al., 2021). This aura may induce deference even from observers who remain privately skeptical, consistent with research on reluctant altruism: acting generously in public despite private reservations (Dana et al., 2006; DellaVigna et al., 2012; Lazear et al., 2012). In environments that prioritize harm avoidance and protection of the vulnerable (Campbell & Manning, 2014), this dynamic can make victim signaling a potent tool of social influence."
"We propose that victim signaling can sometimes make recipients view the signaler less favorably than a non-signaler. Claims of victimhood are contrary to the conventional way people gain status and acquire resources by providing benefits or engaging in mutually beneficial exchange (Durkee et al., 2020). When victim signalers seek material or socio-emotional resources without offering benefits in return, they may be seen as imposing costs on others. "
"However, in some contexts, actively signaling one's own victimhood to others may lead people to evaluate a person more negatively relative to a non-signaler for various reasons."
"Victim signaling can serve critical survival and justice-related functions that make it a useful tool in humans' behavioral repertoire for helping them survive and flourish."
"We found evidence that victim signaling is not necessarily costly and may not elicit negative trait inferences if directed to the right audience. In Study 3, more liberal participants perceived a victim signaler as lower in narcissism and psychopathy than one who rejects victimhood, meaning that they made harsher judgments about someone who denies victim status."
"The story of every human life could be told as one of perpetual victimhood. Natural disasters, the loss of loved ones, and perhaps most painful for social creatures, the callousness and malevolence of others, ensure that we all encounter deprivation, injustice, betrayal, despair, or what Hamlet calls “…the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.” These tribulations give us reason to resent the world for inflicting undeserved pain and turning us into victims. A victim is typically defined as someone who experiences harm or injury, and by this definition, everyone can rightly claim victimhood at some time. However, not all who experience harm will see themselves as victims, nor do all communicate harm to others (Clark, 2023; Gabay et al., 2020; Gray & Kubin, 2024). Deliberately communicating that one has experienced injustice, deprivation, challenge, or other harm, thereby inviting a recognition of their disadvantaged position by an audience, has been referred to as victim signaling (Ok et al., 2021). This definition aligns with signaling theory (e.g., Spence, 1973), which describes signals as communicative cues used to convey qualities or states that are otherwise unverifiable to observers. Victim signals may take the form of personal narratives of mistreatment, public claims of disadvantage tied to group membership, or formal reports of unacceptable or illegal treatment. For the purposes of our theorizing, the signal's content and method of delivery can vary so long as it implies some harm to the signaler and is made intentionally.
Victim signaling has many benefits. Most crucially, perhaps, for a person who is harmed or in need, it can elicit concern and sympathy in people who receive the signal, prompting them to help the signaler. Help may include material and socio-emotional support, protection from further harm, or simply an affirmation of the signaler's experience. These benefits arise (e.g., Bates et al., 2025) because humans evolved to help close others and reinforce prosociality (e.g., de Waal, 2008; Kurzban et al., 2015; Trivers, 1971), with this concern expanding as society became more interconnected (Singer, 1981). Victim signaling can also be an effective way to call attention to broader societal injustices or inequities that disproportionately affect certain groups. However, the responses to it may not always be positive or deliver to signalers what they desire because humans also evolved to avoid exploitation, reward reciprocity, and withhold benefits from those who might impose costs (Vohs et al., 2007). Therefore, victim signaling can sometimes be ineffective and even socially costly in ways the signaler may not anticipate.
Our research examines some possible hidden costs of victim signaling by testing whether emitting a strong signal (i.e., one likely to invite recognition by an audience that the signaler is a victim) can lead observers to judge the signaler's personality, behavior, and leadership suitability less favorably than emitting a relatively weaker signal that does not invite such recognition. We focus on traits linked to the Dark Factor of Personality (D traits). D refers to the dispositional tendency to maximize personal utility at others' expense, under the belief that this is legitimate (Moshagen, Hilbig and Zettler, 2018, Moshagen, Zettler and Hilbig, 2020). D is considered the core from which all dark traits emerge (e.g., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, egoism, spitefulness). Drawing on signaling theory, moral psychology, and evolutionary psychology, we derive predictions about how victim signaling may shape these personality inferences and whether inferences might predict expectations of signalers' likely behavior."
"By a signal's strength, we mean the extent to which the signal reduces a recipient's uncertainty about a particular quality or state of the signaler (Spence, 1973)."
"The potential effectiveness of victim signaling as a strategy for eliciting help aligns with signaling theory, which holds that individuals transmit information to influence others' behavior (Dunham, 2011). The impact of such signals depends on their reception and whether they yield benefits for the signaler (Gambetta, 2005; Krebs & Dawkins, 1984). Although truthfulness is not required for a signal to be effective, its persuasive force increases when recipients perceive it as credible, directed to the right audience, or coupled with perceptions of virtue (Graso et al., 2019; Ok et al., 2021). Such signals can secure social resources or advance the signaler's aims by creating an “aura of unimpeachability” that discourages scrutiny (Kubin et al., 2021). This aura may induce deference even from observers who remain privately skeptical, consistent with research on reluctant altruism: acting generously in public despite private reservations (Dana et al., 2006; DellaVigna et al., 2012; Lazear et al., 2012). In environments that prioritize harm avoidance and protection of the vulnerable (Campbell & Manning, 2014), this dynamic can make victim signaling a potent tool of social influence."
"We propose that victim signaling can sometimes make recipients view the signaler less favorably than a non-signaler. Claims of victimhood are contrary to the conventional way people gain status and acquire resources by providing benefits or engaging in mutually beneficial exchange (Durkee et al., 2020). When victim signalers seek material or socio-emotional resources without offering benefits in return, they may be seen as imposing costs on others. "
"However, in some contexts, actively signaling one's own victimhood to others may lead people to evaluate a person more negatively relative to a non-signaler for various reasons."
"Victim signaling can serve critical survival and justice-related functions that make it a useful tool in humans' behavioral repertoire for helping them survive and flourish."
"We found evidence that victim signaling is not necessarily costly and may not elicit negative trait inferences if directed to the right audience. In Study 3, more liberal participants perceived a victim signaler as lower in narcissism and psychopathy than one who rejects victimhood, meaning that they made harsher judgments about someone who denies victim status."
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen