Purpose:
The present study investigated public attitudes toward victims and how they are determined by the types of reactions victims exhibit following the transgression. I hypothesized that public support for a victim would decrease when the victim adopts an "agentic" form of response, such as publicly protesting their situation, compared to when the victim displays vulnerability-emphasizing response, such as by making an appeal of the suffering they experience. Based on the discussion that perceptions of target's agency affects people's decision to give aid (Schroeder, Waytz, Epley, 2017), I examined whether the perception of a victim as agentic or vulnerable influences people's judgments on the need and effectiveness of support for the victim.


Method:
Participants (N = 1019) viewed a vignette describing a person being physically injured by another person. The vignette was followed by one of three victim reactions: (1) the victim publicly condemns the perpetrator and suggests legal action (agentic-appeal condition), (2) the victim expresses emotional distress (vulnerability-appeal condition), or (3) the victim neutrally explains her circumstance (control condition). Participants then responded to measures assessing the perceived necessity and effectiveness of emotional and instrumental support.


Results:
Emotional support was perceived as more necessary and effective for the victim in the vulnerability-appeal condition than in the agentic-appeal or control conditions. Conversely, instrumental support was deemed more necessary and effective for victims in the agentic-appeal condition compared to the other two conditions.


Conclusion:
These findings suggest that the way a victim responds to transgression influences public attitudes—particularly perceived appropriateness of support. These results have important implications for understanding the social psychological dynamics of victim perception and support.