The reputational consequences of victim signaling

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

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 ( N Total = 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. • Individuals who signal their victimhood are often perceived less favorably than those who do not. • Victim signaling is associated with inferences of dark personality traits and lower social desirability. • Public expressions of harm can lead to reputational costs. • Observers may infer unethical behavior from victim signaling.