How can it be that two people will tell such different
stories about an offense? Part of the
difference resides in the roles of “victim” and “offender.” Tavris and Aronson describe it this way.
“When we construct narratives that ‘make
sense,’ however, we do so in a self-serving way. Perpetrators are motivated to reduce their
moral culpability; victims are motivated to maximize their moral
blamelessness. Depending on which side
of the wall we are on, we systematically distort our memories and account of
the event to produce the maximum consonance between what happened and how we
see ourselves.” (Tavris, 2007, p. 193)
They refer to a research report presented by Roy Baumeister
and colleagues in 1990. The data
presented came from coding victim and offender stories for analysis. The novel part of the study arose from the
fact that these stories came from the same people rather than from separate
groups of victims and offenders. This
matters because we can see from the data that victims are not inherently “good
people” and offenders are not inherently “bad people.”
Baumeister and company make the point this way. “The motivations and biases [that account for
differences in victim and offender stories] thus may be considered inherent in
the roles. In other words, our results
do not indicate that victims and perpetrators are different kinds of people; rather,
the same people see things differently depending on whether they participate as
victims or perpetrators. The biases are
in the roles.” (Baumeister, 1990, p. 1000).
How do victims tell their grievance story? Here is a brief summary of the results. Victims
·
Tend to describe offense as incomprehensible and
senseless: “To the victim, the transgression tends to appear as a random,
inexplicable provocation, done for no apparent reason or out of sheer malice” (Baumeister,
1990, p. 1002).
- Are more likely to describe offense as the last
in a series of related offenses
- Are more likely to describe negative outcomes or
consequences
- Are more likely to describe “lasting negative
consequences, continuing anger, and long-term relationship damage…” (Baumeister,
1990)
- Are unlikely to report expressions of regret
and/or apologies by offender
- Are unlikely to have a positive outcome or happy
ending
- Tend to place the event in a longer time frame
and describe event as part of an ongoing experience of loss and grievance
- Rarely regard their own responses as excessive
Victims experience the offense as random, largely negative, and
long-lasting in effects. They experience
their responses as measured, reasonable and justified. In my experience as a mediator and
conflict-resolution consultant, those who support the victims (parents,
spouses, children, friends, advocates) tend to adopt the same story-telling
perspective as the victims themselves.
How do offenders tell their perpetrator story? Here is a brief summary of those results as
well. Offenders
- Tend to describe circumstances, motives and
reasons that render the offense understandable and meaningful
- Are more likely to describe offense as a single
and isolated incident
- Are more likely to deny negative outcomes or
consequences
- Are more likely to report expressions of regret
and/or apologies
- Are more likely to have a positive outcome or
happy ending
- Tend to describe event as one-time and limited
in duration and impact
- Are ready to bring early closure to the
incident, to forget it and to move on as quickly as possible
- Sometimes regard victim responses as
over-reactions and as excessively vindictive
- May tell their perpetrator story in such a way
as to portray themselves as victims as well.
Offenders
experience the offense as rooted in a context, often having a happy ending, and
bracketed in duration and impact. They often
experience the responses of the victim as excessive, unreasonable and vindictive.
Those who support the offenders (parents, spouses, children, friends,
advocates) tend to adopt the same story-telling perspective as the offenders
themselves.
In a psychological framework, victims and offenders inhabit
different worlds. These worlds are
determined to a significant degree by the roles themselves. “People define themselves in the stories from
their lives,” Baumeister and his colleagues write, “and the stories they tell
differ systematically depending on their roles as victims and
perpetrators. Identity is made from
roles, and it is the roles that contain the biases that accounted for our
findings, because our data were based on the same people in both roles” (Baumeister, 1990, p. 1004).
In addition, these residents of different worlds tend not to
see the radically different narrative frameworks imposed on their stories by
these roles. “Victims and perpetrators
may understand things differently, but they do not seem to acknowledge that
they understand them differently” (Baumeister, 1990, p. 1000). In my work as a mediator, I have the
opportunity and the responsibility to bridge the gap between these two
perceptual worlds. That requires first
of all an understanding what each party needs.
Deborah Brownyard and Dawn Swanson identify those varying needs.
What do victims need? (Brownyard, 2002, p. 2.4)
- Safety and security
- Ventilation and validation
- Prediction and preparation
- Education and information
What
do offenders need? (Brownyard, 2002, p. 3.4)
- To be held accountable
- To be responsible
- To see the real human costs of their actions
- To be given the opportunity to make things right
- To gain a sense of competency
As those basic needs are addressed, the opportunity to
bridge the gap between worlds is created.
This is the genius of victim/offender dialogue as a mediation tool. In that process, each party tells the story
to the other, with the victim going first.
The bridge that is built when this process is successful is the bridge of
empathy. Each party enters the story of
the other. That is where the healing
happens.
