The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
It Could Be Worse: Selective Evaluation as a Response to Victimization
Abstract
A theory of victims' responses to their victimization, termed Selective Evaluation, is proposed. It is maintained that the perception that one is a victim and the belief that others perceive one as a victim are aversive. Victims react to this aversive state by selectively evaluating themselves and their situation in ways that are self‐enhancing. Five mechanisms of selective evaluation that minimize victimization are proposed and discussed: making social comparisons with less fortunate others (i.e., downward comparison); selectively focusing on attributes that make one appear advantaged; creating hypothetical, worse worlds; construing benefit from the victimizing event; and manufacturing normative standards of adjustment that make one's own adjustment appear exceptional. The theory is integrated with the existing literature on victimization, and possible functions of selective evaluation are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2136319 · Cited by 7,791
Downward comparison principles in social psychology
Wills, T. A. (1981) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.245 · Cited by 2,705
Observer's reaction to the "innocent victim": Compassion or rejection?
Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0023562 · Cited by 921
Stigma, staring, and discomfort: A novel-stimulus hypothesis
Langer, E. J., Fiske, S., Taylor, S. E., & Chanowitz, B. (1976) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(76)90077-9 · Cited by 215
Self-citation
Cited by
Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel‐Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.50.5.992 · Cited by 4,836
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.608 · Cited by 3,426
Park, C. L. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018301 · Cited by 3,174
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Lichtman, R. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Social Issues
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1983-07
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 19-40
- ISSN
- 0022-4537 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4560
- OpenAlex
- W2011796313
- Cited by
- 545
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 36.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: It Could Be Worse: Selective Evaluation as a Response to Victimization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1983.tb00139.x
- The paper
- Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Lichtman, R. R. (1983). It Could Be Worse: Selective Evaluation as a Response to Victimization. Journal of Social Issues. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1983.tb00139.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
