Prosocial behavior amid violence: The deservingness heuristic and solidarity with victims

Abstract Incidents of state repression and criminal violence trigger disparate public responses: Some cases elicit widespread citizen solidarity with victims while others do not. What explains these different reactions? Public debates surrounding civilian victimization vary in the extent to which they present victims as deserving of help, often engaging in victim‐blaming narratives. I argue that through the use of attributional evidence, individuals primarily determine their level of support for the victims based on whether or not they are deemed deserving of assistance, instead of focusing on alternative information such as their similarity with victims' demographic characteristics or the perpetrator's identity. I test this argument using various forms of evidence, including experimental, observational survey, and qualitative data from Mexico's War on Drugs—one of the most significant contemporary human rights crises that has nonetheless triggered only sporadic solidarity. Consistent with the argument, the results show that narratives characterizing people as responsible for their misfortune reduce prosocial behavior by eroding compassion and perceptions of social norms—whether helping victims is socially acceptable. In contrast, citizens are more likely to aid victims perceived to have little control over their situation. These findings suggest that elite and media discourses crucially shape public responses to violence.