... It's what leaders use to get people to perform atrocities on people. The first step is to make the person part of a group, the second step is to make all other groups "inferior".
You may be referring to the classic Milgram "obedience studies" which is theoretically different from jwb.
It's not the same as "(s)he deserves it" That seems to be based on the demonizing of an activity or just simple jealousy of a lifestyle. So, an SP "deserves" whatever happens to her or a John "deserves" whatever happens to him. The jealousy component is when people celebrate a politician or well known person coming to harm. So, it wouldn't matter if Paris Hilton was raped by a car jacker - she "deserves" it because she's wealthy and well known, plus the media has demonized her.
JWB is the concept many psychologists would invoke to explain the tendency to blame the victim. It's a phenomenon that has been studied for over 40 years now.
Here is a quote from a more recent review of the extant literature on the subject.
"A motorist runs over a picketer—a socially concerned mother
and respected local citizen— demonstrating on behalf of local port
workers: Angry observers demand harsh punishment for the driver
(e.g., “Sentence for Lyttleton,” 2001). A beloved public figure is
the victim of a fatal car accident that occurs while her car is being
chased by the paparazzi: The public expresses outrage and demands
new laws to curtail the ability of the press to invade a
person’s private life (see “Privacy law,” 1997; Zoglin, 1997). A
woman is raped by a stranger who sneaks into her apartment while
she takes out the garbage: Her emotional account of the anniversary
of her victimization (Raine, 1994) draws compassionate and
supportive letters from men and women around the country (e.g.,
Copleman, 1994; Metz, 1994; Raine, 1998).
The victims of the terrible outcomes described above were seen
by many who were exposed to the event as undeserving of their
fates and, thus, as victims of injustice. The perceived unfairness of
the situation was likely a primary motivator for observers’ ensuing
anger and compassion. However, other reactions to these events
were far less sympathetic toward the victims. For example, the
judge at the original trial over the picket line tragedy was criticized
for arguing that the picketer was to blame for her fate because she
was blocking traffic and violating the driver’s “Freedom of movement
on the roads . . . [, which is] a fundamental right” (“Sentence
for Lyttleton,” 2001, p. 8; see also Burrows, 2000; “Murder on the
Picket Line,” n.d.). The public figure mentioned above was denigrated
for being a mentally unstable individual who refused to let
the paparazzi do their job (Lacayo, 1997; Morrison, 1997; Reney,
1997). The rape victim described how several people (even one
close friend) suggested that she was partly to blame (Raine, 1998),
in one case because of her “‘negative attitude’ that might have
‘attracted’ more ‘negativity’” (p. 91); in another, by choosing to
live in that particular neighborhood."
from:
http://www.brocku.ca/psychology/people/Hafer_Begue_05.pdf
