1. Resistance and Reputation Affect Attributions of
Responsibility for Acquaintance Rape
Erin C. Goforth & Ellen S. Cohn
Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824
Introduction
Method
Results
Conclusions
Acquaintance rape has been defined as forced sexual intercourse that occurs between individuals who are acquainted or romantically involved7. The fact that a victim is often acquainted with her attacker creates a more ambiguous situation for observers; judgments concerning who is responsible for the incident become less clear2. Acquaintance rape is often not thought of as “real” rape, even by the victims3, 5. Attributions of responsibility to victims are often higher for acquaintance rape when compared to stranger rape1.
Victims of acquaintance rape may not consider the incident to be a serious crime (or think they will be blamed) and consequently choose not to report it. If the victims do not perceive these incidents as crimes, it is not surprising that observers also have difficulty assigning responsibility for the rape. This trend leads to a need to understand the factors that may influence people's attributions of responsibility to the victim and perpetrator in a case of acquaintance rape. What types of factors affect the perception of rape and the attribution of victim and perpetrator responsibility in acquaintance rape scenarios? The purpose of our paper was to investigate the factors that influence attribution of responsibility in an acquaintance rape based on differences in victim resistance and reputation and perpetrator reaction and reputation using a video vignette methodology.
Hypotheses across two studies included: (1) men would hold the victim more responsible than women; (2) a victim who did not resist her attacker would be held more responsible than a victim who resisted physically, verbally or both; (3) the perpetrator would be held more responsible when he reacted angrily and the victim resisted; (4) participants who scored higher in rape myth acceptance and hostile sexism and lower in benevolent sexism would be more likely to hold the victim responsible; (5) participants would attribute more responsibility to a victim or perpetrator with a bad reputation than to a victim with a good reputation; and (6) the individual differences of the participants would affect responsibility attributed to the victim unless participants were given specific situational constraints (i.e., resistance information and reputation information).
1. Bridges, J.S., & McGrail, C.A. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape. Sex
Roles, 21 (3/4),
2. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. New York: Simon and Schuster.
3. Estrich, S. (1987). Real rape: How the legal system victimizes women who say no. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (3),
5. Klemack, S. H., & Klemack, D. L. (1976). The social definition of rape. In M. Walker & S. Brodsky (Eds.), Sexual assault (pp ). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
6. Meyer, T. J. (1984). “Date rape": A serious campus problem that few talk about about. Chronicle of Higher Education, 29(1), 12.
7. Payne, D.L., Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, L. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois rape myth acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33,
8. Sleed, M., Durrheim, K., Kriel, A., Solomon, V., & Baxter, V. (2002). The effectiveness of the vignette methodology: A comparison of written and video vignettes in eliciting responses about date rape. South African Journal of Psychology 32(3),
STUDY 1: Participants included 250 students (136 women, 114 men) from introductory psychology classes at the University of New Hampshire. Roughly 80% of the participants were in their first year of college with a mean sample age of years (SD = .78).
STUDY 2: Participants included 274 students (167 women, 107 men) from introductory psychology classes at the University of New Hampshire. About 56% of the participants were in their first year of college with a mean sample age of years (SD = 1.42).
Videos:
Six videos were created for each of the combinations of victim resistance and perpetrator reaction. the victim either responded with verbal resistance (“I only wanted to kiss you…”), physical resistance (pushing the perpetrator away), or verbal and physical resistance (a combination of the two kinds of resistance). If the victim resisted verbally, physically, or verbally and physically, the perpetrator either reacted angrily (in loud voice: “you’ve been all over me all night!”) or not at all. In addition to the six manipulation videos, a control video was created in which if the victim did not resist, the perpetrator did not react.
In Study 2 participants watched the video that was used in Study 1 that depicted the victim reacting verbally and physically and the perpetrator reacting angrily or a video that depicted neither the perpetrator nor the victim reacting. Using these videos, eight manipulations were created for each of the combinations of victim and perpetrator reputation. Before watching the video, participants were given information about the reputations of the victim (good or bad) and the perpetrator (good or bad).
Questionnaire packet:
Participants were then given a packet containing questions about demographics (i.e. sex, age, and religion), victim and perpetrator responsibility scales, and attitudinal scales. The first page of the packet read: “After the video ended, TIM AND LAURA HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.”
Participants also completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (hostile sexism and benevolent sexism were analyzed separately) (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne et al., 1999).
Effect of victim resistance and perpetrator reaction on attributions of responsibility
The victim was held significantly less responsible (F(3, 212)=3.79, p =.011, partial eta2=.051). when she resisted verbally (M = 26.29) or both verbally and physically (M = 27.98) compared to when she did not resist. However, there was no significant difference for a victim who resisted only physically (M = 35.99).
The perpetrator was held significantly less responsible (F(3, 212)=7.94, p =.001, partial eta2=.101) when the victim did not resist in any way (M = 71.08) than when the victim resisted verbally (M = 85.76), physically (M = 81.35), or both verbally and physically (M = 83.86).
The perpetrator’s reaction was not a significant predictor of either victim or perpetrator responsibility.
Hostile sexism was positively related to victim responsibility (F(1, 212)=8.44, p =.004, partial eta2=.038) but was not related to perpetrator responsibility.
Effect of victim and perpetrator reputation on attributions of responsibility
The victim with a bad reputation (M=39.95) was held significantly more responsible (F(3, 212)=28.70, p =.001, partial eta2=.112) than a victim with a good reputation (M=31.06).
The perpetrator was held significantly more responsible (F(3, 212)=14.31, p =.001, partial eta2=.059) when the victim had a good reputation (M=79.73) than when she had a bad reputation (M=72.82). In addition, the perpetrator was held significantly more responsible (F(3, 212)=11.09, p =.001, partial eta2=.047) when he had a bad reputation (M=79.35) than when he had a good reputation (M=73.20).
Effect of individual differences on attributions of responsibility
Participants high in hostile sexism (F(1, 227)=7.84, p =.006, partial eta2=.033) and rape myth acceptance (F(1, 227)= 45.34, p =.001, partial eta2=.166) held the victim significantly more responsible.
Participants high in rape myth acceptance held the perpetrator significantly less responsible (F(1, 227)=50.89, p =.001, partial eta2=.183).
Situational constraints (resistance) versus individual differences
When resistance information was not given, individual differences affected attributions. Participants high in rape myth acceptance held the victim significantly more responsible (F(1, 130)=7.18, p =.008, partial eta2=.052). The victim was also held more responsible (F(1, 130)=11.11, p =.001, partial eta2=.079) when she had a bad reputation (M= 38.23) compared to when she had a good reputation (M= 44.91).
When resistance information was given, individual difference factors were no longer significant given the situational constraints. The victim with a bad reputation (M = 33.86)was still held significantly more responsible (F(1,98)=25.37, p =.001, partial eta2=.21) than the victim with a good reputation (M = 21.84), although this difference was more pronounced. A sex difference also emerged in that men held the victim significantly more responsible than women.
The hypothesis that men would hold the victim more responsible than women was not supported in Study 1 but was partially supported in Study 2.
It is clear that the actions of the victim can have an impact on participants’ attributions of responsibility. The victim was held less responsible when she reacted verbally or both verbally/ physically compared to no resistance at all.
The reputations of the victim and perpetrator are also important factors when attributing responsibility for an acquaintance rape. In this research, reputation was a significant predictor of both perpetrator and victim responsibility.
Individual difference factors are also influential when observers are required to attribute responsibility in an acquaintance rape situation.
Hostile sexism was a significant predictor of whether participants were more likely to hold the victim responsible.
Rape myth acceptance was also a significant predictor of more attributed responsibility to the victim and less attributed responsibility to the perpetrator.
This research has implications for the legal system including:
…that reputation may be an evidentiary temptation for jurors in the courtroom when both the reputation of the victim and perpetrator are made salient.The reputation and past history of the victim and the perpetrator in a rape case should never be made common knowledge to the jury.
…jury pool members should be given the ASI and measures of rape myth acceptance during the voir dire. Individuals high in hostile sexism or rape myth acceptance should be removed from the jury pool. These individuals are predisposed toward holding the victim more responsible and the perpetrator less responsible.
Rape myths lead to greater derogation of the victim. Education programs and public service announcement should be developed to bust these myths and inform the public about the facts of acquaintance rape.
Men held the victim more responsible than women when resistance information was given. If men could be instructed to empathize with the victim to a great extent, they might be less likely to derogate the victim.
All procedures were reviewed and approved by the UNH Institutional Review Board.
Contact Erin Goforth or Ellen Cohn
Study 1 Results
Participants
Study 2 Results
Materials
Implications
References