Attribution of blame to rape victims and offenders, and attribution of severity in rape cases
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758017711980 |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Attribution of blame to rape
victims and offenders, and
attribution of severity in rape
cases: Non-therapists and
survivor and offender therapists
Yael Idisis
Bar Ilan University, Israel
Alice Edoute
Bar Ilan University, Israel
Abstract
This article examines Wolf’s hypothesis of modular judgment in the context of rape myths and
attribution of blame to rape victims. Modular judgment was operationalized using blame schemata
suited to judgment of everyday aggression. Each of 88 female participants, of whom 29 were sexual
trauma survivor therapists, 29 were sex offender therapists and 30 were non-therapists, was
presented with written descriptions of 16 rapes, which included information regarding the victim’s
behaviors before (her prior sexual experience), during (the kind and the degree of the resistance
she exhibited) and after the rape (meeting or not meeting with the attacker). Dependent variables
were attribution of blame to the survivor, attribution of blame to the attacker and judgments
regarding severity of the rape. As expected, the therapists attributed less blame to the survivors
and more blame to the attacker, and judged the rapes as slightly more s evere than did non-
therapist participants. For all participants in this study, the survivor’s behavior after the rape
carried the greatest weight regarding attribution of responsibility to her. These results are dis-
cussed in terms of the theories of modular judgment and defensive attribution, and the just world
theory. We recommend further investigations with regard to the perceived connection between
survivors’ behaviors after a rape and blame attribution.
Keywords
Rape myths, rape blame, sexual assault, rape severity, rape victims
Corresponding author:
Yael Idisis, Department of Criminology, Bar Ilan University, Max ve-Anna Webb St, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel.
Email: idisisy@biu.013.net.il
International Review of Victimology
2017, Vol. 23(3) 257–274
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758017711980
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Introduction
Despite the high frequency of rape, many incidents go unreported, often due to survivors’ fears that
they will be blamed for their own victimization. While more frequent in the past, it has been shown
that many people, unfortunately, still hold victims at least partly responsible for their misfortunes
(e.g. Hafer, 2000; Hafer and Be`gue, 2005; Vonderhaar and Carmody, 2015). This is a matter of no
slight import since research reports suggest that rape survivors may suffer additional trauma from
responses to disclosure (Fanflick, 2007; Suarez and Gadalla, 2010).
Studies exploring the factors that increase the likelihood of a woman being blamed for having
been raped indicate that the salient factors may, in fact, be irrelevant to the rape itself. These factors
include: the victim’s prior sexual experiences (L’Armand and Pepitone, 1982; Schuller and
Klippenstine, 2004); alcohol consumption (Baldwin-White and Elias-Lambert, 2016; Sims
et al., 2007); provocative behavior or manner of dress (Whatley, 2005; Workman and Orr,
1996); acquaintance with the attacker (Idisis et al., 2007; Schuller and Klippenstine, 2004);
emotional reactions and resistance or lack of resistance to the sexual assault (Bongiorno et al.,
2016; Gavey and Gow, 2001); and prior history of rape (Anderson et al., 1997; Frese et al., 2004).
The belief that the victim’s characteristics and behavior can justify the rape constitutes one aspect
of what has been termed ‘rape myths’.
Rape myths are described as ‘prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims
and rapists’ (Burt, 1980: 217). They are considered to be ‘attitudes and beliefs that are generally
false but are widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression
against women’ (Lonsway and Fitzgerald, 1994: 134). Rape myths include widespread beliefs
connected with what a typical rape scenario ‘is supposed’ to look like and the characteristics of the
rapist and victim (Grubb and Turner, 2012), something that affects the decision-making process
and blame attributions on the part of many individuals, including the general public (Bongiorno
et al., 2016), students (Vonderhaar and Carmody, 2015), police officers (Hine and Murphy, 2017),
jury members (Dinos et al., 2015; Ward, 1995), social work students (Baldwin-White and
Elias-Lambert, 2016) and prosecutors (O’Neal et al., 2015). Those who endorse rape myths may
believe that victims lie about having been raped or exaggerate when telling what happened.
Upholding rape myths may, in fact, determine the degre e to which the victim is blamed and
whether the rapist is acquitted of charges of rape (Gerger et al., 2007; Ward, 1995) or even whether
or not charges are actually filed (O’Neal et al., 2015).
The just world theory (Lerner, 1980; Lerner and Miller, 1978) provides a conceptual framework
that may explain the perpetuation of rape myths in spite of society’s growing awareness of their
fallacy (Vonderhaar and Carmody, 2015). According to this theory, people have a need to believe
in a world in which individuals get what they deserve (Lerner, 1977; Lerner and Simmons, 1966;
Parent, 2010), a world in which good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad
people. When confronted with rape victims we are, in fact, confronted with those to whom
something happened that they did not deserve, and this violates people’s principles of justice and
fairness, especially when the events cannot be changed. Feeling threatened, many people tend to
rationalize the event by searching for things that survivors ‘must’ have done to bring about their
own victimization (Hafer, 2000; Hafer and Be`gue, 2005; Lerner, 1980; Lerner and Simmons, 1966;
Vonderhaar and Carmody, 2015) and to minimize the significance of victim suffering. This
protects them from anxiety in face of the possibility that a similar fate could befall them.
However, not every survivor is blamed to the same degree, and the degree of blame attributed is
a function of differences in external circumstances, or ‘modular judgment’ (Wolf, 2001). Modular
258 International Review of Victimology 23(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial