Filling in the (gendered) gaps: How observers frame claims of sexual assault
| Author | Alice Kirsten Bosma,Eva Mulder |
| DOI | 10.1177/02697580211061893 |
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Review of Victimology
2022, Vol. 28(2) 215 –234
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02697580211061893
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Filling in the (gendered)
gaps: How observers frame
claims of sexual assault
Eva Mulder
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), the Netherlands
Alice Kirsten Bosma
Tilburg University, the Netherlands
Abstract
Claims of sexualassault are especially proneto scrutiny and (re)interpretation as something else.We
investigated how people judged the veracity of sexual assault claims and how they subsequently
framed their interpretations of these claims using ‘general knowledge’ in the form of sexual scripts,
rape myths, and genderstereotypes. Participants(n¼161) read about a sexual assault allegation by a
male or female claimantand were asked to describe in more detail whatthey thought had happened.
Data were analyzed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative frame analysis. A key finding
was that althoughparticipants mostly acceptedthe facts of the claim, this did not automatically imply
they shared the claimant’s interpretation of the event as (serious) sexual assault. The analysis
revealed thatparticipants drew upon distinct frames to interpretthe claim, including frames– such as
regretted consensual sex and miscommunication – that exonerated the accused and emphasized
claimant responsibility. Frames were differentially employed in responseto male and female claims of
sexual assault. We discuss how our research design and findings can contribute to an increased
understanding of the underlying mechanisms of victim acknowledgment.
Keywords
Sexual assault claims, victimization, framing, observer reactions
Introduction
Was it rape or was it a bad date? This question circulated in social media following online
disclosure of women about their negative sexual experience during a date with a man. Where a
Corresponding author:
Alice Bosma, Department of Criminal Law, Tilburg University, Postbox 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Email: a.k.bosma@tilburguniversity.edu
Article
216 International Review of Victimology 28(2)
woman might claim she felt violated as a consequence of the man’s actions, the man can maintain
that he believed their sexual activity had been consensual. Sexual assault claims have frequently
been severely scrutinized by third parties and subsumed under headings other than sexual assault
(Serisier, 2019; Worthington, 2020).
Claims of sexual assault in particular are prone to scrutiny and (re)interpretations as something
other (Jackson, 2018) so that a claimant can be far from certain of being granted the status of
legitimate victim. This may in part follow from the idea that in the (frequent) absence of victim
injury or witnesses, such claims boil down to a ‘he said, she said’ type of allegation (Gilmore,
2017). Related to this, rape myths such as the belief that alleged victims frequently lie about rape
(Boux and Daum, 2015; Edwards et al., 2011; Rumney, 2006) can function to prompt skepticism
about sexual assault claims from the outset. Finally, an intertwinement between discourses of
normative (erotic, romantic, consensual) sex and of sexual violence may enable reinterpretation
(Gavey, 2005). Specifically, an understanding of sexual assault as motivated by sex rather than
(also) by power and domination may facilitate alternative narr atives of miscommunication or
regretted drunken sex (Lea, 2007).
Although the above describes several potential reasons why third parties may question sexual
assault claims, only a few studies have expanded their focus to include the question how third
parties employ ‘general knowledge’ in the shape of sexual scripts, rape myths, and gender stereo-
types to assign credibility to the alleged victim’s statements, and construct ‘plausible’ versions of
what happened (e.g. Alcoff, 2018; Anderson and Doherty, 2008; Ellison and Munro, 2009a). The
current research seeks to further address this question by investigating how people jud ge the
facticity of a sexual assault claim by a female or a male student, and what type s of ‘general
knowledge’ they subsequently resort to in order to make sense of an (ambiguous) allegation of
sexual assault.
Scrutinizing and (re)interpreting claims of sexual assault
According to Anderson and Doherty (2008: 51), ‘from the moment that a rape survivor makes a
public declaration that s/he was raped, the truth status of that claim is likely to be treated as
provisional, as an “allegation” and will be scrutinised and debated’. Where a first step in the public
response to claims of victimization is likely to involve this veracity judgment, even when observers
factually accept claims, they may subsequently contest the alleged victim’s interpretation of the
event (Gilmore, 2017; Serisier, 2019).
It is a well-established finding that alleged victims and their claims of sexual assault are
frequently met with disbelief and other negative reactions (Campbell, 2008). As noted by Burt
and Estep (1981: 15) nearly four decades ago: ‘the combination of sexual activity and coercion
does not automatically qualify the coerced individual for the victim label’. In other words, the
assignment of legitimate victimhood status does not solely depend on the presence of specific
‘facts’ of the event, but also on the observers’ willingness to interpret them in a certain way
(Temkin and Krah´e, 2008). Burt and Estep (1981) delineated several potential alternative inter-
pretations that compete with the acknowledgment of sexual violence and legitimate victimhood.
These included suggestions that the victim has fabricated a claim out of thin air, that the event
entailed consensual sex, that coerced sex occurred but consequential damage was minimal, and
that sexual assault occurred but that the victim was largely responsible. Such (re)interpretations
typically amount to disbelieving or blaming the (alleged) victim, and to trivializing (the severity
of) the transgression.
2International Review of Victimology
To continue reading
Request your trial