Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy,victim resistance,and victim attractiveness

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the influence of a rape victim's physical attractiveness and resistance to rape on subjects' attributions of responsibility for the crime, certainty of the defendant's guilt, and social perceptions of the rape victim and defendant. Subjects' pretrial empathy toward rape victims and rapists was assessed by scores on the Rape Empathy Scale (RES). In addition to significant sex differences in attributions of responsibility for the incident, subjects' pretrial empathy toward rape victims and rapists was predictive of their perceptions of the rape victim, the defendant, and the rape incident. Victim resistance and attractiveness effects were significant in that subjects responded least favorably to the unattractive rape victim, particularly when she resisted the rape by fighting with her attacker. Male subjects and subjects who exhibited low empathy toward the rape victim were more responsive to subtle manipulations of victim resistance and attractiveness than were females and high RES subjects. Several explanations for these results focus on the cognitive and affective responses of subjects. The implications of the study are discussed in relation to societal attitudes toward rape and the role of sexrole stereotyping, which fosters these attitudes.The present research was supported by National Institutes of Health Biomedical Research Support Grant #5-SO7-RRO7127-09 and National Science Foundation Grant #SES-8012316 to Sheila R. Deitz. The authors express their appreciation to Nancy Williams, Joanne Moran, Bill Willging, David Small, David Waldman, and Robert Kingsley for their assistance in data collection and analysis.Correspondence should be sent to Sheila R. Deitz, now at Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, University of Virginia, Box 100, Blue Ridge Hospital, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901. Copies of the Rape Empathy Scale and an extended report on the reliability and validity of scale are available from this author.     

Attributions of Responsibility in Cases of Sexual Harassment: The Person and the Situation1

When observers learn about a case of sexual harassment, it is common for them to assign responsibility to the victim and perpetrator. However, attributions of responsibility are complex judgments often based on variables beyond the case's details (e.g., attitudes). The present study examined how victim response, victim and perpetrator gender, and participant gender and gender‐role attitudes influenced participants' attributions. Victim and perpetrator responsibility were measured before and after participants knew the victim's reaction in order to examine whether new information would alter participants' attributions. Consistent with previous research, gender differences were found for attributions and attitudes. Victim and perpetrator gender did not affect attributions. However, biases appeared in open‐ended responses. Finally, only females made distinctions of responsibility across victim reaction condition.     

The Evaluation of Culpability for Rape: A Model of Legal Decision Making

An analogy was borrowed from the law to develop a legal model of the attribution of responsibility for rape. According to the model, judgments of physical and psychological causality of an alleged rapist are combined into overall evaluations of attacker responsibility. An experimental test of the model was conducted with college students. Results showed that witness identification information influenced judgments of physical causality (i.e., extent to which the situation was perceived as rape), and information about the relationship between the alleged attacker and victim influenced judgments of psychological causality (i.e., intention to rape). Judgments of physical and psychological causality interacted significantly with overall attributions of attacker responsibility.     

Biases In Trials Involving Defendants Charged With Multiple Offenses1

Under federal and state laws, a defendant who has been charged with more than one offense can be tried for all the offenses in a single “joined” trial. It was predicted that the probabillty a defendant would be convicted would increase as a function of the number of joined offenses. Legal theories, research on memory, and social psychological models of information integration and attribution led to three hypotheses as to why this bias might occur: (1) confusion of evidence, (2) accumulation of evidence, and (3) inference of a criminal disposition. Subjects read and judged written trial summaries presented as joined or single trials. In Study 1, joinder resulted in higher rates of conviction and in confusion of evidence. In Study 2, the conviction results were replicated, and subjects judging joined trials also rated the evidence as more incriminating and made negative attributions about the defendant. These ratings were strongly related to judgments of guilt. A sequential judgment process was also found to affect jurors' judgments.     

Familiarity impacts person perception

We investigated the effects of familiarity on person perception. We predicted that familiarity would increase non‐analytic processing, reducing attention to and the impact of individuating information, and increasing the impact of category labels on judgments about a target person. In two studies participants read either incriminating or exculpatory individuating information about a defendant in a criminal case and made judgments of guilt. In Study 1, participants were subliminally exposed to the defendant's photo, another matched photo, or no photo before seeing the evidence. Participants familiar with the defendant's photo both processed and used the individuating information less. In Study 2, participants were subtly made familiar or not with the incriminating and exculpatory information itself, and the defendant was described either as a priest or as a skinhead. Familiarity with the information reduced attention to its content and also tended to increase reliance on category information in guilt judgments. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cognitive mediators of reactions to rape

Subjects were exposed to slides that primed different concepts associated with aggression, close personal interactions between men and women, and women as sex objects. Then, as part of an ostensibly unrelated study, they read the testimonies of several rape victims and made judgments concerning both the victim and the alleged rapist. Exposure to negative consequences of aggression apparently threatened subjects' beliefs in a just world, leading subjects to interpret rape incidents in ways that reaffirm this belief (i.e., it strengthened subjects' beliefs that the defendant should be punished, but it also caused them to attribute more responsibility for the incident to the victim). Portrayals of close personal relationships between men and women increased male subjects' beliefs that rape victims were responsible for the incident, but had the opposite effect on female subjects' beliefs. Portrayals of women as sex objects decreased male subjects' beliefs in the victim's credibility and increased their beliefs that she was responsible for the incident; however, it had the opposite effects on female subjects' judgments. Despite their effects on judgments of the rape victim, priming manipulations did not affect beliefs that the defendant should be convicted. Implications of these results for the effects of the public media on attitudes and beliefs about rape are discussed.     

Effects of Victim and Defendant Race on Jurors' Decisions in Child Sexual Abuse Cases1

We examined the influence of victim and defendant race, victim age, juror gender, and juror prejudice on jurors' decisions in child sexual abuse cases. In Experiments 1 and 2, mock jurors judged Black and Hispanic child victims to be more responsible for their sexual abuse than White victims. In Experiment 2, jurors assigned more guilt to defendants in cases involving victims and perpetrators of the same race compared to different races. Experiment 3 illustrated that laypeople believe same‐race cases to be more plausible generally. Experiment 2 revealed that high‐prejudiced White mock jurors made no more racially biased judgments than low‐prejudiced mock jurors. Finally, women were generally more pro‐victim in their case judgments than were men, and older victims were disadvantaged compared to younger victims in terms of perceived credibility and responsibility, and their cases were less likely to draw convictions.     

The Social Psychology of Jury Nullification: Predicting When Jurors Disobey the Law1

The United States judiciary assumes jurors obey the law as it is charged to them in the trial judge's instructions. This paper contends that jurors' comprehension of the law results from an active intelligence which makes available alternative decision rules giving rise to the power of juries to nullify instructions. To study the compliance assumption, we presented to mock jurors pattern jury instructions along with summaries of testimonies from a rape trial. Four times during the trial we administered to participants measures of their attributions of defendant responsibility, judgments about the legal elements of the case, and verdicts. Multiple regressions conducted with data from separate subsamples and with separate questionnaire administrations revealed that a) verdicts were based on attributions independent of the jury instructions, b) individual differences in life experiences predicted the degree to which decision makers used their attributions, and c) the more practiced participants were at applying the jury instructions the more heavily they weighed their own attributions and less heavily the judgments required by the law. We concluded that comprehension alone cannot predict the likelihood that jurors will comply with the law. Therefore, the assumption that jurors follow the law needs to be more carefully considered.     

Role and justice considerations in the attribution of responsibility to a rape victim

This study was designed to assess the extent to which social role and “just world” considerations would affect perceptions and attributions of responsibility to a rape victim. The rape victim was either a topless-bottomless dancer, a social worker, or a Catholic nun, and she was either acquainted or unacquainted with her assailant. In the acquainted condition, the dancer was attributed the greatest and the nun the least amount of responsibility, indicating that social role factors can govern the range of attributional judgments which might be made in any given instance. However, unacquainted victims were ascribed more responsibility for the rape than were acquainted victims, a difference which was significant when the victim was the nun. The latter findings are discussed in terms of Lerner's just world hypothesis. Significant sex differences were found in subjects' perceptions of and responses to the rape incident and, contrary to earlier findings, no relationship was found between victim attractiveness and punitiveness toward the wrongdoer.     

Race Shapes Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court1

We investigated the effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on non‐African American mock jurors' perceptions of crimes committed by juvenile offenders. We predicted that mock jurors, particularly men, would render more pro‐prosecution case judgments when the defendant was African American than White. We also predicted that defendants would be judged more harshly when the crime victim was portrayed as White rather than as African American. Although there were few main effects of defendant race or victim race on case judgments, defendant and victim race by juror gender interactions revealed that men (but not women) demonstrated the predicted bias against African American defendants and victims. Explanations and implications are discussed.     

An Examination of Happiness, Racism, and Demographics on Judgments of Guilt

A policy-capturing study was conducted to evaluate the roles of both plaintiff and defendant race and gender on judgments of criminal guilt in either an assault or a theti case. It was hypothesized that defendant gender and race would affect likelihood of guilt ratings. Moreover, mock jurors' dispositional happiness, scores of modern racism, and race and gender were explored as potential influences on their decision-making policies and judgments. As predicted, strong support was found for the role of defendant gender on judgments of guilt. However, defendant race did not significantly impact guilt ratings. Post hoc analses revealed the importance of race and gender of the victim to juror decisions. In addition, participants' own race and gender played signiticant roles in the decisionmaking policies that were produced. Limitations of the study are discussed. as are topics for future research.     

The alias advantage and perceptions of guilt

The present study is an examination of the perception of guilt based on the number of aliases used by a defendant. Participants in Experiment 1 (N = 275) reviewed materials summarizing an actual crime in which the defendant was identified with no alias information or with 1, 5, or 9 aliases. Participants were asked to decide if the suspect was guilty and if so, what his sentence should be. Results showed that the presence of alias information influenced perceptions of guilt. However, in conditions where the defendant had more aliases, the maximum sentence was imposed less often. Relationship information linking the suspect and the victim in the materials was removed for some of the participants in Experiment 2. Participants (N = 265) were provided with either no alias information or all 9 aliases. An interaction was found in Experiment 2 demonstrating the alias advantage only when the relationship information was present. However, the relationship information had minimal effect on the attributions made toward the victim.     

The Effects of Sex and Power Schemas,Attitudes Toward Women,and Victim Resistance on Rape Attributions1

This study examined the effects of attitudes toward women, rape schemas, and victim resistance on rape attributions in a hypothetical rape scenario. One hundred twenty-eight female subjects participated in the investigation. In line with the hypotheses, a 2 × 2 × 2 (Traditional vs. Nontraditional Attitudes × Sex vs. Power Schemas × Presence vs. Absence of Resistance) ANOVA demonstrated a significant interaction effect between rape schemas and victim resistance for rape attributions. As predicted, those who held sex schemas of rape attributed less fault and responsibility to resisting, compared to nonresisting, victims. In addition, they attributed more fault and responsibility to the nonresisting victim than did those who held power schemas. Rape schemas and victim resistance exerted an interactive influence on perpetrator attributions. Although attitudes toward women did not affect victim attributions, traditional women attributed less fault and responsibility to perpetrators than did nontraditional women.     

Turkish University Students' Attitudes Toward Rape

In this study we investigated the effects of gender and gender roles upon attitudes toward rape among 432 female and 368 male college students in Turkey whose mean age was 22.08 (SD = 2.09). The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and measures of attributions toward date rape and stranger rape, and myths scenarios were used. All 3 scenarios were given to each participant. It was hypothesized that women would attribute less responsibility than men would to the rape victim, more responsibility to the assailant, and describe the assault as a serious crime. Women and men who have masculine gender roles were expected to attribute more responsibility to the rape victim and less responsibility to the assailant and show higher tolerance of the assault than would those in the other classified gender roles. Both men and women were expected to attribute more responsibility to the victim of a date rape and less responsibility to the date rape assailant and show higher tolerance of date rape than stranger rape. Results indicated that gender, but not gender role, was an important factor in Turkish college students' attitudes toward date rape. Women and men shared a similar point of view on stranger rape, but date rape was considered less serious than stranger rape. Gender role was not a significant factor in attitudes toward rape.     

Race,Rape, and Bias: Distortion of Prior Odds and Meaning Changes

Two experiments were conducted to investigate how racial bias affects juror decision making. Three sources of bias were studied: (1) prior probabilities of guilt, (2) distortion of the meaning of evidence, and (3) differential weighting of information. A paired comparison technique employed in the first study revealed that pretrial probabilities of guilt were greater when the victim was White than when she was Black. In the second experiment, a different group of subjects viewed one of four videotaped simulated rape trials in which seven segments of testimony had been previously rated as pro-prosecution, pro-defense, or neutral. During the trial, subjects rated each segment on three different scales: prosecution, defense, and degree of defendant guilt. Results indicated that neutral evidence was seen as more favorable to prosecution for a White victim compared to a Black victim. Evidence which favored either prosecution or defense was not distorted. Regression analyses revealed a positive relationship between estimates of guilt and distortion of evidence. The weight or importance of the evidence did not vary as a function of victim or defendant race. Years of recommended imprisonment indicated greater severity toward the Black assailant of a White woman. The results suggest that bias in favor of White victims occurs both in the assessment of pretrial probabilities and perception of evidence.     

Effects of victim's and defendant's physical attractiveness on subjects' judgments in a rape case

Physical attractiveness of the victim and defendant in a rape case were varied along with sex of subject in a 2×2×2 factorial design. It was found that both the attractive defendant and the rapist of an unattractive victim were less likely to be seen as guilty and that the attractive defendant received a shorter recommended prison term than the unattractive defendant. Victim attractiveness had no effect on attributions of her degree of responsibility. Females were more likely to see the defendant as guilty and recommended longer prison terms than males. Results are discussed in terms of specificity of victim and defendant and the beauty is good stereotype.