Causal and Moral Responsibility of Victims of Rape and Robbery

Four experimental studies of attribution in a criminal situation used a 2⁴ ANOVA design with three common independent variables, namely, type of crime, time of crime, and victim's prior experience of crime, all three manipulated through a passage describing an incident of crime involving a male criminal and a female victim, and one common dependent measure which was length of imprisonment recommended for the criminal. The fourth independent variable was subject's sex in the first two experiments and instructionally manipulated female subject's involvement (objective or identifying female subject) in the last two experiments. The second dependent measure was fault attributed to the victim in the first and third experiments and perceived likelihood of crime in the second and fourth experiments. The subjects were undergraduate students of the University of Bombay, 15 per cell in each experiment. Female subjects were more punitive toward the criminal than male subjects, especially in the case of rape, and the rapist received a longer sentence than the robber, especially from female subjects. Identifying female subjects tended to recommend a longer sentence than objective female subjects. Female subjects attributed less fault to the victim and perceived greater likelihood of crime than male subjects and identifying female subjects attributed somewhat less fault to the victim than did objective female subjects. The robbery victim was attributed more fault than the rape victim. Whereas previous experience of similar victimization increased attributed victim's fault, a late hour enhanced both attributed victim's fault and perceived likelihood of crime. These findings are discussed with respect to a theoretical distinction between causal and moral responsibility as represented by the likellhood and fault measures, respectively.     

Victim and Observer Characteristics as Determinants of Responsibility Attributions to Victims of Rape1

Two field studies were conducted to investigate the influence of observer and victim characteristics on attributions of victim and assailant responsibility in a rape case. In the first study, male and female subjects completed a measure of rape myth acceptance and were presented with a rape account after which they were asked to attribute responsibility to victim and assailant. In the second study, a new sample was asked to attribute responsibility to victim and assailant on the basis of one of two rape accounts in which victim's pre-rape behavior was manipulated. Results showed that both rape myth acceptance and victims' pre-rape behavior influenced the degree of responsibility attributed to victims and assailants. No significant effects of subject gender were found. A more complex conceptualization is suggested of the link between observer and victim characteristics in social reactions to and evaluations of rape victims.     

Reaction to Self-Attributed Victim Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis of Rape Crisis Counselors and Lay Observers1

This research examined observers' reactions to sexual assault victims engaging in different forms of self-attributed responsibility. Theory and research suggests that behavioral responsibility contributes positively to the coping process of victims, whereas characterological responsibility impedes it. For observers in the present study, the expression of either type of self-responsibility by a rape victim resulted in a more negative impression of the victim's emotional well-being and greater attribution of responsibility to the victim in comparison to a victim relying solely on chance explanations. Moreover, this bias was evident among rape crisis counselors as well as lay observers. Discussion considered the implications of such biased perceptions for sexual assault victims and the need for a fuller understanding of the nature of self-attributions of responsibility by victims.     

An Examination of Date Rape, Victim Dress, and Perceiver Variables Within the Context of Attribution Theory

Researchers examined the influence of victimdress, perceiver gender, situational relevance, andpersonal relevance on attributions of responsibility fordate rape. Participants were from a campus population described as 75% White non-Hispanic, 14% Blacknon-Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, 4% nonresidentaliens, and 3% other, and were characterized asprimarily middle class. Participants read a date rapescenario, viewed a photograph of the victim, attributedresponsibility to victim and perpetrator, and estimatedsituational relevance and personal relevance.Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) indicated a significant difference between groups(perceiver gender, victim dress) on the two dependentvariables (responsibility of victim and perpetrator) andthe covariates. There were significant differences in attribution of responsibility to the femalevictim due to perceiver gender, victim dress, and thecovariate personal relevance, accounting for a smallproportion of variance. Men attributed moreresponsibility to the victim than women. Both men and womenwho viewed a photograph of the victim in a short skirtattributed more responsibility to the victim than thosewho viewed a photograph of the victim in a moderate or long skirt. As womens' personal relevanceincreased, attribution of responsibility to the victimdecreased. Men attributed less responsibility to themale perpetrator than women. As mens' situational relevance increased, attribution ofresponsibility to the perpetrator decreased. Presumably,participants' attributed responsibility was motivated byblame avoidance. Theoretical and practical implications are presented.     

The Acquaintance Predicament of a Rape Victim1

The acquaintance predicament of a rape victim was examined in six experiments with between-subjects designs with samples drawn from the undergraduate student population of the University of Bombay. The experiments used rape vignettes for the manipulation of all independent variables except subject's sex and were done in three pairs such that each pair had the same independent variables and first dependent measure, namely, recommended years of imprisonment for the rapist. The second dependent measure was attributed victim's fault in the first experiment and perceived likelihood of rape in the second experiment of each pair. The first pair of experiments had a 2 (subject's sex) × 2 (acquainted vs. unacquainted rapist) × 3 (rapist's status: manager, stenotypist, or watchman) × 2 (complaint vs. no complaint by victim) design, with the rape victim being described as a stenotypist. The second pair of experiments differed from the first pair in only one respect, with victim's marital status (married vs. divorced victim) replacing the independent variable of complaint of the first pair. The third pair of experiments had a 2 (subject's sex) × 2 (physically hurt vs. not hurt victim) × 5 (rapist's relationship with victim: husband, fiance, friend, acquaintance, or stranger) design. Female subjects, as compared to male subjects, recommended longer imprisonment for the rapist, attributed less fault to the victim, and perceived greater likelihood of rape. The victim was attributed less fault in case of stranger rape versus acquaintance rape and also less fault in the complaint versus the no complaint condition. Longer imprisonment was recommended for the rapist when the victim was physically hurt rather than not hurt.     

Victim Blaming in Rape: Effects of Victim and Perpetrator Race, Type of Rape, and Participant Racism

Stereotypes about Black sexuality fostered hypotheses that racial factors and racism influence rape victim blaming. Predominantly White and Asian college students (170 men, 162 women) completed the Modern Racism Scale and evaluated a rape vignette varying victim race, perpetrator race, and rape type. As predicted, racial factors determined victim blaming. Compared to intraracial rapes, interracial rapes were less uniformly judged as "definitely rape" and were judged as having more culpable and less credible victims, and less culpable perpetrators. For men, racism scores positively predicted victim blaming in all rapes. For women, racism scores moderated victim blaming in interracial acquaintance rapes. In our conclusions, we emphasize the durability of racial stereotypes about rape and their influence on discriminatory adjudication outcomes.     

Causal Attribution and Perceived Realism of Stories

Just as people generate causal explanations for social events around them, story readers usually generate inferences about causality of events when reading a story. The attribution literature suggests that, when judging events that happen to others, people spontaneously generate dispositional explanations for negative events and situational explanations for positive events and the reverse when judging events that happen to themselves. Three experiments examined how these spontaneously generated inferences of causality interacted with causal explanations provided by the text of a story to influence perceived realism. The results indicate that the relationship between spontaneously generated causal attributions and information supplied by the story had little influence on realism judgments about story characters or about other people. When evaluating the story scenario for the self, however, results of all three experiments show that people find information consistent with their own spontaneous attributions more realistic. The results contribute to our understanding of the psychological processes that may drive realism evaluations of stories and possible contrasting mechanisms between attributions in story worlds and the social world.     

工作应激与个体归因特点关系的研究

工作应激一直是组织行为中的热点问题,但综观前人研究,很少有研究者从归因的视角揭示其产生过程。本研究从个体的应激源感受性出发,探讨了个体归因特点与其工作应激的关系,建构了相应的模型,并结合压力管理问题,对研究进行了有益展望。     

Differential Male and Female Responses to Inadmissible Sexual History Information Regarding a Rape Victim

Two experiments were conducted to assess the effects of exposure to sexual activity information regarding a rape victim. The results of the first experiment indicated that men had a greater tendency to attribute a female target person's sexual activity to dispositional causes than did women. In the second experiment, subjects read an acquaintance rape scenario suggesting that the victim had a promiscuous sexual past. They were instructed either to ignore this sexual history information when making judgments (inadmissible condition) or to use whatever information that they felt was appropriate (admissible condition). Control subjects were given no information regarding the victim's sexual past. Thus, the design was a 2 (Sex of Subject) x 3 (Information Admissibility: Admissible, Inadmissible, or Control) factorial. The results indicated: (a) When compared to those in the inadmissible condition, victim perceptions from subjects in the admissible condition were less favorable, (b) victim perceptions from male subjects were less favorable than those from female subjects, and (c) male subjects in the inadmissible condition attributed more responsibility to the victim than did the controls whereas female subjects in the inadmissible condition attributed less responsibility to the victim than did controls. Possible bases of these findings are discussed.     

Effects of Victim Gender and Sexuality on Attributions of Blame to Rape Victims

Previous research suggests that homosexual male rape victims receive more blame than heterosexual victims. In this study, we examined effects of victim gender and sexuality on judgments of victims of stranger rape by a male perpetrator. Participants read a rape vignette in which victim gender and sexuality varied, and then rated the amount of blame they attributed to the perpetrator and victim. Victims were attributed more blame if their sexual orientation suggested potential attraction to the perpetrator: gay men and heterosexual women received more blame than did lesbians and heterosexual men. Further, homophobic attitudes toward gay male victims increased the blame attributed to them: perpetrators of rape of gay men were seen as least responsible for their actions, and the character of gay male victims was seen to be a stronger contributory factor than it was for other victims.     

Causal Responsibility and Rationing in Medicine

The article addresses the issue of rationing health care services, a topic currently being hotly debated in many countries. The author argues that the aspect of causal responsibility ought to play a decisive role in the allocation of limited medical resources. Starting out from Ronald Dworkin's distinction between option luck and brute luck, the appropriate and meaningful uses of the term causal responsibility are clarified first. A discussion of the conditions which might justify giving lower priority to patients whose illnesses are the result of unhealthy behavior, like e.g. alcohol abuse, follows. Causal responsibility is then viewed in the context of private health insurance and the club model of organ donation. It is argued that individuals themselves are basically responsible for their decisions regarding insurance coverage and membership in organ donors' clubs. Causal responsibility is shown to be a more suitable criterion for rationing scarce medical resources than other criteria which might alternatively be considered, such as patients' age.     

Perpetrators' Freedom of Choice as a Determinant of Responsibility Attribution

Abstract

In the present study, a swindler had high versus low freedom of choice while deciding to commit a crime. He actually swindled Polish university students (involved observers) out of a large versus a small amount of money (high vs. low loss). Other students (noninvolved observers) were informed about the swindler's action. All students suggested the punishment that they believed the swindler deserved (the punishments chosen were used as an index of responsibility attribution). Involved students assigned more severe punishments than noninvolved students did. In the high-loss condition, involved observers were more punitive than they were in the low-loss condition. The judgments of the swindler's victims were determined by the magnitude of their loss; they ignored information about the swindler's freedom of choice. In contrast, the responsibility attributed by the noninvolved observers was influenced by the swindler's freedom of choice, but only in the low-loss condition. Noninvolved observers informed that the swindler had high freedom of choice were insensitive to information about the magnitude of the consequences for the victim.     

Rape,Group Responsibility and Trust

In this paper I link the very interesting analysis of responsibility provided by Larry May and Robert Strikwerda in “Men in Groups: Collective Responsibility for Rape (May and Strikwerda 1994) to some strategies for helping women avoid rape. In addition, I call for some clarification on May and Strikwerda's claim that rapists are fully responsible for their actions and that it is largely a matter of luck which men actually turn out to be rapists.     

Pride and Moral Responsibility

Having the emotion of pride requires taking oneself to stand in some special relation to the object of pride. According to agency accounts of this pride relation, the self and the object of pride are suitably related just in case one is morally responsible for the existence or excellence of the object of one's pride. I argue that agency accounts fail. This argument provides a strong prima facie defence of an alternate account of pride, according to which the self and the object of pride are suitably related just in case one's relation to the object of pride indicates that one's life accords with some of one's personal ideals. I conclude that the pride relation, though distinct from the relation of moral responsibility, is nonetheless a relation of philosophical interest that merits further attention. 1 … the objects which excite these passions [pride and humility], are very numerous, and seemingly very different from each other. Pride or self‐esteem may arise from the qualities of the mind; wit, good‐sense, learning, courage, integrity: from those of the body; beauty, strength, agility, good mien, address in dancing, riding, fencing: from external advantages; country, family, children, relations, riches, houses, gardens, horses, dogs, cloaths. [I] afterwards proceed to find out that common circumstance, in which all these objects agree, and which causes them to operate on the passions. —David Hume 2     

Situationism and Moral Responsibility

In section 1, I will describe how moral responsibility requires normative competence. In section 2, I will introduce an influential social psychology experiment and consider one of its philosophical interpretations, situationism. In section 3, I will discuss the possession response in defense of normative competence. This is an approach to save normative competence via possession, and in turn the concept of the morally responsible agent, by relinquishing the need for exercising normative competence. After discussing its pros and cons, section 4 will focus on the exercise response, which emphasizes each singular exercise of normative competence. Given these two responses, I will argue that we are faced with a dilemma. If we admit that the concept of the morally responsible agent is grounded in the mere possession of normative competence, then the concept becomes useless in a practical sense, forcing us to embrace a concept that is tied to the exercise of normative competence. If we admit that the morally responsible agent is grounded in only the exercise of normative competence, the concept of the morally responsible agent no longer aligns with common sense.     

Self-Deception and Moral Responsibility

The self‐deceived are usually held to be moral responsible for their state. I argue that this attribution of responsibility makes sense only against the background of the traditional conception of self‐deception, a conception that is now widely rejected. In its place, a new conception of self‐deception has been articulated, which requires neither intentional action by self‐deceived agents, nor that they posses contradictory beliefs. This new conception has neither need nor place for attributions of moral responsibility to the self‐deceived in paradigmatic cases. Accordingly, we should take the final step toward abandoning the traditional conception, and drop the automatic attribution of responsibility. Self‐deception is simply a kind of mistake, and has no more necessary connection to culpability than have other intellectual errors.