The role of perpetrator similarity in reactions toward innocent victims

Building and extending on just world theory, this paper studies people's negative reactions to innocent victims of rape or sexual assault. Specifically, we focus on an as yet unexplored variable that may help to explain these reactions, namely whether the perpetrator of the crime was similar or dissimilar to people who observed what happened to the victim. Perpetrator similarity refers to whether the perpetrator belongs to the personal world of the observer or not, and in accordance with predictions derived from just world theory, findings of three studies reveal that especially men take more physical distance from an innocent victim (Study 1) and blame (Study 2) and derogate (Study 3) an innocent victim more when the perpetrator is similar to them as opposed to when the perpetrator is different from them. Implications are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Case of the Guilty Victim: The Effects of Gender of Victim and Gender of Perpetrator on Attributions of Blame and Responsibility

This study was designed to investigate the effects of gender on attributions of blame, responsibility, and recommended sentencing in a sexualized crime scenario with a 2 (perpetrator gender) by 2 (victim gender) by 2 (participant gender) between-subjects design. There was an interaction of gender of perpetrator and gender of victim such that female victims were held less responsible and their perpetrators were judged more harshly, especially when the perpetrator was male. Male victims were held the most responsible, especially when the perpetrator was male. Individual difference analyses indicated that attitude toward sexual minorities was the best predictor of judgments. Belief in a just world was not predictive of dependent measures. Attributions of blame and perceived defense adequacy were predictors of assigned penalty.     

Schema‐driven information processing in judgements about rape

Two studies addressed the impact of rape schemata on judgements about rape cases. In Study 1, 286 undergraduate students rated perpetrator and victim blame for five rape scenarios and completed the Perceived Causes of Rape Scale. Most blame was assigned to victims of an ex‐partner rape, followed by acquaintance and stranger rape. Least blame was assigned to perpetrators of ex‐partner rapes, followed by acquaintance and stranger rapes. Female precipitation beliefs increased victim blame and reduced perpetrator blame. In Study 2, 158 students rated rape scenarios that varied in victim perpetrator relationship and coercive strategy and completed a measure of Female Precipitation Beliefs. Half expected to be held accountable for their judgements. The perpetrator was held less liable and the victim blamed more when the perpetrator exploited the victim's incapacitated state versus using physical force. Accountability instruction reduced the impact of female precipitation beliefs on perceived perpetrator liability and victim blame. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Is Negligence a First Cousin to Intentionality? Lay Conceptions of Negligence and Its Relationship to Intentionality

In three studies, we examined lay conceptions of negligence and how they are used when making judgments about actors' intentions, negligence, and blame. Study 1 examined the extent to which participants agreed about what constitutes negligence and accidents. After finding a high level of agreement between participants, Study 2 explored the features that defined participants' folk understanding of negligence. Additionally, we examined if definitions of negligence overlapped with key features of definitions of intentionality proposed in the literature. Study 2 suggested there were some key overlapping features and differences between negligence and intentionality. Finally, Study 3 examined how two key features of intentionality and negligence (knowledge and awareness) were related to attributions of negligence, accidental causation, blame, and desire to punish. The findings suggested that knowledge and awareness are positively related to judgments of negligence, blame, and desire to punish. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the Robustness of Outcome Bias: No Constraint by Prior Culpability

Research on outcome bias has shown that blame attributions for behavioral decisions depend on the decision's consequences. Five studies of American undergraduates (N = 219, N = 83, N = 62, N = 279, and N = 45, respectively) demonstrated robust outcome effects across a variety of circumstances. A manipulation of prior negligence (Study 1), and attempts to keep prior negligence exceedingly low (Studies 2-4) produced converging results. In Study 5, a within-participants manipulation failed to eradicate outcome effects. Furthermore, outcome effects were not moderated by beliefs in a just world. Across all studies, mediational analyses suggested that participants adjusted estimates of negligence to match outcomes, which in turn led to more outcome-consistent attributions of blame. Study 5 showed that those low in belief in a just world were especially likely to adjust their negligence ratings in this way. These studies demonstrate that outcome effects contravene both the standards for rationality delineated by rational decision theorists, and also the more relaxed standards embodied in established legal doctrine.     

Gender‐bias hate crimes: what constitutes a hate crime from a potential juror's perspective?

The current study explored hate crime in a nontypical scenario. Label of the crime (first‐degree assault vs. bias‐motivated assault) and gender of the victim were varied within the context of an attack perpetrated within other gender dyads (i.e., when the victim was female, the perpetrator was male, and vice versa). Results indicated that participants in the assault condition were more likely to find the defendant guilty than those in the hate crime condition. Participants also made differential attributions of victim blame, such that those in the assault condition found the victim to be more mentally unstable than those in the hate crime condition.     

Investigating the effects of age and gender on cowitness suggestibility during blame attribution

Despite a large body of research investigating the effects of age and gender on eyewitness suggestibility, the majority of studies has focussed on the impressionability of participants when attempting to recall the presence of items from an event. Very little research has attempted to investigate the effects of age and gender on the suggestibility of eyewitnesses when attempting to attribute blame. Participants (N = 268) viewed and discussed a crime (video) with cowitnesses before giving individual statements. Confederates were used to expose the participants to misinformation during the discussion, suggesting that the wrong bystander was responsible for the offence. Findings indicated that participants who encountered the misinformation were more likely to make a false blame attribution and were more confident in their erroneous judgements. The results found no significant age‐ or gender‐related differences in blame conformity rates; however, male eyewitnesses showed greater levels of overconfidence in their false responses than female participants, after encountering cowitness misinformation.     

When extraordinary injustice leads to ordinary response: How perpetrator power and size of an injustice event affect bystander efficacy and collective action

Although bystanders can play an integral role in the process of social change, relatively few studies have examined the factors that influence bystander collective action. The present research explores the effect of perpetrator power on bystander efficacy and collective action, as well as the moderating role of impact of the injustice event. Across two experiments, bystanders perceived that collective action would be less effective and were less willing to engage in collective action when a high‐power perpetrator engaged in injustice, compared with a low‐power perpetrator. These effects were moderated by impact of the injustice event, such that the effects of power were especially present under conditions of large impact (many victims), compared with small impact (fewer victims). Whereas the effect of the interaction of perpetrator power and impact on bystander efficacy was explained by perceptions of normativity of the injustice event, the effect of the interaction on bystander collective action was explained by bystander efficacy. Implications for bystander collective action and social change are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attributions of Blame in Sexual Assault to Perpetrators and Victims of Both Genders1

Previous research found that men attribute more blame to rape victims than do women; men also attribute less blame to perpetrators. In rape situations with a male perpetrator and a female victim, the roles of perpetrator and victim are confounded with gender category. To determine whether men are more lenient toward perpetrators or toward other males, the present study examined attributions of blame in scenarios that varied the gender category of both perpetrator and victim. Results showed that men's and women's attributions of blame to perpetrators were based on the role that was enacted, rather than gender per se: Men attributed less blame to perpetrators than did women, regardless of the perpetrator's gender category, indicating that men were more lenient toward perpetrators than were women. In addition, when the victim was female, the perpetrator was blamed more and the victim was blamed less than when the victim was male.     

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.     

Patterns in Blame Attributions in Maltreated Youth: Association with Psychopathology and Interpersonal Functioning

This investigation explored patterns of blame attributions in 128 youth, primarily (87%) female, with maltreatment histories. Second, the study also evaluated the relative variance in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, emotional distress, and interpersonal functioning outcomes, accounted for by age, abuse characteristics, and blame attribution patterns. Cluster analyses revealed distinctive blame profiles: high perpetrator blame, moderate perpetrator blame, high self-blame, high perpetrator/high self-blame, and low perpetrator/low self-blame. Regression analyses yielded significant models, accounting for 15% to 34% of the variance of outcomes. Most notably, youth endorsing a high perpetrator/high self-blame (i.e., compounded blame) attribution pattern reported poorer outcomes as compared to youth presenting with other blame profiles. Maltreatment type and age differences were not demonstrated across clusters. Implications and limitations are discussed.     

The Effect of Victims' Social Support on Attributions of Blame in Female and Male Rape

The effects of perceived social support of the victim, victim gender, and participant gender on attributions of blame in rape were examined. The impact of attitudes toward gender roles was also investigated for their mediational role between participant gender and blame. Participants ( N= 121) read a report of an incident of rape and evaluated the victim and the perpetrator. Two ANOVAs showed that social support and participant gender influenced blame attributed to the victim, while victim gender influenced blame attributed to the perpetrator. Socially supported victims were blamed less than were unsupported victims. Men were more blaming of rape victims than were women, but further analyses showed this was mediated by attitudes toward gender roles. Men held significantly more traditional attitudes toward gender roles than did women, and this accounted for the effect of participant gender on victim perceptions. The perpetrator of male rape was blamed less than the perpetrator of female rape. Findings are discussed in terms of the differential attributional mechanisms that may underpin men's and women's reasoning about different types of rape.     

Effects of perpetrator gender and victim sexuality on blame toward male victims of sexual assault

Most researchers who have investigated attributions of blame toward victims in sexual-assault depictions have considered only female victims of male perpetrators. Few researchers have investigated the effects of perpetrator gender or victim sexual orientation on blame attributions toward male victims. The present authors investigated those two variables. Participants were 161 undergraduates at a British university in social science courses, each of whom read one scenario of a set in which perpetrator gender and victim sexual orientation were varied between subjects, and who completed a questionnaire measuring their blame toward the victim and the perpetrator. The present results showed that male participants blamed the victim more if a person of the gender that he was normally attracted to assaulted him. Male participants also regarded the female perpetrator in more favorable terms than they did the male perpetrator regardless of the victim's sexual orientation. The authors discussed the present results in relation to gender role stereotypes.     

Affective disgust predicts blame for gay male homicide victims

For certain crimes there is a tendency in the United States to blame individuals for their victimization. Previous work has shown that affective states can impact blame attribution. Drawing upon this work, the purpose of the current pre-registered research was to examine the relation between affective disgust and victim blame attribution. In Study 1, as participants’ (N = 203) level of implicit disgust associations with gay men increased, their tendency to blame a gay male homicide victim also increased, whereas their agreement that the homicide qualified as a hate crime decreased. In Study 2, disgust was experimentally induced by exposing participants (N = 431) to disgusting (e.g., vomit, insects) or neutral images (e.g., mug, stapler). Inducing disgust increased victim blame and decreased perceptions that the homicide constituted a hate crime. However, exploratory mediation analyses in both studies showed that the impact of disgust on hate crime applications is best explained as an indirect effect of victim blame. Taken together, these findings suggest that both individual differences in implicit gay-disgust and situational feelings of disgust may underlie people’s perceptions of how blameworthy a victim is for the crime committed against them.     

Unintended,but still blameworthy: the roles of awareness,desire, and anger in negligence,restitution, and punishment

Two experiments (Experiment 1 N?=?149, Experiment 2 N?=?141) investigated how two mental states that underlie how perceivers reason about intentional action (awareness of action and desire for an outcome) influence blame and punishment for unintended (i.e., negligent) harms, and the role of anger in this process. Specifically, this research explores how the presence of awareness (of risk in acting, or simply of acting) and/or desire in an acting agent's mental states influences perceptions of negligence, judgements that the acting agent owes restitution to a victim, and the desire to punish the agent, mediated by anger. In both experiments, awareness and desire led to increased anger at the agent and increased perception of negligence. Anger mediated the effect of awareness and desire on negligence rather than negligence mediating the effect of mental states on anger. Anger also mediated punishment, and negligence mediated the effects of anger on restitution. We discuss how perceivers consider mental states such as awareness, desire, and knowledge when reasoning about blame and punishment for unintended harms, and the role of anger in this process.     

To escape blame, don't be a hero—Be a victim

In situations where people (or their lawyers) seek to escape blame for wrongdoing, they often use one of two strategies: frame themselves as a hero (hero strategy) or as a victim (victim strategy). The hero strategy acknowledges wrongdoing, but highlights previous good deeds to offset blame. The victim strategy also acknowledges wrongdoing, but highlights the harms suffered by the perpetrator to deflect blame. Although commonsense suggests that past good deeds can offset blame from transgressions, moral typecasting (Gray & Wegner, 2009) suggests otherwise. Despite past good deeds, heroes remain blameworthy as moral agents. On the other hand, victims are moral patients and thus incapable of blame. Three studies found that victim strategy consistently reduced blame, while the hero strategy was at best ineffectual and at worst harmful. This effect appeared to stem from how the minds of victims and heroes are perceived.     

Club Drug Use and Intentionality in Perceptions of Rape Victims

The purpose of the present study was to examine whether intentionality of alcohol or club drug use would affect observer attributions of a victim and a perpetrator after a sexual assault. Participants were 198 male and female college students sampled from a small college located in the United States. In general, participants attributed less blame to the victim, more guilt to the perpetrator, and were more likely to define the assault as rape and convict the perpetrator when the substance use was involuntary as opposed to voluntary. Participants also attributed more blame to the victim and less pleasure to the perpetrator when the sexual assault involved GHB as opposed to Everclear. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Punitive Reactions to Completed Crimes Versus Accidentally Uncompleted Crimes1

Previous studies have shown that the harm caused by crime affects punitive reactions even if differences in the degree of harm are merely accidental. However, it remains unclear whether the effect is direct or whether it is mediated by attributed responsibility or blame. Participants were 303 university students who listened to 4 case vignettes (between‐subjects design). Half received information about a completed crime and half about an accidentally uncompleted crime. Crime type was either fraud or rape. The results suggest that individuals consider the actual harm to a significantly greater extent than attribution theory would predict. Moreover, the link between harm and punishment was virtually not mediated by attributed blame and not moderated by individual differences in morality. Future studies should investigate whether the harm‐punishment link is a result of an automatic act of retaliation or a desire to compensate for the harm done to the victim (restorative justice).