Attributions About Acquaintance Rape: The Role of Alcohol and Individual Differences1

Reactions to an acquaintance rape scenario were examined for effects of respondent gender and portrayals of different levels of alcohol intoxication on attributions of responsibility and blame. Comparisons of conditions in which both victim and perpetrator were described as experiencing equivalent levels of intoxication revealed that participants rated the victim as more, but the perpetrator as less, responsible and blameworthy after consuming alcohol-particularly when drinking was accompanied by clear signs of behavioral impairment. In contrast, when the victim was more intoxicated and impaired than her assailant, intoxication of the perpetrator did not serve to excuse his behavior, but actually incriminated him more. Women generally assigned more blame to the victim. Individual differences in rape myth acceptance also influenced attributions.     

Alcohol and Acquaintance Rape in Australia: Testing the Presupposition Model of Attributions About Responsibility and Blame1

According to the presupposition model of attributions about responsibility and blame (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), an attribution of blame presupposes an attribution of responsibility. Both constructs share the dimensions of choice, intention, and accountability, but an additional dimension of liability relates only to blame. Reactions of 260 university students to acquaintance‐rape scenarios portraying different levels of alcohol intoxication were examined. Results showed that the model's dimensions explained much of the variance in attributions of responsibility and blame, although the hierarchical structure was not supported. Mediational analyses suggest that different attributional principles apply when assigning victim and perpetrator responsibility, which may explain why intoxicated victims are assigned more responsibility than sober victims, but intoxicated perpetrators are assigned less responsibility than sober perpetrators.     

Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation: the Iraq War 2003

Media coverage of the 2003 Iraq War frequently contained corrections and retractions of earlier information. For example, claims that Iraqi forces executed coalition prisoners of war after they surrendered were retracted the day after the claims were made. Similarly, tentative initial reports about the discovery of weapons of mass destruction were all later disconfirmed. We investigated the effects of these retractions and disconfirmations on people's memory for and beliefs about war-related events in two coalition countries (Australia and the United States) and one country that opposed the war (Germany). Participants were queried about (a) true events, (b) events initially presented as fact but subsequently retracted, and (c) fictional events. Participants in the United States did not show sensitivity to the correction of misinformation, whereas participants in Australia and Germany discounted corrected misinformation. Our results are consistent with previous findings in that the differences between samples reflect greater suspicion about the motives underlying the war among people in Australia and Germany than among people in the United States.