Timothy K. Daugherty and Jody A. Esper
Valparaiso University
Abstract Examined factors that may influence attributions of blame for male victims of rape. Whatley and Riggio (1993) found that victim arrest record and perceiver’s belief in a just world influenced attributions of blame. The current study sought to replicate and extend these findings. Sexual orientation of the victim was manipulated along with arrest record, resulting in a 2 X 2 ANOVA. As expected, belief in a just world predicted greater victim blame and homosexual victims were accorded more blame than heterosexual victims. The finding related to arrest record, however, was not replicated.
Victim Characteristics and Attributions of Blame in Male Rape
Introduction
The phenomena of victim blame is well established in the literature on individuals' judgments of female victims of rape (Gilmartin-Zena, 1983; Whatley, 1996). A number of attribution theories have been used to explain victim blaming in the case of rape (Gilmartin-Zena, 1983; McCaul, Veltum, Boyechko, & Crawford, 1990). A frequently cited (e.g, Gilmartin-Zena, 1983; McCaul et al., 1990; Whatley and Riggio, 1993) theory is Lerner's (1980) belief in a just world, which suggests that the world is just and that an individual's fate is tied to character and behavior. That is, bad things happen to bad people or to those behaving badly. Thus, characteristics or behaviors of a rape victim that makes the person appear "less good" (i.e., in violation of social norms) will lead to higher attributions of blame for the attack.
Indeed, research suggests that many factors found to increase attributions of blame to the victim of rape are related to the victim's behavior and character. For example, victims with low perceived respectability (Feldman-Summers & Lindner, 1976; McCaul et al., 1990), who violate traditional sex-role behavior (Yarmey, 1983), who do not intensely resist the attack (Krulewitz & Nash, 1979; McCaul et al., 1990), or who wear provocative clothing (Edmonds & Cahoon, 1986) are accorded more blame. According to the just world theory, even subtle norm violations (similar to those reflected in the factors listed above) could contribute to the inference that the victim is "less good" and therefore responsible for the negative event.
Few studies have investigated attributions of blame when men are the victims of rape. Whatley and Riggio (1993) point out that based on current research it is impossible to state that people react in the same ways to male and female victims or that the same explanatory models can be used to conceptualize attributions of blame in these two areas. Initial studies on attributions of blame for male rape victims have indicated that men may be blamed less than women for the assault (McCaul et al., 1990) and that men with prior arrest records are blamed more than men with no records (Whatley & Riggio, 1993). Whatley and Riggio also found that participants' scores from the Belief in A Just World Scale (BJWS; Rubin & Peplau, 1975) were predictive of attributions of blame for male victims. The BJWS is a twenty-item self report scale.
Recent research (Ambrosio & Sheenan, 1990) has questioned the psychometric properties of the BJWS. The BJWS, treated as a unidemisional scale in most studies, appears to include three ill-defined factors, resulting in an internal reliability as low as .56 (Whatley, 1993). Lipkus (1991) developed the Global Belief in a Just World Scale as a unidemisional alternative to the BJWS. The GBJWS has strong internal reliability (alpha=.83), a unitary factor structure, and strong correlations with related measures (Lipkus, 1991). Employing an alternative operationalization of the construct in this replication is expected to provide further support for the hypothesis that a general tendency toward belief in a just world may contribute to attributions of victim blame.
The current study is an attempt to replicate Whatley and Riggio's (1993) findings regarding arrest record and belief in a just world as predictors of victim blame. The study also seeks to extend the findings by using an alternative measure of belief in a just world and by manipulating the victim's sexual orientation. Since many hold negative and homophobic beliefs regarding gay men (Herek, 1994; Selzer, 1992), perceiving homosexuality as a norm violation, it is reasoned that participants may perceive gay male victims to be "less good" than heterosexual victims. Thus, a main effect for Sexual Orientation is predicted along with a replicated main effect for Arrest Record. Participants' GBJWS scores are expected to be positively correlated to the degree of blame assigned the victims.
Methods
Participants. The initial pool consisted of 173 men enrolled in lower level psychology courses at an all-male military college located in the Southeast United States. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 20.72, SD = 1.10). The final sample consisted of 140 men who consented to participate and completed the protocol.
Apparatus. A previously published set of vignettes (see Whatley & Riggio, 1993) were presented to participants. Perceived arrest record of the main character was manipulated by randomly assigning participants to read that he either "had been arrested twice for armed robbery and assault but was never convicted" or "had no prior arrests." Perceived sexual orientation was similarly operationalized by manipulating the information in the vignettes. Participants were randomly assigned to receive vignettes that indicated that the main character was either at a "gay bar" (homosexual orientation) or that he was at a "local bar" with his girlfriend (heterosexual orientation). The two random manipulations took place simultaneously, leading to a 2 (Orientation) X 2 (Arrest Record) factorial design. The basic vignette is printed below, with factor manipulations in brackets.
Jim was at a [local bar / gay bar] one night with 30 other people celebrating a friend's birthday. When it came time to shut down the bar there was a little bit of trouble, because the people in the bar were slow in leaving. Things took a turn for the worse and a fight broke out between some of the people in the bar. The police were called and the moment they arrived they witnessed Jim running away from the bar and immediately gave chase and apprehended him. Jim tried to explain that he was running after his [girlfriend / friend] who was supposed to be his ride home. The police felt that Jim had been drinking and arrested him for disturbing the peace. At the police station, the police ran a routine check on Jim and learned that he had [no prior arrests / been arrested twice for armed robbery and assault but never convicted]. The police booked Jim for disturbing the peace and put him in a holding cell. While in the cell, Jim and another man began speaking to one another and later during the night Jim was raped by the man. After the rape, Jim called the police and told them that he had been raped. The police took Jim to the county hospital emergency room where physical evidence was taken. When Jim returned to the police station, all charges against Jim were dismissed for lack of evidence.
Assigned responsibility was assessed by asking, "How responsible do you feel Jim was?" Participants were prompted to respond by circling a number between 1 ("not at all responsible") and 9 ("very responsible"). Attributions regarding the attackers responsibility were evaluated in the same manner. Belief in a just world was operationalized through the Global Belief in a Just World Scale (Lipkus, 1991). Participants respond to the GBJWS by indicating their level of agreement with seven statements on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly). All statements are worded to reflect a positive belief in a just world. A total score is computed as the average rating across the seven items, with higher scores indicating a stronger belief in a just world.
Procedure. An informed consent form was presented orally and in writing to each classroom of students at the beginning of the class period. Students choosing to participate signed the informed consent form and proceeded to silently read a vignette and complete a two page protocol. On the first page, questions about responsibility were presented. On the second page, the Global Belief in a Just World Scale was presented.
Results
A 2 (Orientation) X 2 (Arrest Record) ANOVA was performed on the ratings of Victim Responsibility. There was a significant main effect for Sexual Orientation (F(1,136)=14.75, p<.001), with more responsibility assigned to the homosexual victim than to a heterosexual victim. Neither Arrest Record (F(1,136)=1.41, p=.24) nor the interaction between Arrest Record and Orientation (F(1,136)=.13, p=.72) were significant. A 2 (Orientation) X 2 (Arrest Record) ANOVA was performed on the ratings of attacker responsibility. No significant main effects or interactions emerged (p's>.11). A Pearson correlation indicated a significant positive correlation (r(140)=.16, p<.04) between GBJWS scores and ratings of victim responsibility.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for
Victim Blame
by Arrest Record and Sexual OrientationPrevious Arrests Never Arrested Heterosexual 2.20 (1.99) 1.71 (0.93) Homosexual 3.29 (2.14) 3.03 (2.05)
Analysis of Variance Table MS F p Main Effects Arrest Record 4.83 1.41 .24 Sexual Orientation 50.40 14.75 <.001 Interaction Effect Arrest X Orientation 0.46 0.13 .72 Error = 3.42 Discussion
The current study failed to replicate Whatley and Riggio (1993) concerning the influence of Arrest Record on attributions of Victim Blame. However, Whatley and Riggio's findings concerning a positive correlation between Belief in a Just World and attributions of Victim Blame were supported. Consistent with a new prediction related to orientation, homosexual victims were attributed more blame than heterosexual victims in this sample.
One possible explanation for the failure to replicate and extend Whatley and Riggio's findings regarding arrest record would be based on a comparison of samples. The current sample was comprised of males attending an all-male military college while Whatley and Riggio's was comprised of men and women attending a state university. However, in the Whatley and Riggio study males were more sensitive to the arrest record manipulation than female participants, so the use of an all male sample should not have attenuated this effect.
The timing of the belief in a just world measure in the procedure may have influenced results. In the current study, the GBJWS scale was completed after the participants read the vignette. In the original study, however, the BJWS was introduced first with an intervening filler task. It is possible that the distracting filler task was unsuccessful and the BJWS primed Whatley and Riggio’s participants to react to "blameworthy" information. Future research with this paradigm may profitably counterbalance the presentation of the GBJWS and the vignette task.
The changes to the vignette itself in the current study may have interfered with replication. Introducing information about sexual orientation early in the vignette may have influenced the perception of subsequent information. Burt and Estep (1983) argue that people tend to place a rape along a continuum from violent coercion to sexual pleasure. McCaul et al. (1990) similarly suggest that when making attribution of blame in rape cases it is the placement of the event along this continuum of violence to sexuality that determines attributions of victim blame. Salient information about sexual orientation early in the vignette may have overshadowed later manipulations.
The finding of greater blame accorded homosexual victims is consistent with research on homophobia (e.g, Herek, 1994) and Lerner’s just world theory. Homosexuals may be viewed by a number of participants as "less good" and therefore more responsible for any negative events they encounter. Shaver’s (1970) defensive attribution theory, however, appears equally consistent with these results. The orientation of the participants was not measured, but might reasonably be supposed to have included more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Thus, a large number of the participants who read the homosexual vignette found an immediate point of distinction; according to the defensive attribution theory, those easily distinguished are held more responsible than those who are similar to the observer. Assessment of sexual orientation in future research is essential to drawing such a conclusion.
The current sample, male students at a military college in the Southeast, may limit our ability to generalize results concerning blame of the homosexual victim. It is possible that both the students' characteristics and their environment contribute to the attribution process. Replication with both genders in a nonmilitary setting is needed. Given the role of cultural expectation and norming in attribution, assessment of socioeconomic and cultural status may be important in future studies.
McCaul et al. (1990) argue that attribution theories such as belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980) and defensive attribution (Shaver, 1970) can explain why, in certain instances, we blame victims of rape, but that neither theory explains victim blaming in all cases, nor does either really explain how a wide variety of factors affect the attribution process (see Shaver, 1985). While the current results are, in part, consistent with major attribution theories, it is clear that the perception of male rape victims (like that of female rape victims) is multifactorial. Future research on male victims might profitably incorporate observer characteristics along with multiple manipulations of the factors that have been found to affect attributions regarding female victims.
References
Burt, M.R., & Estep, R. (1981). Who is the victim? Definitional problems in sexual victimization. Victimology, 6, 15-28.
Edmonds, E.D., & Cahoon, D.D. (1986). Attitudes concerning crimes related to clothing worn by female victims. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 444-446.
Feldman-Summers, S., & Lindner, K. (1976). Perceptions of victims and defendants in criminal assualt cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 3, 135-150.
Gilmartin-Zena, P. (1983). Attribution theory and rape responsibility. Deviant Behavior, 4, 357-374.
Herek, G.M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G.M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krahe, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility attributions to rape victims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 50-58.
Krulewitz, J.E., & Nash, J.E. (1979). Effects of rape victim resistance, assault outcome, and sex of observer on attributions about rape. Journal of Personality, 47, 557-574.
Lerner, M.J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental question. New York: Plenum.
Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a Just World Scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a Just World Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1171-1178.
McCaul, K.D., Veltum, L.G., Boyechko, V., & Crawford, J.J. (1990). Understanding attributions of victim blame for rape: Sex, Violence, an Foreseeability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1-26.
Rubin, Z. & Peplau, L.A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65-90.
Shaver, K.G. (1970). Defensive attribution; Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.
Selzer, R. (1992). The social location of those holding antihomosexual attitudes. Sex Roles, 26, 391-398.
Shaver, K.G. (1985). The attribution of blame. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tetreault, P.A., & Barnett, M.A. (1987). Reactions to stranger and acquaintance rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 353-358.
Whatley, M.A. (1996) Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 1, 81-95.Whatley, M.A., & Riggio, R.E. (1993). Gender differences for attributions of blame for male rape victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 502-512.
Yarmey, A.D. (1983, November). Attributions of responsibility toward rape victims and rapist. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Diego, CA.