Expressed Sexual Assault Legal Context and Victim Culpability Attributions (original) (raw)

Abstract

Legal scholars have argued that laws have an expressive function, specifically that sexual assault laws may convey social-level messages that victims are culpable for crimes against them. In a university sample, we conducted the first experimental test of legal scholars' proposal, hypothesizing that legal messages-specifically their clarity and effectiveness in conveying that sexual assault is a crime-affect victim culpability attributions. Results demonstrated that greater culpability was attributed to a victim of sexual assault within a context expressing unclear and ineffective sexual assault law than within a context clearly and effectively expressing that sexual assault is a crime. We also garnered empirical support for a mediation model, that is, negative affective reactions to a victim statistically accounted for the relationship between expressed legal context and victim culpability attributions. Implications for future psycholegal research and potential legal reforms are discussed. Keywords sexual assault, expressed legal context, victim culpability, victim blame Article Keith D. Markman is an associate professor of psychology at Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, United States, where he is a member of the Social Judgment and Behavioral Decision-Making program. He received his PhD in 1994 from Indiana University and completed a 3-year postdoctoral fellowship at the Ohio State University. He conducts research in the areas of counterfactual thinking, emotion and motivation, judgment and decision making, and psychological momentum, having published 40 articles and book chapters in these areas. He is currently an associate editor of Basic and Applied Social Psychology and Social and Personality Psychology Compass. He was nominated for the 2003 Theoretical Innovation Prize in social and personality psychology and won the outstanding junior faculty award at Ohio University in 2004. Amanda M. Amacker is a clinical psychology doctoral student at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include social reactions to victims (specifically, culpability attributions), posttraumatic victim growth, and sexual assault psycholegal issues. Tasha A. Menaker earned a master's degree in clinical psychology from Sam Houston State University and is currently a doctoral student in Sam Houston State University's College of Criminal Justice. She is interested in the integration of psychology and public policy, particularly with regard to juvenile justice and the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Other research interests include gender issues and feminist criminology, forensic assessment, and violent crime and victimization.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (55)

  1. Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556-574.
  2. Alicke, M. D., Buckingham, J. B., Zell, E., & Davis, T. (2008). Culpable control and counterfactual reasoning in the psychology of blame. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 34, 1371-1381.
  3. Arata, C. M. (1999). Coping with rape: The roles of prior sexual abuse and attribu- tions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 62-78.
  4. Areh, I., Meško, G., & Umek, P. (2009). Attribution of personal characteristics to victims of rape-Police officers' perspectives. Studia Psychologica, 51, 85-100.
  5. Ask, K. (2010). A survey of police officers' and prosecutors' beliefs about crime vic- tim behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1132-1149.
  6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider- ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  7. Berger, R. J., Searles, P., & Neuman, W. L. (1988). The dimensions of rape reform legislation. Law and Society Review, 22, 329-357.
  8. Berliner, D. (1991). Rethinking the reasonable belief defense to rape. Yale Law Journal, 100, 2687-2706.
  9. Bohmer, C. (1998). Rape and the law. In M. E. Odem & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Confronting rape and sexual assault (pp. 247-262). Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources.
  10. Brown, J. M., Hamilton, C., & O'Neill, D. (2007). Characteristics associated with rape attrition and the role played by skepticism or legal rationality by investiga- tors and prosecutors. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 13, 355-370.
  11. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
  12. Bublick, E. M. (1999). Citizen no-duty rules: Rape victims and comparative fault. Columbia Law Review, 99, 1413-1489.
  13. Campbell, R., & Johnson, C. R. (1997). Police officers' perceptions of rape: Is there consistency between state law and individual beliefs? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 255-274.
  14. Caringella-MacDonald, S. (1988). Parallels and pitfalls: The aftermath of legal reform for sexual assault, marital rape, and domestic violence victims. Journal of Inter- personal Violence, 3, 174-189.
  15. Classen, C. C., Palesh, O. G., & Aggarwal, R. (2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 103-129.
  16. Dunn, P. C., Vail-Smith, K., & Knight, S. M. (1999). What date/acquaintance rape victims tell others: A study of college student recipients of disclosure. Journal of American College Health, 47, 213-219.
  17. Epstein, J., & Langenbahn, S. (1994). The criminal justice and community response to rape (NCJ Publication No. 148064). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  18. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of col- lege women (NCJ Publication No. 182369). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  19. Flowe, H. D., Ebbesen, E. B., & Putcha-Bhagavatula, A. (2007). Rape shield laws and sexual behavior evidence: Effects of consent level and women's sexual history on rape allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 150-175.
  20. Frank, D. J., Hardinge, T., & Wosick-Correa, K. (2009). The global dimensions of rape-law reform: A cross-national study of policy outcomes. American Sociologi- cal Review, 74, 272-290.
  21. Frazier, P. A., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628.
  22. Gidycz, C. A., Hanson, K., & Layman, M. J. (1995). A prospective analysis of the relationships among sexual assault experiences: An extension of previous find- ings. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 5-29.
  23. Grauerholz, L. (2000). An ecological approach to understanding sexual revictimiza- tion: Linking personal, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors and processes. Child Maltreatment, 5, 5-17.
  24. Gunn, R., & Linden, R. (1997). The impact of law reform on the processing of sexual assault cases. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 34, 155-174.
  25. Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. R. (1997). Perceptions of rape: The influence of closeness of relationship, intoxication, and sex of participant. Violence and Victims, 12, 237-246.
  26. Johnson, J. D., Jackson, L. A., Gatto, L., & Nowak, A. (1995). Differential male and female responses to inadmissible sexual history information regarding a rape vic- tim. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 503-513.
  27. Kilmartin, C., & Allison, J. (2007). Men's violence against women: Theory, research, and activism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Kilpatrick, D. G., Best, C. L., Veronen, L. J., Amick, A., E., Villeponteaux, L. A., & Ruff, G. A. (1985). Mental health correlates of criminal victimization: A random community survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 866-873.
  29. Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212.
  30. Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.
  31. MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144-158.
  32. Mason, G. E., Riger, S., & Foley, L. A. (2004). The impact of past sexual experiences on attributions of responsibility for rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1157-1171.
  33. Miller, A. K., Amacker, A. M., & King, A. R. (2011). Sexual victimization history and perceived similarity to a sexual assault victim: A path model of perceiver variables predicting victim culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 64, 372-381.
  34. Miller, A. K., Canales, E. J., Amacker, A. M., Backstrom, T. A., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Stigma-threat motivated nondisclosure of sexual assault and sexual revic- timization: A prospective analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 119-128.
  35. Miller, A. K., Canales, E. J., Amacker, A. M., Velasco, L. F., Menaker, T. A., & Markman, K. D. (2009, February). Mutability and propensity in judgments of sexual-assault-victim blame. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Soci- ety for Personality and Social Psychology, Justice and Morality Preconference, Tampa, FL.
  36. Miller, A. K., Handley, I. M., Markman, K. D., & Miller, J. H. (2010). Deconstructing self-blame following sexual assault: The critical roles of cognitive content and process. Violence Against Women, 16, 1120-1137.
  37. Miller, A. K., Markman, K. D., & Handley, I. M. (2007). Self-blame among sexual assault victims prospectively predicts revictimization: A perceived sociolegal context model of risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 129-136.
  38. Miller, A. K., Wang, D., Backstrom, T. A., & Canales, E. (2011). Perpetrator race, rape-proclivity stereotype activation, and victim culpability attributions. Manu- script in preparation.
  39. Norris, J., & Cubbins, L. A. (1992). Dating, drinking, and rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 179-191.
  40. Page, A. D. (2008). Gateway to reform? Policy implications of police officers' atti- tudes toward rape. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 44-58.
  41. Patterson, D., Greeson, M., & Campbell, R. (2009). Understanding rape survivors' decisions not to seek help from formal social systems. Health & Social Work, 34, 127-136.
  42. Pugh, M. D. (1983). Contributory fault and rape convictions: Loglinear models for blaming the victim. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 233-242.
  43. Remick, L. A. (1993). Read her lips: An argument for a verbal consent standard in rape. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141, 1103-1151.
  44. Resick, P. A. (1993). The psychological impact of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 223-255.
  45. Roberts, J. V., & Gebotys, R. J. (1992). Reforming rape laws: Effects of legislative change in Canada. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 555-573.
  46. Sarre, R. (1999). Who's on trial? The slow journey down an important road to victim- centered law reform in sexual assault cases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 6, 189-196.
  47. Schwartz, M. D., & Leggett, M. S. (1999). Bad dates or emotional trauma? The after- math of campus sexual assault. Violence Against Women, 5, 251-271.
  48. Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756-764.
  49. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  50. Stormo, K. J., Lang, A. R., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (1997). Attributions about acquain- tance rape: The role of alcohol and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 279-305.
  51. Taslitz, A. E. (1999). Rape and the culture of the courtroom. New York, NY: New York University Press.
  52. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NCJ Publication No. 183781). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  53. Whatley, M. A. (1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibil- ity to rape victims: A meta analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 81-95.
  54. Workman, J. E., & Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261-277.
  55. Bios Audrey K. Miller is an assistant professor of psychology at Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, United States. She received her PhD in clinical psychol- ogy in 2005 from Ohio University and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in clinical- forensic evaluation at the University of Washington. Her research broadly integrates clinical, personality, and social psychological perspectives. Specific research foci include contextual and prejudicial factors influencing culpability attributions; self- blame, coping, and growth in victims and socially marginalized persons; personality, prejudice, and prejudice reduction; narrative phenomenology and research methods; and application of these issues to clinical and clinical-forensic domains.