THESS IllllllllIlllllllllllHlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 31293 01570 7940 This is to certify that the thesis entitled STRANGER VERSUS ACQUAINTANCE RAPE: THE ROLE OF CONTROLLABILITY IN BLAME presented by AMY JANAN JOHNSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. COMMUNICATION degree in W "A J \Mprafissor Date % " I o — R N 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY I moms-n 8m! Unlvors lty PLACE ll RETURN BOX to move this chockomm your "COM. TO AVOID FINES mum on or before date duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE l l | l ———i 4 l 7E8 1 it {in ——— _ - “ MSU I: An Affirmative WM Oppommity Imfltuuon Wane-9.1 STRANGER VERSUS ACQUAINTANCE RAPE: THE ROLE OF CONTROLLABILITY IN BLAME By Amy Janan Johnson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 1997 ABSTRACT STRANGER VERSUS ACQUAINTANCE RAPE: THE ROLE OF CONTROLLABILITY IN BLAME By Amy Janan Johnson Blaming a victim of rape can have negative repercussions for both the actual victims and for women in general in this society. This thesis examined the influence of type of rape (either acquaintance or stranger), receiver self-efficacy, and victim controllability on the amount of blame attributed to the victim. One hundred ninety-seven college students completed a questionnaire after reading scenarios depicting a rape. Results suggested that receiver self-efficacy did influence blame by increasing the degree of controllability attributed to the victim when the victim was perceived as similar to the receiver. In the low similarity condition, type of rape influenced the amount of controllability attributed to the victim and thus the amount of blame placed upon the victim. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank everyone who aided me in finishing this thesis. Thanks is due Ron Tamborini, who first helped me to develop the initial stages of this project, Kimo Ahyun, who proofed and offered suggestions, and Sandi Smith, who encouraged me to know that I could finish. I wish to especially thank my committee, Steve McCornack, Kelly Morrison, and Brad Greenberg for their willingness to always help me when I ran into problems and their encouragement when I became discouraged. As always, my family, Richard, Emma, and Pam Johnson, have been my main source of support, and I am continuously grateful that I have been blessed with such a wonderful family. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 Why Victim Blame Is Significant ...................................... 2 Why Victim Blame is Different in Rape Situation Than in Other Crimes ....... 4 LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES ................................ 5 Previous Attempts to Explain Victim Blame ............................. 5 Shaver’s Defensive Attribution Hypothesis ........................ 5 Just World Hypothesis ........................................ 6 Feminist Theory ............................................. 7 Other Explanations for Victim Blame ............................ 8 Considering Controllability in Blaming the Victim ....................... 12 METHODS AND RESULTS .............................................. 18 Overview of Current Project ......................................... 18 Scenario Generation ............................................... 19 Pretest .......................................................... 19 Procedures ................................................. 19 Measures .................................................. 20 iv Results .................................................... 21 Main Project ..................................................... 23 Procedures ................................................. 23 Measures .................................................. 23 Results .................................................... 24 Preliminary Analysis ................................... 24 Tests of Hypotheses ................................... 30 Tests of Path Model ................................... 31 DISCUSSION .......................................................... 35 APPENDIX A: Original Scenarios Utilized in the Pretest ....................... 45 APPENDIX B: Pretest Questionnaire ....................................... 47 APPENDIX C: Final Scenarios ............................................ 56 APPENDIX D: Altered Questions in the Final Questionnaire .................... 59 LIST OF REFERENCES: ................................................ 6O LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Characteristics of the Scenario .............................................. 9 Table 2 Characteristics of the Receiver ............................................. 10 Table 3 Means of Semantic Differentials to Measure Scenario Plausibility ................. 21 Table 4 Variance in Pretest Questionnaire Scales ..................................... 22 Table 5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Scale Errors ................................... 25 Table 6 Items Dropped from Scale ................................................. 28 Table 7 Errors for Self-Efficacy as One Dimension ................................... 29 Table 8 Errors for Victim Controllability and Blame as One Dimension ................... 32 Table 9 Path Models ........................................................... 33 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Predicted Path Model .................................................... 17 vii INTRODUCTION The increasing concern about acquaintance rape highlights a continuing question in this society, whether rape victims should be considered partly responsible for their misfortune. Several researchers have explored observers’ tendencies to place at least part of the blame on the victim of this crime. Although results have indicated that only low amounts of blame are placed on the victims, different factors within the rape case influence this amount of blame. At least three factors have been tested and shown to influence the amount of blame attributed to the victim: the nature of the assault itself (e.g., whether the rape was completed, Janoff-Bulman, Timko, & Carli, 1985; Kruelewitz & Nash, 1979), characteristics of the victim (e.g., whether the victim was respectable, Luginbuhl & Mullin, 1981; McCaul, Veltum, Boyechko, & Crawford, 1990; Smith, Keating, Hester, & Mitchell, 1976), and characteristics of the receiver of the rape message (e. g., whether the individual identifies with the victim, Smith, et al., 1976; the receiver’s education level, Burt, 1980; Loza, 1993). Two of these three factors are examined in this thesis, both a receiver characteristic (amount of self-efficacy) and the nature of the assault itself (either a stranger rape or an acquaintance rape). Researchers have found that victims of acquaintance rape are blamed more than victims of stranger rape (Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Greenberg & Busselle, 1993; Johnson & Russ, 1989; Tetreault-& Barnett, 1987; Thornton, 1984) and that acquaintance rape is perceived as a less serious crime in which the victim suffers less (Greenberg & Busselle, 1993; Quackenbush, 1989). This study will examine whether the message receiver’s self-efficacy affects victim blame. For the purposes of this study, receiver self-efficacy will be defined as the belief whether the message recipient believes she or he could have avoided or prevented the rape from happening had she or he been in that situation. Specifically, it will be posited that if the victim is perceived as similar, high self-efficacy will lead to greater victim blame. Also, it is hypothesized that the acquaintance rape victim will be attributed greater controllability and blame in the low similarity condition. Why Victim Blame is Significant Blaming rape victims has aversive consequences both for the victims and for women in general. For victims, to be blamed or to believe that they are blamed by their family, fi'iends, or police, can add pain and slow their recovery. In a survey of rape crisis centers, J anoff-Bulman (1979) found that although fear was the most common response to rape, self-blame was the second most common, with anger rating much lower. Meyer and Taylor (1986) discovered that 50% of the victims in their sample blamed themselves to some extent for the rape. The fear of being blamed by others, especially the judicial establishment, probably contributes to the low reporting rates for rape (Allen, Emmers, Gebhardt, & Giery, 1995). Reporting rates are even lower for acquaintance rape. Koss (1985) estimated that only 10 to 50% of rapes are reported. Additionally, self-blame has been shown to correlate highly with post-rape depression. When women rape victims see themselves as partly to blame, they may begin to doubt their ability to take care of themselves, and unfamiliar situations might become disconcerting (McCahill, Meyer, & Fischman, 1979). Their self-confidence may be lowered, also reducing their ability to interact successfully in society (Koss, Heise, & Russo, 1994). There are several reasons why women in general should be concerned about the issue of victim blame. First, women especially are affected because they comprise the majority of rape victims. If women believe that they will be negatively viewed should they become victims of rape, then they may curtail their activities to avoid this outcome (Koss, Heise, & Russo, 1994). Schwarz and Brand’s (1983) findings supported the contention that “rape has an intimidating effect on non-raped women” (p. 71), while Whiston (1981) claimed that for women, rape victims represent the “epitome of their individual vulnerability” (p. 364). In addition, Allen, et al., (1995) claimed that if women accept the beliefs that rape victims are to blame for the rape, they are then less likely to offer support to rape victims. Placing the blame on the victim also reinforces stereotypes that women are weak and that if they do not accept this “fact” and take precautions because of this “inherent” weakness, they are responsible for the consequences (Schneider, Ee, & Aronson, 1994). Blaming the victim for acquaintance rape can be especially harmful. For one thing, victims may be more likely to blame themselves for an acquaintance rape. Katz and Burt (1988, cited in Parrot & Bechhofer, 1991) discovered that acquaintance rape victims blamed themselves significantly more than stranger rape victims. This increased self- blame is important, because the victims who blamed themselves were more likely to be suicidal, need psychiatric hospitalization, and have lower self-esteem. Fonow, Richardson, and Wemmerus (1992) stated that in an acquaintance rape, women “are more likely to question their own behavior and assume responsibility for a failed sexual script” (p. 111). Increased blame can lead to an increased likelihood of not reporting the rape (Cowan & Curtis, 1994). Parrot and Bechhofer (1991) stated that acquaintance rape victims rarely inform others of their victimization because they fear accusations of lying or blame. Coller and Resick (1987) claimed that acquaintance rape victims are less likely to report because this type of rape is less likely to be accepted as rape. This concern is probably realistic, as Clark and Lewis (1977, cited in Johnson & Russ, 1989) found that conviction rates were lower for acquaintance rapes than stranger rapes. Further, acquaintance rape victims were found to have more severe adjustment problems (McCahill, et al., 1979; Muehlenhard, Friedman, & Thomas, 1985) and less social support (Amick & Calhoun, 1987). Why Victim Blame is Different in Rape Than in Other Crimes Blame in rape is an especially important area of research compared to blame for other crimes for four reasons. First, the stereotype that rape is a crime that happens to women is an important consideration. Even though there are male victims of rape, society often views the act of being victimized as “feminizing” (Howard, 1984b). Thus, the perceptions that members of this society have about rape victims influence beliefs about women in general. How women react to rape victims is especially indicative of their acceptance of stereotypes about women (such as the belief that women are weak). A second reason concerns the greater social stigma that exists in a rape case as compared to other crimes. The impression still exists that someone who is raped is somehow “soiled.” If the rape victim is blamed for the crime on top of this social stigma, then her or his position as a “good,” moral member of society might be endangered. Stevens (1994) emphasized the fact that blaming women for being abuse victims has historical roots. Another difference between rape and other crimes is that rape is regarded as a crime involving sexual desire rather than violence (Gerdes, Darnmann, & Heilig, 1988). Researchers have argued that rape is not a crime that involves sexual desire (Schneider, Ee, & Aronson, 1994), but such beliefs of rape as a crime with sexual causes appear to influence observers’ responses to the crime. This effect is represented by studies which illustrate that women who are attractive or who are considered less respectable are often blamed more for rape (Luginbuhl & Mullin, 1981; Tieger, 1981). Howard (1984a; 1984b) claimed that since rape is a sex crime, women’s stereotypical roles are more salient. A fourth reason is that although there is a general tendency for society to blame victims for crimes, this tendency is especially strong in the case of rape (Blumberg & Lester, 1991). Gillen and Muncer (1995) claimed that “Rape appears to be the only crime in which victim behavior results in less blame being attached to the criminal” (p. 103). LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES Previous Attempts to Explain Victim Blame There have been numerous theoretical attempts to explain why victims of rape are blamed. These include Shaver’s defensive attribution hypothesis (1970), the Just World hypothesis (Lerner, 1965; Lerner & Miller, 1978), and Feminist theory. Shaier’s Defefinsive Attribution Hypoth_e_s_i_s_ Shaver’s defensive attribution hypothesis (1970) stated that two factors influence how people perceive victims of misfortunes. The first is harm avoidance, which posits that people seek to defend against the chance of their own random misfortune. If something horrible happens to someone, the observer will rationalize that the victim must be responsible so that the observer can be more confident that such a horrible situation could never befall him or her. This harm avoidance tendency is tempered by the second factor, blame avoidance. This concept is utilized to defend against the possibility of others blaming the person if he or she is in a similar victim situation. The greater the personal threat that one perceives in the situation, the less likely the respondent is to blame the victim. Lesser blame is indicative of the fact that the observer would not want to be blamed in the same situation. One major problem that has arisen with Shaver’s defensive attribution theory is that this theory suggests that women should blame women victims less and men should blame men victims less because they identify with them. However, women victims have been found to be blamed more by both men and women (Howard, 1984b). first World Hypothesis Another theory that makes predictions related to victim blame is the Just World Hypothesis (Lemer, 1965; Lerner & Miller, 1978). This proposition states that people believe the world is just; thus, people receive in life what they deserve. If a bad occurrence, such as a rape, happens to someone, then the victim must have done something to deserve it or must have caused the tragedy because of his or her character. Lerner and Miller hypothesized that the more random the event, the more people will tend to blame the victim in order to protect themselves from having to consider their own vulnerability. Although some studies have supported the predictions of the Just World Hypothesis (Coller & Resick, 1987; Graves & Lowe, 1983; Jones & Aronson, 1973; Smith, Keating, Hester, & Mitchell, 1976), others have not (Janoff-Bulman, Timko, & Carli, 1985; Karuza & Carey, 1984; McCaul, Veltum, Boyechko, & Crawford, 1990; Mueller, Caldwell, & Hunter, 1994; Thornton, Ryckman, & Robbins, 1982). For example, Karuza and Carey (1984) found that even when respondents were given every opportunity to derogate the victim’s character, they refused to do so. In addition, Feminist theory posits that acquaintance rape might be perceived as more controllable; thus, this type of rape should cause less blame than a stranger rape according to the Just World Hypothesis. Actually, most researchers have found that acquaintance rape victims are blamed more (i.e., Bell, et al., 1994; Greenberg & Busselle, 1993; Johnson & Russ, 1989; Tetreault & Barnett, 1987; Thornton, 1984). The Just World Theory cannot explain this discrepancy. Feminist Theog Because rape is a crime that predominantly happens to women, Feminist theory has often been used to explain blame in rape cases (Bohner, Weisbrod, Barzvi, & Schwarz, 1993; Briere, Malamuth, & Check, 1985; Gillen & Muncer, 1995; Johnson & Russ, 1989; Koss, Heise, & Russo, 1994; Schneider, Ee, & Aronson, 1994). Feminist theories focus on rape blame as distinctive because of the perception of predominantly female victims. According to these researchers, gender norms in this society affect the degree of blame the victim receives. Stereotypical sex roles are especially salient in rape because it is a crime which involves sex (Howard, 1984a, 1984b). If a woman is acquainted with a man, societal norms place the responsibility to control the sexual activity on the woman (Tetreault & Barnett, 1987). Gillen and Muncer (1995) suggested that this belief concerning a woman’s responsibility might illustrate why acquaintance rape is perceived as less serious and harmful than stranger rape. Also, false beliefs about women and rape, known as rape myths, are hypothesized to provide support for sexual violence (Briere, Malamuth, & Check, 1985). Bohner, Weisbrod, Barzvi, and Schwarz (1993) claimed that their results concerning rape myths “support the feminist hypothesis that the threat of rape serves the function to exert social control” and sustain male dominance over women (p. 561). Thus, these researchers claimed that blaming women for rape is purposefully done to keep women in their place. In addition, feminist scholars have claimed that special emphasis should be placed on rape because of the differences between the manner in which society attributes blame to male and female sexual assault victims. Women victims are often blamed more and seen as more vulnerable (Howard, 1984b) Other Explanatirm for Victim Blm Two types of individual factors have been examined to determine if they have an effect on victim blame. The first involves characteristics of the rape scenario that affect the blame attributed to the rape victim. The second involves characteristics of the receiver of the rape message which influence whether the receiver blames the victim of the rape. Characteristics of the scenario that have been examined can be divided into two types (see Table 1). The first type consists of factors related to the rape situation. The second consists of characteristics of the victim. This second type can be further divided into characteristics which the victim possessed before the rape and factors which are relevant to the particular rape situation. Table 1 delineates the studies which have examined these factors and the results they have produced in regards to victim blame. A second area of study has examined the effects that characteristics of the receiver of the rape message produce on victim blame (see Table 2). These factors can be Characteristics of the Scenario SITUATION FACTORS WHICH INCREASE BLAME Ambiguity Brems & Wagner, 1993 Amick & Calhoun, 1987 Completion of Rape Janoff-Bulman, et al., 1985 Kruelewitz & Nash, 1979 Going to Rapist’s Apartment Muehlenhard, et al., 1985 Man Paying for Date Muehlenhard, et al., 1985 Woman Inviting Man on Date Muehlenhard, et al., 1985 Table l VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS POSSESSED BEFORE RAPE Virgin Macrae & Shepherd, 1989 Respectability Luginbuhl & Mullin, 1981 Smith, et al., 1976 McCaul, et al., 1990 Past Sexual Conduct Pugh, 1983 Prior Rape Victim Schult & Schneider, 1991 IN THE RAPE SITUATION Carelessness Smith, et al., 1976 Karuza & Carey, 1984 Pallak & Davies, 1982 Provocativeness Smith, et al., 1976 Schult & Schneider, 1991 Best & Demmin, 1982 Resistance Scroggs, 1976 McCaul, et al., 1990 Victim Enjoyment McCaul, et al., 1990 Drunk Richardson & Campbell, 1982 FACTORS WITH CONFLICTING RESULTS Attractiveness McCaul, et al., 1990 Best & Demmin, 1982 Characteristicsgf the Receiver PARTICULAR TO SCENARIO 10 Table 2 POSSESSED APART FROM SCENARIO CONSISTENT RELATIONSHIP TO BLAME Identify with Victim (-) Smith, et al., 1976 Liking of Victim (-) Smith, et al., 1976 Pugh, 1983 Degree of Contact with Victim (+) Alexander, 1980 Similarity to Victim (-) Bell, et al., 1994 NO EFFECT ON BLAME Sexual Inhibition (+) Briere, et al., 1985 Sex Role Stereotypes/Attitudes Toward Women (+) Burt, 1980 Brems & Wagner, 1993 Check & Malamuth, 1983 Epps, Haworth, & Swaffer, 1993 Mayerson & Taylor, 1987 Thornton, et al., 1982 Howard, 1984a Coller & Resick, 1987 Acock & Ireland, 1983 Fonow, et al., 1992 Fisher, 1986 Adversarial Sexual Beliefs (+) Fonow, et al., 1992 Education (-) Burt, 1980 Loza, 1993 Trustworthiness (+) Ashton, 1982 Belief in Own Vulnerability to Rape (+) Alexander, 1980 Prior Physical Abuse (+) Mueller, et al., 1994 Aggression Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995 Achievement Motivation Schwarz & Brand, 1983 Prior Rape Victimization Coller & Resick, 1987 11 Table 2 (cont’d) CONFLICTING RESULTS ON BLAME Locus of Control Mueller, et al., 1994 Schwarz & Brand, 1983 Thornton, et al., 1982 Rape Myth Acceptance Fonow, et al., 1992 Krahe, 1988 Epps, et al., 1993 Empathy Mueller, et al., 1994 Bell, et al., 1994 Coller & Resick, 1987 12 subdivided into responses of the receiver which are related to the particular rape scenario presented and characteristics which are possessed apart from the rape scenario. Table 2 presents the studies which have examined these factors and the results they have produced in regards to victim blame. Although these theoretical concepts and proposed factors have been thoroughly tested, they still do not sufficiently explain victim blame. Much research has resulted in conflicting results. There appears to be many additional factors in victim blame that are not being tapped by these theories and variable studies. Considering Controllability in Blaming the Victim A new way to look at the problem of victim blame posits that an observer decides how much blame to attribute to the victim by looking at whether the observer believes he or she could have avoided or handled the situation. The self-efficacy of the observer regarding the situation is one relevant factor. The first factor to be considered is type of rape. There have been many studies comparing acquaintance and stranger rape (i.e., Bell, et al., 1994; Johnson & Russ, 1989; Kormos & Brooks, 1994; Quackenbush, 1989; Smith, et al., 1976). Most of these studies have defined acquaintance rape as happening on a date, although others found that even ' slight acquaintance with the rapist (such as a classmate) changed the attributions of blame by the observers to the victim (e.g., Gerdes, et al., 1988). In this study acquaintance rape was defined as happening between an acquaintance (not a romantic partner) and the victim in order to make the two rape scenarios as similar as possible on all other factors. The second factor is the perceived self-efficacy of the observer. Beck and Frankel (1981) defined self-efficacy as the degree to which one believes he or she can cope with a l3 threat successfully. The assessment of self-efficacy tends to be situation-specific (e. g., Beck and Frankel, 1981; Witte, 1992), but can also include a more general sense of self- efficacy. Bandura (1977) claimed that one’s general beliefs about one’s ability to perform actions will not predict behavior unless considered in some specific context. A person evaluates personal factors (such as strength or fighting behaviors) and situational factors (such as whether one knows the attacker) to determine one’s self-efficacy in a particular situation (Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980). For example, a woman may believe in her ability to fight in general but this belief does not necessarily predict her feelings about her ability to fight when a rapist is holding a knife to her throat. Therefore, if one wishes to utilize a measure of self-efficacy as a predictor for behavior (or beliefs about behavior) in a specific situation, one should ask questions that reflect that specific situation. Since this study seeks to predict victim blame from a receiver’s self-efficacy concerning a rape situation, a situation-specific definition of self-efficacy was utilized. In the case of rape, two dimensions of self-efficacy appear to be pertinent: whether one believes he or she could avoid the rape situation and whether one believes he or she could handle an attempted rape situation in such a way to avoid being raped. A third factor which is posited to mediate the relationship between type of rape, self—efficacy, and victim blame is the victim’s perceived control over the situation. Lazarus (1991) defined perceived control as “the control one has over what is happening in an encounter” (p. 136). If the victim had control over behavior that, in the observer’s opinion, led to the rape or could have prevented the rape, the victim will receive at least some of the blame. Some factors which relate to victim control that have been found to lead to increased blame include whether the woman asked the man out or went to his l4 apartment (Muehlenhard, et a1. 1985), the clothing the victim was wearing (Edmonds & Calhoun, 1986), and the setting in which the victim was raped, such as coming out of the library as compared to coming out of a bar (Best & Demmin, 1982). The amount of control that one attributes to the situation may be much higher than actually exists in the situation (Langer, 1975). Victim controllability should be an important factor in victim blame. The variable of perceived similarity is posited to moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived behavior control. Perceived similarity was defined by Roger and Bhowmik (1970) under the name subjective homophily. This concept consists of the receiver’s perception regarding how similar or dissimilar his or her characteristics are to the person involved in the message. If one believes that the victim is similar to oneself, then information about one’s own ability to control the situation can be perceived as relevant to the decision regarding victim control. In the case where perceived similarity between the observer and the victim is high and the observer’s self-efficacy in regards to the rape case is high, the observer will see the victim’s control over the situation as high. The similar victim must have done something wrong that resulted in the rape since they are similar and therefore the victim probably had the capacity to avoid the situation. If the similarity is high but the observer has low self-efficacy, one does not believe in one’s own ability to avoid/handle the situation. The victim probably could not have avoided the situation either: victim control is perceived as low. If one does not perceive similarity between the victim and oneself, one’s own assessment of self-efficacy has no relevance to the assessment of victim control. There should be no relationship between self-efficacy 15 and controllability in this condition. The above reasoning leads to the following hypothesis: H1: Perceived similarity moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived victim control in the following way: H1 3: If perceived similarity is high, there will be a positive relationship between self-efficacy and victim control. Hlb: If perceived similarity is low, there will be no relationship between self-efficacy and victim control. If similarity is low and self-efficacy is not relevant, one would then fall back on society’s definition of the situation (type of rape) or other information to determine the amount of control the victim had, suggesting that the acquaintance rape victim will be perceived as having more control over the situation. Feminist theory might help explain the blame process in this case. It claims that in acquaintance rape situations, women rape victims are blamed more than in stranger rape situations because they have the responsibility to control the sexual activity (T etreault & Barnett, 1987). Rape represents a failed sexual script, and the woman is more responsible (and thus blameworthy) in this situation than in the stranger rape situation (Gillen & Muncer, 1995). The woman is perceived as having more control over the situation in the acquaintance rape. Thus, in the case of low similarity, there should be a direct relationship between type of rape and victim behavioral control, such that an acquaintance rape leads to attributions of greater control. In high similarity, there should be no relationship between type of rape and victim controllability. The above reasoning leads to the following hypothesis: 16 H2: Perceived similarity moderates the relationship between type of rape and perceived victim control in the following way: H2a: If perceived similarity is high, there will be no relationship between type of rape and victim control. H2b: If perceived similarity is low, there will be a positive relationship between type of rape and victim control so that an acquaintance rape should lead to higher degrees of victim controllability. The last concept is blame, which entails responsibility for an outcome. Blame has ofien been treated as a quantity that can be divided, with participants in studies asked to decide how much blame should be placed on such entities as the victim, the rapist, the situation, society, and chance (Alexander, 1980; Mueller & Major, 1989). In this model, there is a posited positive relationship between perceived victim behavioral control and blame. If one holds a person accountable, one blames this person for his or her misfortune. Lazarus (1991) stated that if a person is not seen as having control over a situation, one resists laying blame on them or becoming angry with them. One may still seek to blame others, however. Perceived behavioral control over the rape is important because if it is low, the receiver might be able to see herself or himself in the same situation (Bell, et al. 1994). Because the person would not want to be blamed, the defensive attribution hypothesis (Shaver, 1970) would predict that the observer would blame a victim less in the less controllable situation. This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis: H3: Perceived behavioral control of the victim for the rape and blame are positively correlated. 17 A path model to test this rationale is advanced (see Figure 1). The path model is a beneficial research tool in this situation, especially because of the conflict concerning the directionality of the influence of self-efficacy and blame discussed next. This method can establish causal ordering without a longitudinal design. TYPE RAPE N VICTIM 9 BLAME 7| CONTROL SELF -EFF ICACY T PERCEIVED SIMILARITY 1=STRANGER RAPE 2=ACQUAINTANCE RAPE Figure l—Predicted Path Model Previous research has posited different relationships between self-efficacy, victim controllability, and blame than the above. Walster (1965) examined the role of controllability in blame for accidents. She claimed that if perceivers believe that the victim had control over the situation, then their own beliefs in their abilities to avoid accidents through their own behaviors will increase. If the victim had little control over the accident, then the perceivers’ beliefs in their abilities to avoid accidents will be lowered. Thus, the receiver of the message will want to attribute high control to the victim so that the receiver then can believe that he or she will not fall victim to such a horrible occurrence. Walster suggested that attributing control to a victim allows for greater self-efficacy perceptions in the receiver of the message in terms of avoiding the 18 situation, thus eliciting greater victim blame. This thesis concurs that greater controllability by the victim will lead to greater blame; however, it suggests that one’s self-efficacy is not a result of one’s assessment of victim controllability, but rather that self-efficacy is a preceding cause of this assessment. In Thomton’s (1984) discussion of the defensive attribution theory, he claimed that differences in similarity between the victim and the perceiver lead the perceiver to either blame the victim based on their character or their behavior. This blame leads to greater self-efficacy concerning the ability to avoid such a situation on the part of the perceiver. This greater self-efficacy leads to less fear. Although contradictory to what this thesis posits, his views illustrate how self-efficacy is relevant to the defensive attribution theory (Shaver, 1970). METHODS AND RESULTS Overview of Current Project This experiment was conducted in three main stages. The first consisted of the creation of hypothetical rape scenarios, one representing an acquaintance rape and one a stranger rape. The second stage was a pretest which included these scenarios and the complete questionnaire planned for use in the final project. The pretest was conducted in order to assess whether the scenarios were correctly identified as an acquaintance or stranger rape, whether these scenarios were rated as plausible, and whether the questions for the final scales elicited sufficient variability between subjects. The third stage utilized a slightly altered version of the pretest questionnaire and scenarios for the final data collection. l9 Scenario Generation As type of rape was the independent variable in this experiment, the goal was to present half of the subjects with an acquaintance rape scenario and half with a stranger rape scenario. Drawing on previous research, two hypothetical scenarios were created. These two scenarios were differentiated by identifying the alleged rapist as someone the victim did not know (stranger) or identifying the alleged rapist as someone whom the victim had met several times previously through her boyfriend (acquaintance). Previous research has defined acquaintance rapists as romantic partners or slight acquaintances such as classmates (Gerdes, et al. 1988). This study defined the acquaintance rape condition as happening between an acquaintance (not a romantic partner) and the victim in order to make the two rape scenarios as similar as possible on all other factors. In both scenarios, the victim walks home from the library with her boyfriend’s fiiend. In the acquaintance condition, this person rapes the victim. In the stranger condition, after her boyfriend’s friend leaves, a stranger attacks her. The original two scenarios were utilized in the pretest and can be found in Appendix A. Pretest Procedures Thirty-seven students (21 women, 15 men, 1 refirsed to answer) from an undergraduate communication class were utilized in the pretest. They were randomly assigned to the stranger or rape condition. During regular class time, they read the original scenarios and completed the full questionnaire. They were compensated for their time with extra-credit points toward their final grade. 20 Measures The independent variables in this experiment were type of rape (manipulated) and self-efficacy (measured). Type of rape was manipulated by respondents reading either an acquaintance rape or stranger rape scenario. Dependent variables included victim controllability and blame, while similarity was a moderating variable. Many of the questions for the questionnaire were modified forms of questions or based on questions from the following studies: (Bell, et a1. 1994; Greenberg & Busselle, 1993; Johnson & Russ, 1989; Luginbuhl & Mullin, 1981; Quackenbush, 1989; Schult & Schneider, 1991; Witte, 1994). Questions were measured using a seven-point Likert-type scale anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. Three methods of measuring self-efficacy were examined in the pretest: one in which respondents reported how often they engaged in risky behaviors, one which questioned their beliefs about their general safety, and one which measured two dimensions: the confidence the respondents had in their ability to avoid the rape situation, and the confidence the respondents had in their ability to handle a situation that might lead to rape. The perceived behavioral control that the victim had over the rape situation was assessed by questions that also reflected the two dimensions of avoiding the rape situation and handling the situation once it begins. A manipulation check was included to determine whether the individuals perceived the difference between the two rape scenarios. A semantic differential was also included (with a scale from one to seven) to assess whether the respondents found the scenarios plausible, likely, believable, possible, probable, and realistic. The scales for the pretest are included in Appendix B. 21 BEN—ts, The t-test results indicated that the students identified the difference between the acquaintance and the stranger rape scenario (t_(30) = 5.77, p < .0001; range=1-2; M1 =1.79; SD1 =.426; M2 =1.06; SD; =.236). The semantic differentials illustrated that the scenarios were rated as realistic in that each of the questions were rated above the midpoint of the 7-point scale (see Table 3). The means and the standard deviations of the other scales illustrated that there was significant variance between subjects in each of the scales (see Table 4). All of the scales were approximately normally distributed except blame which was skewed to the right. This was expected because previous research has shown that levels of blame of the rape victim tend to be low among college students (e. g., Bell, et al., 1994; Gerdes, et al., 1988). Table 3 Means of Semantic Differentials to Measure Scemrio Plausibility Item MeaL Stand. Dev. Rage Plausible 2.35 1.27 1=Plausible/7=Not Plausible Likely 2.92 1.53 l=Likely/7=Not Likely Believable 2.27 1.24 1=Believable/7=Not Believable Possible 1.84 .93 1=Possible/7=Not Possible Probable 3.32 1.65 1=Probable/7=Not Probable _R_ealistic 2.65 1.40 l=Realistic/7=Not Realistic 22 Table 4 Larjance in Pretest Questionnaire Scales Variable Mean Stand. Dev. Rgge Median Skewness SS 3.15 .36 1-5 3.20 -.48 SO 4.48 .85 1-7 4.40 .49 SR 5.25 .92 1-7 5.29 -.19 SIM 4.35 1.47 1-7 4.67 -.69 CONT 3.15 .82 1-7 3.22 .003 BLA 1.86 1.10 1-7 1.50 1.41 Key: SS= Self-efficacy in regards to actual behaviors SO= General self-efficacy SR: Self-efficacy in regards to rape SIM= Similarity CONT: Victim Controllability BLA= Blame 23 Main Project Procedures One hundred ninety-seven college students (133 women, 62 men, 2 refused to answer) recruited from Communication and Telecommunication classes at a large Midwestern university were the sample for the final part of this study. Because of concern about differences between women and men on the variables, women subjects were utilized in the hypotheses and path results. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either the stranger rape condition or the acquaintance rape. condition. Before reading the scenarios, the participants answered questions concerning their self-efficacy to avoid or handle an attempted rape. The first scenario described a female who later was introduced as the victim of a rape. This scenario was followed by questions concerning how similar the respondent considered himself or herself to the described person. The second scenario presented the person introduced in the previous scenario as the victim of either an acquaintance or a stranger rape. The participants then answered questions concerning the victim’s control over the situation and what blame, if any, should be placed on the victim. A manipulation check was included to ascertain whether the individuals were distinguishing between the two types of rape scenarios correctly. After reading the scenarios and completing the questionnaires, the respondents were dismissed. They received extra-credit in their classes for their participation in this study. Measures Based on the pretest results, the two scenarios representing the acquaintance rape and the stranger rape were slightly modified to make them more understandable. The altered scenarios can be found in Appendix C. For the final data collection, the 24 plausibility semantic differentials were dropped, and two questions were added to the manipulation check. Several of the other questions were altered, but the rest of the questionnaire was the same as the pretest questionnaire. The altered and additional questions are included in Appendix D. Emit; Preliminary Analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the questionnaire using Hamilton and Hunter’s CF A program (1988). Individual items were assessed for content, internal consistency, and parallelism. Items which did not meet these criteria were dropped, resulting in a questionnaire with twenty-three items (see Table 5). Since the method of examining self-efficacy in regards to the rape situation fit best with the rationale of this paper and met the criteria best for internal consistency, it was utilized in the results. Table 6 includes the items that were dropped for the variables of situation-specific self-efficacy, victim controllability, and blame. Errors for the items which were kept and the scale reliabilities are listed in Table 5. Self-efficacy had been posited to consist of two subdimensions, one’s belief about his or her own ability to avoid a rape situation and one’s belief about his or her own ability to handle an attempted rape situation. Confirmatory factor analysis illustrated that rather than being two subdimensions of an overall construct of self-efficacy, these two represented separate dimensions. One can determine this because of the large errors present when the items from the two dimensions were combined into one measure in a confirmatory factor analysis (see Table 7). Therefore, for the rest of the analyses, these two dimensions were treated separately. 25 Table 5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Scale Errors 11/100) Self-Efficacy to Handle: Alpha=.972 1 1 1 2 0 3 3 4 -1 5 -l 2 4 5 -1 -1 2 -1 -1 0 1 1 1 o If someone tried to sexually assault me, I could successfully protect myself. I could fend off someone who tried to sexually assault me. If someone tried to sexually assault me, I could successfully defend myself. If someone attacked me with the intent to sexually assault me, I believe that I could fend them off. If someone I knew tried to sexually assault me, I believe that I could fight them off. Self-Efficacy to Avoid: Alpha=.83 1 1 0 2 —1 3 -2 4 26 Table 5 (cont’d) I am confident that anyone 1 dated would not attempt to sexually assault me. I am confident that I can avoid being sexually assaulted. I am confident that I will not be a victim of sexual assault. I am confident that I can choose dates who do not put me in danger of being sexually assaulted. Similarity: Alpha=.955 2 3 0 -2 -1 2 1 3 -1 -2 0 8 -3 -3 4 1 -1 8 -1 -1 -5 5 -1 2 -3 -l 1 7 6 0 1 -3 -5 7 -1 I can definitely see similarity between Beth and me. Beth is definitely different from me. Beth and I have a lot in common. Beth resembles me a good deal. Beth is not like me at all. Beth does not resemble me at all. 27 Table 5 (cont’d) Victim Controllability: Alpha=.703 1 1 -6 3 4 2 -6 o 4 3 3 3 4 0 -6 4 4 3 -6 0 Beth probably did something that made getting raped more likely. If Beth had fought harder, she probably would not have been raped. Beth probably did something to encourage being raped. The likelihood that Beth’s behavior contributed to this rape is low. Blame: Alpha=.862 l -2 -1 -1 O 2 -1 0 0 0 3 -1 0 0 -1 4 O 0 -l -1 Beth should accept at least some of the responsibility for the rape. Beth should accept at least part of the blame for this incident. Beth should not blame herself at all. Beth was at least partially responsible for being raped. 28 Table 6 Items Dropped from Soak Self-Efficacy to Handle: If someone tried to force me into having sex when I did not want to, I could keep them from having sex with me. Self-Efficacy to Avoid: I am confident that I can choose friends who do not put me in danger of being sexually assaulted. I am confident that I can avoid places that might make sexual assault more likely. I am confident that anyone I dated would not force me to have sex. I am confident that I can avoid situations which might increase the chances of sexual assault. Victim Controllability: Beth was probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Beth probably could not have done anything to avoid being raped. Beth should have been able to avoid this rape if she had been more careful. Beth probably resisted as much as was safely possible. Beth should have never let herself be susceptible to this type of situation. Blame: When looking for people to blame for this incident, one should not look any farther than the rapist. This incident is entirely the rapist’s fault. 29 Table 7 Errors for Self-Efficacy as One Dimen_sion (1/100) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 0 10 13 22 ~10 ~11 2 10 0 22 16 -9 ~10 3 13 22 l 21 ~10 ~13 4 22 16 21 0 ~13 ~13 5 ~10 -9 ~10 ~13 0 13 6 ~11 ~10 ~13 ~13 13 1 7 ~10 ~9 ~12 ~13 15 14 8 ~3 ~10 ~9 -8 6 12 9 -9 ~8 ~10 ~10 8 11 ~10 ~12 ~13 15 14 10 ~10 ~10 11 10 30 A manipulation check consisting of five items was included in the final questionnaire to determine whether the participants distinguished the difference between the acquaintance rape scenario and the stranger rape scenario. This manipulation check determined that the respondents interpreted correctly the difference between the two types of scenarios (t (191) = 24.93, p<.0001, range=1-2, M1 =1.88, SD] =.298, M2 =1.05, SD; =.133). Tests of Hypotheses. Hypothesis one posited that perceived similarity would moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and victim control. To examine this hypothesis, similarity was split at the median, 4.17 (range 1-7), resulting in 58 individuals in the low similarity condition and 75 individuals in the high similarity condition. This median split was deemed acceptable because the variable similarity was approximately normally distributed (mean=4.19; SD=1.35; skewness= ~.23). In the high similarity condition, a positive correlation was found between self-efficacy to handle a rape situation (SHA) and victim controllability (_r = .33; P(.134 < r < .526) = .95). A positive correlation was also found between the other dimension of self-efficacy, one’s belief about one’s ability to avoid a rape situation (SAV), and victim controllability (r = .25; P(.034 < r < .466) = .95). In the low similarity condition there was a nonsignificant correlation between SHA and victim control (r = .18; P(-.075 < r_< .435) = .95) and a nonsignificant correlation between SAV and victim control (_r_ = .10; P(-.155 < r < .355) = .95). These patterns of findings support hypothesis one that similarity acts as a moderator on the relationship between self-efficacy and victim control. 31 Hypothesis two predicted that type of rape would have no relationship to victim control in the high similarity and that type of rape would have a positive relationship to victim control in the low similarity condition. In the high similarity condition, a nonsignificant correlation was found between type of rape and victim control (r = -.03; P(~.265 < r_< .205) = .95) supporting the first part of hypothesis two. In the low similarity condition, there was a significant negative correlation between type of rape and victim control (r = -.29; P( -.525 < r_<-.055) = .95). However, a positive correlation between type of rape and victim control was predicted in the low similarity condition. The second part of the hypothesis was not supported as the results suggested that the stranger rape was perceived as more controllable. Hypothesis three posited a positive relationship between victim control and blame. The data were significant with a significant positive correlation (_r_ = .652; p_< .001). Because the correlation between these two constructs was high, an inference that one might draw is that these two constructs are unidimensional. A confirmatory factor analysis (Hamilton & Hunter, 1988) was performed to see if these two factors were unidimensional. The analysis showed that these two scales were indeed two separate constructs as shown by the large errors when the items from both of these constructs were combined (see Table 8). This error matrix deviates substantially from what one would suspect if the two constructs were unidimensional. Tests of Path Model As noted previously, these hypotheses can be represented as a full causal model. This path model was analyzed utilizing Hunter and Hamilton’s Path.Bas program (1995), and is presented in Table 9. One had to analyze the path model separately for high and 32 Table 8 Errors for Victim Controllability and Blame as One Dimen_sion ( 1/100) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 O ~l 3 9 —6 -2 -2 2 4 9 10 -4 0 -8 -6 6 -6 5 -6 -7 -3 -8 0 14 4 5 6 -2 -4 -3 -6 14 1 2 0 7 -2 -3 -4 6 4 2 o -4 33 Table 9 Path Models Perceived Similarity High: Self-efficacy to Handle Type -.02 Rape .68 N Victim -) Blame 7| Control SHA .33 Path Coefficients r = -.02 P(~.255