:33.
2::
.b' .6

4
: . .
.haxﬂ
I’wyl'tv’f
, 352%.”. “1.4.5....
.ﬁsmksir .. 5E5,
. . .n ..

«any.
a: .i
.5 .
link... x.
.- If
.x unit}...

.55.... ..- n h... . It: iii k _
A. 3.2.3. ﬁzzwttcav.‘ .
, 91.4.1151. i a
k... iﬂqrinle n. I !. t
3. Fl . ID
2.. .1. a . . viii... u: EVELWL
. 5. ~ , .Gn’oxiiouf.
. ‘ . .53.... .1".

:29. 1. . ....I.N1.i MWUMHHWVR

3549.; .
IE». I.
15:39....3ur: .
2.-.. 2.3.25.3. n.“
. .. z» . y
z. ..
.r 1:

7 ..\
2.... .11.» ¢
. .1‘?‘
.. $9...-

3 ﬂ... 1 :50):
531...... 2 9.. .1. 2 55¢ I I
l 80.11..» I 743%? : I‘D. 33%
in.) .. 59:.“ 5.3519. x; .: {b
A 1 {£13.}...-
1 I.

: 3.31. 34.3,
! .p2.szllxc.l:r

II
1:5 lililﬂtt.5.
ifiallonld! 5....
£517)... if: a

I

i

4

 

Pita»!
I1 19“...)
12:.‘691‘339
3x133... aid...-
I4I‘qaf Pi nlg.
v ...u§.:ig..n..ti.r«
, a}. . {€331.15} .
1’3... 5.1.1....‘Ivrta.
1 Ir liltlii £‘.’u.~é.'
» listin’i .335!”
. . I; r
‘ is; 3...! . 21: “02.43.;
.t‘ilia 1.133.! .3 a)
A. 1. EA.) tilitlt .
a 1...... 1 s1...

 

‘(Dq’I‘ If.”

 

LIE: ' “ .
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN EXAMINATION OF BLAME ATTRIBUTIONS TOWARD
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

presented by

Matthew Alan Marner

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

M - s - degree in .CLiminaJ—Justice

Mt; {ﬂu/v 7:3:

Major professOI

Date 12/8/2000

 

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution |
‘— 7 . __ *_ _4

0-7 639

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

ﬁiidh“’0 5'72006

 

*5 « x as, 1
"’ \ 9 .'
l‘li—i'i‘l'b Let].
k'!».' '

 

120908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c-JCIRC/DateDuepBS—ots

AN EXAMINATION OF BLAME ATTRIBUTIONS TOWARD
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
By

Matthew Alan Marner

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllmentof the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Criminal Justice

2001

ABSTRACT

AN EXAMINATION OF BLAME ATTRIBUTIONS TOWARD
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

By

Matthew Alan Marner

This study examined blame attributed toward victims of sexual assault. Several
sets of survey items were used to compare the amount of blame attributed to acquaintance
rape victims versus stranger rape victims, male victims labeled or perceived as
homosexual versus male victims labeled or perceived as heterosexual, and male victims
versus female victims. Gender, age, race/ethnicity, personal victimization experience,
victimization experiences of ﬁ‘iends, belief in a just world, and belief in unique
invulnerability were examined to determine the effects that they had on victim blaming.

Two versions of a survey, created for this thesis, were fully completed by 255
Michigan State University undergraduates. Results Showed no Signiﬁcant difference in
the amount of blame attributed toward male and female victims, acquaintance rape and
stranger rape victims, and homosexual male victims and heterosexual male victims.
Belief in a just world and belief in unique invulnerability were shown to be a signiﬁcant
factor on two of four scales related to victim blaming in bivariate analysis, but just world
was not Signiﬁcant on any of the four scales and unique invulnerability was signiﬁcant in
only one of four scales in multivariate analysis. Gender of the research subject was
shown to be a signiﬁcant factor related to victim blaming in both bivariate and

multivariate analysis.

DEDICATION

To my family and friends for your unconditional love and support. I couldn’t
have done this without all of you in my life. I hope I’ve made you proud.

Love, Matt

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Christina DeJong for making such a signiﬁcant (.05)
difference in my life. Your enthusiasm, wisdom, and compassion have made me a better
scholar and a better person. My life is genuinely a better one for having had you in it.
Thank you.

I would like to thank Dr. Vince Hoffman for your genuine concern and kindness
for those around you. You are an amazing human being and are the type of person I
aspire every day to be. Thank you for being you.

Thanks also to Dr. Merry Morash, for your insights and contributions toward the

completion of this work.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables and Charts .............................................................................. vi
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Attributing Blame to Victims .......................................................... 5
Theoretical Explanations of Rape Perceptions .......................................... 5
Variation in Attribution of Blame ......................................................... 6
Independent Variables .......................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3: Data and Methods ..................................................................... 16
Previous Use of Scales ..................................................................... 16
Proposed Analysis .......................................................................... 21
Chapter 4: Analysis ................................................................................. 23
Independent Variables ..................................................................... 24
Dependent Variables ....................................................................... 28
Univariate Analysis ........................................................................ 39
Bivariate Analysis .......................................................................... 47
Multivariate Analysis ...................................................................... 53
Effects of Gender ........................................................................... 58
Chapter 5: Discussion ............................................................................... 61
Findings ..................................................................................... 62
Implications of Gender Differences in Victim Blaming ........................................ 67
Suggestions for Future Research ......................................................... 69
Implications & Summary70
Appendix A - Survey 1 ............................................................................. 73
Appendix B - Survey 2 ............................................................................. 77
Appendix C — Survey Items ............................................................................................... 81
References ............................................................................................. 83

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Table l —- Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables .................................... 26
Table 2 — Just World Items and their Abbreviations ........................................... 27
Table 3 - Unique Invulnerability Items and their Abbreviations ............................. 28
Table 4 — Acquaintance/ Stranger Rape Items and their Abbreviations ...................... 30

Table 5 - Homosexual / Heterosexual Male Victim Items
and their Abbreviations ............................................................................. 31

Table 6 — Type of Statement with Male and Female Victim Equivalent
used in Bivariate Analysis and their Abbreviations ............................................. 32

Table 7 -— Negative Attitudes Toward Female Victims 1 (NATFVI)
Items and their Abbreviations ..................................................................... 33

Table 8 — Negative Attitudes Toward Male Victims 2 (NATMVZ)
Items and their Abbreviations ..................................................................... 33

Table 9 — Negative Attitudes Toward Male Victims 1 (N ATMVl)
Items and their Abbreviations ..................................................................... 34

Table 10 — Negative Attitudes Toward Female Victims 2 (N ATFV2)

Items and their Abbreviations ..................................................................... 34
Table 11 - Reliability and Factor Loading - Just World Belief Scale36
Table 12 — Reliability and Factor Loading - Unique Invulnerability Scale .................. 36

Table 13 — Reliability and Factor Loading - Negative Attitudes
Toward Female Victims (NATFVl & NATFV2)....... 37

Table 14 - Reliability and Factor Loading - Negative Attitudes
Toward Male Victims (NATMVl & NATMV2)39

Table 15 — One Sample T-test — Comparison of Mean for Blame
Attribution Toward Acquaintance Rape Victims to Neutral Mean .......................... 41

Table 16 - Percentage Who Attributed Blame Toward
Acquaintance Rape Victims ............................................................................................... 42

vi

Table 17 — Frequencies and Percentages of Response Scores — Wominjr ........................ 43

Bar Chart 1 — Wominjr ...................................................................................................... 43
Table 18 - Frequencies and Percentages of Response Scores — Maninjr .......................... 44
Bar Chart 2 — Maninjr ........................................................................................................ 44

Table 19 - One Sample T-test — Comparison of Mean for Blame
Toward Male Homosexual Victims Compared to Neutral Mean ............................ 45

Table 20 - Percentage Who Attributed Blame Toward

Homosexual Male Rape Victims ....................................................................................... 46
Table 21 — Frequencies and Percentages of Response Scores — Gybhvr ........................... 47
Bar Chart 3 — Gybhvr ......................................................................................................... 47

Table 22 - Independent Samples T-test — Comparison of Means
ofBlame Attributions Toward Female and Male V1ct1ms......49

Table 23 — Independent Samples T-test — Male vs. Female Subjects

Attributions of Blame .............................................................................. 51
Table 24 — Signiﬁcance & Correlation -— Just World & Victim Blame ...................... 52
Table 25 — Signiﬁcance & Correlation — Unique Invulnerability
& Victim Blame ..................................................................................... 53
Model 1 - Multiple Regression — Independent, Controlling, and Dependent Factors ...... 54
Table 26 — Multiple Regression — Independent Variables & NATFVl ............................ 55
Table 27 — Multiple Regression - Independent Variables & NATFV2 ............................ 56
Table 28 - Multiple Regression - Independent Variables & NATMVl ............................ 57
Table 29 - Multiple Regression — Independent Variables & NATMV2 ............................ 58

Table 30 - Independent Samples T-test— Just World Belief Scale & Gender............. . . . . .59

Table 31 - Independent Samples T-test— Unique Invulnerability Scale & Gender ........... 6O

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Rape is a serious problem for both men and women. Perceptions of rape victims
play an important role in the reporting of rapes, as well as physical and psychological
recovery of the victim. Victims often overcome great inner turmoil in order to come
forward with their experiences of sexual assault. Many victims, both male and female,
fear that their moral character, sexual orientation, personal relationships, style of dress, or
even their gender will be used to discredit or negate their claims of rape (Groth &
Burgess, 1980; Johnson, 1994; Kormos & Brooks, 1994; Schneider, 1992; White &
Robinson Kurpius, 1999).

The opinions and stereotypes of others are signiﬁcant forces in the emotional
recovery of the victim (Brems & Wagner, 1993; Davis, Brickrnan, & Baker, 1991).
Negative responses are often encountered by male and female victims from their spouses,
families, and friends. Fear of negative perceptions may also affect physical recovery
(Kaufman, Divasto, Jackson, Voorhees, & Christy, 1980).

Previous research has shown that victims of acquaintance rape are blamed
signiﬁcantly more for their victimizations that those who were raped by a stranger
(Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGrail, 1989; Kanekar, Shaherwalla, France, Kunju & Pinto,
1991; Kopper, 1996). The claim that stranger rape is a more serious crime than
acquaintance rape is often based on the assumption that acquaintance rape is not really
rape. In acquaintance rape, there is usually less physical injury and the victim knows the
perpetrator, which leads some to believe that the victim has suffered less trauma (Barnett,
Quackenbush, Sinisi, Wegrnan, & Otney, 1992; Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGrail,

1989; Campbell, 1995).

Research has found that men are far more likely to attribute greater blame to the
victim of a sexual assault than are women (Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGrail, 1989;
Kanekar et al., 1991; Pollard, 1992; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992).
These negative perceptions may stem from the belief in a just world, acceptance of rape
myths, or a greater acceptance of interpersonal violence.

There are signiﬁcant differences in the way people perceive men and women who
have been sexually victimized. Studies have found that female victims of sexual assault
are attributed greater blame than male victims of similar attacks (Howard, 1984a,b;
Schneider, Ee, & Aronson, 1994).

However, men do not go without blame when they come forward with their
victimization experiences. Some of these negative perceptions are based on the myth that
males are not upset by sexual assault, in direct contradiction to evidence stating otherwise
(Frazier, 1993; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman Johnson, 1992). Other rape myths
contend that men should have been able to ﬁght off their assailants, that rape is
perpetrated largely upon males that are homosexual, and that male rape only occurs in
prisons (Kaufman et al., 1980). Many male victims face hostility and incorrect
stereotypes when coming forward with their experiences. Because of the negative aspects
of reporting their victimization experiences, it is thought that the majority of male victims
do not contact authorities.

Males who are sexually assaulted are an often-overlooked group of victims (Groth
& Burgess, 1980; Mitchell, Hirschman, & Nagayarna Hall, 1999). Currently, crime
statistics do not present much detail about male rape victimization. National statistics

include sexual assaults perpetrated by both males and females but do not make

distinctions between the two (Mitchell, Hirschman, & Nagayama Hall, 1999). According
to 1995 crime statistics, approximately 19,390 males above the age of 12 were the
victims of rape or attempted rape (US. Department of Justice, 1997). However, this
ﬁgure is thought to be an extreme underestimate since male victims of rape rarely report
their experiences.

Multiple scales have been used to measure the attribution of blame in cases of
sexual assault. Among the most widely used scales are Rubin and Peplau’s Just World
Scale, Feild’s Attitude Toward Rape Scale, Burt’s Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, and
Ward’s Attitudes toward Rape Victims Scale (Anderson, Cooper, & Okarnura, 1997;
Brems & Wagner, 1993). These scales, among many others, have been used to measure
the cognitive components of rape-related attitudes, to identify peoples’ false beliefs about
rape, and to determine how strongly people believe that the world is a just place.

The scale upon which this research is largely based is the Attitude toward Rape
Victims Scale by Ward. The ARVS was designed speciﬁcally to measure perceptions of
victims rather than perceptions of rape itself (Ward, 1988). Other goals of the ARVS
were to correct for North American slang in previous scales and to create a suitable cross-

cultural scale that measures blame attribution toward rape victims (Ward, 198 8).

This study will test six hypotheses:
H1: Victims of sexual assault perpetrated by an acquaintance and victims of
sexual assault perpetrated by a stranger will be attributed unequal levels of blame.
H2: Male victims of sexual assault who are labeled or perceived as homosexual

and male victims who are labeled or perceived as heterosexual will be attributed unequal

levels of blame.

H3: Female victims of rape will be attributed signiﬁcantly more blame than male
victims of rape.

H4: Male subjects will attribute signiﬁcantly more blame to rape victims than
female subjects.

H5: Subjects who show a high belief in a just world will assign signiﬁcantly
greater blame to rape victims.

H6: Subjects who show a high belief in unique invulnerability will assign

signiﬁcantly greater blame to rape victims.

Chapter 2: Attributing Blame to Victims
Theoretigal Explanations of Rape Perceptions

Just World

The ability to conceive that the world is a fair place and that people get what they
deserve is the essence of the just world concept (McCaul, Veltum, Boyechko, &
Crawford, 1990; Muller, Caldwell, & Hunter, 1995). Some believe that one’s fate or life
events are the result of their actions, and that by living a “good” life, their efforts will be
rewarded. To believe that one’s good actions are not rewarded would teach many people
that life is often unpredictable, uncontrollable, and capricious. The idea that somehow,
good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished allows people to maintain a sense of
control over their lives and environments (Muller et al., 1995). It gives them a
psychological safeguard to deny the fact that many negative life events happen to people
who also live good lives.

When the concept of just world is applied to rape victims, those who put faith in a
just world often ﬁnd blame in the victim for the negative event that has befallen them
(Feldman, Ullman, & Dunkel-Schetter, 1998; Kleinke & Meyer, 1990; Kramer, 1994;
Schneider, 1992; McCaul et al., 1990; Whatley & Riggio, 1993). The idea of a just world
provides many men and women with a psychological safety net that allows them to
believe that the victim must have some fault in the incident. When an incident occurs
that threatens their perception of a just world, believers may alter their perceptions of the
victim, blaming the victim to maintain their just world beliefs. It is easier on the
perceiver’s psyche to believe that somehow the victim partially contributed to or

deserved the crime that was inﬂicted. It is important to realize that believers in a just

world may not always allocate the total share of the blame onto the victim, but may only
contribute part of the blame.

Unique Invulnerability

The concept of unique invulnerability provides people with a psychological
buffer, similar to the just world concept, to the occurrence of negative events. Those who
subscribe to this concept provide themselves with an optimistic bias when comparing
their chances of negative life events to the chances of the same events happening to
others (Helweg-Larsen, 1999; Klar, Medding, & Sarel, 1996; Snyder, 1997). They
believe that their choices and their chances of negative events are less than those of their
peers or other similar individuals.

The bias of unique invulnerability has been shown to exist not only in perceptions
of the possibility of criminal victimization, but also in age at time of death, chances of
involvement in automobile accidents, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases,
development of lung disease, development of alcoholism, and development of heart
disease (Klein, 1996; McKenna, 1993). Even when presented with evidence of their
chance for a certain type of negative event, many people will continue to underestimate
their own chances for the occurrence of the event (Snyder, 1997).

VariaLtion in Attribution of Blame

Both the concepts of just world and unique invulnerability contribute to the
acceptance of rape myths, which are commonly held but false beliefs about the causes
and motivations for rape (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Belief in the idea of a just world
is probably more likely to allow people to support rape myths than belief in unique

invulnerability, because many rape myths address attribution of blame. Unique

invulnerability is an overestimate of other people’s risks or a sense of personal immunity,
rather than blame toward victims.

There have been many attempts to deﬁne what a rape myth is. In a review of the
rape myth literature, Lonsway and Fitzgerald proposed that rape myths are “attitudes and
beliefs that are generally false but are widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny
and justify male sexual aggression against women” (1994: 134). While these authors
took great care to analyze the meaning of “myth”, their deﬁnition clearly excludes male
victims as persons who are subjected to detrimental attitudes and false beliefs about
sexual assault.

The literature addressing male sexual assault has shown extensive prejudices and
false beliefs toward male victims (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992).
Some of these male rape myths include stereotypes such as: male rape only happens in
prisons, male rape victims are to blame for being raped, men who are raped are not upset
by it, men should be able to ﬁght off a rapist, and men who are raped are probably
homosexual (Kauﬁnan et al., 1980; Kramer, 1998). Therefore, a re-deﬁnition of rape
myths as “attitudes and beliefs that are generally false but are widely and persistently
held, and that serve to deny and justify sexual aggression against both females and
males” is more suitable. This thesis will investigate some commonly proposed rape
myths including the misconceptions that acquaintance rape victims are more
blameworthy than victims of stranger rape, female victims are more blameworthy than
male victims, and homosexual male victims are more to blame than heterosexual male

victims.

Relationship Between Victim and Offender

A large body of research indicates that individuals blame the victim of an
acquaintance rape more than stranger rape (Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGrail, 1989;
Kanekar et al., 1991; Kopper, 1996). In some cases, this might be due to judgments
about the victim’s character (Barnett et al., 1992). In other cases, the blame placed on the
acquaintance rape victim may come ﬁ'om what many see as elements of a “real rape”.
This perception of a real rape may include the false belief that rape victims will have
extensive physical injuries and the perpetrator will have used a weapon during the crime.
In fact, typical acquaintance rape victims, compared to stranger rape victims, show fewer
signs of physical injuries and are not assaulted with a weapon (Campbell, 1995). That
many acquaintance rape victims do not report their experiences to authorities or those
close to them may lead some to believe that it was not a “real” rape, or the victim would
have sought help (Koss, Dinero, Seibel, & Cox, 1988). Other reasons for a greater
amount of blame placed on the victim of an acquaintance rape may stem ﬁom the fact
that a victim may have voluntarily been in the company, or engaged in some sort of
amorous behavior with the assailant prior to the rape taking place. To some research
subjects, this brings the issue of consent into question. (Kopper, 1996).

Different types of sexual assault can be affected by womens’ beliefs in their own
unique invulnerability (Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1997). It has been suggested that
women have been taught to perceive familiar men as their “protectors” and unfamiliar
men as dangerous or untrustworthy (Brownmiller, 1975). Logically, women will
probably not become friends or acquaintances with men they fear or distrust. Therefore,

by believing that they have chosen to become familiar with protecting and trustworthy

men, women feel that their chances of being raped by the men they know is less than that
of other women.

Male Victims

An overwhelming majority of rape research has focused on sexual assaults in
which females are victimized. A greatly overlooked aspect of sexual assault is the
substantial amount of male~on~male sexual aggression (Groth & Burgess, 1980; Mitchell
et al., 1999). Some pervasive and incorrect ideas that have led to the neglected
phenomenon of male sexual assault are that: male rape occurs overwhelmingly in prison
settings, it is a sexual substitute caused by lack of female victims, and is an outgrowth of
the homosexual subculture (Kaufman et al., 1980).

Male victims of rape experience psychological trauma and concerns similar to
female victims, such as mood disturbances, sleep difﬁculties, eating problems, sexual
difﬁculties, and rape trauma syndrome (Frazier, 1993; Mitchell et al., 1999). Male
victims reported feeling more anger than female victims after a rape (Frazier, 1993). Like
many female victims, male victims are often concerned that others will judge them
harshly (Kramer, 1998).

Many men face stereotypes and rape myths when they come forward with their
experiences, which may explain why it is widely assumed that the number of reported
male rapes is vastly underreported. Male victims fear the stereotype that men should be
able to defend themselves against sexual assaults, the prospect of not being believed, the
fact that their sexual orientation may be called into question, and the fact that their sexual
history may be brought into question since some states have Rape Shield Laws that only

apply to female victims (Kaufman et al., 1980; Kramer, 1998). Because of the

misconception that many male rape victims are homosexual, there is a concern that
homonegative prejudices have a detrimental affect on perceptions of male rape victims.

While much research has shown that male-on-male sexual assault encompasses
both heterosexual and homosexual perpetrators and victims, many homonegative
stereotypes about male rape persist (Groth & Burgess, 1980; Kramer, 1998; Mitchell et
al., 1999). Research has shown that many male rape victims are subjected to prejudicial
behavior and discriminatory attitudes based on their homosexuality or perceived
homosexuality (Kramer, 1998). Juries have acquitted criminal defendants of rape
charges when overwhelming evidence is presented, largely in part due to negative
perceptions and stereotypes about the sexual orientation of the victims (Kramer, 1998).

Some of these misperceptions and stereotypes about homosexuals or those
mistakenly perceived as homosexual are that they were more to blame for the attack due
to their promiscuity, which is commonly linked with negative judgments of female
victims. It bears mentioning that promiscuity in homosexual men is seen as a negative
behavior, while promiscuity among heterosexual men often goes without negative
condemnation (Kramer, 1998). Other misperceptions are that male victims, due to their
alleged homosexuality, were less traumatized and experienced more pleasure from the
rape than did women (Kramer, 1998).

Gender Differences of Victim in Receivingm;

Since most of the blame attribution literature has focused on blame only toward
female victims, relatively few studies have compared blame attribution to both male and
female victims. The few studies that have been conducted have found that female

victims of sexual assault are attributed greater blame than male victims of similar attacks

10

(Howard, 1984a,b; Schneider et al., 1994).

However, Howard found that women were not attributed universally greater
blame. Items used in Howard’s study in which the male victim did not ﬁght back, looked
scared, and did not try to escape resulted in more blame toward the male victim than the
female victim who displayed the same behavior (Howard, 1984a,b).

Gender Difference of Subjects in Attribution of Elﬁn;

A large proportion of the blame attribution literature has been dedicated to the
differences between men and womens’ perceptions of rape victims. Most of the research
has shown that men place more blame on the victim of rape than women (Bridges, 1991;
Bridges & McGrail, 1989; Kanekar et al., 1991; Pollard, 1992; Struckman-Johnson &
Struckman-Johnson, 1992). There is also some evidence that women might denigrate
rape victims more than men under some circumstances (Sinclair & Boume, 1998), while
others studies ﬁnd no gender differences between attribution of rape blame (Johnson,
1994).

Why are males more likely than females to blame victims of rape for their own
victimization? Men may attribute more blame to victims than women do because they
believe more strongly in the idea of a just world (Whatley & Riggio, 1993). Also,
because women may see similarities between themselves and a rape victim, their
empathy toward the victim may increase and they will be less apt to blame the victim
than men will, regardless of their just world beliefs (Kleinke & Meyer, 1990).

In cases where women denigrate the rape victim (who is usually female) more
than men, it is possibly because of their shared vulnerability with the victim. The idea of

unique invulnerability, the psychological safety net, may be used by women who need to

11

believe that there is something different about them that will keep them from being
victimized (Sinclair & Boume, 1998). Female subjects may even show more concern
about the safety of their female peers over their own safety from sexual assault (N urius,
1999).
Independent Variafbles

M

The gender of the respondent is a major factor in attributing victim blame. The
literature has shown that males assign greater blame far more often than do females
(Anderson et al., 1997; Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGrail, 1989; Kanekar et al., 1991;
Pollard, 1992; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992). It was expected that
male subjects would attribute more blame to victims.

Victimization Experience

The experience of being a victim of sexual assault, or even knowing someone
who has been sexually assaulted, may have an effect on the responses to survey items. It
may be hypothesized that victims or those who know victims may empathize more with
rape victims and may respond in a more victim-supportive manner than those with no
victimization experience. Respondents who see a similarity between themselves and the
victim may be more likely to empathize and less likely to attribute blame to the victim
(Kleinke & Meyer, 1990). It was expected that subjects with prior victimization
experiences or those who know people who have been victimized will attribute
signiﬁcantly less blame than those who had not been victimized or do not know any

victims of sexual assault.

12

Race/Ethnicity

There has been some research to determine if people of differing ethnicities
attribute unequal amounts of blame toward a rape victim. Research has shown that
members of minority communities, especially males, are more likely to subscribe to rape
myths (Leﬂey, Scott, Llabre, & Hicks, 1993). Those who assigned greater blame to the
victim also held a more traditional view of females and may have been less inclination to
view speciﬁc acts as rape, even though they may be legally deﬁned as such (Leﬂey et al.,
1993). The research has found that Hispanic males, followed by African-American
males, and then Anglo males are the most likely to hold victim-blaming attitudes (Lefley
et al., 1993). Some research has shown that Asian students are more likely to endorse
negative attitudes toward rape victims than Caucasian students (Mori, Bemat, Glenn,
Sele, & Zarate, 1995).

Other studies have also pointed out ethnic differences in both the view that rape is
acceptable and attitudes toward rape victims (Dull & Giacopassi, 1987; Fischer, 1986).
The present study focuses on whether there are signiﬁcant racial or ethnic differences in
attitudes speciﬁcally toward rape victims.

Age

It has been shown that age has an affect on the acceptance of rape myths. Meta-
analytical review has shown that as the age of respondents increased, so did their
acceptance of rape myths (Anderson et al., 1997). Conclusions about the effect of age
have been criticized because many surveys are taken amongst college-age populations,
and little is known about the attitudes of older subjects (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). It

was expected that students who were signiﬁcantly older than the subject pool mean

13

would attribute more blame than those around the mean or younger. This study is
somewhat limited in the generalization of the ﬁndings as the survey group was composed
of college students. Further research should attempt to include subjects with a wider age
range.

Gﬂdﬂ

Most of the research has shown that men place more blame on the victim of rape
than women (Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGrail, 1989; Kanekar et al., 1991; Pollard,
1992; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992). While there is some research
that ﬁnds no difference between blame attributions of men and women, consistent with
most of the literature, it was expected that male subjects would assign more blame to
victims that female subjects.

Belief in 23 Just World

Believers in a just world often blame victims of negative circumstances (F eldman
et al., 1998; Kleinke & Meyer, 1990; Kramer, 1994; Schneider, 1992; McCaul et al.,
1990; Whatley & Riggio, 1993). It was expected that those with a higher belief in a just
world would attribute more blame to the victim than those with a low belief in a just
world.

Unique Invulnerability

Those who believe in unique invulnerability see their chances for the occurrence
of negative life events as less than the chances of others (Helweg-Larsen, 1999; Klar et
al., 1996; Snyder, 1997). Believers in unique invulnerability feel that they make better
choices than others, and that these choices are a sort of safety net that keeps bad events

from happening to them. It was expected that those with a higher belief in unique

14

invulnerability would attribute more blame to sexual assault victims in the survey than

those with a low belief in unique invulnerability.

15

Chapter 3: Data and Methods

This chapter will discuss the creation and reﬁnement of previous scales used to
assess attitudes toward rape and rape victims. Four scales, the Just World Scale by Rubin
and Peplau, the Attitudes Toward Rape Scale by Feild, the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale
by Burt, and the Attitudes toward Rape Victims Scale by Ward, have all had an impact on
the study of sexual assault and its victims. This chapter will also discuss the creation of a
new scale that measures blame attributions toward rape victims, partially based on
Ward’s scale.

Previous Use of Scal_e_s_

Just World Scale

Rubin and Peplau (1973) created a 16-item scale, later changed to a 20-item scale,
that measures the degree to which subjects believe that the world is a just place where
good people are rewarded and bad people are punished. Compared to non-believers,
believers in a just world have been found to be more religious, more authoritarian, more
oriented toward internal controls, more likely to have negative attitudes toward victims of
social injustice, and more apt to admire existing social institutions (Rubin & Peplau,
1975)

The Just World Scale includes items that ask about abstract situations in which
people generally get what they deserve, as well as deﬁned situations that ask about foul
play in professional sports and men who exercise and subsequently have heart attacks
(Rubin & Peplau, 1975). The original 16-item scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .79, based
on data collected from 66 respondents (Rubin & Peplau, 1973). Subsequent research

found correlations between the Just World Scale and scales that measured authoritarian

l6

submission, interpersonal trust, religiosity, Protestant Ethic, and locus of control (Rubin
& Peplau, 1975).

Attitudes Toward Rape Scale (ATR)

F eild (1978) created the ﬁrst scale that measured attitudes toward rape. The
Attitudes Toward Rape Scale was an attempt to identify the cognitive aspects of rape-
related attitudes. F eild found eight independent factors including: 1) the woman’s
responsibility for rape prevention, 2) the relation of sex to rape, 3) punishment for the
rapist, 4) the role of women in precipitating rape, 5) perceived “normality" of the rapist,
6) power motivation in rape, 7) the attractiveness of the victim after rape, and 8) expected
behavior of a woman during rape (Anderson et al., 1997). The validity of the scale has
been documented through both sex and group (counselors, police, rapists, and citizens)
differences in responses and in the relationship between most subscales and attitudes
toward women’s roles (Ward, 1988). The ATR scale is the second most cited instrument
in rape attitudes literature (Anderson et al., 1997 ).

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS)

The most widely utilized measure in rape acceptance literature is Burt’s l9-itern
Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Anderson et al., 1997). Burt (1980) created the scale to
identify false beliefs about rape, rapists, and their victims that are used by people to
downplay the seriousness of rape and attribute blame to the victims (Anderson et al.,
1997). The Rape Myth Acceptance Scale found four factors: 1) disbelief of rape claims,
2) victim responsibility for rape, 3) rape reports as manipulation, and 4) the belief that
rape only happens to certain types of women (Anderson et al., 1997). The RMAS was

shown to be both internally consistent and reliable and has shown validity in a

17

correlational analysis; RMAS scores were signiﬁcantly related to sex-role stereotyping,
adversarial sexual beliefs, and acceptance of interpersonal violence (Ward, 1988).

Attitudes toward Rape Victims Scale (ARVS)

In an effort to further reﬁne a measure of attitudinal variables toward the victims
of rape, Ward created the 25-item Attitudes toward Rape Victims Scale (1988). Ward
argues that Feild’s scale, the ATR, encompasses too many dimensions in too few items.
She has also stated that Feild measures attitudes toward the act of rape as opposed to
attitudes toward rape victims in half of the dimensions (Ward, 1988). Ward argues that
Burt’s scale, the RMAS, contains ambiguous or lengthy and awkward statements that are
punctuated with North American slang Ward, 1988). Therefore, the creation of the
ARVS was spurred by the need for a cross-cultural index that assesses attitudes toward
the victims of rape (Ward, 1988).

Ward had three major features in mind when constructing the ARVS: l) the
speciﬁc assessment of attitudes toward rape victims as opposed to attitudes toward rape
in general, 2) the emphasis on simplicity and conciseness in language and the omission of
idiomatic phrases found in existing scales, and 3) suitable cross-culturally relevant items
in the assessment of attitudes toward rape victims for the purpose of extending the scale’s
utility (Ward, 1988). The scale reﬂected four notions of: 1) victim blame, 2) disbelief, 3)
denigration, and 4) trivialization (Ward, 1988).

The ARVS was shown by Ward to have a Cronbach’s alpha of between .83 and
.86 in cross-cultural settings, and a test-retest reliability of .80 (1988). Another study has
reported the Cronbach’s alpha for the ARVS at .75 (Lee & Cheung, 1991). The construct

validity of measures of unfavorable attitudes toward victims was established in

18

correlations with Burt’s scales of adversarial sexual beliefs and acceptance of
interpersonal violence (Ward, 1988). The ARVS consists of 25 statements measured on
a 5 point Likert scale of “disagree strongly, disagree mildly, neutral (neither agree nor
disagree), agree mildly, or agree strongly”, with corresponding scores of 0 to 4. Two of
the statements on the ARVS were taken directly ﬁ'om Feild’s Attitudes Toward Rape
Scale and ﬁve were statements reworded from Feild’s ATR scale and Burt’s RMAS scale
(Ward, 1988). The ARVS contains 8 positive statements and 17 negative statements,
with reverse scoring for the positive items, and has a range of 0 to 100, with higher scores
reﬂecting more unfavorable attitudes toward rape victims (Ward, 198 8).

Creation of a New Scale

Ward’s Attitudes toward Rape Victims Scale will serve as the basis for the
creation of a new scale that intends to measure attitudes toward rape victims. The ARVS
is used primarily as a model, not for its cross-cultural suitability, which is one of its
noteworthy assets, but for its isolation of attitudes toward victims of rape as opposed to
rape itself. The beneﬁt of concise statements and cross-cultural suitability is not
disregarded however, as both are beneﬁcial to gaining insight into the attitudes of survey
subjects.

While Ward’s scale will be used as a model, it leaves many measures of attitudes
toward rape victims unaddressed. First, the ARVS contains statements in which only
women are the victims of sexual assault, completely ignoring the fact that men may also
be sexually victimized. Second, the ARVS does not measure differences in perceptions
between victims of divergent, classiﬁable types of rape such as stranger rape and

acquaintance rape. Third, the ARVS does not address differences in perceptions of male

19

victims who are labeled or perceived as homosexual as compared to heterosexual, thus
completely ignoring any effect that homonegativity may have on perceptions of male
rape victims.

For this thesis, I have created two versions of a survey that attempt to account for
some of the shortcomings of previous scales that measure the attribution of victim blame.
I have added items that address the issue of male sexual assault, items that address
perceived or actual homosexuality of male victims, items addressing blame attributed to
stranger rape victims versus acquaintance rape victims, and items that address male
versus female victims.

Data Collection

The subjects utilized in this study consisted of a convenience sample of
undergraduate students from Michigan State University during the fall semester of 2000.
The subjects were drawn from criminal justice undergraduate courses. It was hoped that
by sampling from lower level courses that the subjects would be unbiased by any
graduate level criminal justice study which has dealt with sexual assault or victimization.
Lower level courses often contain students from a variety of academic majors as well.

The sampling was nonrandom in nature and consisted of over 300 research
subjects. Two different surveys were utilized in the data collection. Some survey items
were used with a female as the victim, and others with males as the victim, but both in the
same situation. Male and female equivalent items were divided up between the two
surveys so that both would not appear on the same survey. Other items that compared
blame toward male versus female victims, acquaintance rape versus stranger rape

victims, and homosexual male versus heterosexual male victims within the same

20

statement were put on both surveys.
Proposed Analysis

Univagate Arglvsis

The univariate analysis utilized in this research consisted of one sample t-tests.
To test Hypothesis 1, the mean point total for items assessing blame toward acquaintance
rape victims was compared to a neutral mean of 1. To test hypothesis 2, the mean point
total for items assessing blame toward homosexual male victims was compared to a
neutral mean of 1. The neutral mean of 1 indicates that subjects assess equal amount of
blame to both stranger and acquaintance rape victims, and both homosexual and
heterosexual male rape victims. Subsequent analysis was conducted using cross
tabulations and corresponding bar charts to evaluate the differences in responses by male
and female subjects.

Bivariate analysis

Bivariate analysis was used to compare the mean scores on 32 statements.
Sixteen of the statements had a female as the victim, and sixteen of the statements had a
male as the victim in the same situation. The mean of each statement in a pair was
compared to the mean of the other statement in that pair, which utilized the same
situation with the opposite gender as the victim. This analysis was used to test Hypothesis
3, which states that female victims will be attributed more blame than male victims.

Bivariate analysis was also utilized to compare the z-scores of subjects on two
scales measuring female victim blame (the NATFVl and NATFV2 scales) and two scales
measuring male victim blame (the NATMVI and NATMV2 scales) according to the

gender of the subject. This analysis was used to test Hypothesis 4, which states that male

21

subjects are more likely to attribute a higher amount of blame. To test both Hypothesis 5
and 6, I utilized bivariate correlation to determine if there was a correlation between
scores on just world and unique invulnerability items and the mean scores on the four
scales used to assess male and female victim blame (the NATFVl, NATFV2, NATMVl ,
and NATMV2 scales).

Multivariate analysis

Regression analysis of scales used to measure the negative attitude toward female
and male victims (NATFVl , NATFV2, NATMVl , and NATMV 2) was utilized in the
multivariate analysis. As a continuation of testing Hypothesis 4, regression was used to
control for victimization experiences of self and ﬁiends, race, age, just world belief, and
unique invulnerability belief in order to determine if gender of the subject alone is a

signiﬁcant factor in the attribution of blame toward sexual assault victims.

22

Chapter 4: Analysis

This chapter will discuss the analysis of the independent and dependent variables,
as well as the creation of the multiple scales used in the analysis. This study utilized
seven independent variables including; age, gender, race/ethnicity, personal victimization
experience, close or friendly relationship with the victim of a sexual assault, belief in a
just world, and belief in unique invulnerability. The dependent variables in the study
include individual survey items as well as several different scales; the Negative Attitudes
Toward F emale Victims 1 scale (N ATFVl), the Negative Attitudes Toward Female
Victims 2 scale (NATFV2), the Negative Attitudes Toward Male Victims 1 scale
(NATMVl), and the Negative Attitudes Toward Male Victims 2 scale (NATMV2).

The aforementioned scales are classiﬁed by the items pertaining to blame toward
males and females from the corresponding version of the survey from which they were
taken. For example, some items assessing blame toward females from the ﬁrst version of
the survey (See Appendix A) make up the scale NATFVl. Some items assessing blame
toward female victims that were utilized in the second version of the survey (See
Appendix B) would be NATFV2. The same logic applies with the male blame
assessment items. When referring to these scales in the analysis, I will use the shorthand
abbreviations: NATFV] , NATF V2, NATMVl , and NATMV2. The items included in
the NATFVl, NATFV2, NATMVl , and NATMV2 scales were chosen after review of
factor analysis and reliability testing, and were also chosen to match counterpart items on
a scale that measures the opposite gender. For example, the seven items included in the

NATFVl scale are comparable to the seven items included in the NATMV2 scale, and

23

the seven items included in the NATF V2 scale are comparable to the seven items
included in the NATMVl scale.

Abbreviations of individual survey items, the survey on which they appeared, the
author of the survey items, and which hypotheses they were used in the analysis of are
contained in Appendix C. Note that items with an abbreviation ending with a “2”
indicates they were reverse coded. These items were written to not place blame on the
victim, in hopes of reducing response bias by creating items where the respondent has to
indicate his/her agreement or disagreement about situations in which the victim is blamed
and other situations in which the victim is not blamed.

IndependentLarLables

The independent variables utilized in this study measure factors that might affect
a person’s decision to blame the victim of sexual assault. The independent variables
related to three of the hypotheses in this study include gender, belief in a just world, and
belief in unique invulnerability. It was hypothesized that male subjects would assign
greater victim blame than female subjects (Hypothesis 4). It was also hypothesized that
subjects who agree that the world is just (Hypothesis 5) or agree with the idea of unique
invulnerability (Hypothesis 6) would assign greater blame to victims than those who
disagree.

The original number of responses to the survey was 312. There were 57 surveys
not completed. The majority of rejected surveys were not included in the analysis
because respondents did not indicate which version of the survey they had completed
(version 1 or 2), making it impossible to use their responses due to different items on the

two versions of the survey. It is assumed that there was no bias in the sample selection.

24

Therefore, subsequent analysis is based on responses contained in the 255 completed
surveys.

_A_g§

The mean age of the subjects was 19.82 years, with a standard deviation of 1.93
years (See Table 1). The variable age was negatively skewed, which is not surprising
since the surveys were given to undergraduates. The bulk of respondents ranged from 18
to 22 years old, with this 5-year grouping making up 92.3% of the responses.

ﬁends!

Of the 255 responses, the frequency of male respondents was 144 or 56.5% (See
Table 1). There were 111 female respondents, comprising 43.5% of the responses.

Race/Ethnicig

Of the responses, 230 or 90.2% of the respondents considered themselves
Caucasian (See Table 1). African American was listed for 13 responses, or 5.1% of the
total. There were 3 Hispanic/Latino respondents, comprising 1.2 % of the total. There
were 8 Asian/Paciﬁc Islander respondents, comprising 3.1 % of the total. Only one
subject responded as Other, comprising .4 % of the total. The results are not surprising
considering that Michigan State University has a predominantly Caucasian student body.

Personal Victimization Experience

Respondents were asked whether they had ever been sexually assaulted. A
deﬁnition of “sexually assaulted” was given on both versions of the survey. This variable
is nominal level, with options of yes or no. Of the responses, 21 respondents, or 8.2%,

indicated that they had been the victims of sexual assault (See Table 1). Those who

25

indicated that they had not been sexually assaulted consisted of 234 respondents, or
91.8% of the responses.

Close or Friendly Relaﬂraship with Victim of Sexual Assault

Respondents were also asked if they had a close or ﬁiendly relationship with a
person who had been sexually assaulted. This variable is nominal level, with options of
yes or no. Of the responses, 86 or 33.7% of the respondents indicated that they were
close or friendly with someone who had been the victim of sexual assault (See Table 1).
Those who indicated that they were not ﬁiendly or close with a victim consisted of 169

responses, or 66.3%, of the responses.

 

Table l — Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables (N = 255)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Mean 19.82
Standard Deviation 1.93
Variable Category Number of Valid Percentage
Responses of Valid
Responses
Gender Male 144 56.5%
Female 111 43.5%
Race / Ethnicity Caucasian 230 90.2%
African American 13 5.1%
Hispanic/Latino 3 l .2%
Asian/Pac. Islander 8 3.1%
Other 1 0.4%
Personal Yes 2 1 8.2%
Victimization? No 234 91 .8%
Friend Been Yes 86 33.7%
Victimized? No 1 69 66.3%
Belief in Just World

 

Six of the items used in the surveys were taken from Rubin & Peplau’s (1975)
Just World Scale, only ﬁve of which were used in the ﬁnal analysis (See Appendix C).

These items were selected from Rubin & Peplau’s scale due to this researcher’s belief

26

that they might give an accurate reﬂection of how people view the world as it relates to
criminal victimization.

The means of subjects’ responses to ﬁve items were used in the creation of a scale
that measured a belief in a just world. This scale was utilized as an independent variable
in the analysis. The combination of the ﬁve scores was labeled “Just World Belief
Scale”. The mean z-score for subjects on this scale was 1.52. This mean shows that
respondents generally believe in a just world. Table 2 shows the survey items measuring

just world beliefs and their abbreviations.

 

Table 2 — Just World Items and their Abbreviations

 

 

 

Basically, the world is aLjust place. erdjmst
By and laggpeople deserve what they get. Dserv
Many people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own. Suffer2

 

People who get “lucky breaks” have usually earned their good fortune. Luckybrk

 

People who meet with misfortune have often brought it on themselves. Misfort

 

Scale consisting of subjects z-score from means on items from erdjust, Just World
Dserv, Suffer2, Luckybrk, & Misfort Belief Scale

 

 

Belief in Unique Invulnerability

A search of the literature revealed no scale that speciﬁcally addressed the belief in
unique invulnerability. Therefore, four items were created to measure the strength of
respondents’ attitudes about their own invulnerability.

The means of subjects’ responses to four questions were used in the creation of a
scale that measured a belief in their unique invulnerability. This scale was utilized as an
independent variable in the analysis. This combination of four scores was labeled
“Unique Invulnerability Scale”. The mean z-score for subjects on this scale was -2.12.

This mean shows that respondents generally do not feel a sense of unique invulnerability.

27

Table 3 shows the survey items that measured respondents’ beliefs in unique

invulnerability and their abbreviations.

 

Table 3 — Unique Invulnerability Items and their Abbreviations

 

 

I make smarter decisions than others. Smart
Negative events are less likely to happen to me than to happen to Negevent
others.

 

Violent crimes are just as likely to happen to me as they are to happen Violcrim2
to others.
There is a signiﬁcant difference between people who have bad things Sigdif
happen to them and myself.

 

 

 

 

 

Scale consisting of subjects z-score from means on items Smart, Unique
Negevent, Violcrim2, & Sigdif Invulnerab-
ility Scale
Dependent Variables

There were two versions of the survey used in this study. Each version consisted
of a combination of 10 just world and unique invulnerability ordinal level items (used as
independent variables in the analysis) and 26 victim-blame attribution ordinal level items,
in a Likert-scale format. The 36 items on each survey had possible responses of disagree
strongly, disagree mildly, neutral (neither agree nor disagree), agree mildly, or agree
strongly. The items were scored 1-5, strongly disagree measuring 1 and agree strongly
measuring 5. Fifteen of the 36 items were reverse coded to attribute no blame toward the
victim in hopes of reducing respondent bias, and were reverse scored in the analysis. The
reverse scoring was used as a result of including “positive” statementsthat did not
indicate victim blame. It was hoped that by including a combination of items that both
attributed blame and did not attribute blame, the ﬁndings would be more robust than they
would have been by using only items that attributed blame. Both surveys also contained

5 questions that asked for demographic/ personal history information including age,

28

gender, race/ ethnicity, whether the respondent had been sexually victimized, and whether
the respondent was close or friendly with a victim of sexual assault.

The ten just world and unique invulnerability items were placed as the ﬁrst ten
items on each survey and were used to create two independent variables, belief in a just
world and belief in unique invulnerability. The remaining 26 items on each survey that
speciﬁcally measure attitudes toward rape victims are a combination of items taken
directly ﬁ'om Ward’s ATRV scale and items I’ve created that Ward’s scale did not
address. Ward’s scale utilized items that measured attitudes only toward female victims.
Therefore, equivalent items asking about attitudes toward male victims of sexual assault
in the same situations were created. Additional items were created that reﬂected ideas
not addressed in Ward’s scale, such as differences in attitudes toward victims of stranger
and acquaintance rape or attitudes toward male victims labeled or perceived as
homosexual (See Appendix C).

Seventeen items with either a female victim or a male victim in the same situation
were selected for each of the two versions of the survey. No two items with the female
victim and the male victim in the same situation were placed on the same survey, in order
to reduce bias in answering. Nine additional items that compared blarneworthiness of
male victims as opposed to female victims, and homosexual men against heterosexual
men within the same item (for example: Gay men probably enjoy being raped more than
straight men) were created by this researcher and were included on both versions of the
survey (See Appendix C).

Throughout the tables included in the analysis, abbreviations for the survey items

are used. The following tables, (Tables 4-10) display the survey items and their

29

abbreviations for future reference. The items in Table 4, which measure the amount of

blame attributed toward acquaintance rape victims, were used to test Hypothesis 1.

These items include situations that are commonly associated with acquaintance rape,

including lack of traumatic physical injuries, not contacting medical help or law

enforcement personnel, and lack of resistance by the victim of an acquaintance rape.

Therefore, it should be noted that while these items did not speciﬁcally state that the

victim was involved in an acquaintance rape, the items include commonly occurring

themes in acquaintance rapes and the literature addressing them.

 

Table 4 — Achtraintance/ Stranger Rape Items and their Abbreviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The extent of a woman’s resistance should not be a major factor in Wmstrug
determining if a rape has occurred. 2

The amount a man struggled should not be a major factor in determining if Mnstrug
he was raped. 2

A man who claims he was raped by someone he does not know is more Man-
believable than a man who claims to have been raped by someone he does sablv
know.

A woman who claims that a stranger raped her is more believable than a Wom-
woman who claims to have been raped by an acquaintance. sablv

A woman with physical injuries is more likely to be telling the truth about Wominjr
beingaped than a woman without physical injuries is.

A man without physical injuries is more likely to be lying about being Maninjr
raped than a man with physical injuries is.

Men who do not contact medical personnel, law enforcement personnel, or Mancntct
mental health professionals probably were not raped.

A woman who does not contact the police, medical, or mental health Wom-
professionals probably was not raped. cntct

 

 

30

The items in Table 5 were used in Hypothesis 2 to measure the amount of blame

attributed toward homosexual male victims.

 

Table 5 - Homosexual / Heterosexual Male Victim Items and their Abbreviations

 

 

 

 

A gay man who is raped is probably just as traumatized as a straight man Gytrmst2

that is raped.

Gay men probably enjoy being raped more than straight men. Gymr-
enjy

Gay men are more responsible for being raped than straight men due to Gybhvr

their behaviors and lifestyle.

Gay men who are raped probably did not get what they deserved. Gayman
2

 

 

31

The items in Table 6 were used in Hypothesis 3 to compare blame attributed to
female victims versus male victims. The categories in this table consist of both male and
female equivalent items. One survey used a situation with a female as the victim, while

the other survey had a male as the victim.

 

Table 6 — Type of Statement with Male and Female Victim Equivalent used in

Bivariate Analysis and their Abbreviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category measuring desirability of victim from items Rapwom & Rapedes
Rapman

Category measuring extent of victim resistance in blame attribution from Struggle
items Mnstrug2 & Wmstrug2

Category measuring belief in the victim as innocent of wrong-doing from Innocent
items Wominct & Manincnt2

Category measuring blame toward those with previous sexual Priorsex
experiences with a man from items Womprior & Manprior

Category measuring belief that it would be good for some victims to be Rapegood
raped ﬁom items Mangdrp & Womgdrp

Category assessing blame toward victims rape while taking a ride with a Rapestgr
stranger from items Manstngr & Womstgr2

Category assessing blame toward people out alone at night from items Alonengt
Womalone & Manalone

Category assessing whether rape accusations by prostitutes should be Prostute
take seriously from items Womprst2 & Manprost

Category assessing subjects agreement that victim should blame self from Blarnerpe
items Menblame & Womblam2

Category assessing agreement that victim can ﬁght of rapist if he/she Healthy
really tries from items Hlthywom & Hlthyman

Category measuring blame toward those with previous sexual Sexexp
experiences with a man ﬁom items Womexp & Manexp

Category assessing subjects agreement that victim deserved to be raped Deserve
from items Mandsrv2 & Womdesrv

Category assessing subjects agreement that someone who claims stranger Stranger
rape is more believable than someone who claims acquaintance rape from

items Womsablv & Mansablv

Category assessing whether victim with physical injuries is more Injury
believable than victim without physical injuries from items Maninjr &

Wominjr

Category assessing whether victim who did not contact medical, law Contact
enforcement, or mental health personnel is lying from items Womcntct &

Mancntct

 

 

32

The items in Tables 7 through 10 were used to test Hypothesis 4, which links
gender of the rape victim to attributions of blame attributions toward female and male
subjects, Hypothesis 5 which links victim blame to just world belief, and Hypothesis 6
which links victim blame and belief in unique invulnerability. These items were used to
create the NATFVl, NATMVl, NATFV2, and NATMV 2 scales that measured attitudes
toward female victims and male victims. The scales NATFVl and NATMV2 have
equivalent items for male and female victims and the scales NATMVI and NATFV2

have equivalent items for male and female victims.

 

Table 7 — Negative Attitudes Toward F ernale Victims l (NATFVI) Items and their
Abbreviations

 

 

 

 

A raped woman is a less desirable woman. Rapwom
A raped woman is usually not an innocent victim. Wominct
Any female may be raped. Anywom2
A woman who goes out alone at night puts herself in a position to be Womalone
raped.

A healthy woman can successfully resist a rape if she really tries. Hlthywom

 

A woman who claims that a stranger raped her is more believable than a Womsablv
woman who claims to have been raped by an acquaintance.
A woman who does not contact the police, medical, or mental health Womcntct
professionals probableas not raped.

 

 

 

Table 8 — Negative Attitudes Toward Male Victims 2 (NATMV2) Items and their
Abbreviations

 

 

 

 

 

Men who are raped are less desirable. Rapman

A raped man is usually an innocent victim. Maninct2
Any man can be raped. Anyman2
A man who goes out alone at night invites rape. Manalone
Nearly any man can ﬁght off a rapist if he really tries. Hlthyman

 

A man who claims he was raped by someone he does not know is more Mansablv
believable than a man who claims to have been raped by someone he
does know.

Men who do not contact medical personnel, law enforcement personnel, Mancntct
or mental health professionals probably were not raped.

 

 

33

 

Table 9 — Negative Attitudes Toward Male Victims 1 (NATMVI) Items and their

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations

The amount a man struggled should not be a major factor in determining Mnstrug2
if he was raped.

It would be good for some men to be raped. Mangdrp
Men who are raped while accepting rides from strangers get what they Manstngr
deserve.

Male prostitutes who claim to have been raped should be doubted. Manprost
Men should blame themselves for being raped. Menblame
In the majority of cases, men who were raped did not deserve it. Mandsrv2
A man without physical injuries is more likely to be lying about being Maninjr

raped than a man with physical injuries is.

 

 

 

Table 10 — Negative Attitudes Toward Female Victims 2 (NATFV2) Items and their

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations

The extent of a woman’s resistance should not be a major factor in Wmstrug2
determining if a rape has occurred.

It would do some women good to be raped. Womgdrp
Women, who accept rides from strangers and are subsequently raped, Womstgr2
did not deserve to be raped.

Accusations of rape by female prostitutes should not be viewed with Womprst2
suspicion.

Women should not blame themselves for being raped Womblam2
In most ceases when a woman was raped, she deserved it. Womdesrv
A woman with physical injuries is more likely to be telling the truth Wominjr2

about being raped than a woman without physical injuries is.

 

 

Reliabiliy and Factor Analysis of Scales

Scales were created to measure belief in a just world, belief in unique

invulnerability, negative attitudes toward female victims, and negative attitudes toward

male victims. Two different scales were created to measure both negative attitudes

toward female victims (N ATFVI and NATFV2), and negative attitudes toward male

victims (NATMV l and NATMV2) due to the two different survey versions. The

NATFVl and NATMV2 scales are comprised of seven equivalent items and the

NATMV l and NATFV2 scales are comprised of seven equivalent items.

34

Reliability tests were used to determine which items should be discarded from the
analysis due to weak ability to measure the same concept as the other items in the scale.
The alpha values for the Just World Belief Scale, Unique Invulnerability Scale, and
NATFV2 scale were weak, all measuring below .5. The alpha values for the NATMVI ,
NATMV2 and NATFVl scales were moderate, measuring .63 52, .4634, and .5182
respectively.

Factor analysis was utilized to create scales and the factor scores for respondents
on those scales. For example, four items measuring different aspects of belief in unique
invulnerability were subjected to factor analysis resulting in a Unique Invulnerability
Scale. Each item on the Unique Invulnerability Scale had a factor loading of .472 or
higher. Respondents’ factor scores showed their agreement with the general idea of
unique invulnerability. Values for each scale are z-scores, which indicate distance away
from the average feelings about unique invulnerability. Positive values on the factor
score indicate a strong belief in unique invulnerability, while negative values indicate a
low belief in unique invulnerability. The beneﬁt of using factor analysis to create scales
lies in the ability to weight some items in the scale more heavily than others. In a simple
summary scale (where items are simply added together), each items receives the same
weight. For example, the item Negevent has the largest factor loading in the Unique
Invulnerability scale, with a factor score of .79. This indicates that it is the best measure
of unique invulnerability out of the four items comprising the scale.

In factor analysis, the normal minimum for factor loading is .5. However, the
small number of subjects, coupled with the exploratory nature of the study, required a

less stringent standard in order to analyze and interpret the ﬁndings.

35

Just World Belief Scalg

Of the six just world items used in the scales, only ﬁve were present in the ﬁnal
Just World Belief Scale. The alpha reliability of the ﬁve items was low, measuring .4508
(See Table 11). The ﬁve items factor loaded at .4 or above (See Table 11). Two of the
items had a factor loading of between .4 and .5, two items had a factor loading between .5

and .6, and one item had a factor loading of .755.

 

Table 11 -Re1iability and Factor Loading - Just World Belief Scale (Alpha = .4508)

 

 

Variable Factor Loading
erdjust .432
Dserv .755
Suffer2 .488
Luckybrk .53 1
Misfort .580

 

 

(N = 255)

Unique Invulnerability Scale

All four of the unique invulnerability items were included in reliability and factor
analyses. The alpha reliability of the four items was moderate, measuring .4966 (See
Table 12). The factor analysis of the unique invulnerability items, like the just world
items, displayed moderate factor loadings greater than .4. Two of the items were

between .45 and .50, while the other two items were both above .70 (See Table 12).

 

Table 12 -Reliability and Factor Loading -Unique Invulnerability Scale (Alpha =.4966)

 

 

Variable Factor Loading
Smart .495
Negevent .790
Violcrim2 .472
Si gdif .746

 

 

(N = 255)
Negative Attitudes Toward Female Victims
Items from both surveys that measured negative attitudes toward female victims

were measured for reliability and factor loading and formed two scales. The ﬁrst scale,

36

NATFVl, included seven items ﬁ'om the ﬁrst version of the survey, while the second
scale, NATFV2, included seven items from the second version of the survey. The alpha
reliability of NATFVl was moderate, measuring .5182 (See Table 13). Factor analysis of
this scale showed a moderate ﬁt between the seven items, all but one of which had a
loading between .35 and .71 (See Table 13).

The NATFV2 scale was not as reliable or well ﬁtting as NATFVI. The alpha
reliability of NATFV2 was weak, measuring .2722 (See Table 13). Factor analysis
showed a weak ﬁt between the seven items. Three of the items had factor scores below

.23, while the other four had factor scores above .58 (See Table 13).

 

Table 13 —Reliability and Factor Loading — Negative Attitudes Toward Female
Victims (NATFVl & NATF V2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATFVl Variable Factor Loading
(Alpha = .5182) Rapwom .655
Wominct .525
Anywom2 .132
Womalone .346
Hlthywom .591
Womsablv .663
Womcntct .712
N ATFV2 Variable Factor Loading
(Alpha = .2722) Womstrug2 .178
Womgdrp .650
Womstgr2 .650
Womprst2 .234
Womblam2 .645
Womdesrv .575
Wominjr2 .018
Total (N = 255)

NATFVI (N = 139)
NATFV2 (N=116)

37

N_egative Attitudes Toward Male Victims

Two scales consisting of responses to items that measured negative attitudes
toward male victims were subjected to reliability testing and factor loading. The ﬁrst
scale, NATMV] , included seven items from the ﬁrst survey, while the second scale,
NATMV2, included seven items from the second survey. The alpha reliability of
NATMV] was moderate, measuring .6352 (See Table 14). Factor analysis of NATMV]
showed a good ﬁt between the seven items, all but one of which were between .41 and
.67 (See Table 14).

The second scale, NATMV2, was not as reliable and well ﬁtting as NATMVI.
The alpha reliability of NATMV2 was barely moderate, measuring .4634 (See Table 14).
Factor analysis of NATMV2 showed a moderate ﬁt between the 7 items. Five of the
seven scores were between .46 and .64, while the other two were below .20 (See Table

14).

38

 

Table 14 - Reliability and Factor Loading — Negative Attitudes Toward Male
Victims (NATMVl & NATMV2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATMV] Variable Factor LoadLnL
(Alpha = .6352) Mnstrug2 .544
Mangdrp .405
Manstngr .635
Manprost .531
Menblame .664
Mandsrv2 .671
Maninjr .489
N ATMVZ Variable Factor Loadingy
(Alpha = .2722) Rapman .204
Manch .620
Anyman2 .178
Manalone .568
Hlthyman .460
Mansablv .634
Mancntct .643
Total (N = 255)

NATMVl (N = 139)
NATMV2 (N=116)

Univariate Analysis

The items utilized in the analysis of Hypothesis 1, which identiﬁes blame
attributions toward victims of acquaintance rape and stranger rape, and Hypothesis 2
which identiﬁes blame attributions toward male victims labeled or perceived as either
homosexual or heterosexual, were subjected to one sample t-tests for analysis. The null
hypotheses for Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 stated that the items in these analyses
assessing would have a mean of 1, meaning that acquaintance rape victims and stranger
rape victims, and homosexual and heterosexual male victims, were blamed equally for
their victimization.

A mean of 1 would indicate that subjects would strongly disagree that one type of
victim was more responsible for their victimization than the other type of victim. If

response means were signiﬁcantly above 1, the null hypothesis would be rejected. A

39

mean signiﬁcantly greater than 1 but below 3 suggests that subjects agree that
acquaintance rape victims are not more to blame, but that their agreement is not as strong
or not absolute. If the mean was greater than 3, it would suggest that subjects feel that
acquaintance rape victims or homosexual male victims are more to blame than stranger
rape victims or heterosexual male victims.

_I_31_ame Attribution Toward Victims of Acquaintance Rap_e

Hypothesis 1 contends that victims of sexual assault by an acquaintance and
victims of sexual assault by a stranger would be attributed an unequal amount of blame.
Responses to eight items were subjected to analysis by one sample T-test. Four of the
eight items used females as the victims of sexual assault; the other four items used males
in the role of the victim. While only two of the items speciﬁcally mentioned rape by a
person known to the victim, the other six items encompassed concepts identiﬁed in
literature that have been used to negate the seriousness of acquaintance rape or blame an
acquaintance rape victim, such as lack of injuries, not contacting help, and the amount of
resistance by the victim.

The null hypothesis, that subjects blame acquaintance rape victims equally as
much as stranger rape victims, was rejected. The mean of the responses to all eight items
were signiﬁcant (See Table 15). Rather than strongly disagreeing, subjects mildly
disagreed that acquaintance rape victims are no more to blame for their victimization than
stranger rape victims. Even though the null hypothesis was rejected and the amount of
blame was not equal, the subjects still disagreed, albeit less strongly, that acquaintance

rape victims are more blameworthy than stranger rape victims.

40

 

Table 15 — One Sample T-test — Comparison of Mean for Blame Attribution Toward
Acquaintance Rape Victims to Neutral Mean

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Mean Signiﬁcance
Wmstrug2"I 3.05 .000
Mnstrug2" 2.76 .000
Mansablv“ 2.56 .000

Womsablv* * 2. 18 .000

Wominjr“ 2.57 .000
ManinjrM 2.41 .000
Mancntct“ l .60 .000
Womcntct“ * 1 .46 .000

** (N = 139)
* (N = 116)

While the subjects as a whole disagreed acquaintance rape victims were more
blameworthy than stranger rape victims, further analysis of the responses revealed
interesting differences between the attitudes of male and female respondents. Cross-
tabulations and bar charts reveal that male respondents were more likely than female
respondents to agree that acquaintance rape victims were more to blame than stranger
rape victims.

Responses to all eight items showed that the percentage of males who agreed with
blame attribution toward acquaintance rape victims was higher than the percentage of
females who attributed blame (See Table 16). Females were more likely to disagree than
males that acquaintance rape victims deserve more blame than stranger rape victims.

Scores range from 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 5 (Agree Strongly).

41

 

Table 16 - Percentage Who Attributed Blame Toward Acquaintance Rape Victims

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender of Respondents Score of 3, 4, or 5

Wmstrug2 Male 62.7%
Female 51.0%

Mnstrug2 Male 61.1%
Female 41.9%

Mansablv Male 64.2%
Female 38.8%

Womsablv Male 39.0%
Female 30.6%

Wominjr Male 56.8%
Female 32.6%

Maninjr Male 54.6%
Female 29.1%

Mancntct Male 22.4%
Female 2.0%

Womcntct Male 14.3%
Female 1.6%

 

 

 

Further understanding can be garnered through closer analysis of two sets of
responses utilized in the analysis of Hypothesis 1. The item assessing blame toward
female victims who do not display physical injuries and the item assessing blame toward
male victims who do not display physical injuries, a common occurrence in acquaintance
rape situations, showed that men were far more likely to blame the victim. The
percentage of women who disagreed that the presence of injuries on a female victim did
not warrant blame attribution (score of 1 or 2) was 67.4% of the responses, while for men
it was 43.2% (See Table 17).

Viewing the data in bar chart format, it can be seen that the chart representing the
responses of male subjects is somewhat bell-shaped, indicating a large degree of

variance. The female bar chart shows a positive skew, indicating less blame attribution

(See Bar Chart 1)

42

 

Table 17 — Frequencies and Percentages of Response Scores — Wominjr

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 Total
Male 8 21 15 20 3 67
Subjects 1 1.9% 31.3% 22.4% 29.9% 4.5% 100.0
%
Female l6 l7 8 6 2 49
Subjects 32.7% 34.7% 16.3% 12.2% 4.2% 100.0
%

 

 

 

(N=ll6)

 

Mart I - Wominjr

 

 

101

 

 

 

 

GENDER

 

The percentage of female subjects who disagreed that the presence of injuries on a
male victim did not warrant blame attribution (score of 1 or 2) was 71.0% of the
responses, while for male subjects it was 45.5% (See Table 18). Again, female subjects
were less apt to assign victim blame. Viewing the data in a bar chart, the male responses
group to the middle, again showing a large degree of variance in the responses. Female
responses have a positive skew, indicating less blame attribution (See Bar Chart 2).

There is far less variance in the female responses than in the male responses.

43

 

Table 18 -— Frequencies and Percentaggs of Response Scores -— Maninjr

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 Total
Male 9 26 15 24 3 77
Subjects 1 1.7% 33.8% 19.5% 31.2% 3.9% 100.0
%
Female 31 13 12 5 1 62
Subjects 50.0% 21.0% 19.4% 20.9% 2.9% 100.0
%

 

 

 

(N=139)

 

Bar Chart 2 - Maninjr

 

 

-1D|sagroe8trongly

 

 

 

 

- 5 Agree Strongly

 

GENDER

_B_la;ne Attribution Toward Male Victims Labeled or Perceived a_sI-Iomosexu_al

Hypothesis 2 contends that male victims of sexual assault, labeled or perceived as
homosexual, will be attributed an unequal amount of blame compared to male victims
who are labeled or perceived as heterosexual. Responses to four items were subjected to
analysis by one sample T-test. These items encompassed rape myths that have not been
substantially addressed in academic literature, such as gay men are not as traumatized or

are more deserving of rape than straight men.

The null hypothesis for Hypothesis 2 would state that items assessing blame
toward homosexual male rape victims and would have a mean of 1, meaning that male
rape victims labeled or perceived as homosexual and male rape victims labeled or
perceived as heterosexual would be blamed equally for their victimization. A mean of
signiﬁcantly greater than 1 but below 3 indicates that subjects disagree that homosexual
male victims are more to blame than straight male victims, while a mean greater than 3
suggests that subjects feel that homosexual male victims are more to blame than straight
male victims.

The null hypothesis, that subjects blame male homosexual victims equally as
much as they blame male heterosexual victims, was rejected. The mean of the responses
to all four items were signiﬁcant (See Table 19). Rather than strongly disagreeing,
subjects mildly disagreed that homosexual male rape victims are no more to blame for
their victimization than heterosexual male rape victims. Even though the null hypothesis
was rejected and the amount of blame was not equal, the subjects still disagreed, albeit
less strongly, that homosexual male victims were more blameworthy than heterosexual

male victims.

 

Table 19 — One Sample T-test - Comparison of Mean for Blame Toward Male
Homosexual Victims Compared to Neutral Mean

 

 

 

 

Variable Mean Signiﬁcance
Gytrmst2 l .95 .000
Gymrenjy 1 .88 .000
Gybhvr 2.02 .000
Gayman2 2.56 .000

 

(N =255)
As was the case with the responses to Hypothesis 1, further analysis shows that

while the respondents as a whole disagreed homosexual males are more to blame than

heterosexual males, male subjects assigned greater blame to the victim than female

45

subjects. On each of the four items, males had a higher percentage of responses that
indicated blame attribution (See Table 20). Females were more likely to disagree that
males labeled or perceived as homosexual were to blame for being victimized. Scores

range from 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 5 (Agree Strongly).

 

Table 20 - Percentage Who Attributed Blame Toward Homosexual Male Rape Victims

 

 

 

 

 

Gender of Respondents Score of 3, 4, or 5

Gytrmst2 Male 35.4%
Female 10.8%

Gymrenjy Male 38.9%
Female 13.5%

Gybhvr Male 42.4%
Female 14.4%

Gayman2 Male 5 1 .4%
Female 42.3%

 

 

 

Looking at of one of the items that asks respondents whether gay men are more
responsible for being raped than straight men due to their behaviors and lifestyle
(Gybhvr), will provide better insight as to the differences in blame attribution between
male and female subjects. Female respondents disagreed that homosexual male rape
victims should be attributed blame with 85.6% of their responses, compared to just 57.6%
of male responses (See Table 21).

A visual representation of the data does even more to show the stark difference
between male and female responses (See Bar Chart 3). The male data groups toward left-
center and shows a great deal of variance in responses, while the female data has a severe
positive skew, indicating less blame attribution. There is very little variance in the
female responses, indicating that most female subjects show a strong opinion about the

lack of blarneworthiness for homosexual male rape victims due to their lifestyles and

behaviors

46

 

Table 21 — Frequencies and Percentages of Response Scores — Gybhvr

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 Total
Male 40 43 28 27 6 144
Subjects 27.8% 29.9% 19.4% 18.8% 4.2% 100.0%
Female 76 19 1 1 5 0 1 11
Subjects 68.5% 17.1% 9.9% 4.5% 0.0% 100.0%
(N=255)

 

Bar Chart 3 - Gybhvr

 

 

 

 

 

Male Female

GENDER

.1 Storm Disagree

[:14
Ismtymm

 

Bivariate Analyais

Difference in Assiment of Blame by Gender of Victim

Hypothesis 3 contends that female victims of rape will be attributed more blame

than male victims of rape. There were 32 questions utilized in this analysis, 16 from each

version of the survey (See Appendices A & B). Each of the 16 questions had a

counterpart on the opposite survey in which the situation was the same, but the gender of

the victim was opposite.

47

Each of the 16 items on each version of the survey had a corresponding gender.
The mean scores for each item were compared to the mean scores of the counterpart item
ﬁ'om the other survey, in which the gender was opposite. The variables listed in Table 22
are abbreviations for the type of situation to which there are female and male equivalent
statements, one from either survey. The situation for both the male and female versions of
the item is the same.

Fifteen of the sixteen sets of items were used in analysis. The set of items not
included were thought to overlap with the concept of unique invulnerability and were
excluded in hopes of keeping the responses valid. Of the ﬁfteen sets of items in which
there were male and female counterparts as victims, 10 sets of the items had signiﬁcantly
different means (See Table 22). Of the 10 sets with signiﬁcantly different means, only 3
of the mean differences signiﬁed a higher level of blame attribution toward female
victims.

The items that showed signiﬁcantly more blame toward the female victim
pertained to the fault of the rape victim for taking a ride with a stranger, the fault of the
rape victim for going out alone at night, and the unbelievability of a prostitute’s
accusations of rape. Men were blamed more in situations in which the perceiver agreed
that a man should have been able to ﬁght off his attacker, in which the victim was labeled
or perceived as homosexual, and in which the desirability or innocence of the victim was

questioned.

48

 

Table 22 - Independent Samples T-test - Comparison of Means of Blame
Attributions Toward F emale and Male Victims

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Gender Mean Sig.
Rapedes F emale" 1 .85 .000
Male“ 2.64
Struggle Male" 2.76 .1 18
Female" 3.05
Innocent Female" 1 .47 .000
Male“ 2.33
Priorsex F emale" 1 .23 .003
Male“ 1.54
Rapegood Male“ 1 .35 .272
Female“ 1.24
Rapestgr MaleM l .60 .030
Female“ 1.89
Alonengt Female" 3.23 .000
Male“ 1.62
Prostute Male“ 2.38 .000
Female" 3.20
Blarnerpe Male” 1 .48 .432
Female" 1.57
Healthy F emale’” l .72 .000
Male 2.42

Sexexp F ernale** l. 1 7 .000
Male" 1.83
Deserve Male“ 1 .80 .000
Female" 1.26
Stranger F emale" 2. 18 .005
Male" 2.56
Injury Male” 2.41 .287
Female* 2.57
Contact Male" 1 .46 . 144
Female“ 1.60
** (N = 139)
* (N = 116)

The data from the independent samples T-test generally fail to reject the null
hypothesis that female victims are blamed equally as much as male victims. Female

victims were attributed signiﬁcantly higher blame on only 3 sets of the 10 survey items.

49

Male victims were attributed greater blame on the other 7 signiﬁcant sets. The other 6
sets of items either had no signiﬁcant difference between the mean blame attribution
scores. It appears that male victims are blamed far more often than female victims of
sexual assault.

Difference in Assignment of Blame by Gender of Subject

Hypothesis 4 contends that male subjects will attribute signiﬁcantly more blame
to rape victims than female subjects. Independent samples t-tests were run on the
NATFVI, NATFV2, NATMV] , AND NATMV2 scales.

The level of signiﬁcance of the difference between the mean z-scores for blame
attribution by male versus female subjects on all four scales allows for the rejection of the
null hypothesis. A value of .05 or less signiﬁes that the difference between the mean 2-
scores by male and female subjects is signiﬁcant. The level of signiﬁcance of the
difference between male and female subjects’ level of blame on the NATFVl scale was
.000, well below the requisite level of .05 to reject the null hypothesis (See Table 23).
The level of signiﬁcance on the NATFV2 scale was .014. The level of signiﬁcance on
the NATMV] scale was .000. The level of signiﬁcance on the NATMV2 scale was .001.

The difference in the means for all of the scales supported Hypothesis 4, showing
that males in the study attributed signiﬁcantly more blame to victims of sexual assault
across scales. On every scale, female subjects had a negative mean, while male subjects
had a positive mean. Females were more likely to disagree mildly with attribution of
blame toward victims, while males were more likely to agree mildly with attribution of

blame toward victims.

50

 

Table 23 — Independent Samples T-test — Male vs. Female Subjects Attributions of
Blame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Gender of Subject Mean Signiﬁcance
N ATFV 1 Male .450 .000
Female -.558
NATFV2 Male .181 .014
Female -.247
NATMV] Male .365 .000
Female -.453
NATMV2 Male .252 .001
Female -.345
* Total (N = 255)
Ver. 1 (N = 139)
Ver. 2 (N=116)

Just World Belief and Victim Blame

The ﬁfth hypothesis, that those with high belief in a just world will assign more
blame to rape victims, was generally supported in this analysis. Based on the correlation
matrices, belief in a just world was positively related to blame towards female and male
victims on the NATF V1 and NATMVI scales, but not toward female and male victims
from the NATFV2 and NATMV2 scales. Considering that the NATFVl and NATMVI
scales are considered the better of the four scales, the hypothesis ﬁnds some support.

The Pearson Correlation shows a weak correlation of .280 between scores on the
Just World Belief Scale and victim blame on the NATF V1 scale (See Table 24). The
variables have a 2-tailed signiﬁcance of .001 at the 0.01 level. The direction of the
correlation is positive, meaning the higher the belief in a just world, the higher the level
of blame toward female rape victims on the ﬁrst version of the survey.

The Pearson Correlation shows a weak correlation of .253 between scores on the
Just World Beliefs Scale and victim blame on the NATMV] (See Table 24). The

variables have a signiﬁcance of .003 at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The direction of the

51

correlation is positive, meaning the higher the belief in a just world, the higher the level
of blame toward male rape victims on the ﬁrst version of the survey. Just world beliefs

were unrelated to victim blame on the NATFV2 and NATMV2 scales.

 

Table 24 - Signiﬁcance & Correlation — Just World & Victim Blame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATFVl Pearson Correlation .280
Signiﬁcance .001"
NATFV2 Pearson Correlation .072
Signiﬁcance .442
NATMVl Pearson Correlation .253
Signiﬁcance .003“
N ATMVZ Pearson Correlation .017
Signiﬁcance .857
** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 (2-tailed)
Ver. 1 (N = 139)
Ver. 2 (N= 116)

Uniﬁque Invulnerability BelieL and Victim Elm

The sixth hypothesis, that those with high belief in unique invulnerability will
assign more blame to rape victims, was generally supported in this analysis. Based on
the correlation matrices, belief in unique invulnerability was positively related to blame
toward female victims using the NATFVl scale and blame towards male victims using
the NATMV] scale.

The Pearson Correlation shows a weak correlation of .322 between scores on the
Unique Invulnerability Scale and victim blame on the NATFVl scale (See Table 25).
The variables have a 2-tailed signiﬁcance of .000at the 0.01 level. The direction of the
correlation is positive, meaning the higher the belief in a just world, the higher the level
of blame toward female rape victims on the ﬁrst version of the survey. Belief in unique

invulnerability was unrelated to female victim blame on the NATFV2 scale.

52

The Pearson Correlation for the NATMV] scale shows a weak correlation of .266
between unique invulnerability beliefs and male victim blame (See Table 25). The
variables have a 2-tailed signiﬁcance of .002 at the 0.01 level. The direction of the
correlation between unique invulnerability and male victim blame on the NATMVI scale
is positive, indicating that subjects with a higher belief in unique invulnerability
attributed signiﬁcantly greater blame toward male victims than did subjects with a low
belief in unique invulnerability. Belief in unique invulnerability was unrelated to male

victim blame on the NATMV2 scale.

 

Table 25 — Signiﬁcance & Correlation — Unipue Invulnerability & Victim Blame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATFVl Pearson Correlation .322
Signiﬁcance .000"
NATFV2 Pearson Correlation -.009
Signiﬁcance .921
NATMV] Pearson Correlation .266
Signiﬁcance .002“
NATMV 2 Pearson Correlation .107
Signiﬁcance .254
** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 (2-tailed)
Ver. 1 (N = 139)
Ver. 2 (N = 116)

Multivariate Analysis

Multiple Reggession

The use of multiple regression allows for analysis of an independent variable,
while controlling for the effects of the other independent variables. The NATFVl,
NATFV2, NATMVI , and NATMV2 scales were utilized as the dependent variables,
while scores on the Just World Belief Scale and Unique Invulnerability Scale, gender,
race/ethnicity, age, personal victimization, and friend’s victimization experience were

utilized as the independent and control variables (See Model 1).

53

 

Model 1 — Multiple Regression — Independent, Controlling, and Dependent Factors

 

Just World
Belief

 

 

Unique
Invulnerability

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Blame on
- - NATFVI
/ E
NATMVI
Age NATMV2
Personal
Victimization
Friend’s
Victimization
Experience

 

 

 

 

The variables gender, race/ethnicity, personal victimization, and ﬁiend’s
victimization experience were dummy coded for analysis. Race/ethnicity was dummy
coded into categories of white “0” and non-white “1”. Gender was coded with males as
“0” and females as “1”. Personal Victimization and Friend’s Victimization Experience
were both coded as “0” for yes and “1” for no. Scores on the Just World Belief Scale and
the Unique Invulnerability Scale were not recoded, as they are both interval level

variables. Age was not recoded, as it is a ratio level variable.

54

Using multiple regression to account for variation in victim blame on the
NATFVl scale, the R-square statistic was .316 (See Table 26). The seven independent
and control variables accounted for approximately 32% of the variation in victim blame
on the NATFVl scale. The signiﬁcance of gender was less than .001, and Beta showed a
moderate relationship between the variables, measuring -.429 (See Table 26). The
signiﬁcance of belief in unique invulnerability was .024, and Beta showed a weak
relationship between the variables measuring .180.

Using the NATF V1 scale, gender is the overwhelming determinant of subject
attribution of blame toward a victim, controlling for the other independent variables.
Belief in unique invulnerability was the only other signiﬁcant variable with an inﬂuence
on victim blame, when controlling for the other variables. This ﬁnding is important
because it further supports the notion that the gender of the subject plays a vital role in

whether that person will blame victims of sexual assault.

 

Table 26 — Multiple Regression — Independent Variables & NATFVl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R-square Variable Significance Beta
.3 l6 Constant .032

Just World Belief .195 .103
Unique .024 . 180

Invulnerability

Belief

Gender .000 -.429
Age . 109 -. 120
Race/Ethnicity .619 -.037
Personal .856 .014

Victimization
Friend’s .482 -.055

Victimization

(N = 1 39)

55

Using multiple regression to account for variation in victim blame on the
NATFV2 scale, the R-square statistic was .073 (See Table 27). The seven independent
and control variables accounted for approximately 7% of the variation in negative
attitudes toward female victims from the second survey. Gender of the subject was
signiﬁcantly related to victim blame on the NATFV2 scale, controlling for the other six
factors. The signiﬁcance of gender was .029, and Beta showed a weak relationship

between the variables, measuring -.220 (See Table 27).

 

Table 27 — Multiple Regession - Indgyendent Variables & NATF V2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R-square Variable Sigpificance Beta
.077 Constant .202

Just World Belief .609 .049
Unique .535 -.060

Invulnerability

Belief

Gender .029 -.220
Age .289 -. 1 02
Race/Ethnicity .820 .022
Personal .360 -.088

Victimization
Friend’s .762 -.029

Victimization

(N =1 16)

Using multiple regression to account for variation in victim blame on the
NATMVI scale, the R-square statistic was .203 (See Table 28). The seven independent
and control variables accounted for approximately 20% of the variation in negative
attitudes toward male victims from the ﬁrst survey.

Gender of the subject was signiﬁcantly related to victim blame on the NATMV]
scale, controlling for the other six factors. The signiﬁcance of gender was less than .001,
and Beta showed a weak relationship between the variables, measuring -.341 (See Table

28).

56

 

Table 28 —- Multiple Regression — Independent Variables & NATMVl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R-square Variable Sigpificance Beta
.273 Constant .486

Just World Belief .182 .155
Unique .095 . 143

Invulnerability

Belief

Gender .000 -.341
Age .719 -.029
Race/ Ethnicity .817 -.018
Personal .968 -.003

Victimization
Friend’s .568 .048

Victimization

Ver 1 . (N = 1 39)

Using multiple regression to account for variation in victim blame on the
NATMV2 scale, the R-square statistic was .158 (See Table 29). The seven independent
and control variables accounted for approximately 16% of the variation in negative
attitudes toward male victims from the ﬁrst survey.

Gender was signiﬁcantly related to male victim blame on the NATMV2 scale,
controlling for the other six factors. The signiﬁcance of gender was .001, and Beta
showed a moderate relationship between the variables, measuring -.315 (See Table 29).
Age was also signiﬁcantly related to male victim blame using the NATMV2 scale,
controlling for the other six factors. The signiﬁcance of age was .034, and Beta showed a

weak relationship between the variables, measuring -.195.

57

 

Table 29 - Multiple Regression — Independent Variables & NATMV2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R-square Variable Significance Beta
.259 Constant .01 8
Just World Belief .892 .012
Unique .739 .03 1
Invulnerability
Belief
Gender .001 -.315
Age .034 -. 195
Race/Ethnicity .103 .151
Personal .964 -.004
Victimization
Friend’s .456 -.069
Victimization
Ver 2. (N =1 16)

The use of multiple regression shows that male subjects are more likely to display
negative attitudes toward both female and male victims of sexual assault. Those with a
stronger belief in a just world on the NATMVl scale were more likely to display victim-
negative attitudes. Younger individuals on the NATMV 2 scale were more likely to
engage in victim-blaming behavior. The ﬁnding that younger subjects were more likely
to blame victims runs counter to other academic literature which states that older
individuals are more likely to blame victims.

Effects of Gender

The analyses in this chapter have shown that gender is consistently related to
victim blame. Univariate analyses showed differences in blame attribution between
males and females through closer examination of cross-tabulations and bar charts.
Bivariate analyses showed that belief in a just world and belief in unique invulnerability
were also a signiﬁcant determinant of victim blame. However, multiple regression
showed that belief in unique invulnerability was signiﬁcantly related to victim blame,

while controlling for six other factors, in only one of four scales (N ATFVl). Belief in a

58

just world was not a signiﬁcant factor, while controlling for six other factors, in any scale
utilized for multiple regression.

The reason for the failure of just world belief and unique invulnerability belief in
inﬂuencing victim blame, when controlling for other factors, may be the presence of
gender as a signiﬁcant variable. Gender may inﬂuence just world and unique
invulnerability beliefs, which then inﬂuence victim blame. To determine if gender was a
signiﬁcant inﬂuence on just world and unique invulnerability beliefs, I conducted
bivariate analyses utilizing independent samples t-tests.

Gender proved to be a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on subjects’ beliefs in a just world.
Males had a signiﬁcantly greater belief in a just world than females did (See Table 30).
The mean score for males on the Just World Belief Scale was .193, while the mean score
for females was -.250. The signiﬁcance of t was .000. Females, as a group, disagreed

that the world is a just place, while males tended to agree that the world is a just place.

 

Table 30 - Independent Samples T-test— Just World Belief Scale & Gender

 

 

 

Gender N Mean Signiﬁcance
(2-tailed)
Male 1 44 . 193 .000
Female 11 1 -.250

 

 

 

 

Gender also proved to be a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on subjects’ beliefs in their own
unique invulnerability. Males had a signiﬁcantly greater belief in unique invulnerability
than females did (See Table 31). The mean score for males on the Unique Invulnerability
Scale was .234, while the mean score for females was -.303. The signiﬁcance of t was
.000. Females, as a group, disagreed that they were uniquely invulnerable, while males,

as a group, agreed that they were uniquely invulnerable.

59

 

Table 31 - Independent Samples T-test— Unique Invulnerability Scale & Gender

 

 

 

Gender N Mean Significance
(2-tailed)
Male 144 .234 .000
Female 1 l 1 -.303

 

 

 

 

Further discussion about the relevance and meaning of the ﬁndings will be

included in the next chapter.

60

Chapter 5: Discussion

Three of the hypotheses tested in this study were supported, while the other three
hypotheses were not supported. The contentions in Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, and
Hypothesis 3 did not ﬁnd support. The contentions in Hypothesis 4, Hypothesis 5, and

Hypothesis 6 did ﬁnd support.

H1: Subjects, as a whole, disagreed that acquaintance rape victims were more to blame
than stranger rape victims, however male subjects were more likely than female subjects
to attribute blame toward acquaintance rape victims.

H2: Subjects, as a whole, disagreed that homosexual male victims were more to blame
than heterosexual male victims, however male subjects were more likely than female
subjects to attribute blame toward homosexual male victims.

H3: Subjects did not attribute more blame to female victims, but rather attributed more
blame toward male victims.

H4: Male subjects attributed greater blame toward rape victims than female subjects.
H5: Those with a higher belief in a just world attributed greater blame than those with a
low belief in a just world.

H6: Those with a higher belief in unique invulnerability attributed greater blame than

those with a low belief in unique invulnerability.

61

Mags

Hypothesis 1

The lack of support for my ﬁrst hypothesis contradicts previous research, ﬁnding
that subjects, as a whole, did not blame acquaintance rape victims signiﬁcantly more than
stranger rape victims. Reasons for this contradiction might be that current undergraduate
students are more aware about the incidence of acquaintance rape, especially among
college students, than in the past.

Another reason for the lack of difference in blame could be that ﬁve statements in
which the victim was male were included. As stated previously, academic research has
not clearly shown if males are assaulted more by strangers or by acquaintances. The
research also fails to state whether those who sexually assault males are usually male or
female. The literature has shown a tendency for subjects to blame female acquaintance
rape victims, but has not addressed blame toward male acquaintance rape victims. It may
be possible that subjects view male victims of acquaintance rape in a different manner,
which may dilute ﬁndings about opinions toward acquaintance rape victims as a whole,
when the group includes both male and female victims.

Further research assessing blame toward acquaintance rape and stranger rape
victims could beneﬁt by measuring attitudes toward male victims of acquaintance rape as
compared to both male victims of stranger rape. Analysis of attitudes toward male
victims of acquaintance rape versus female victims of acquaintance rape could also be a
prosperous direction. The analysis of the gender of the victim, along with the victim’s
relationship to the perpetrator might provide clarity as to what type of victim is blamed

more and for what reason.

62

Hypothesis 2

The lack of support for my second hypothesis contradicts previous research. I
found that subjects, as a whole, did not blame male rape victims labeled or perceived as
homosexual signiﬁcantly more than they blamed male rape victims who were labeled or
perceived as heterosexual. Perhaps the lack of support for this hypothesis may result
from the fact that a college-aged sample may be less homonegative than the general
population.

The lack of empirical research in comparing blame attribution between gay and
straight male victims may have caused this researcher to state the hypothesis in the wrong
direction, attributing more blame to homosexual male victims, rather than attributing
more blame to heterosexual male victims. Perhaps subjects see sexual victimization as an
inherent factor that exists within the gay lifestyle, and are more spiteful toward
heterosexual men who were victimized. However, the ﬁndings for Hypothesis 3 suggest
that subjects may not be inﬂuenced by the sexual orientation of the male victim, but
simply by the fact that the victim is male.

Hypothesis 3

 

The lack of support for my third hypothesis contradicts previous research, ﬁnding
that subjects did not blame female rape victims signiﬁcantly more than male rape victims.
Reasons for the lack of support could include subjects’ empathy for both female and male
victims of rape or the fact that subjects blame male victims more than female victims.
The independent samples t-test run on the 16 sets of survey items revealed only 3 sets of

items that displayed greater blame toward a female victim, while 7 sets of items

63

attributed greater blame toward male victims. It seems that male victims are seen as far
more to blame for their victimization than females.

Men were blamed more in situations in which the perceiver thought that men
should be tough enough to resist a rape, in which the victim was homosexual, and in
which the desirability or innocence of the victim was called into question. The presence
of male blame in which the victim was labeled or perceived as homosexual points to a
need for better measurements of blame which specify whether the gender of the victim or
the sexual orientation of the victim is the major target of blame. Hypothesis 2 supports
the idea that subjects do not blame homosexual male victims more than heterosexual
male victims. It is likely that the items used in this hypothesis in which the males were
blamed signiﬁcantly more than females for having previous sexual relations with a man,
resulted in greater blame not from a negative view toward the victim as a homosexual,
but rather a negative view towards the victim as a male. Items that better differentiate
and measure responses toward various male rape myths, such as males should have been
able to defend themselves or that male rape victims are homosexual, nright be able to
clarify just why it is that male rape victims are blamed more often than females.

Hypothesis 4

Analysis supported my fourth hypothesis, that male subjects will attribute
signiﬁcantly more blame to rape victims than female subjects. The independent samples
t-tests showed that male subjects agreed that some blame should fall the victims on the
NATFVl, NATF V2, NATMVl, and NATMV2 scales. Female subjects disagreed that

blame should fall on the victims in all four of the scales.

Perhaps female subjects feel a type of universal empathy for victims of crime. It
would be interesting to discover if female subjects attributed less blame attribution than
male subjects on scales measuring many different types of criminal victimization. It may
be possible that females may feel some sort of commonality with victims that the Unique
Invulnerability Scale does not measure.

The belief in a just world may also hold promise in further investigation into
gender differences in victim blame attribution. Perhaps future research could further
analyze gender differences in just world belief by subject gender, instead of victim
gender. It was shown that gender was a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on both belief in a just
world and belief in unique invulnerability. Perhaps the linkages between gender, just
world beliefs, unique invulnerability beliefs, and victim blame could be clariﬁed in
subsequent research.

Hymthesis 5

Analysis supported my ﬁfth hypothesis, that those with high belief in a just world
will assign more blame to rape victims than those with a low belief in a just world.
Bivariate analysis showed that just world beliefs were signiﬁcantly related to victim
blame on the NATF V1 and NATMVl scales. Although the NATF V2 and NATMV 2
scales did not Show any correlation with just world beliefs, the two scales that showed
signiﬁcant inﬂuence, NATFVl and NATMVl , are considered the better scales by this
researcher.

Utilizing multivariate regression, none of the scales were signiﬁcantly impacted
by just world beliefs, while controlling for six other variables. However, this lack of

impact may be from the use of responses from only ﬁve just world statements in the

65

survey and its analysis. There may be too few just world items in the scale utilized to
gain an accurate understanding as to the involvement of just world beliefs in the blaming
of victims.

Another shortcoming may be that just world beliefs cannot be accurately
measured by including only statements that ask about the deservedness of criminal
victimization. Rubin and Peplau’s Just World Scale is a 20-item survey that asks about
not only criminal victimization, but the deservedness of non-victimization circumstances
such as heart attacks. A comparison of scores on Rubin & Peplau’s Just World Scale
with a separate survey asking about victimization might be able to better explain the
correlation between just world belief and blame attribution toward sexual assault victims.

The signiﬁcant impact of gender on beliefs in a just world also needs to be further
investigated. Reasons why male subjects were more apt to believe in a just world than
female subjects should be further evaluated.

Hypothesis 6

Analysis supported my sixth hypothesis, that that those with high belief in unique
invulnerability will assign more blame to rape victims. Bivariate analysis showed a
correlation between belief in unique invulnerability and victim blame on the NATFVI
and NATMVI scales.

However, multiple regression showed that belief in unique invulnerability was
signiﬁcant in only one of the four scales (N ATFVl), when controlling for six other
factors. Perhaps there were too few items, only four, to gain a clear understanding of the
role of unique invulnerability in victim blaming. The clearly signiﬁcant factor

inﬂuencing unique invulnerability and victim blaming was the gender of the subject.

66

Therefore, a better understanding of how gender affects belief in unique invulnerability,
and how victim blaming is affected by this inﬂuence, should be a focus of future
research.

Implications of Gender Differences in Victim Blaﬂipg

The overwhelming inﬂuence of the gender of subjects on victim blaming warrants
further discussion. Males tended to be more critical of victims than females in nearly
every regard. Why did male subjects blame sexual assault victims more than female
subjects did?

Perhaps the answer lies in the differences in sex role socialization between males
and females. The difference in how men and women see themselves in relation to others,
along with the source of their personal worth, are developed through different deﬁnitions
of what is appropriate for men and what is appropriate for women. During the sex role
socialization process, females come to view their intrinsic self-worth as tied to the ability
to care for others (Gilligan, 1982). They ﬁnd that interdependence, relationships, and
communication are what constitute a female identity. To inﬂict hurt, in any form, upon
another is viewed as selﬁsh and immoral because it shows a lack of caring for others
(Gilligan, 1982). The expression of care comes to be seen by women as a moral
responsibility.

For males, the sex role socialization process instills a self-worth based upon logic,
law, rules, and order. Men come to rely on the notions of truth and fairness as absolutes
(Gilligan, 1982). Males, rather than ﬁnding value and identity within attachments to
others, ﬁnd it in separation from others (Gilligan, 1982). Men seek individuality, not

connection, as a means of empowerment and masculinity.

67

The female psychological perspective, as opposed to the male perspective, leads
not only to a less violent life, but also a maturity based on interdependence and taking
care of others (Gilligan, 1982). Females participate in an ongoing process of attachment
that creates and sustains a human community, while males strive to be unattached from
others (Gilligan, 1982).

This difference in the development in men and women as to what constitutes
empowerment and identity may factor into victim blaming. Perhaps pro-victim attitudes
by female subjects constitute an ability to care for others, a result of their sex role
socialization and a pillar to their female identity. To state that a victim deserved their
victimization would be selﬁsh and contradict what it means to be female. Males might
hold more negative attitudes toward victims because attachments and the ability to care
about others are not the inherent principles in male sex role socialization as they are in
female sex role socialization.

If Gilligan is correct, males may contradict their masculinity by stating that the
victim is not to blame for their victimization. For males, rules and logic dictate thought.
Therefore it may not be a stretch for them to believe that for some reason, the sexual
assault was justiﬁed because of the actions of the victim.

Another possible reason for greater victim-blaming attitudes by male subjects
could be that males may not think about sexual victimization as much as females. Sexual
assault is seen largely as a problem where females are the victims. Some people are not
even aware that men can be raped. Therefore, females may be better educated about the
issue and its many facets than males are. Level of knowledge about sexual assault might

provide insight into gender differences in perception of victims. If females worry about

68

sexual assault more than men do, perhaps they also think about the victims of sexual
assault and the situations they may face more than men do, resulting in greater empathy
toward the victims.

_S_uggestion_s for Future Research

There are several directions for improvement in which this study may lead future
research. This thesis has shown some problem areas to avoid in subsequent efforts to
understand sexual victimization. First, the sample utilized in this study was small, only
255 usable cases. A larger sample might produce more reliable results.

Second, the sample was relatively young, with the bulk of respondents between
ages 18 and 22. Academic research has shown that there are signiﬁcant differences
between the way college students view the world as opposed to older, non-college
students (Schneider, 1992). Along with age, the fact that the respondents are pursuing
higher education may also be a source of response bias.

Third, the racial/ethnic makeup of the sample was rather homogeneous. Over
90% of the respondents were Caucasian. This does little to point out any differences in
perceptions of rape victims inﬂuenced by race or ethnicity. Student populations tend to
consist of limited racial and ethnic diversity, and may limit the cultural expression of
whatever demographic diversity does exist (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). A sample
with a greater minority representation might provide some insight into cultural
differences, if any exist.

Fourth, the sample was taken from criminal justice undergraduate courses. It was
assumed that not all of the respondents would be criminal justice majors or would have

enough knowledge about criminal victimization to taint the responses. However, perhaps

69

criminal justice courses attract a certain type of individual that is not representative of
college students in general. Further studies may utilize courses from a variety of majors
in which to survey students.

Fifth, the survey contained statements that required a variety of analyses, from
univariate to multiple regression. While it may seem that the variety of analyses could
add to the reliability of the survey items, further research would be able to better address
which type of survey items and which format in to use them in would provide the most
reliable and valid responses. The use of reverse coding for some of the items may have
also caused confusion among some of the subjects or have affected the analyses in some
manner. It is worth noting that the scale NATFV2, which was the weakest of the four
victim blame scales, was comprised of ﬁve items with reverse coding.

Sixth, the two versions of the survey contained some items with similar situations,
but were not worded in exactly the same way. For example, an item on Survey 1 reads
“A woman who goes out alone at night puts herself in a position to be raped”, while the
counterpart item on Survey 2 reads “A man who goes out alone at night invites rape.”
The fact that these two items, while containing a similar idea, are worded differently may
have made the comparison and use of the items in analysis less reliable. Future studies
would likely beneﬁt from having items worded exactly the same, except for the gender of
the subject.

Implications & Summaﬂ

It is important to understand why victims of sexual assault are sometimes blamed

for their victimization. This research has shown that the gender of a person interpreting a

sexual assault situation has a signiﬁcant effect upon that person’s likelihood to blame the

70

victim. Determinants of victim blame are important to understand because it has been
shown that judgmental attitudes of individuals have an effect on the legal processes in
which victims ﬁnd themselves (Pollard, 1992).

What do we do with the knowledge that gender has an overwhelming inﬂuence on
victim-blaming? The knowledge that men are more likely to blame victims must be used
to promote the alteration of current sex role socialization for boys. A fundamental
change in society regarding how we view masculinity and femininity in relation to our
treatment and of others must be undertaken. Society needs to teach males early on that
caring about others does not constitute weakness. Men need to be taught that to
empathize with the situations of others does not make one less of a man and that
detachment does not have to be a vital part of the male identity. Boys and men must be
instilled with the ability to communicate and value relationships and attachments, as well
as the knowledge that these attributes are not in conﬂict with a positive male identity. If
boys and men are continually instilled with the idea that caring about others makes one
weak or less manly, true progress towards victim empathy remains unattainable on a
societal level.

A host of other implications arises from males and their tendency toward victim
denigration. A male perspective dominates the history of law and justice in this country.
Not until 1920 were women given the constitutional right to vote. No female has been
elected president in the 200 plus years of the United States. Only two women have sat on
the Supreme Court and the United States Congress has been overwhelmingly masculine
in its makeup throughout its existence. The role of women in the creation and

implementation of federal, not to mention state, laws has been subservient to the

71

masculine role. If those who make laws, decide judicial outcomes, and implement
sentencing are overwhelmingly male and are affected by sex role socialization and its
implications as described by Gilligan, then systemic conﬂict and power differential
between males and females who decide which people receive justice will remain a real
issue.

An overhaul of how we view and treat people in general, not to mention victims
of sexual assault, is needed. This change needs to begin early on with the socialization of
children. Males and females alike need to be taught that nobody, regardless of whether
they are male or female, gay or straight, deserves to be blamed for being raped.

It is commonly stated that sexual assaults are not often reported. If individuals
who have been sexually assaulted are in constant fear of harsh judgment when coming
forward with their stories, sexual assault will continue to be one of the most
underreported crimes. If the extent of the problem is never in plain view, solutions and

effective prevention are highly unlikely.

72

APPENDIX A

Survey 1

** BEFORE ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS, indicate your age in the first two
columns of the SECTION box on the Scantron form. Also enter the number 1 in the

FORM box on the Scantron form.

After entering your age in the SECTION box and the number 1 in the FORM box,
continue with the questions below in the numbered section of the Scantron form.

Please indicate your opinion according to the following scale:

(1) Disagree Strongly (2) Disagree Mildly (3) Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
(4) Agree Mildly (5) Agree Strongly

 

1) Basically, the world is a just place.

2) By and large, people deserve what they get.

3) Many people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own.

4) I make smarter decisions than others.

5) Negative events are less likely to happen to me than to happen to others.

6) People who get “lucky breaks” have usually earned their good fortune.

7) I’ve found that a person rarely deserves the reputation he or she has.

8) Violent crimes are just as likely to happen to me as they are to happen to others.

9) There is a signiﬁcant difference between people who have bad things happen to them
and myself.

10) People who meet with misfortune have often brought it on themselves.

73

Please indicate your opinion according to the following scale:

(1) Disagree Strongly (2) Disagree Mildly (3) Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
(4) Agree Mildly (5) Agree Strongly

For the purposes of this survey, the word rape means: Penetrated orally, vaginally,
or anally with a penis or object against his/her wishes

 

11) A raped woman is a less desirable woman.
12) Gay men who are raped probably did not get what they deserved.

13) The amount a man struggled should not be a major factor in determining if he was
raped.

14) A raped woman is usually not an innocent victim.

15) Women who have had prior sexual relationships with a man should not complain
about being raped.

16) Male prostitutes who claim to have been raped should be doubted.
17) It would be good for some men to be raped.
18) Any female may be raped.

19) A gay man who is raped is probably just as traumatized than a straight man that is
raped.

20) Men who are raped while accepting rides from strangers get what they deserve.

21) A woman who goes out alone at night puts herself in a position to be raped.

22) Men should blame themselves for being raped.

23) A healthy woman can successfully resist a rape if she really tries.

24) Sexually experienced women are not really damaged by rape.

25) In the majority of cases, men who were raped did not deserve it.

26) A woman who is raped is almost always more traumatized than a man who is raped.

27) A man who is raped is probably homosexual.

74

Please indicate your opinion according to the following scale:

(1) Disagree Strongly (2) Disagree Mildly (3) Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
(4) Agree Mildly (5) Agree Strongly

For the purposes of this survey, the word rape means: Penetrated orally, vaginally,
or anally with a penis or object against his/her wishes

 

28) A woman who claims rape is more believable than a man who claims rape is.
29) Gay men probably enjoy being raped more than straight men.

30) Its ok for a woman to be traumatized by rape, but a man who is raped should move on
with his life.

31) A man is more likely to be raped by someone he knows than by someone he’s never
met before.

32) A woman who claims that a stranger raped her is more believable than a woman who
claims to have been raped by an acquaintance.

33) A man without physical injuries is more likely to be lying about being raped than a
man with physical injuries is.

34) Men are more to blame for being raped than women are because they should have
been able to ﬁght of the rapist.

35) A woman who does not contact the police, medical, or mental health professionals
probably was not raped.

36) Gay men are more responsible for being raped than straight men due to their

behaviors and lifestyle.

 

Please answer some questions about yourself.
37) What is your gender? (1) Male (2) Female

38) What is your race/ethnicity? (1) Caucasian (2) Aﬁican American
(3) Hispanic/Latino (4) Asian / Paciﬁc Islander (5) Other

39) Have you ever been sexually assaulted (Been penetrated orally, vaginally, or anally
with a penis or object against your wishes)? (I) Yes (2) No

75

40) Do you have a close or friendly relationship with a person who has been sexually
assaulted (Been penetrated orally, vaginally, or anally with a penis or object against
her/his wishes)? (I) Yes (2) No

76

APPENDIX B

Survey 2

** BEFORE ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS, indicate your age in the ﬁrst two
columns of the SECTION box on the Scantron form. Also enter the number 2 in the
FORM box on the Scantron form.

After entering your age in the SECTION box and the number 2 in the FORM box,
continue with the questions below in the numbered section of the Scantron form.
Please indicate your opinion according to the following scale:

(1) Disagree Strongly (2) Disagree Mildly (3) Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
(4) Agree Mildly (5) Agree Strongly

 

1) Basically, the world is a just place.

2) By and large, people deserve what they get.

3) Many people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own.

4) I make smarter decisions than others.

5) Negative events are less likely to happen to me than to happen to others.

6) People who get “lucky breaks” have usually earned their good fortune.

7) I’ve found that a person rarely deserves the reputation he or she has.

8) Violent crimes are just as likely to happen to me as they are to happen to others.

9) There is a signiﬁcant difference between people who have bad things happen to them
and myself.

10) People who meet with misfortune have often brought it on themselves.

77

Please indicate your opinion according to the following scale:

(1) Disagree Strongly (2) Disagree Mildly (3) Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
(4) Agree Mildly (5) Agree Strongly

For the purposes of this survey, the word rape means: Penetrated orally, vaginally,
or anally with a penis or object against his/her wishes

 

l 1) Men who are raped are less desirable.

12) The extent of a woman’s resistance should not be a major factor in determining if a
rape has occurred.

13) Men who have had prior sexual relationships with a man should not complain about
being raped.

14) It would do some women good to be raped.
15) Gay men who are raped probably did not get what they deserved.
16) Any man can be raped.

17) Women, who accept rides from strangers and are subsequently raped, did not deserve
to be raped.

18) A gay man who is raped is probably just as traumatized than a straight man that is
raped.

19) A man who goes out alone at night invites rape.

20) Accusations of rape by female prostitutes should not be viewed with suspicion.

21) Women should not blame themselves for being raped.

22) A man who is raped is probably homosexual.

23) A raped man is usually an innocent victim.

24) Nearly any man can ﬁght off a rapist if he really tries.

25) Men who have had sexual experience with other men are not really damaged by rape.
26) In most cases when a woman was raped, she deserved it.

27) A woman who is raped is almost always more traumatized than a man who is raped.

78

Please indicate your opinion according to the following scale:

(1) Disagree Strongly (2) Disagree Mildly (3) Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
(4) Agree Mildly (5) Agree Strongly

For the purposes of this survey, the word rape means: Penetrated orally, vaginally,
or anally with a penis or object against his/her wishes

 

28) Gay men probably enjoy being raped more than straight men.
29) A woman who claims rape is more believable than a man who claims rape is.

30) Its ok for a woman to be traumatized by rape, but a man who is raped should move on
with his life.

31) A woman is more likely to be raped by a stranger than by an acquaintance.

32) A man who claims he was raped by someone he does not know is more believable
than a man who claims to have been raped by someone he does know.

33) A woman with physical injuries is more likely to be telling the truth about being
raped than a woman without physical injuries is.

34) Men are more to blame for being raped than women are because they should have
been able to ﬁght of the rapist.

35) Men who do not contact medical personnel, law enforcement personnel, or mental
health professionals probably were not raped.

36) Gay men are more responsible for being raped than straight men due to their
behaviors and lifestyle.

 

Please answer some questions about yourself.
37) What is your gender? (1) Male (2) Female

38) What is your race/ethnicity? (1) Caucasian (2) African American
(3) Hispanic/Latino (4) Asian / Paciﬁc Islander (5) Other

39) Have you ever been sexually assaulted (Been penetrated orally, vaginally, or anally
with a penis or object against your wishes)? (1) Yes (2) No

79

40) Do you have a close or friendly relationship with a person who has been sexually
assaulted (Been penetrated orally, vaginally, or anally with a penis or object against
her/his wishes)? (I) Yes (2) No

80

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

Survey Items
Survey Items Utilized in Analysis
Item On Which Survey? Developed By or Used To Measure
Derived From Which
Hypothesis?
erdjust Both Rubin & Peplau 5
Dserv Both Rubin & Peplau 5
Suffer2 Both Rubin & Peplau 5
Luckybrk Both Rubin & Peplau 5
Misfort Both Rubin & Peplau 5
Smart Both Mamer 6
Negevent Both Marner 6
Violcrim2 Both Mamer 6
Sigdif Both Marner 6
Rapwom 1 Ward 4,5,6
Rapman 2 Marner 4,5,6
Wmstrug2 2 Ward 1,3,4,5.6
Mnstrug2 l Mamer 1,3,4,5,6
Wominct 1 Ward 3,4,5,6
Manincnt2 2 Marner 3,4,5,6
Womprior 1 Ward 3
Manprior 2 Marner 3
Mangdrp 1 Marner 3,4,5,6
Womgdrp 2 Ward 3,4,5,6
Anywom2 1 Ward 4,5,6
Anyman2 2 Marner 4,5,6
Manstngr 1 Marner 3,4,5,6
Womstgr2 2 Ward 3,4,5,6
Womalone 1 Ward 3,4,5,6
Manalone 2 Marner 3,4,5,6
Manprost 1 Marner 3,4,5,6
Womprst2 2 Ward 3,4,5,6
Menblame 1 Marner 3,4,5,6
Womblam2 2 Ward 3,4,5,6
Hlthywom 1 Ward 3,4,5,6
Hlthyman 2 Mamer 3,4,5,6
Womexp 1 Ward 3
Manexp 2 Marner 3
Mandsrv2 l Mamer 3,4,5,6
Womdesrv 2 Ward 3,4,5,6
Wommrrnan Both Marner Not used

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

Wommrblv Both Mamer Not used
Manmovon Both Marner Not Used
Womstaq 2 Marner Not Used
Manstaq l Marner Not Used
Womsablv 1 Marner 1,3,4,5,6
Mansablv 2 Marner 1,3,4,5,6
Maninjr l Marner l ,3,4,5,6
Wominj r2 2 Marner 1 ,3,4,5,6
Manmrblm Both Marner Not Used
Womcntct 1 Marner 1 ,3,4,5,6
Mancntct 2 Marner 1,3,4,5,6
Rpmnhomo Both Marner Not Used
Gytrmst2 Both Mamer 2
Gymrenjy Both Mamer 2

Gybhvr Both Marner 2
Gayman2 Both Marner 2

 

 

 

 

82

REFERENCES

Anderson, K.B., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. (1997). Individual differences and
attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytical review. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 23(3), 295-315.

 

Barnett, M.A., Quackenbush, S.W., Sinisi, C.S., Wegrnan, C.M., & Otney, KL.
(1992). Factors affecting reactions to a rape victim. The Journal of Psychology. 126(6),
609-620.

Brems, C. & Wagner, P. (1993). Blame of victim and perpetrator in rape versus
theft. The Journal of Social Psychology. 134(3), 363-374.

Bridges, J .S. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex
role expectations and rape supportive beliefs. Sex Roles. 24(5/6), 291-307.

Bridges, J .S. & McGrail, CA. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for date and
stranger rape. Sex Roles. 21(3/4), 273-286.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men. women and raw. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

Burt, MR. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 38(2), 217-230.

Campbell, R. (1995). The role of work experience and individual beliefs in
police officers’ perceptions of date rape: An integration of quantitative and qualitative
methods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(2), 249-277.

Davis, RC, Brickrnan, E., & Baker, T. (1991). Supportive and unsupportive
responses of others to rape victims: Effects on concurrent victim adjustment. American

Journal of Communigg Psychology, 19(3), 443-451.

Dull, R.T. & Giacopassi, DJ. (1987). Demographic correlates of sexual and
dating attitudes: A study of date rape. Criminal Justiceﬁand Behaviorpl4. 175-193.

 

Feild, HS. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police,
rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. JoumjaLl of Personality and Socgl Psychology,
3am, 156-179.

Feldman, P.J., Ullman, J .B., Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1998). Women’s reactions to

rape victims: Motivational processes associated with blame and social support. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 28(6), 469-503.

83

Fischer, G.J. (1986). College student attitudes toward forcible date rape: I.
cognitive predictors. Archives of Sex Behavior; 15. 457-466.

Frazier, RA. (1993). A comparative study of male and female rape victims seen
at a hospital-based rape crisis program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 8(1), 64-76.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In_a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Groth, N. & Burgess, A.W. (1980). Male rape: Offenders and victims.
American Journal of Psychiatry. 137(7), 806-810.

Helweg-Larsen, M. (1999). Students do not overestimate their life expectancy:
An alternative demonstration of unique invulnerability. Igching of Psychology. 26(3),
215-219.

Hickman, S.E. & Muehlenhard, CL. (1997). College women’s fears and
precautionary behaviors relating to acquaintance rape and stranger rape. Psychology of
Women Quarterly. 21. 527-547.

Howard, J .A. (1984a). Societal inﬂuences on attribution: Blaming some victims
more than others. Journal of Personalig/ and Social Psychology. 47. 494-505.

Howard, J .A. (1984b). The ‘normal’ victim: The effects of gender stereotypes on
reactions to victims. Social Psychology Quarterly. 47. 270-281.

Johnson, J .D. (1994). The effect of rape type and information admissibility on
perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles. 30(11/12), 781-792.

Kanekar, S., Shaherwalla, A., Franco, 8., Kunju, T., & Pinto, A.J. (1991). The
acquaintance predicament of a rape victim. Journal of Applied Social Psycholagy,
_2_1(18), 1524-1544.

Kaufman, A., Divasto, R, Jackson, R., Voorhees, D., & Christy, J. (1980). Male
rape victims: Noninstitutionalized assault. American Joml of Psychiatry 137(2), 221-
223.

Klar, Y., Medding, A., & Sarel, D. (1996). Nonunique invulnerability: Singular
versus distributional probabilities and unrealistic optimism in comparative risk
judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 67(2), 229-245.

Kleinke, C.L., & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and

women with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quaiterlyl 14.
343-353.

84

Kopper, BA. (1996). Gender, gender identity, rape myth acceptance, and time of
initial resistance on the perception of acquaintance rape blame and avoidability. Say
Roles 34(1/2), 81-93.

 

Kormos, K.C., & Brooks, C.I. (1994). Acquaintance rape: Attributions of victim
blame by college students and prison inmates as a function of relationship status of victim
and assailant. Psychological Reports. 74, 545-546.

Koss, M.P., Dinero, T.E., Seibel, C.A., & Cox, S.L. (1988). Stranger and
acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim’s experience? Psychology of
Women QuarterlyLIZ. 1-24.

Kramer, E.J. (1998). When men are victims: Applying rape shield laws to male
same-sex rape. New YorkUniversity Law Review. 73(253), 293-331.

Kramer, KM. (1994). Rule by myth: The social and legal dynamics governing
alcohol-related acquaintance rapes. Stanford gw Reviewa45(115), 115-160.

Lee, H.B. & Cheung, F .M. (1991). The attitudes toward rape victims scale:
Reliability and validity in a Chinese context. Sex RolesJ5(9/ 10), 599-603.

Leﬂey, H.P., Scott, C.S., Llabre, M., & Hicks, D. (1993). Cultural beliefs about
rape and victims’ response in three ethnic groups. American Journal of Orthopsychiata'y,
Q14), 623-632.

Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, LP. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology
of Women Quarterly. 18. 133-164.

McCaul, K.D., Veltum, L.G., Boyechko, V., & Crawford, J .J . (1990).
Understanding attributions of victim blame for rape: Sex, violence, and forseeability.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 20(1), 1-26.

McKenna, RP. (1993). It won’t happen to me: Unrealistic optimism or illusion
of control? Briti§_h Journal of Psychology. 84. 39-50.

Mitchell, D., Hirschman, R., & Nagayama Hall, G.C. (1999). Attributions of
victim responsibility, pleasure, and trauma in male rape. The J oumal of Sex Researcln
3§(4), 369-373.

Mori, L., Bemat, J .A., Glenn, P.A., Selle, L.L., & Zarate, M.G. (1995). Attitudes
toward rape: Gender and ethnic differences across Asian and Caucasian college students.
Sex Roles 32(7/8), 457-467.

 

Muller, R.T., Caldwell, R.A., & Hunter, J .E. (1995). The construct
dimensionality of victim blame: The situations of physical child abuse and rape.
Personality and Individual Differences. 19(1), 21-31.

85

Nurius, PS. (1999). Risk perception for acquaintance sexual aggression: A
social—cognitive perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 5(1), 63-78.

Pollard, P. (1992). Judgements about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A
review. British Jourgal of Psychology. 31. 307-326.

Rubin, Z. & Peplau, A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s
lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues. 29(4),
73-93.

Rubin, Z. & Peplau, A. (197 5). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social
Issues 31(3), 65-89.

 

Schneider, L.J. (1992). Perceptions of single and multiple incident rape. Sag
Roles 26(3/4), 97-108.

 

Schneider, L.J., Ee, J .S., & Aronson, H. (1994). Effects of victim gender and
physical vs. psychological trauma/injury on observers’ perceptions of sexual assault and
its aftereffects. Sex Roles. 30(11/12), 793-808.

Sinclair, H.C., & Boume, L.E. Jr. (1998). Cycle of blame or just world: Effects
of legal verdicts on gender patterns in rape-myth acceptance and victim empathy.
Psychology of Women Ouaiterly. 22. 575-588.

Snyder, CR. (1997). Unique invulnerability: A classroom demonstration in
estimating personal mortality. Iaachingaf Psychology, 24(3), 197-199.

Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1992). Acceptance of male
rape myths among college men and women. Sex Roles. 27(3/4), 85-100.

US. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997). Sourcebook of
criminal justice statistics-1995. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office.

Ward, C. (1988). The attitudes toward rape victims scale: Construction,
validation, and cross-cultural applicability. Psycholowf Women Quarterly. 12. 127-
146.

Whatley, M.A. & Riggio, RE. (1993). Gender differences in attributions of
blame for male rape victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 8(4), 502-511.

White, B.H., & Robinson Kurpius, SE. (1999). Attitudes toward rape victims:
Effects of gender and professional status. Joanal of Interpersonal Violence. 14(9), 989-
995.

86

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1111131lllltjjlllllllllltlllll