“BLAME IT ON THE ALCOHOL”:
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL
CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Tilburg University, School of Law
Master’s thesis for Victimology and Criminal Justice
July, 2017
Eline G. J. Chavanu
ANR: 721191
1st supervisor: MSc Eva Mulder
2nd supervisor: dr. K.M.E. Lens OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Abstract
Alcohol consumption by the victim in cases of rape has proven to be problematic in previous research. Several psychological mechanisms, such as the belief in a just world and gender stereotypes can lead to victim blaming by observers. Because of the lack of research on the distinction in different ways of alcohol consumption, two conditions were added in this study, in addition to a sober condition, that measured the reactions of observers to a victim that was coerced to drink by the perpetrator, and a victim that drank voluntarily. Because most research focuses on female victims, the gender of the victim was also taken as a variable to measure how victim and perpetrator blaming works within these conditions when the victim is male.
Individual differences of observers in terms of gender and attitude towards alcohol use were controlled for. Findings show that, in attributing responsibility, it mainly matters whether alcohol consumption was present, it did not matter significantly if consumption was coerced or voluntary. Besides, the victim gender differences are in this study present as well, for most confirmed expectations occurred only in the female-victim scenarios, and the male-victim scenarios did not have many important differences. The results of this study suggest that while the sober and non-sober conditions in female scenarios were showing the expected results for victim blaming and attributing responsibility to the victim, the matter gets more complicated when alcohol consumption varies by intent of perpetrator and when the victim is male. Practical and theoretical implications, limitations of this study, and suggestions for further research are given.
Key words: Victim blaming, perpetrator blaming, victim alcohol consumption, acquaintance rape, gender
2
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Table of Contents
Page Abstract 2 Introduction 5 Sexual assault 5 Definition 5 Prevalence 8 Sexual assault and alcohol use 9 Observers’ reactions in alcohol-related sexual assault 12 Rape myths 14 Stereotypes including gender of the victim 16 Individual differences in observers’ reactions 19 Gender observer 19 Explicit attitude towards alcohol consumption 20 Attributing blame and responsibility 21 Present study, aims, and hypotheses 23 Hypothesis 1 24 Hypothesis 2 26 Hypothesis 3 26 Method 28 Participants and procedure 28 Participants 28 Procedure 28 Materials 29 Vignettes 29 Geographic questions 30 Explicit attitudes towards alcohol use 30 Control questions 31 Attribution of blame and responsibility 31 Analysis 32 Control variables 33 Results 34
3
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Descriptives 34 Preliminary analysis 35 MANCOVA 36 Interaction effect 37 Main effects alcohol conditions 37 Main effects gender 38 Main effects between the six conditions 39 Hypotheses answered in short 44 Discussion 48 Theoretical and practical implications 58 Limitations 61 Future research 64 References 67 Appendix 78 Vignettes used in this study (Dutch) 78 Questionnaires (Dutch) 81 Figures 86 Graphs 87
4
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Introduction
This study investigates how victims of sexual assault are attributed with blame and responsibility when alcohol was being consumed by the victim prior to the attack. Due to the gap in previous literature, male and female victims in such occasions are taken into account, for most literature that includes intoxication by alcohol so far focussed on female victims. The aspect of persuasion to drink by the perpetrator is also taken into account, for previous literature mostly focuses on the distinction between consumption and non-consumption. Due to what is known about the use of drugs by the perpetrator as a tool of getting to rape the victim, it is interesting to further investigate observers reactions to alcohol as a tool of the perpetrator to intoxicate a victim with the goal of achieving sexual intercourse with the victim. To give a proper introduction, the phenomenon of sexual assault and the most important characteristics will be discussed first, followed by the issues alcohol consumption by the victim brings along in cases of rape. Furthermore, what is known about observers’ reactions to victims of sexual abuse when alcohol use of the victim was present prior to the attack and when the victim’s gender changes is discussed. Because individual differences of observers are known to have influence on their reactions as well, the attitude towards alcohol consumption in general and the gender of the observer is assessed in this study as well. Victim blaming, victim responsibility, perpetrator blaming, and perpetrator responsibility are dependent variables considered. Hypotheses will be made based on previous literature, regarding studies covering victims of sexual assault and different factors that contribute to differences in reactions by observers.
Sexual Assault
Definition. When talking about sexual assault, the term covers a range of unwanted sexual behaviours, including forced touch, forced kissing, coerced intercourse, and vaginal,
5
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE oral and anal penetration. Rape is often used to describe the act some form of penetration
(Abbey, 2002). The term “rape”, has always been a difficult term with many different definitions in legislation. The road to define rape has been long and bumpy, and it still is. Jed
Rubenfeld, a professor at Yale Law School, revised the current American law on rape and argues that by including the self-possession theory elements into rape law, false believes that many have obtained throughout the years about rape law can be avoided (Young, 2015). The self-possession theory includes the modern view of rape law, namely the idea of sexual autonomy. This element of self-possession makes rape more comparable to slavery and torture, for the sexual autonomy of a rape victim is taken away. It violates, as in rape, a person’s fundamental right (Rubenfeld, 2013).When the non-consent element of modern rape law would be replaced by a force requirement, non-stranger rape and rape by intoxication would be decriminalized with more clarity, according to Rubenfeld. However, by defining rape law in that way, the nature and severity of rape and the harm it brings along, is forgotten, as well as the elements of gender differences and harm to the general population. According to Young (2015), the best way to define rape would be to take into account Rubenfeld’s idea of focussing on the core foundations of rape statutes, and integrate them with the values we have about the harsh nature of the crime, gender differences and societal harm. In that way, rapes that occur as a result of drugs or alcohol use are easier to fit into the profile of rape, because non-consent is hard to prove, but societal harm is very relevant.
There are several forms of sexual assault that can be distinguished. First of all, perpetrators can be complete strangers, a form that is given the term ‘stranger-rape’. In this case, the victim does not know the perpetrator at all and has had no prior interaction with the rapist (Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1997). This form of rape is most likely to appear in people’s mind when you ask them to think about a rape scenario. Among women, the fear of stranger
6
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE rape is much higher than the fear of acquaintance rape. However, in 71% of rapes reported to the police in the UK, the offender was acquainted with the victim (Hine & Murphy, 2017).
Anderson and Whiston (2005) found in their sample, consisting of 18 172 college women, that this number was even higher, reaching 90%. This form of rape is called “acquaintance- rape”, and in many occasions identified as date-rape, for many of those rapes or attempts to rape occur in a setting in which the person is already socially active with the perpetrator on forehand, or the perpetrator and the victim were on a date prior to the assault. The term hidden rape is sometimes used as well, which expresses the main problem of this form of assault: recognizing it as such. As Cahill (2016) argues in her article, there is a grey area in defining acquaintance rapes as such. Because this form of sexual assault is in its characteristics strongly related to a hegemonic, heteronormative sexual interaction, on a judicial and conceptual level, recognizing acquaintance rape is very difficult. In order to be able to distinguish acquaintance rape from a normal sexual interaction, Cahill (2016) argues that the victim’s sexual agency plays a different role in both concepts. Sexual agency is “the ability to contribute meaningfully to the quality of the sexual interaction in question” (Cahill, 2016).
Only the aspect of against the will is not enough to make a distinction, for there are, as in many acquaintance rape cases, also scenarios to be found in which non-consent cannot be proven. In addition of finding non-consent with the victim, whether the sexual agency of the victim was sought actively by the perpetrator should be questioned in the search for the truth.
In a heteronormative sexual interaction, the goal is to receive consent from the victim and the person’s agency should be sought actively. In the case of a sexual assault, in Cahill’s opinion, the goal of the offender is not seeking the victim’s agency, but to overwhelm the victim’s agency in sexual interaction.
7
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Even though acquaintance rape is so prevalent in society, as discussed in the section below, it is often still misunderstood. Victims of acquaintance rape do not seem to be recognized as easy as victims of stranger rape. Check and Malamuth (1983) studied perceptions of observers on acquaintance-rape victims and compared them to the reactions to stranger-rape victims. They found that observers perceived the victim as being more at ease with the negative outcome in acquaintance-rape situations than in stranger-rape situations, even though the victim did not respond in a favorable way to the crime. Because of the issue that acquaintance-rape is not a clear form of rape in some cases for the general public and there opinion of the victim is depending more heavily on other factors, this article focusses on scenarios based on this form of assault. From here, when talking about rape, the acquaintance form of sexual assault will be meant. To be clear, acquaintance sexual assault cases which involve marital rape or child abuse are not taken into account in this research.
Prevalence. Sexual assault is a phenomenon that frequently occurs among college graduates. Therefore, many studies can be found that assessed victims and observers who were attending college. In the sample of Brener, Mcmahon, Warren and Doublas (1999), 20% of the questioned female college students reported having experienced sexual assault at some point in their lives. For male college students, not many numbers are known, for most research focusses on the more common scenario that includes a male perpetrator and a female victim. The study of Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, and Turner (1999) is one of the few that gives numbers of young male students in college reporting forced sexual intercourse with a female perpetrator, namely 12 – 16%, which is almost as prevalent as the female victim in college student samples. When prevalence of sexual assault is investigated in community population, the prevalence is lower, but still a significantly large number. For example,
Burnam et al. (1988) found that 13,7% of the adult population, including male and female
8
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE victims in Los Angeles, have at least once in their life experienced a form of sexual assault.
But another study (Basile, Chen, Black, & Saltzman, 2007) done with a USA sample, showed results that every 1 in 5 adults has had experienced sexual violence at least once in their life, which is comparable to the number of female college students that experienced sexual assault according to Brener et al. (1999). Concerning acquaintance rape, the scenario that will be depicted in this study, prevalence rates vary between 71% (Hine & Murphy, 2017) and 90%
(Anderson & Whiston, 2005), as is indicated above.
Sexual assault and alcohol use.
Alcohol consumption in rape cases is a problematic phenomenon and is very prevalent in sexual assault cases. It is suggested in earlier research (Abbey, 1991) that alcohol is present in approximately one to two thirds of rape incidents. In later research (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck,
Clinton, & McAuslan, 2004), it is stated that half of the sexual assaults include perpetrator alcohol use, victim alcohol use, or alcohol use by both perpetrator and victim. Among other factors, such as attractiveness of the victim, sexual activity of the victim, resistance of the victim, the degree of victim intoxication is one of the factors that influence negative attributions in rape (Richardson & Campbell, 1982).
Abbey (2002) suggests that alcohol consumption among college students by the perpetrator and victim increases the risk of acquaintance sexual assault through three different pathways, namely the psychological pathway, the cognitive pathway, and motor effects. This indicates that alcohol influences the cognitive capabilities of the victims, which makes the victim less able to resist unwanted sexual behaviour from the perpetrator. In the article of
Abbey (1991), the relation between alcohol use by the victim and sexual violence is further explained. She argues that the role alcohol plays in misperceptions and acquaintance rape is that it serves as a justification for sexual violence, it changes the woman’s ability to send and
9
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE receive ques, it makes women less able to resist sexual assault and it enhances the stereotypes about women that consume alcohol. In addition, Abbey (1991) also argues that a victim of a rape or attempted rape often feels responsible for the danger they put themselves in with drinking alcohol, and are therefore less like to report the crime. In a Dutch study among 287 victims of sexual violence, done by Ceelen, Dorn, Van Huis, and Reijnders (2016), 80% did not report the event to the police, from which 26% did not report due to voluntary or involuntary consumption of alcohol or drugs prior to the attack.
The consumption of alcohol also has an effect on the attribution of blame and responsibility to the perpetrator, according to previous research of Norris and Cubbins (1992).
They say that when the victim and perpetrator both drink alcohol prior to the attack, the offense is less regarded as a rape and the observers regard the victim’s reaction as negative.
However, when the perpetrator did not consume alcohol and the victim did, observers hold a more negative view towards the perpetrator’s traits and behavior. Other, more recent research, showed the same results (Baldwin-White & Elias-Lambert, 2016), in which a perpetrator was attributed with less responsibility when he had consumed alcohol. Even though this gives reason to investigate this relationship further, in current study the alcohol consumption level of the perpetrator is held constant. With this measure, it is tried to not complicate the research too much and to be able to interpret scores on blame and responsibility in relation with the alcohol consumption of the victim better. By keeping perpetrator’s drinking level stable, the influence alcohol consumption of the perpetrator can have on attributing blame and responsibility is controlled for.
Despite the high prevalence of alcohol use by the victim in rape cases, there is still a lack of detailed research on this topic. Many articles can be found that assess the use of alcohol of both victim and perpetrator, but often those articles only include a female victim, in
10
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE a sober or drunk condition, and a male perpetrator that is sober or drunk. In that way, it denies the fact that alcohol can be consumed in many different ways, and on many different levels.
The lack of detailed research to alcohol consumption of the victim could be due to observers’ judgements of the intention of the perpetrator. Alcohol seems a substance that cannot be missed and is difficult to consume without knowing it. A substance that also has an intoxicating effect on the victim, but is more recognized as a tool of a perpetrator with the intention to rape, is the date rape drug. According to Girard and Senn (2008), the use of drugs like Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine is more common for the purpose of inducing amnesia in a victim and to sedate the victim to make him or her less capable of resistance. As far as there is literature to be found that consisted of research on alcohol coercion in sexual assaults, the study of Girard and Senn (2008) is the only one that included alcohol as a date rape drug in investigating what effect it had on attributions of blame and responsibility to the victim and perpetrator. In this way, for the first time, alcohol is being placed into a coercive context, in which consuming alcohol is not viewed only as a choice of both victim and perpetrator, but as a coercive factor influencing the victim’s self-control, resulting from the perpetrator’s intentions. Their findings suggested that when drugging by the perpetrator was present in sexual assaults (alcohol also included as a drug), observers are blaming offenders more and victims less compared to a situation in which both have been drinking. Other results from this study showed that when the victim was engaging in drug use, and, more commonly, alcohol use in a voluntary circumstance, judgements of the observers were much harsher and perpetrators are often attributed with less responsibility and blame. This makes clear that, despite the fact that not much literature can be found including both these types of alcohol use
(voluntary and coerced), both scenarios can lead to completely different outcomes regarding victim and perpetrator blame and responsibility. Because of the lack of studies that take
11
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE coerced alcohol use by the victim into account, several forms of alcohol consumption, including alcohol consumption in a coerced form, initiated by the perpetrator, are present in this study. In this way, it is attempted to perceive consuming alcohol not only as a free choice of the victim itself, but also as a tool or weapon that the perpetrator can use to reach his goal.
Observer’s reactions in alcohol-related sexual assault
The topic of use of alcohol is a difficult one to address in cases of sexual violence, because it brings along a grey area of responsibility and blame for the perpetrator, and responsibility and blame to be assigned to the victim. When the person is no longer capable of giving consent, due to the fact that he or she is asleep, as a black-out because of drugs, or, important for current research, due to being too drunk, the rape will be labelled as incapacitated rape (Kaysen, Neighbors, Martell, Fossos, & Larimer, 2006), which makes it clearly a case of rape. Nevertheless, it seems hard for the general public, having false believes about acquaintance rape scenarios and to ignore their beliefs about alcohol consumption and define the rape as a rape. The origin of the false beliefs the public has about alcohol use by the victim of sexual assault prior to the attack, can be traced back to rape myths, which will be explained later in this introduction. Meyer (2010) analysed the discourses that are produced about rape cases where alcohol is involved, and she found in her article that the Daily Mail upholds old rape myths, re-genders rape involving alcohol as a problem of the drinking of the
(female) victim rather than the violence of the (male) perpetrator, and it actually says it is the women’s responsibility and they create the risk themselves. This stubborn and short-sighted view is unfortunately held by many. Grubb and Turner (2012) found in their article that women that consume alcohol prior to their attack are attributed higher levels of blame that the ones that did not drink prior to the attack. Much more evidence, besides Grubb and Turner, for such similar cases can be found in other literature (McCarty, Morrison, & Mills, 1983;
12
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Norris & Cubbins, 1992; Meyer, 2010; Richardson & Campbell, 1982; Horvath & Brown,
2007).
These influences of alcohol use of a victim of sexual assault are not only relevant for the formation of the attitude of the general public. It can be hard to decide for a jury, police officer, judge, or any other professional working with victims of sexual assault whether a victim was actually incapable of giving consent, or whether the perpetrator was misinterpreting signals and was therefore not aware of the crime he or she was committing
(sometimes due to their own alcohol use). Professionals working with victims of sexual assault are influenced too by false beliefs about rape victims, often without them even being aware of it. Even though rape or a rape attempt is serious in any form, when alcohol plays a role in the case, especially when the victim has consumed alcohol, this can affect courts or jurors decisions. Meyer (2010) argued in her article that she found that many cases, even when it was a severe case of sexual violence, the cases were acquitted due to the involvement of alcohol and use of alcohol by the victim. The pilot study of Finch and Munro (2005) tells us that jurors considered numerous extra-legal factors when reaching a decision: rape myths, misconceptions about the impact of intoxicants and factors such as the motivation of the defendant in administering an intoxicant. The researchers conducted a pilot study to investigate potential jurors’ capability to recognize a drug-assisted rape and what extra-legal factors could influence their attribution of blame and responsibility. This pilot study was done with the help of a trial simulation and two focus groups that consisted of potential jurors. The study showed that when a victim had voluntarily ingested alcohol (or drugs), the participants, potential jurors, agreed that the victim ought to bear some responsibility for the event.
Participants were unwilling to accord moral equivalence to intercourse that followed
13
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE voluntary and involuntary intoxication. They agreed that when both victim and defendant were intoxicated, it would be unfair to hold the defendant criminally liable for intercourse.
Besides that, the past years there has been much to do about false allegations of rape.
Even though some cases of false allegations happen, the actual prevalence is low (0.005%), and recognizing a false allegation of rape is very difficult (Belknap, 2010). This is due to the error that determining whether rapes had occurred or not, is very entangled with myths about rape, blaming the victim, giving the rapist excuses, and the erroneous belief that false rape allegations are a common problem. According to Belknap (2010), this wrong image of false allegations is also portrayed by the media when it considers date-rape complainants. They are portrayed as lying and vindictive, while the perpetrators are considered innocent and victimized boys. Because of the fear of being depicted as a liar or being blamed for what has happened to them, victims of rape are less likely to report what happened. Even when victims do decide to go to court, they have a high chance to recant when encountering skepticism, victim blaming and disbelief (Raphael, 2008). This is not only problematic in determining false allegations of rape, but is also problematic for the recanting victim, for he or she might not get the recognition, closure, or help that is needed for recovery.
Rape Myths. There are several explanations to be found in previous literature of why outsiders react in a certain way to the use of alcohol by the victim. When can a rape be considered a rape? What makes a rape case more questionable? The phenomenon rape myth describes the attitude many people hold against victims in cases of sexual violence
(Giacopassi & Dull, 1986). Rape myths are defined as attitudes and beliefs that generally are false, but are held in a widely and persistent manner, and are used to justify sexual violence.
The “she asked for it” principle (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Several theoretical psychological constructs explain the existence of rape myths, among which the belief in a just
14
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE world and the defensive attribution theory. Lerner’s just world theory (Lerner & Miller, 1978) explains the phenomenon that people strongly desire to believe that the word is in order and that people get what they deserve. When events occur in which this is not the case, this leads to cognitive dissonance, a uncomfortable discrepancy of a person’s beliefs and the truth they see (Lerner, 1980). This discomfort is tried to be taken away by the observer of the event by creating new beliefs that fit the truth (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). The balance of a just world can be maintained by the observer in three different pathways (Chaikin & Darley,
1973). First, an observer can believe that the victim will be somehow compensated for the happening. If it is not certain if that occurs or when it does not, the observer can form a belief that the victim was in some way responsible for what happened. Thirdly, the observer can keep the balance by derogating the victim. The hypothesis as proposed by Shaver (1970), the defensive attribution theory, explains in what way a person wants to differentiate him- or herself from a person who might be responsible. By attributing responsibility to someone who is less like themselves, and by decreasing responsibility for someone they feel alike to, the observer creates a distance between him or herself and the responsibility. In the context of a rape, it would explain some of the gender differences, as will be discussed further on, and why people sometimes blame a victim. It would explain why men, in the traditional sexual assault cases with a female victim, attribute less responsibility to the perpetrator, who is often a man. They feel more similarity with the man than with the female victim. Even when observers do not have similarities with the perpetrator, they can blame the victim with the means of creating differences between them. In a way they are trying to say: “this cannot happen to me”, “I don’t want to be a victim of assault, so I am not like this person”.
Giacopassi & Dull (1986) investigated in their study the acceptance of rape myths among students. They found that a substantial part of students agree (strongly or moderately) with
15
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE statements that reflect rape myths. Differences that occur between sexes and race, according to Giacopassi & Dull (1986), rely on the way individuals think certain myths reflect on themselves.
It is already mentioned by Check & Malamuth (1983) that an acquaintance rape, date rape, is less likely to be recognized as a rape, for most people have false believes about when and how the rape occurs. Bridges (1991) names one of the ‘flaws’ in peoples’ beliefs about acquaintance rape. Her article argues that in a date-rape scenario, the victim is expected to have more desire for intercourse compared to stranger rape scenarios, and that sex role socialization processes play a big part in this. For example, observers believe that females are gate-keepers in sexual interactions and females have the tendency to hide their true sexual intentions. Another example is the belief that woman mean “yes” when they say “no”, and that wearing provocative clothes would be indicating the woman wants sex (Torry, 1991).
Many more examples of rape myths can be found in society, and all those examples of false beliefs of observers have one thing in common: it blurs the lack of consent element of a rape.
The incorrect view about the victim’s responsibility and justification of perpetrator’s behaviour is held by many people in the society, unfortunately
Stereotypes including gender of the victim. Important false beliefs about rape to consider, which are ones that influence society on practical as well as the academic level, are the beliefs that concern gender stereotypes. Where for women there are many studies to be found that express their concerns about rape myths about women (“Women want to be raped”,
“Women dressing provocative are asking for it”), there are certain stereotypical beliefs about men as well that might reduce the likelihood that a male victim of sexual abuse is regarded as such in a heterosexual assault (Smith, Pine, & Hawley, 1988). Among others, examples of those beliefs are that men are more sexually oriented and show more behaviour showing
16
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE sexual intentions than women, and that men are more interested in sex in general than women.
Besides that, Smith et al. (1988) address the issue that people believe men are incapable of having sexual intercourse if they do not want to. It is thought that men cannot get sexually function without arousal. This belief is undermined by research saying even in states of anger and fear, a man is capable of functioning sexually. Smith et al. (1988) also found in their own study that a man, being a victim of heterosexual assault, is attributed less stress, more enjoyment of the event, and more likeliness to have encouraged or initiated the event to happen. According to Davies (2002), such rape myths concerning male victims are more appearing in situations that involve a female perpetrator.
Because the prevalence of male victims of sexual violence is significantly lower than female victims, most studies focus in female victims, as well as the societal concern (Smith et al., 1988). Where women experiencing date rape or sexual assault during a date prevalence rates vary between 13 % and 31% , men’s rates of sexual victimization vary between 3% and
8%, depending on different study samples (teenagers, adults, part of a military unit, college students) (Abbey et al., 2004). Besides that, the study of Larimer et al. (1999) showed that when assessing alcohol-related sexual events, including sexual coercion, they appear to occur almost equally frequent among male and female victims.
Due to the rape myths concerning male victims, it is likely that attributions of blame and responsibility are different when the victim is male compared to when the victim is female. They are attributed with a higher level of blame, rape is less regarded as a rape, and so it is questionable for observers if the male victim is a victim at all (Sleath & Bull, 2010;
Mitchell, Hirschman, & Hall, 1999). Not only is the male victim attributed with more blame and responsibility, the perpetrator (female) is believed to bear less responsibility to the crime compared to the scenario where it is the other way around (female victim and male
17
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE perpetrator) (Sleath & Bull, 2010). Because of the existing rape myths of male victims, as explained above, it is to be questioned whether alcohol consumption influences the attribution of blame and responsibility to a male victims as it would influence this for a female victim.
Because men are believed to always want sex, being raped without or with alcohol consumption might not even matter, and maybe the scores on victim blaming and victim responsibility are not that influenceable by the consumption of alcohol when the victim is male. Besides, moderns society views alcohol consumption by men as more acceptable and expected of them. On the contrary, women that drink excessively are viewed more negatively by observers (Ricciardelli, Connor, Williams, & Young, 2001). Therefore, the judgement of victim blaming and responsibility might be less influenced when alcohol is used by a male victim compared to when alcohol is used by a female victim. Still, it is hard to speculate about the actual differences, for very little research is done to this specification in male victimization compared to female victimization in rape cases involving alcohol consumption by the victim.
Even though women are more often victimized compared to men, male victims should not be forgotten, for the assault can have a great impact on a man as well. One of the rape myths concerning male victims states that men are not traumatized by rape (Chapleau,
Oswald, & Russell, 2008), but research suggests different. Frazier (1993) found that depression rates are significantly higher in male victims of rape when comparing them to the depression rates of female victims of rape. Besides, the study of Sable, Danis, Mauzy, and
Gallagher (2006) shows that men refrain from reporting to the police more often due to feelings of shame, guilt and embarrassment and fear of not being believed compared to female victims of rape. The reason why being victimized by rape can be especially damaging for men and men feel more shame and embarrassment, originates from gender roles and the
18
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE embarrassment that a violation of that gender role brings along. A men is supposed to be strong, being able to fight off a woman, and sex is supposed to be “cool”. His negative experience with leads to victim questioning his masculinity and maybe even his sexual orientation (Davies, 2002).
Individual differences in observers’ reactions. When assessing the reactions of outsiders on victims of sexual assault, it must be recognized that every individual is diffe rent and that individual characteristics can influence a person’s reaction. As is suggested in earlier research (Shaver, 1970), attribution of blame and responsibility can be influenced by both characteristics of the victim and the characteristics of the perceiver. To make sure those characteristics do not disturb the measurement, they should be considered in analysis. In this study, the gender of the observer and the explicit attitude towards alcohol consumption are taken as covariates to exclude their influences in analysis. These variables are explained further in the following sections. The reason why in this analyses only the following two variables are controlled for, are the following. There is an exhaustive list of variables influencing victim and perpetrator blaming in several different ways, but for many of them, the variable ‘gender’ is the moderator. For example, rape myth acceptance is a variable often taken into account in research to victim blaming, as well as similarity to the victim and the belief in a just world. Previous research has shown that the level of rape myth acceptance depends on the gender of the observer, with women scoring lower on rape myth acceptance compared to men (Krahé, 1988;
Giacopassi & Dull, 1986). Because of the element of alcohol use by the victim, variables that can influence the judgement of blame based on attitudes towards alcohol in general, should be added to research concerning alcohol use as a covariate.
Gender observer. Through different pathways, previous research has shown some remarkable differences between male and female observers when assessing victim blaming in
19
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE rape cases. According to Acock and Ireland (1983), male observers judge the perpetrator with more positivity, and females express slightly more positivity towards the victim. Grubb and
Harrower (2008) conclude in their review that in general, women are more pro-victim than males. Also, men are more accepting of Rape Myths, then women, and therefore are more likely to attribute less responsibility to the perpetrator than women do in general (Hammond,
Berry, & Rodriquez, 2011).
Influence of gender of the observer on attribution of blame and responsibility needs to be controlled for in this study. Because of the chance that observer gender can influence the effect of the conditions on attribution of blame and responsibility, it is taken as a covariate in analysis.
Explicit attitude towards alcohol consumption. The individual observer can also differ in his or her attitude towards alcohol consumption. This attitude and whether alcohol consumption is regarded as positive or negative, can differ in each person and depends on among others personality, the norms and values the person was raised with, and social behaviour. For example, Francis (1997) conducted a study that measured the impact of the individuals’ personality and religion on their attitudes towards the use of substance among 13-
15 year olds. It was found that people who had a more introvert, tenderminded, stable personality and that showed more social conformity, were more negative towards the use of substance. This negative attitude towards substance use is also more prevalent in individuals that have a sense of personal religiosity or are a member of a Protestant group. In later research (Francis, Fearn, & Lewis, 2005), the same study was done amongst 16-18 year olds.
The results of this study showed the same relationship between tendermindedness and attitude towards alcohol use, as well as the same relationship between the attitude towards religion
(Christianity in this study) the attitude towards alcohol use. A person’s own behaviour and
20
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE experience with alcohol can influence their opinion on alcohol consumption as well. In a study investigating relationships between attitudes, believes and alcohol use (McCarty et al.,
1983), it was demonstrated that specific drinking behaviours were correlated with specific attitudes, in which heavy drinkers believed that drinking heavily would result in a positive experience. From this study it can be deducted that people that are more familiar with drinking and drink more often, have a more positive attitude towards drinking behaviour of others. Not only in the general population, but in the practical and professional field as well, the attitude of the individual towards alcohol consumption can influence the reaction to the person consuming alcohol. Boekel, Brouwers, Weeghel, and Garretsen (2013) investigated what stigma is present among health professionals towards their patients who have a substance use disorder. Their meta-analysis showed that negative attitudes of health care professionals towards patients with a substance use disorder, which also includes alcoholism, is very common. Their negative attitudes can lead to self-esteem problems and a negative impact on empowerment of the patients.
Because of the known differences of attitudes towards alcohol between observers on an individual level, as investigated by previous literature, the attitude towards alcohol use is taken as covariate in this study. With this, it is aimed to take out individual differences of observers that occur because of their own believes and experiences with alcohol.
Attributing blame and responsibility. To explain the issue of observers’ reactions to victims of sexual assault, it is necessary to explain how their reaction can be measured. When assessing the reactions and social cognitions of observers in the context of an acquaintance rape, often only attribution of blame or only attribution of responsibility is measured
(Thornton & Ryckman, 1983; Mitchell et al., 1999; Richardson & Campbell, 1982; Grubb &
Turner, 2012). But in some previous articles, both constructs are measured in the same study
21
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
(eg. Rye, Geatrix, & Enright, 2006; Stormo, Lang, & Stritzke, 1997). In this study, both constructs are used to test observers’ reactions to both victim and perpetrator when confronted with different scenarios of acquaintance-rape. Even though blame and responsibility seem too closely related to be measured apart for some, other researchers say that those two terms should be distinguished in measurement (Stormo et al., 1997; Critchlow, 1985; Mantler,
Schellenberg, & Page, 2003) because the underlying constructs differ for blame and responsibility. While responsibility attributions are initially related to the causes of the event, attributions of blame depend more on the moral evaluation of the observer (Critchlow, 1985).
In the article of Grubb and Harrower (2008), the term responsibility is explained as followed: responsibility is attributed as a result of the judgement of what are the causative factors. When the level of responsibility is determined, all assumptions of how the world works and what is true are assumed to be known (Chockler & Halpern, 2004). Even though not always accurate, the causal attributions observers make, what observers believe to be a causal factor for the event to happen, will bias their judgements about responsibility. Blame on the other hand depends more on the epistemic state of the judged person (Chockler &
Halpern, 2004). If there were reasons to believe a particular action would lead to the outcome, blame is likely to be attributed. Blame in that sense, can be seen as an evaluation of moral behavior. Was it moral to perform those actions knowing it would lead to a negative outcome? An example to make the distinction between responsibility and blame is made clear through the following fictional scenario: An ill person is examined by a doctor. The doctor believes the that the symptoms resemble high blood pressure, so he prescribes a medicine to fight it. As a result of the medicine, the patient gets even more ill and eventually, worst case scenario, dies. In this case, the doctor’s action led to the patient’s death, which means his action was the cause of the result and the doctor bears responsibility for what happened. But
22
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE the doctor did not expect the negative result, so he did not think his actions would lead to this outcome. Therefore, the doctor is not to blame for what happened. If, on the other hand, the doctor was not sure about his diagnosis and knew the possibility of death through that medicine, more blame is to be attributed to the doctor.
More findings supporting the distinction between responsibility and blame were found by Mantler et al. (2003). They found that when an ill person was attributed with blame and responsibility for his illness, the participants attributed it according to the decision-stage model. This decision-stage model explains how there is a certain hierarchy in attributing responsibility and blame to a person (Mantler et al., 2003). First, a more objective judgement, related to the causal role of the person is made, followed by a subjective judgement of the victim’s behaviour according to moral beliefs. For rape cases, this would mean that in order to be attributed with blame, the victim and perpetrator must be regarded as at least responsible for what happened. But this hierarchy is not necessarily true, according to Critchlow (1985).
He found in earlier research, focussing on drunken behaviour, that for severe cases such as rape, blame attribution receives the highest scores, followed by responsibility.
Even though the distinction is very subtle, in this paper, to keep it clear, attribution of blame and attribution of responsibility will be assessed separately, due to the different kinds of alcohol conditions used in this study. It is unknown how responsibility attribution to the victim will behave when a distinction between ‘coerced’ condition of alcohol use and
‘voluntary’ condition of alcohol use is added to research.
Present study, aims and hypotheses
What is discussed above stresses the importance of getting rid of the rape myth about sexual violence where alcohol is involved. The judicial system is, as well as observers and public media, also influenced by wrong attitudes and rape myths. As Lorenz and Ullman
23
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
(2016) already noticed earlier, it is important to explore the way pre-assault alcohol use is linked to reactions by observers. If we better understand in what way social reactions occur and through what pathways, we will better be able to provide victim support and to evaluate current interventions. Understanding the problems around alcohol use and sexual assault, two very prevalent issues in modern society, will help us to fight these problems and to think of effective solutions. If we as a society can succeed in improving interventions and social reactions, this might help victims in the recovery process.
Even though the effect of alcohol use in cases of sexual assault has been studied often in existing literature, there are still some questions to be asked. Does the reason why a victim consumed alcohol matter? Can we find different outcomes for victims that were coerced to drink and victims that voluntarily consumed alcohol? The aim in this study is to apply existing information about alcohol use by a victim of sexual assault in relatively ‘new’ fields of research, such as alcohol use in relation to the gender of the victim and two different scenarios of alcohol use by the victim. Most studies done in the past, only took female victims into account when measuring observers’ reactions to victim alcohol use. Therefore, in this study, we will try to replicate effects that already have been found in previous research, and deepen them out by applying the two new factors: gender and form of alcohol use. The central question of this research can be formulated as followed:
“Which role does victim alcohol consumption play on observers’ reactions to the
victims of sexual violence, with taking into account the gender of the victim and the
difference between a coerced form and a voluntary form of victim alcohol
consumption?”.
Hypothesis 1: conditions of alcohol consumption. First of all, taking the literature discussed above into account, we expect to find different scores of blame and responsibility
24
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE attribution to the victim and perpetrator in different conditions of alcohol consumption. To answer this hypothesis in more detail, it is divided in parts. The expectations are made in the direction according to the literature discussed above.
H1a) It is expected that no alcohol consumption has as a result significantly less
victim blaming and victim responsibility compared to the two alcohol conditions.
According to the literature discussed above, the perpetrator is more likely to be blamed when he or she has consumed less alcohol than the victim. Therefore, the following expectation is made regarding the three different conditions of alcohol use and perpetrator blame and responsibility:
H1b) Secondly, perpetrator blame and responsibility is expected to be significantly
lower in the no alcohol consumption condition, compared to the two alcohol
conditions.
Because of the nature of the coerced alcohol consumption, which can most likely be compared to drug-rape (Girard & Senn, 2008), we expect to find significantly different scores for coerced alcohol consumption compared to no alcohol consumption, and higher scores for voluntary alcohol consumption compared to both other two conditions. This expectations lead to the following parts of this hypothesis:
H1c) Victim blaming and victim responsibility scores are highest for the voluntary
alcohol use condition, followed by the coerced alcohol use condition and no alcohol
use condition respectively.
H1d) Perpetrator blame and perpetrator responsibility scores are expected to reach
significantly higher scores for coerced alcohol use, followed by voluntary alcohol use
and no alcohol use respectively
25
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Hypothesis 2: Gender of the victim. According to the literature discussed, stereotype believes and gender-specific rape myths about the occurrence of rape could influence the attribution of blame and responsibility towards a victim as well. Because of that, the gender of the victim was also manipulated in this study. Taking previous literature into account in the expectations, the following directions are expected:
H2a) Regardless of the condition of alcohol use, it is expected that scores on victim
blaming and victim responsibility are lower for the female victim conditions,
compared to the male victim conditions in general
H2b) Regardless of the condition of alcohol use, it is expected that scores on
perpetrator blaming and perpetrator responsibility are higher in the female victim
conditions compared to the male victim conditions in general.
Hypothesis 3: Combining gender of the victim and level of alcohol use. Because it is shown in previous studies that the gender of the victim has an effect on attribution of blame and responsibility, the gender of the victim is combined with the alcohol conditions to see what happens to the results when both independent variables are taken into account.
Therefore, some new hypotheses were formed to depict expectations that include both gender of the victim and the level of alcohol consumption of the victim.
H3a) It is expected to find higher scores of victim blame and victim responsibility in
the male victim condition (on all three levels of alcohol use) compared to the same
female victim scenario.
H3b) It is expected to find higher levels of perpetrator blame and perpetrator
responsibility in the female victim condition (on all three levels of alcohol use)
compared to the same male victim scenarios
26
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Because all previous research done on different alcohol scenarios with different levels of coercion in rape cases, even though they are just few, included only female victims, it is difficult to determine what result will occur among male victims when the alcohol consumption level is manipulated. With knowledge the stereotypical beliefs of a male victim in the back of our minds, it is expected that gender of the victim influences the scores in such a way that an interaction effect is found between the gender of the victim and the alcohol condition in which the victim is placed.
H3c) There is a difference in scores on all dependent variables based on the condition
of alcohol use and the gender of the victim (interaction effect).
As explained earlier, there are false, stereotypical beliefs about sex roles (Smith et al., 1988).
It could be due to those views on male victims of sexual assault, that the different alcohol conditions do not have an effect on victim blaming and attributing responsibility to the victim.
The severity is likely not changing the opinion of the observers on male victims, the intent of the perpetrator is less clear because a man always wants sex according to existing rape myths, so the way in which sexual intercourse was achieved could be less important to judge male victims on their blame and responsibility. The following hypotheses can be conducted with this idea.
H3d) Type of alcohol assumption is expected to have an effect on perpetrator/ victim
responsibility and perpetrator/victim blame when the victim is female, but not when
the victim is male.
H3e) It is expected that when assessing the female victim scenarios separately, the
range as expected in H1c can be found.
H3f) It is expected that when assessing the female victim scenarios separately, the
range as expected in H1d can be found.
27
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants. Participants were found by random/convenience sampling, though an online questionnaire using the program Qualtrics. An anonymous link of the questionnaire was spread through social media platforms such as Facebook. Participants all had access to online platforms and chose themselves to take part in the study or not. In total, 281 participants completed the questionnaire. The participants were not selected by age, gender or any other characteristics. After excluding people that did not complete the questionnaire (N =
40) or did not answer the control questions correctly (N = 14) , 227 people remained in the dataset for analyses. The average age of the dataset was 29.53 (SD = 12.698, n = 227), from which 49 participants were male and 178 participants were female. All participants were not offered any kind of reward, filling in the questionnaires was voluntary. Age ranged from 16 up and until 67 years old. Most participants in this sample were heterosexual oriented
(87.7%), the remaining participants were homosexual (4.8%), bisexual (6.2%), or did not want to answer the question about sexuality (1.3%). Before filling in the questionnaire, it was checked whether the participants had sufficient knowledge of the Dutch language. Informed consent was received from all participant automatically when participants agreed online to take part in the study. The weight of students (48.5%) was almost equal to the weight of no students (51.5%).
Procedure. Through an online questionnaire, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. Before starting the procedure, the participants had been informed that they are allowed to quit the questionnaire at any time. Informed consent was given as well. Before reading the vignette, the participants were asked several demographic questions to determine the age, gender and nationality of the participant. After reading a vignette to
28
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE describe the condition, the participant was asked to fill in several control questions to determine whether the vignette was correctly understood. After this, several questions assessing the explicit attitude towards alcohol consumption, victim blaming, victim responsibility, perpetrator blaming, and perpetrator responsibility were answered by the participants.
Materials
Vignettes. This research was based on a vignette study. Six different vignettes were made to assess the six proposed conditions. The original Dutch versions used for this research can be found in the appendix. First, three vignettes where written that covered the conditions of no alcohol use by the victim, voluntarily alcohol use by the victim and coerced alcohol use by the victim. Secondly, the three vignettes where made for female victims and male victims, which resulted in six different vignettes. The conditions upon which the vignettes are based on can be found in table 1. The vignettes were based on heterosexual relationships. They reflected a situation between two college students. The vignettes given are partly inspired on the vignettes written by Stormo et al. (1997). To rule out the effect clothing could have on the opinion of the participants, both victim and perpetrator were indicated to wear neutral clothes
(jeans and t-shirt). Because the alcohol consumption of the perpetrator can influence attribution of blame and responsibility as well, this was controlled in all six conditions (Norris
& Cubbins, 1992; Baldwin-White & Elias-Lamber, 2016). The perpetrator did not consume or consumed clearly less alcohol than the victim. The different conditions led to a 3 x 2 mixed design (female victim, male victim) x (no alcohol use, voluntarily alcohol use, and coerced alcohol use) as to be found in table 1. C1 consisted of 40 participants, C2 had 42, C3 had 36, and C4, C5, and C6 had respectively 38, 38, and 33 participants.
29
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Table 1: conditions used in this study
No alcohol use by Voluntarily alcohol Coerced alcohol use the victim use by the victim by the victim Female victim Condition 1 (C1): Condition 2 (C2): Condition 3 (C3): Women is sexually Women is sexually Women is sexually assaulted while assaulted while assaulted while being sober being under being under influence of alcohol influence of alcohol by own intent by intent of the perpetrator
Male victim Condition 4 (C4): Condition 5 (C5): Condition 6 (C6): Man is sexually Man is being Man is being assaulted while sexually assaulted sexually assaulted being sober while being under while being under influence of alcohol influence of alcohol by own intent by intent of the perpetrator Note: the vignettes are roughly inspired on the vignettes used in Stormo et al. (1997), regarding the student and bar elements in the vignette. Vignettes are based on a heterosexual relationship.
Geographic questions. Before reading the vignette, questions were asked to measure demographic information of the participants through a questionnaire. This questionnaire involved questions about age, gender, whether or not the participant was a student, and their sexual orientation.
Explicit attitudes towards alcohol use. To measure people’s general opinion on alcohol consumption, questions were used to measure the explicit attitudes towards the use of alcohol. The questions were asked before showing the vignette, so that their attitudes would not be biased by the story they were about to read. The questions originated from the article of
Houben, Havermans, & Wiers (2010). The four questions formulated in this study assessed the attitude on an explicit level with the help of four different semantics. On a seven-point likert scale, participants were asked to indicate whether they thought of consuming alcohol as
30
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE unpleasant-pleasant, boring-fun, bad-good, and foolish-wise. These four questions were translated to Dutch and asked previous to the reading of the vignette. In this study, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was 0.855 (Chronbach’s Alpha), which indicated a good level of internal consistency (Items = 4, N = 227).
Control questions. To make sure all participants understood the condition correctly, three control questions were asked straight after the reading of the vignette (while vignette still showing above the questions). This gave the participants, when feeling unsure about their answers, the possibility to read back and read the story again to have a clear image of the situation portrayed. All three control questions had to be answered correctly. Those questions covered the main manipulations of the conditions, namely whether alcohol consumption was voluntarily, coerced, or not present, and whether Mark or Lisa initiated sexual activity. An additional question was added to see if the person understood what the drinking level of the perpetrator was. Research shows that there is a difference in victim blaming and perpetrator blaming when the level of alcohol consumption of the perpetrator differs (Norris & Cubbins,
1992). When the perpetrator drinks as much as the victim or more alcohol than the victim, he or she is regarded less blameworthy compared to a condition where the perpetrator drinks less than the victim. When one or more of the control questions were not answered correctly, the participant was removed from the dataset in order to control for contamination of the dataset by his or her answers. For interpreting the results of this study correctly, the understanding of the situations sketched in the vignette by the participants is important.
Attribution of blame and responsibility. For both victim and perpetrator, attribution of blame and responsibility were assessed separately. Both blaming and responsibility were separated, for previous research suggests that they can be seen as separate constructs. To assess perpetrator blaming, perpetrator responsibility and victim responsibility, on question
31
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE was asked. In that question, the participants were asked to rate the extent to which they found the victim / perpetrator was to blame / was responsible for the event, ranging from 1 (not at all), to 7 (fully to blame/fully responsible). This is the same measurement other researchers used to assess victim and perpetrator blaming before (eg. Lens, Doorn, van Pemberton, &
Bogaerts, 2014; Anderson, & Lyons, 2006). The names of the victim and the names of the perpetrator were used in the questions to make sure the participants were not guided towards a certain answer by the suggestive words ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’. To measure victim blaming, the same question was used and three other questions were added. Retrieved from
Abrams, Viki, Masser, and Bohner (2003), were four questions to assess victim blaming in addition to the one single question that is used by Lens et al. (2014). Those four questions were translated and slightly altered to fit the vignettes of this study better. During internal consistency analysis, one of the four questions from Abrams et al. (2003) was excluded from the analysis, for it resulted in a low Chronbach’s Alpha. The other three questions correlated positively and significantly with the direction, single question measuring victim blame
(Pearson’s = 0.668, p < 0.000; Pearson’s = 0.391, p < 0.000; Pearson’s = 0.627; p <0.000).
The questions and their translations, including the deleted question, can be found in table 2.
After deleting the unreliable question, internal consistency of the variables measuring victim blaming was good (Chronbach’s Alpha = 0,800) (Items = 4, N = 227). The average of all victim blaming items was taken as a measure of victim blaming. By doing that, the scores are easier to interpret in comparison with the other one-question items, namely perpetrator blame, victim responsibility, and perpetrator responsibility.
Analysis
To be able to give an answer to each of the hypotheses, a MANCOVA was done, which had a 3 x 2 between-groups design. This was done with the help of a statistical program
32
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE called ‘SPSS’. Interaction effects and main effects were calculated. To be able to determine significant differences between all the 6 conditions more detailed, another MANCOVA was done that did not give the conditions two dimensions (alcohol condition and gender), but dealed with the conditions as six separate ones. This made it easier to compare.
Table 2: Questions measuring victim blaming
Source Original question Translated question* Abrams, Viki, Masser, and “How much do you think “In hoeverre vind je dat Bohner (2003) [name victim] should blame [naam slachtoffer] zichzelf herself for what happened? de schuld moet geven voor wat er gebeurd is?” “How much control do you “Hoeveel controle denk je think [name victim] had dat [naam slachtoffer] had over the situation?” over de situatie? “Do you think this incident “Denk je dat dit incident could have been avoided”? door [naam slachtoffer] had kunnen worden voorkomen?” “How much sympathy do “Hoeveel sympathie voel je you feel for [name voor [naam victim]?”** slachtoffer]?”** Lens, Doorn, Pemberton, ´To what extent was the “Op een schaal van 1 tot 7, and Bogaerts (2014); victim to blame?” in hoeverre was de uitkomst Anderson and Lyons (2006) van dit incident toe te schrijven aan de acties van [naam slachtoffer]?” *All questions were assessed with a 7 point likert-scale. ** Question deleted due to bad reliability in the current sample.
Control variables. Due to the possibility that personal opinions on alcohol consumption in general can affect the relationship between the independent variables and the attribution of blame and responsibility to both victim and perpetrator, it was expected that in this study there might be a covariant variable that affects the relationship as well. By including a measurement on general opinion on alcohol consumption by the participants, this variable was included as a control variable. The gender of the observers was also taken as a
33
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE control variable in analyses. With those two control variables, the analyses were controlled for personal differences of the participants.
Results
The results will be described in the following sections. First, the demographic characteristics of the participants are illustrated. Secondly, the results of analyses to answer the hypotheses are given. Thirdly, by looking at the results of the analyses, the hypotheses are answered.
Descriptives
Table 3 shows the main demographic characteristics of the sample tested. Outliers were not removed, because they did not change the original means sufficiently, which was checked by looking at the trimmed mean of the data. Table 3 also shows descriptives of the variables used in this study. To generate scores for explicit attitudes towards alcohol consumption, the total scores of the four questions assessing it were taken, in which low scores imply negative attitudes and high scores imply positive attitudes. The scores on victim blaming were measured by taking the average score of the four items that measured victim blaming. An average was taken, to be able to compare the scores to the other dependent variables that were measured with a single question, on a likert-scale ranging from 1 to 7. The total score of victim blaming, after divided by the number of items (N=4), gives an average score between 1 and 7, where 1 stands for low scores on victim blaming, and 7 stands for high scores on victim blaming.
34
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Table 3: Descriptives of the sample.
N M SD Min Max Age 229 29.53 12.698 16 67
Gender
Male 49 (21,6%)
Female 178 (78,4%)
Alcohol explicit 229 16.90 4.293 4 27 attitude *
Victim blame 229 3.5991 1.26805 1 7 score **
Victim 229 4.25 1.742 1 7 responsibility score
Perpetrator 229 6.27 1.041 1 7 blame score
Perpetrator 229 6.40 0.888 2 7 responsibility score * Chronbach’s alpha 0.855 (Items = 4), **Chronbach’s alpha 0.800 (Items = 4). Average of scores on the four items is taken as a total score to measure victim blaming.
Preliminary analysis
To assess victim blaming, preliminary analysis confirmed that the combination of three separate questions with a single and direct question assessing victim blaming could be taken together, for Chronbach’s Alpha showed good internal reliability (0.800), and the items were correlated positively. To check for normality, unfortunately, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic reveals that the assumption of normality was violated, for all were significant.
Nevertheless, the Skewness and Kurtosis values showed a normal distribution for victim blame (Skewness = 0.273, Kurtosis = -0.353) and responsibility of the victim (Skewness = -
35
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
0.075, Kurtosis = -0.877), but not for responsibility of the offender and offender blaming, if we take a score between -2 and 2 as a value suggesting normal distribution. The normal distribution and failure of normal distribution as suggested by the Skewness and Kurtosis values can also be found in the histograms of those variables. Even though a violation of the assumption of normality is quite common in large sized samples, it should be mentioned.
Since all cells of the conditions consist a number of N that is higher than 30, violations of normality or equality of variance are not a problem in this sample (Pallant, 2013).
Table 4: Correlations among dependent variables.
Variable Victim Blame Offender Victim Offender Blame Responsibility Responsibility Victim Blame 1 -0.245** 0.626** -0.121
Offender Blame 1 -.188** 0.500**
Victim 1 0.002 Responsibility
Offender 1 Responsibility Note: All numbers are Pearson’s correlations. ** = significant with p<0.001.
To make sure there would be no effect of multicollinearity, a correlational analysis was done to test correlations between the four dependent variables. Table 4 shows the correlations between the variables. Because there were no significant correlations found around 0.8 and
0.9, there is no reason for concern (Pallant, 2013), and the dependent variables can be assessed as separate constructs.
MANCOVA
To answer the hypotheses, a Two-Way MANCOVA was done, while controlling for the attitude towards alcohol use of the observer and the gender of the observer. Assumptions for this MANCOVA were checked using a preliminary MANCOVA, and showed that all assumptions were not violated, except for one small detail. Wilk’s Lambda was in interaction
36
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE results not significant in both alcohol conditions with gender, and alcohol condition with attitude towards alcohol. The between-subjects tests was not significant in all cases, except for the alcohol condition with attitude towards alcohol of the observer on the dependent variable offender blame. the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices is was not violated (F = 1.358, p = 0.131). Because the Box’s Test gives a significant result, Pillai’s
Trace should be assessed when determining a significant difference between the conditions instead of Wilk’s Lambda.
Interaction effect. The first thing to acknowledge is that significant interaction effects were found for the alcohol condition and the gender of the victim, which means that some main effects found in this analysis cannot be interpreted (Pillai’s Trace: value = 0.085, F =
2.399, p = 0.015). When looking at each dependent variable, it was made clear that the significant interaction only holds for the dependent variable perpetrator responsibility (F =
5.780, p = 0.004), for victim blame scores, victim responsibility scores, and perpetrator blame scores did not show a significant interaction between the alcohol conditions and the gender of the victim (respectively F = 2.387, p = 0.094; F = 2.550, p = 0.080; F = 3.034, p = 0.050).
This means that main effects regarding perpetrator responsibility could not be interpreted.
Main effects alcohol conditions. The MANCOVA showed, zooming in on the three different conditions of alcohol consumption, it was made clear that Pillai’s Trace shows there are differences to be found in our dataset concerning the three conditions of alcohol use
(Value = 0.097, F = 2.755, p = 0.006). When inspecting the between-subjects effects further, a difference could only be found in the dependent variable of victim responsibility (p = 0.025; p
= 0.047) and victim blame. An inspection of the pairwise comparisons is necessary to tell the significant differences. For victim responsibility, the results of this analysis showed that the condition in which there is no alcohol consumed by the victim, differs significantly with the
37
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE two alcohol conditions (with voluntary alcohol use: MD = -0.683, p = 0.011; with coerced alcohol use: MD = -0.568, p = 0.039). There were no significant differences found between the two conditions that included alcohol consumption. For the dependent variable victim blaming, the results show that scores for no alcohol use, as well as scores for voluntary alcohol use, were significantly lower compared to coerced alcohol use (MD = -0.436, p =
0.030; MD = -0.433, p = 0.030). These results indicate that coerced alcohol use by the victim resulted in more victim blaming by the observer compared to voluntary alcohol use and no alcohol use. These are unexpected results, for hypothesis H1c expected higher scores on victim blaming for voluntary alcohol use compared to coerced alcohol use. Perpetrator responsibility scores and perpetrator blaming scores did not show proof of significant differences between the conditions in the MANCOVA (respectively F = 0.491, p = 0.613; F =
1.233, p = 0.293). Graphs were made to illustrate the expected patterns for the dependent variables, which can be found in the appendix under ‘Figures’. Figure 1 shows the expected range of conditions for the victim variables and the perpetrator variables. In figure 2 and 3 the true results are depicted with the expected results from figure 1 to clarify the outcome. As can be seen in the figures, only the line of victim responsibility fits the expected pattern. But because the difference between the two alcohol conditions was not significant, the figure could be interpreted as it is. This means that for none of the depended variables, the range as was expected (no alcohol use – coerced alcohol use – voluntary alcohol use), was found.
Main effects gender. A second step in the analysis of the data was to check significant results zooming in on the gender of the victim, regardless of the alcohol conditions. Pillai’s Trace was assessed and showed a significant result (Value = 0.106, F =
6.417, p < 0.001). When zooming in on between-subjects test results, it became clear that whether the victim is male or female mattered significantly for attributing blame to the victim
38
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE and perpetrator (p < 0.001; p = 0.003), and for attributing responsibility to the victim (p <
0.001). This could not be said for perpetrator responsibility. When assessing the differences for the relevant dependent variables separately, the results showed that a female victim is regarded less blame than the male victim (MD = -0.662, p < 0.001), less responsibility was attributed to the female victim compared to the male victim (MD = -0.910, p < 0.001), and more blame was attributed to the perpetrator harassing a female victim when comparing it to a male victim (MD = 0.397, p = 0.003). These main effects can be interpreted, for no significant interaction effect appeared between alcohol condition and gender of the victim for the dependent variables victim blaming, victim responsibility and perpetrator blaming. No significant main effect of gender could be found for scores on perpetrator responsibility (p =
0.108).
Main effects between the six conditions. A second MANCOVA was necessary to be able to examine the 6 conditions pairwise and see where significant differences occurred exactly. When looking at Pillai’s Trace (value = 0.297, F = 3.286, p <0.001), it suggested a difference in scores across the six conditions. When inspecting the test of between-subjects effects, significant differences between the conditions can be found in all four dependent variables (p = 0.004; p < 0.001; p = 0.012; p < 0.001). Even though perpetrator responsibility shows significant differences, the main effects found cannot be interpreted due to a significant interaction between alcohol condition and gender victim for this variable. The pairwise comparisons were investigated further two find which conditions varied significantly with each other for each of the four dependant variables.
First, the dependent variable of victim blame attribution was assessed. A significant result was found, with a partial eta squared of 11.6%, which means a medium to moderate effect size (Pallant, 2013). When comparing the mean differences of each condition with each
39
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE other, significant differences between the compared conditions, as is shown in Table 5, were found. These results show that when looking at victim blaming, the victim is less likely to be attributed with blame when the victim did not drink and was female. This condition differs significantly with all male conditions, which would indicate that in whatever condition a male is placed into regarding alcohol use, it will always receive more blame than a sober female victim. Even in a sober condition, the male victim will receive significantly more blame from observers when being sexually assaulted than a female victim. This is not true for the female victim that is coerced to drink alcohol by the perpetrator.
Table 5: Comparison of conditions regarding victim blame
Condition Compared Mean Std error p-value condition difference Sober female Coerced female -0.821 0.277 0.003 victim (C1) victim (C3)
Sober male -1.153 0.274 0.000 victim (C4)
Voluntary -0.805 0.273 0.004 consumption male victim (C5) -1.203 0.284 0.000 Coerced male victim (C6)
Voluntary Sober male -0.799 0.270 0.003 consumption victim (C4) female victim (C2) Coerced male -0.849 0.281 0.003 victim (C6)
Note: controlled for gender observer and attitude towards alcohol. Table only shows significant differences.
The female victim that drinks alcohol on a voluntary basis was only regarded to have less blame when compared to the coerced male victim and the sober male victim, but not to any of
40
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE the other conditions. Among male victims, no significant differences were found between the different alcohol conditions.
Table 6 shows the significant differences between the six conditions for the dependent variable measuring victim responsibility. The partial eta squared indicates a moderate – large effect size (12.2%). According to the results, only the sober female victim condition differed significantly with all other conditions, both male and female. No other significant differences between conditions could be found.
Table 6: Comparison of conditions regarding victim responsibility Condition Compared Mean Std error p-value condition difference Sober female Voluntary -1.244 0.366 0.001 victim (C1) alcohol use female victim (C2)
Coerced alcohol -1.037 0.380 0.007 use female victim (C3)
Sober male -1.597 0.376 0.000 victim (C4)
Voluntary -1.720 0.375 0.000 alcohol use male victim (C5)
Coerced male -1.696 0.389 0.000 victim (C6) Note: controlled for gender observer and attitude towards alcohol. Table only shows significant differences.
This would mean that when attributing responsibility to the victim, the only scenario in which a victim is attributed less responsibility for what happened to him or her, is when the victim is female, and when the victim did not consume alcohol, compared with the other situations in which the victim is male and / or the victim did consume alcohol. The way in which alcohol
41
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE was consumed did not matter for attributing blame. Only gender of the victim and simply whether the victim drank alcohol or not mattered.
Thirdly, the conditions were compared with each other on scores of attributing blame to the perpetrator. The significant results found in this analysis are shown in table 7. The effects size was significant but small – moderate (partial eta squared = 7.4%). These results show that when attributing blame to the perpetrator, gender and the alcohol condition seemed to matter.
Table 7: comparison of conditions regarding perpetrator blame Condition Compared Mean Std error p-value condition difference Sober female Sober male 0.859 0.228 0.000 victim (C1) victim (C4)
Voluntary 0.511 0.228 0.026 alcohol use male victim(C5)
Voluntary -0.497 0.226 0.029 Sober male alcohol use victim(C4) female victim (C2)
Coerced alcohol -0.747 0.235 0.002 use female victim (C3)
Coerced alcohol -0.562 0.239 0.020 use male victim (C6)
Note: controlled for gender observer and attitude towards alcohol. Table only shows significant differences.
The biggest difference was found when comparing the female sober victim with the male sober victim. In that case, the perpetrator was attributed with more blame when the victim was female than when the victim was male. A sober female victim will also lead to more attribution of perpetrator blame compared to a male victim that used alcohol on a voluntary 42
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE basis. When comparing the sober male victim scenario to others, besides the difference with the sober female victim, differences between condition C2, C3 and C6 can be found as well, in which the sober male victim leads to less perpetrator blame than those three conditions.
The scores per gender across the conditions can be found in graph 2 in the appendix.
Finally, the differences in perpetrator responsibility across the six conditions were assessed. Even though significant, the effect size in this analysis is small (eta squared is
6.4%). The significant results are depicted in table 8.
Table 8: comparison of conditions regarding responsibility offender
Condition Compared Mean Std error p-value condition difference Sober female Voluntary 0.478 0.191 0.013 victim (C1) alcohol use female victim(C2)
Sober male 0.635 0.197 0.001 victim (C4)
Voluntary Coerced alcohol -0.395 0.197 0.046 alcohol use use female female victim victim (C3) (C2)
Coerced alcohol Sober male 0.551 0.202 0.007 use female victim (C4) victim (C3)
Voluntary Sober male 0.462 0.200 0.022 alcohol use victim (C4) male victim (C5) Note: controlled for gender observer and attitude towards alcohol. Table only shows significant differences.
What can be made clear from this data, is that in the scenario in which the victim is male and sober, significantly less responsibility was attributed to the perpetrator compared to scenarios
C1, C3, and C5. in which the victim was female and sober, female and coerced, and male that
43
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE drank voluntarily. When a female victim drank alcohol on a voluntary basis (C2), less blame was regarded to the perpetrator compared to scenario C1 and C3. When the victim was a male and drank voluntary (C5), more blame was attributed, but only when compared to a sober male victim. As can be seen in the graph in the appendix (Graph 4), lines show interaction, for they are crossed at two places. Please mind that these main effects cannot be interpreted as such, for there is a significant interaction for perpetrator responsibility between the alcohol condition and the gender of the victim.
Hypotheses answered in short
To make a simple overview about what these results mean for the hypotheses, the formulated hypotheses are answered in short according to the results described above.
H1a) It is expected that no alcohol consumption has as a result significantly less
victim blaming and victim responsibility compared to the two alcohol conditions,
regardless of the gender of the victim. Partly confirmed.
Regarding victim responsibility, the hypothesis could be confirmed, for less responsibility seems to be attributed to the victim when the victim was con consuming alcohol, compared to scenarios where the victim did consume alcohol. When regarding victim blaming, the scores found did not confirm this hypothesis. A rather unexpected result was found in which a coerced victim was attributed with more blame significantly compared to the other two conditions.
H1b) Secondly, perpetrator blame and responsibility is expected to be significantly
lower in the no alcohol consumption condition, compared to the two alcohol
conditions, regardless of the gender of the victim. Not confirmed.
H1b could not be confirmed for both perpetrator blame and perpetrator responsibility scores.
Not only where there no significant differences found between the three conditions for both
44
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE perpetrator blame and perpetrator responsibility, the significant interaction effect between the two independent variables means that if there was a main effect to be found for perpetrator responsibility, this could not be interpreted as such.
H1c) Victim blaming and victim responsibility scores are highest for the voluntary
alcohol use condition, followed by the coerced alcohol use condition and no alcohol
use condition respectively. Not confirmed
Only for victim responsibility, the expected pattern was found, but due to no significant differences between the alcohol conditions for victim responsibility, it cannot be said that the voluntary alcohol use condition differed significantly with the coerced alcohol use condition.
H1d) Perpetrator blame and perpetrator responsibility scores are expected to reach
significantly higher scores for coerced alcohol use, followed by voluntary alcohol use
and no alcohol use respectively. Not confirmed.
No such significant differences were found within perpetrator blame and perpetrator responsibility, also not for any of the conditions compared to another conditions.
H2a) Regardless of the condition of alcohol use, it is expected that scores on victim
blaming and victim responsibility are lower for the female victim conditions,
compared to the male victim conditions in general. Confirmed.
This hypothesis cwas confirmed, for the results show that less blame and responsibility is attributed to the female victim compared to the male victim.
H2b) Regardless of the condition of alcohol use, it is expected that scores on
perpetrator blaming and perpetrator responsibility are higher in the female victim
conditions compared to the male victim conditions in general. Partly confirmed.
H2b can only be confirmed for the dependent variable perpetrator blame. Higher scores were found in the female conditions in general compared to the male conditions in general. No
45
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE significant differences were found for perpetrator responsibility, but due to the interaction effect between the alcohol conditions and the gender of the victim, it would not be able to interpret them if the were significant.
H3a) It is expected to find higher scores of victim blame and victim responsibility in
the male victim condition (on all three levels of alcohol use) compared to the same
female victim scenario. Partly Confirmed.
Male and female victims only significantly differed in the same condition when the victim was sober. The sober female victim is blamed less significantly compared to a sober male victim. The same is to be said about attributing responsibility to the victim. Only the sober victim conditions differed significantly, with lower scores on victim responsibility in the sober female victim condition compared to the male sober condition. H3a can only be partly confirmed for the sober victim scenarios.
H3b) It is expected to find higher levels of perpetrator blame and perpetrator
responsibility in the female victim condition (on all three levels of alcohol use)
compared to the same male victim scenarios. Partly confirmed.
Again, only for the sober conditions this hypothesis can be confirmed. The perpetrator of a sober female victim is attributed with more blame than a perpetrator of a male victim. The hypothesis is not confirmed for the other alcohol conditions, for no differences between voluntary alcohol consumption by a male and female could be found, as well as a difference between coerced alcohol consumption by a male and a female victim.
H3c) There is a difference in scores on all dependent variables based on the condition
of alcohol use and the gender of the victim (interaction effect). Partly confirmed.
The only significant interaction effect between the gender of the victim and the alcohol conditions found in the MANCOVA was in the variable of perpetrator responsibility. For the
46
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE other three dependent variables, this was not the case. These results can also be found in the graphs added to the appendix under ‘Graphs’. Graph 4 shows crossing lines, indicating an interaction. The lines of the other graphs, illustrating the results of the other three variables, do not cross.
H3d) Type of alcohol assumption is expected to have an effect on perpetrator/ victim
responsibility and perpetrator/victim blame when the victim is female, but not when
the victim is male. Partly confirmed.
For both Victim blaming and victim responsibility scores, the only significant differences were found between female conditions, not for the male conditions. While in graph 1 it does not seem so obvious, in graph 3 in the appendix, the line of the male victim scenarios clearly shows the stable pattern concerning victim responsibility. For the variables perpetrator blame and perpetrator responsibility, even though only few, some significant differences were found between the male victim scenarios. The sober male victim scenario received less scores on perpetrator blame compared to the coerced male victim scenario. For perpetrator responsibility, the perpetrator of a sober male victim received less responsibility compared to a male victim that drank on a voluntary basis.
H3e) It is expected that when assessing the female victim scenarios separately, the
range as expected in H1c can be found. Not confirmed
Even though in victim responsibility, for female victims, the sober scenario was given significantly less blame than the two alcohol scenarios, the range of sober – coercion – voluntary was not found for victim responsibility. This is also the case for victim blaming, where the female sober scenario was attributed with significantly less blame compared to the coerced scenario, but not to the voluntary scenario. The voluntary scenario did not differ significantly with both the sober and the coerced scenario.
47
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
H3f) It is expected that when assessing the female victim scenarios separately, the
range as expected in H1d can be found. Not confirmed.
Even though graph 2 shows the range as was expected for the female scenarios regarding perpetrator blame and perpetrator responsibility, not all the differences where significant.
Only the sober female condition differed with two of the male conditions (sober and voluntary) for perpetrator blame, and for perpetrator responsibility, the sober female condition received higher scores of perpetrator blame compared to voluntary use of alcohol, which is according to the expectations, and the voluntary female condition received lower scores of perpetrator blame compared to the coerced condition, also according to the expectations. The significant difference missing is the difference between the coerced female condition and the sober female condition. Also, the patterns of the female victims in graph 2 and 4 in the appendix are different from the expected pattern from figure 1.
Discussion
In order to shed more light on the issue of alcohol consumption of a victim of sexual assault prior to an attack, this study was conducted with an additional condition of alcohol use. By adding a coerced form of victim alcohol consumption as a condition, a clear distinction between being coerced to drink and drinking on a voluntary basis was attempted to be made. The way in which the victim consumes alcohol was expected to make a difference when it comes down to being blamed and being attributed with responsibility, for both victim and perpetrator. Because the few studies that did include the effect of alcohol use by the victim on attribution of blame and responsibility were mainly focused on women, male victim scenarios were added in this study. Three main hypotheses were formed in an attempt to reproduce results from previous literature and to investigate the two added elements fairly
48
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE new in research: differentiation in alcohol consumption by the victim and the gender of the victim.
One of the most important results from this study is that, in general, consumption of alcohol is seen as a controllable factor by the victim and makes the observers regard the victim as baring more responsibility for what happened. Whether the alcohol was consumed on a voluntary basis or the victim was pressured by the perpetrator to drink, does not seem to make a difference in this sample when having female victims in focus. For male victims, victim blaming and victim responsibility scores did not differ across alcohol conditions. Male and female victims are, which is in line with previous research, judged differently when it comes down to blame and responsibility. A man being a victim is attributed with more blame and responsibility in general compared to a woman being a victim of sexual assault. Also perpetrator blame differed significantly when considering gender of the victim. Perpetrators of female victims of sexual assault were in general attributed with more blame than perpetrators of male victims. Answering the second hypothesis predicted it already, but the answers on the third set of hypotheses showed that when trying to separate the sample in means of gender of the victim, some expected results could be found in the female conditions, but almost no results, if not opposite than expected, are found for the male conditions. What stands out are the differences between male and female victims, especially in the sober victim scenarios. As can be shown in the graphs added to the appendix (graph 1 and graph 3), in victim blaming and victim responsibility, male victim scenarios all (even though not significant at all points) scored higher than the female victim scenarios. In perpetrator blame, the male victim scenarios all scored lower compared to the female victim scenarios. This is not the case for scores on perpetrator responsibility, where opposite patterns for female victim scenarios and male victim scenarios were found. An interaction effect was found on
49
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE perpetrator responsibility, so main effects on perpetrator responsibility could not be interpreted.
Assessment of the first hypothesis tells us that perpetrator blame and responsibility scores do not differ when only the alcohol conditions are assessed. So, in general, there is no effect of use of alcohol on the observer’s reaction in terms of attributing blame and responsibility to the offender. This result can be explained by Lamb (1999). In her book, she explains the Aristotelian view on how blaming the perpetrator is based on the person’s behavior and what he has become, his character. She argues that in most cases, perpetrators had enough opportunities and free will to choose to refrain from what they did. Only an excuse can separate blame and responsibility from the character, but in the vignettes of this study, no indication towards an excuse for the perpetrator could be found. This might be a pathway through which perpetrator blame and responsibility in this study stays relatively stable over all conditions of alcohol use. Where the level of alcohol use does matter, is in attributing responsibility and blame to the victim. A victim who consumed no alcohol is attributed less responsibility than a victim who consumed alcohol, regardless of the way that happened. This is line with previous research (Gerard & Senn, 2008; Grubb & Turner, 2012)
In general, when not assessing gender of the victim, no differences were found for perpetrator blame and responsibility. Within victim blaming, this was a bit different and an unexpected result was found. The results showed that a coerced victim was blamed more compared to the victim drinking voluntarily and the victim that did not drink. This is against the expectations, for it was expected that a victim drinking voluntarily was blamed more than a victim in both other scenarios. An explanation for this unexpected result can be derived from the distinction between behavioral blame and characterological blame. Behavioral blame is related to, logically, one’s behavior and the perceived control a person had over the situation. When the
50
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE person behaves differently, such a situation in the future can be avoided. On the other side, characterological blame is related to one’s character, the person has less control over the situation and the negative outcome is due to the person’s deservingness (Janoff-Bulman,
1979). In the context of our study, behavior, such as drinking alcohol, leads to blaming the victim on the behavioral level. Next time, if the victim does not drink, the situation can be avoided. On the other hand, a victim can be blamed for his character as well. A coerced victim might be attributed with more characterological blame compared to the sober victim, for it is seen as a personal weakness to be easily pushed to do something. Knowing this, the attribution of characterological blame could be seen as an explanation for the differences between the coerced victim scenario and the other two scenarios. Because resulting in the higher scores on victim blaming in the coerced scenario when this characterological blame is summed with the behavioral blame attributed due to drinking behavior of the victim. The defensive attribution hypothesis (Shaver, 1970) could explain how a discrepancy between characterological and behavioral blame. By attributing the negative outcome of an event to the character of a victim, observers regard it less likely to happen to themselves. The scenario as is depicted in the vignettes, is a scenario that is very similar to situations that include alcohol and could lead to a normal situation and consensual sex (Horvath & Brown, 2007).
Because these ‘normal’ situations are likely to be experienced by many, drinking alcohol is a behavior many probably recognize in themselves. To be able to differentiate themselves from the depicted victim, they consider their own characters to be different from the victim, and therefore the negative event will not soon happen to themselves. Unfortunately, this is not an assumption that can be derived from the results of this study, for the distinction between behavioral and characterological blame was not measured.
51
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
When comparing the six conditions with each other (not only the three different alcohol conditions are compared but also the alcohol conditions across the genders), some unexpected results require further elaboration and explanation. Regarding victim blaming, in female scenarios, the victim was blamed less when sober compared to both alcohol scenarios.
This is similar to the results from the hypotheses testing differences between the three scenarios without taking gender into account. In the male conditions for victim blaming and responsibility, there were no significant differences found between the different scenarios.
This means that when the victim is male, it does not matter for the judgement of the observers of the victim whether the victim drank or not, and whether the drinking behaviour was coerced or completely voluntarily. This was in line with the expectations. These results regarding male victims could be interpreted in two ways: either the male victim will experience no significantly more negative responses from observers when he drank alcohol compared to when he did not (positively framed), or the male victim of rape always receives negative responses from observers, regardless of what the level of alcohol consumption of the victim was prior to the attack (negatively framed). When the victim blaming and victim responsibility score patterns of male and female victims are compared in graph 1 and 3 in the appendix, it can be seen that the negatively framed approach is most suitable in current study.
Even though not all similar scenarios (C1 and C4, C2 and C5, C3 and C6) showed significant differences, the graphs show that the line of the victim male scenarios lies above the female victim scenarios in both victim blame and victim responsibility. What can be said with certainty, is, regardless of a male victim consumed alcohol and in what way alcohol was consumed, the sober female victim will be attributed with less blame and responsibility than the male victim. While for men the differences in alcohol consumption in the three scenarios did not significantly influence the observers’ judgement of the victim, in the female victim
52
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE scenarios some of the expected results were confirmed. The sober female victim was attributed less responsibility according to current study, which is in line with the results obtained to answer the first set of hypotheses. While male victims did not get attributed a different level of responsibility across alcohol condition, female victims did. As discussed in the introduction of this study, male victims might not be judged differently on responsibility due to the expectations that modern society has (Ricciardelli et al., 2001). Men are expected to be drinking. Women should not be drinking, and might therefore receive a more negative judgement when they were drinking prior to a sexual assault while men may not experience this. The same results in female victim scenarios as in scores for responsibility could not be found in victim blaming scores. The sober female victim only was blamed significantly less when compared to the coerced alcohol scenario. The voluntary scenario did not differ significantly with both the sober female victim and the coerced female victim. Even though the difference between the sober condition and the coerced condition was expected, the score on victim blaming in the voluntary condition was unexpected. The scores on victim blaming on female victims in the voluntary scenario could be due to the different ideas about responsibility and blame, as proposed by Mantler et al. (2003). Even though the drinking might have led to more attribution of responsibility in both drinking scenarios, blame is not directly related to causation, while responsibility is (Grubb & Harrower, 2008). The woman’s drinking might be seen as a causational factor, and responsibility is therefore attributed more in drinking scenarios compared to the non-drinking scenario. For victim blaming, on the other hand, the element of the epistemic state of the victim is more important. Were there enough reasons to believe the behaviour would lead to the outcome. In the light of the results of current study, it can be argued that the scenario in which the victim drank voluntarily, it is less clear that the perpetrator is on to something than in the coerced scenario. It is more likely that
53
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE a victim could have foreseen the perpetrators intentions when he or she was coercing the victim to drink. A victim drinking out of own intention reflects similar characteristics of a normal social situation including alcohol, and the foreseeability might be regarded as less obvious compared to the coerced scenario. Again, for victim blaming, no significant differences were found between the male victim scenarios, which has a simple logical explanation. When responsibility is not regarded as significantly different, it is less likely that a differences between victim blaming scores will be found, according to the decision-stage model (Mantler et al., 2003). The causal judgement (responsibility) is made before a subjective judgement (blame) is made by the observes.
The conclusion drawn that male victims receive a more negative judgement of observers than female victims in this sample, is in line with previous research (Rye et al.,
2006; Mitchell et al., 1999) where the same results were found when considering gender dyads. These results shed a light on the current view on female and male victims concerning gender roles: women are regarded as more helpless and weak and men are supposed to be powerful, dominant and aggressive and therefore more able to defend themselves (Grubb &
Turner, 2012). Men can better choose the outcome for themselves, resulting in more blame and responsibility compared to women, as is reflected by the rape myths people hold about stereotypes. This is also confirmed by Davies’ (2002) findings about male victims of sexual assault. According to Davies (2002), men reporting sexual assault are often not taken seriously, they are subjected to stigmatisation from the general public and it is not seen as a problem in society. Men are regarded as being more active in initiating sex, encouraging the sexual actions, and are considered to enjoy it more than women and are less stressed about it.
Besides, Javaid (2016) explains in a review of articles on the negligence of male rape victims that expectations of hegemonic masculinity and norms in society enhance the stereotypical
54
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE beliefs. Hegemonic masculinity describes the role that men are expected to play that includes being sexually dominant, having control over the situation, being strong and invulnerable, and begin self-sufficient. This cultural emphasis in western society, as the sample of current study was done with participants living in the western culture, leads to expectations of observers that do not fit the scenario of a man being raped by a woman.
The hypotheses regarding a range in perpetrator blame and perpetrator responsibility were not confirmed. What we can say about the perpetrator responsibility in female scenarios, is that a perpetrator is attributed with less responsibility when the victim drinks voluntarily compared to the no alcohol condition and the coerced alcohol condition. This differs in the male conditions. What was found there is that when comparing voluntary alcohol use of a male victim to a sober victim condition, we do find the expected difference in perpetrator responsibility. More responsibility is attributed to the perpetrator when the male victim was drinking voluntary compared to the sober male victim. Perpetrator blame measurements and results were only striking in the fact that the differences that did occur, showed that in some occasions the perpetrator get more blamed in female sober scenario’s compared to other female scenario’s, and this is the other way around when the victim is sober and male. This is also to be found in Graph 4 in the appendix, where you can see the lines depicting the female victim scenarios following the opposite pattern of the male victim scenarios. It is interesting to try to find an explanation for these opposite reactions observers have to both genders in two different scenarios. The female perpetrator gets attributed more responsibility when assaulting a male victim that is drinking compared to assaulting a sober male victim. But, in contrast with a female perpetrator, the male perpetrator of a sober female victim bears more responsibility when compared to assaulting a female victim that drank out of own intent. This opposite reactions of observers to the different gender scenarios could be due to the gender
55
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE specific beliefs that exist about rape victims. A man is supposed to be strong and capable of defending himself. As a consequence, observers can think that a women that assaults a sober male victim should bare not much responsibility because of the rape myths that exist about male victims: “A man cannot have sex if he does not want to”. “A man can defend himself from unwanted sexual initiation from a woman”, and other (Smith et al., 1988). But when the male victim is under influence of alcohol, these ‘masculine’ stereotypical beliefs might be weakened, for a drunk man is less capable of defending and of controlling his actions, which could result in higher perpetrator blame. The woman that committed the sexual assault should not have taken advantage of the weak moment of the man, in the eyes of the observer.
Because rape myths about female victims do not include the ‘masculine’ factors, a woman is ought to be weaker than a man, which would explain the significant difference between the two genders in the sober scenarios. Specific rape myths concerning female victims could lead to an opposite reaction to victim drinking behaviour than occurred with the male victim in this sample. As is discussed earlier (Meyer, 2010), drinking by the female victim leads to attributing more responsibility of the event to the victim. Besides, alcohol use can be wrongly interpreted as negative behaviour of the woman and leads to a woman neglecting her safety and losing her sexual inhibitions (while in modern society a drinking man is more accepted and regarded more positive) (Ricciardelli et al., 2001). A women that chose to drink, in the eyes of the observer, must have sent signals that she wanted sexual interaction with the perpetrator. Another possible explanation for the opposite reactions to victim drinking behaviour regarding perpetrator responsibility can be found in the heterosexual sexual script, as is explained in recent research (Huitema & Vanwesenbeeck, 2016). This script indicates that the man has the role of sexual indicator, and the women are the gatekeepers. In this script, the man is looking for sex and the woman decides whether it happens or not. This means that
56
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE the female victim that drinks, is less capable of showing her borders. The man in that scenario is therefore less responsible for what happened, because it was the woman’s responsibility to be the gatekeeper in the situation and not the man’s responsibility. If the woman was sober, however, the woman is being the gatekeeper and does her best to stop unwanted actions, the male perpetrator is the initiator of the sexual activity. He bears more responsibility for the event, for the initiative came from his side. Opposite to this, when a sober man is being sexually victimized by a female perpetrator, the woman in the scenario was, according to the sexual script, not the initiator of the sex and therefore bears less responsibility for what happened. But when the man was drinking prior to the assault, the man is less capable of initiating sex, and the woman is deciding whether the sex will happen or not, for she is the gatekeeper. This could have led to more perceived responsibility for the female perpetrator than in a situation in which the victim was sober. In short, the different rape myths that can exist for male and female victims and the heterosexual sexual script, could serve as explanations for the crossing lines in graph 4. Nevertheless, it should be taken in mind that such explanations are merely speculative. The range as expected for victim blaming and victim responsibility, sober- coerced – voluntary, did also not appear clearly in any of the gender samples, even though this range was expected to be found in the female scenarios.
These results show that it is difficult to judge coercion in the vignettes given as for what it is: involuntariness. But why is it so hard to recognize the coerced vignette as such? Is it not a clear case of incapacitated rape? Horvath and Brown (2007) distinguished three classifications for drugs and alcohol use of the victim prior to a sexual attack. Offender- induced, mixture, and victim-induced. They classify the vignette of coercion used in this study as a mixture (meaning: the offender was actively involved in getting the victim more influenced and intoxicated by alcohol consumption, by buying them drinks), and they call
57
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE perpetrators in that category a premeditated opportunist. He takes use of the opportunity of the vulnerable victim to assault the victim. The perpetrator that takes advantage of a victim intoxicated by alcohol on own intent, is called an impulsive opportunist by Horvath and
Brown (2007), which makes perpetrators in both alcohol scenarios in our study opportunist.
On the other side, Horvath and Brown (2007) call the perpetrator in the offender-induced intoxication (drugs/alcohol given without any knowledge of the victim and with no consent of the victim) a predator who sees the victim as a target instead of an opportunity. While drugs use on victims are easier to put in an offender-induced intoxication scenario, alcohol is not so easily given to a victim without the victim’s consent. Due to the description of the coerced scenario in our vignettes, the perpetrator might be considered an premeditated opportunist, which can be attributed with the same intention as the impulsive opportunist. The distinction between a predatory perpetrator and opportunistic perpetrator might be easier to attribute a difference in intention to and therefore a difference in blame and responsibility.
Theoretical and practical implications The results from the current study lead to several implications for both the theoretical and the practical field. First of all, the results of this study express the difficulties in judgement when alcohol consumption by the victim is not as clear cut as often is shown in previous literature. When adding the element of coercion, it is not recognized as such when it assesses coercion through alcohol use. In research done on the date-rape drug (Girard & Senn,
2008), the element of coercion is acknowledged by the participants. Due to the fact that in this study, the effect of coercion does not appear, it might be needed to make the distinction between voluntary consumption and coercion more clear. Professionals should know how to distinguish and how to find out whether there was coercion. Because the lack of consent is so important for further prosecution and to be able to determine severity, coerced alcohol consumption must be recognized for what it is: a weapon, rape through intoxication, 58
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE incapacitated rape. This study shows that it is hard to recognize for the general public, probably because it does not seem so different from being intoxicated on a voluntary bases at first sight. But the intention of the perpetrator differs. Where for drug-assisted rape this intention is clear, it is not yet so clear when the typical drug recognizable as such is replaced by alcohol.
The fact that victim alcohol consumption, regardless of the way it was done, leads to attributing more responsibility to the victim, is a problem in both society and in the professional field. The scenario of alcohol use by victims of sexual assault when assessed by professionals, as a recent study has shown, is problematic, for social workers appear to be more accepting of rape myths when the victim consumed alcohol prior to the attack (Baldwin-
White & Elias-Lamber, 2016). This also is true for questioned police officers in the study of
Venema (2016). Officers regarded the case of sexual assault less believable or even completely false when the victim consumed alcohol. Professionals working with victims of sexual assault should be aware of their own flaws in recognizing the event as such and the influence of false beliefs on their judgement. The key element to reach that is education.
According to the literature review of Parratt and Pina (2017), education in relation to the beliefs of rape among professionals has a positive effect. Rape myths were found to be less of influence in officers with a higher education.
Secondly, the male victim is, in this sample as well as in previous research, a victim that is not recognized as such in cases of acquaintance rape. The fact that this stigma exists still now, is problematic on the individual and societal level for several reasons. First of all, a male victim is subjected to stigmatisation and rejection and is therefore more likely to blame himself. This in turn disables the victim to recover quickly from the assault (Davies, 2002).
The general public has this negative view about male rape victims, and a male victim of
59 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE sexual assault is likely to notice this and can start to share their opinion and feel more ashamed (Smith et al., 1988). When not taken seriously, the victim can suffer from secondary victimization. Secondary victimization, also called secondary rape when it considers victims of rape, is caused by negative and judgemental attitudes toward the victim, resulting in poor treatment by professionals and society after victimization (Campbell & Raja, 1999). Often, secondary rape occurs through the pathway of victim blaming and false beliefs about rape
(Campbell & Raja, 1999). For female victims, this is a known phenomenon to occur after victimization. Due to the results that show that male victims are blamed more, the percentage of secondarily victimized men that experienced sexual assault is most likely even higher. In the study of Kassing and Prieto (2003), it is mentioned that both male and female observers believe that men are expected to be able to resist an assault more easily, and a non-resisting male victim of sexual assault could have easily fought off his offender. Javaid (2016) provides the feminist theory as an explanation for the lack of attention for male victims of rape. It is discussed that the raise of feminism has led to a focus on women as rape victims and men as rape offenders. But in reality, the experiences of the male victim are as seriously negative as the experiences of a female victim: they feel their lives were in danger, they were fearful, they experienced shock, they felt helpless, and they could not believe it had actually taken place
(Kassing & Prieto, 2003). According to Javaid (2016), the discrepancy between male victims’ needs and the current recognition of male victims leads to risk-taking behaviour and violent behaviour from which they believe would restore their masculinity. This can in turn lead to numerous other problems, such as excessive violence and denying that they need help or that they want to report the event. To minimize the impact for male victims of rape and to prevent a high rate of secondary victimization, more recognition by both the public as well as professionals is needed. The only way to prevent this stereotype way of thinking is to, as well
60 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE as with fighting alcohol rape myths, educate the public and the professionals. A hard task, but not impossible. By giving evidence against people’s false beliefs about male rape, it can be tried to take away the stigma. But the biggest and most important change should be with the professionals, for even they are often not able to ignore myths about sexual assault of male
(Davies, 2002). Rape crisis workers, police, counsellors, and even jurors are influenced by false rape myths about male victims of sexual assault (Kassing & Prieto, 2003; Parratt & Pina,
2017). Anderson and Whiston (2005) found that longer interventions and a good presenter can make a difference in sexual assault education programs in college. Regarding professionals, special trainings for professionals are necessary (Kassing & Prieto, 2003). Especially support services should be made aware of myths and beliefs that can influence their judgement, so they can put that knowledge into practice and know when to be alert for their own judgements. In addition, research should be done to male sexual assault to gain more insight in the problem and ways to prevent secondary victimization and to specific needs of male victims of sexual assault.
It was mentioned in the introduction before, and this study also shows that in some occasions it is important to make a distinction between attribution of responsibility and attribution of blame. When looking at figures 2 and 3 in the appendix, it can be seen that for every condition of alcohol use, in both perpetrator scores and victim scores, responsibility receives higher scores than blame. This indicates that the hierarchy as proposed with the decision-stage model (Mantler et al., 2003) is true for both judgement of the perpetrator and judgement of the victim. The theory proposes the idea that responsibility comes first, then comes blame. Without responsibility, no blame is to be attributed. In the results of this study, this idea of hierarchy was confirmed, which is additional evidence for responsibility and blame being two dependent constructs that can be measured separate from each other.
61
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Limitations It must be noted that all respondents were gathered through an online questionnaire, which results in less reliable answers. Even though gathering of results are quick, cheap, and easy (Hunter, 2012), which was necessary considering the time available for this study, online questionnaires have some disadvantages (Evans & Mathur, 2005). For example, it is argued that respondents online might not be a true representation of the public. Besides, difficulties with the internet may intervene with the accuracy of answering, which is an uncontrollable factor. Thirdly, around 60 people started the questionnaire, but did not complete it. This means that around 19% of all participants that started the online questionnaire stopped before completion, for unknown reasons. The gathering of participants through an online questionnaire has as a result that sampling is done through convenience. This way of sampling has the risk of not giving a perfect sample that represents the population (Farrokhi, 2012)
Besides, because all questionnaires were translated and not checked for their validity.
For optimizing reliability and validity, all translated questions should be assessed separately to test the internal reliability, construct validity and accuracy. In this research, there were no means to do such an additional study. This should be taken in mind when reading and interpreting the results of this research.
Blame and responsibility can be seen as different constructs. But because the two constructs can be taken separately on academic level, this does not automatically mean that in practice this distinction is obvious. The question remains if participants of this study interpreted the questions as intended (face validity and construct validity concerns are shown here). There are several limitations in this study regarding the questions assessing blame and responsibility. While victim blaming was measured through more questions, including indirect questions, victim responsibility and perpetrator responsibility were measured through only one question with a straight forward formulation. It might be better to do more research 62
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE to what distinguishes the two concepts of blame and responsibility, and make sure it is reflected in the questions asked to the participants. For example, in Thorton and Ryckman
(1983), responsibility is measured as a construct resulting from attributing ‘guilt’ to both victim and perpetrator. Instead of using the word “responsibility”, “guilt” might be a less clear indication of true responsibility. It could be that when using the word “responsibility” in the question, it is too directly asked and participants’ answers could have been biased by the word.
In addition, this study does not focus on the distinction between characterological blame and behavioral blame. But, the results indicate a more in depth research on this distinction is needed. As discussed, respondents make behavioral as well as characterological attributions to a victim of sexual assault (Anderson, 1999). Anderson (1999) found in her study, investigating characterological and behavioral blame in talk about rape, that observers use both characterological blame and behavioral blame when talking about the event, and the amount of blame is equal to the amount of self-blame of the victim. The amount of characterological blame and behavioral blame were effected by different variables, such as gender of the observer. Men attributed more blame to the character of a female victim than to a male victim, with females the amount was equal for both genders. The current study lacks in distinguishing the two constructs.
Another limitation of this study is that the six vignettes differ in certain ways that are not controlled for. In half of the vignettes the perpetrator is a man, in the other half the perpetrator was a woman. Even though this was done on purpose to be able to reflect a heterosexual situation in all six scenarios, the change of gender of the perpetrator is a factor that might have had an influence on people’s judgements. The intention was to make the vignette depict a rape case that showed many characteristics of a normal heterosexual
63
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE interaction, what makes it more difficult for observers to acknowledge the event of a rape, but it could be possible that the observers reacted in a certain way to the male-victim-scenarios as a reaction to the female perpetrator, and not to the male victim.
Explicit alcohol cognitions have received the most attention in research (Wiers,
Woerden, Smulders, & De Jong, 2002) and was in this study also used as a measurement of attitude towards alcohol use of the victim. Even though in this research the explicit attitude towards alcohol consumption was measured, the implicit attitude towards alcohol consumption was not. The difference between the two types of measurements is that explicit attitude depends on a form of self-presentation and is a direct measurement. It relies on for a big part on expectancies and beliefs about the effects of alcohol. The implicit attitude measurement looks at the underlying cognitive-emotional processes that are not influenced by self-representation (Wiers et al., 2002). An implicit test examines participants on a construct without the construct being obvious to the participants. Because the recognized Implicit
Association Test (IAT) (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), is a task to be done on the computer and relies on quick reactions to stimuli, it was hard to use in an online questionnaire. By measuring attitude towards alcohol consumption with the IAT in addition to an explicit measurement of attitude towards alcohol consumption, results are biased less by self-presentation. Because this study did not use IAT or any other implicit measurement of attitude towards alcohol consumption, a bias of self-representation is not checked for in this study.
Future research
For future research on the topic of this study, several recommendations can be made.
First of all, some validation and reliability issues should be solved in future research. It is necessary to test the translated questions measuring blame and responsibility on reliability and
64
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE validity. Results based on validated questions are more reliable and safer to interpret. This also applies to the vignettes used in this study. To be sure the vignettes depict the situation that it should depict, the control questions were made to try to rule out misinterpretations. But the results do not show the expected difference between the two alcohol conditions concerning victim blame and victim responsibility scores. It is wise to validate the vignettes used in further research to make sure that the intent of the perpetrator is clear. As discussed, how people view the perpetrator, as an impulsive opportunist or a premediated opportunist
(Horvath & Brown, 2007). Besides that, in this study, only two variables concerning individual differences of the observers were controlled for. By including gender and the attitude towards alcohol use in analysis, some individual differences were controlled for, but other variables can be considered in future analysis that are not covered by gender of the participant. For example, in the study of Nagel, Matsuo, McIntyre, and Morrison (2005), not only gender, but also age, education and income are significant predictors of the attitude towards victims of rape. The list of influencing individual differences might be endless, but more research should be done to see which are the most important individual differences of observers that have to be taken into account in further research.
Another recommendation for future research is to take behavioural and characterological blame into account in the questionnaire. Because this study leads to some unexpected results regarding the overall victim blame (not distinguishing male from female victim scenarios), it is interesting to see what happens with victim blaming scores when it is divided into characterological victim blaming and behavioural victim blaming.
Due to knowledge about what happens to attributions of blame and responsibility when the perpetrator is drinking as well (Norris & Cubbin, 1992), it might be interesting to use perpetrator alcohol consumption as an independent variable as well and to manipulate the
65
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE perpetrator’s level of consumption. With a drinking perpetrator, the scenarios are closer to the practical reality of incapacitated rape (Abbey et all., 2004; Brown, Testa, & Messman-Moore,
2010).
In sum, the results of the current study are supportive of earlier investigated effects of gender of the victim on attributing blame and responsibility and the effects of the conditions of alcohol use. It is made clear that this study confirms earlier findings about the unrecognized male victim of sexual assault and the distinction between alcohol use and no alcohol use by the victim when assessing victim responsibility. When interpreting these results, the readers have to be aware of the limitations of this study and the possible impact of them on the results. Further research is necessary to investigate the aspect of coercion by the perpetrator in victim alcohol use and to get a better insight in the different dimensions of blame in victim alcohol consumption scenarios.
66
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
References
Abbey, A. (1991). Acquaintance rape and alcohol consumption on college campuses: how are
they linked? Journal of American College Health, 39(4), 165-169. doi:
10.1080/07448481.1991.9936229
Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: a common problem among college students.
Journals of studies on alcohol, 14, 118-128. Retrieved from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4484270/
Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Sexual assault
and alcohol consumption: What do we know about their relationship and what types of
research are still needed. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(3), 271 – 303. doi:
10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00011-9
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and
acquaintance rape: the role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape
proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111 – 125. Doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111
Acock, A. C., & Ireland, N. K. (1983). Attribution of blame in rape cases: The impact of norm
violation, gender, and sex-role attitude. Sex Roles, 9(2), 179 – 193. doi:
10.1007/BF00289622
Anderson, I. (1999). Characterological and behavioral blame in conversations about female
and male rape. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(4), 377 – 394. doi:
10.1177/0261927X99018004002
Anderson, I., & Lyons, A. (2006). The effect of victims’ social support on attributions of
blame in female and male rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1400 –
1417. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02176.x
67
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-
analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 374 –
388. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00237.x
Baldwin-White, A., & Elias-Lambert, N. (2016). Influence of victim and perpetrators’ alcohol
use on social work student’s levels of rape myth acceptance. Advances in Social Work,
17(2), 235 – 253. doi: 10.18060/20882
Basile, K. C., Chen, J., Black, M. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2007). Prevalence and characteristics
of sexual violence victimization among U.S. adults, 2001-2003. Violence and Victims,
22(4), 237 – 448. doi: 10.1891/088667007781553955
Belknap, J. (2010). Rape: Too hard to report and too easy to discrete victims. Violence
Against Women, 16(12), 1335-1344. doi: 10.1177/1077801210387749
Boekel, van L. C., Brouwers, E. P. M., Weeghel, van J., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (2013). Stigma
among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its
consequences for healthcare delivery: Systematic review. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 131(1-2), 23 – 35. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.018
Brener, N. D., McMahon, P. M., Warren, C. W., & Douglas, K. A. (1999). Forced sexual
intercourse and associated health-risk behaviors among female college students in the
United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 252 – 259. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.67.2.252
Bridges, J. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex role expectations
and rape-supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24(5), 291 – 307. doi: 10.1007/BF00288303
Brown, A. L., Testa, M., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2009). Psychological consequences of
sexual victimization resulting from force, incapacitation, or verbal coercion. Violence
Against Women, 15(8), 898 – 919. doi: 10.1177/1077801209335491
68
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Burnam, M. A., Stein, J. A., Golding, J. M., Siegel, J. M., Sorenson, S. B., Forsythe, A. B., &
Telles, C. A. (1988). Sexual assault and mental disorders in a community population.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 843 – 850. doi: 0022-006
X/88/S00.75
Cahill, A. J. (2016). Unjust sex vs. rape. Hypatia, 31(4), 746 – 761. doi: 10.1111/hypa.12294
Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (1999). Secondary victimization of rape victims: Insight from
mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence and Victims,
14(3), 261 – 275. Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1999/00000014/00000003/art00
003
Ceelen, M., Dorn, T., Van Huis, F. S., & Reijnders, U. J. L. (2016). Characteristics and post-
decision attitudes of non-reporting sexual violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 1, 1 – 17. doi: 10.1177/0886260516658756
Chaikin, A. L., & Darley, J. M. (1973). Victim or perpetrator?: Defensive attribution of
responsibility and the need for order and justice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 25(2), 268 – 275. doi: 10.1037/h0033948
Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2008). Male rape myths: The role of
gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 600 – 615.
doi: 10.1177/0886260507313529
Check, J. V. P., & Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions
of stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45(2), 344 – 356. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.344
69
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Chockler, H., & Halpern, J. Y. (2004). Responsibility and blame: A structural-model
approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22, 92 – 115. doi:
10.1613/jair.1391
Cocca, C. E. (2004). Statutory rape laws in historical context. In C. E. Cocca (Ed.), Jailbait:
The politics of statutory rape laws in the United States (pp 9 – 28). Retrieved from
http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60840.pdf
Critchlow, B. (1985). The blame in the bottle: Attributions about drunken behaviour.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(3), 258 – 274. doi:
10.1177/0146167285113003
Davies, M. (2002). Male sexual assault victims: a selective review of the literature and
implications for support services. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 203 – 214. doi:
10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00043-4
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2),
195 – 219. doi: 10.1108/10662240510590360
Farrokhi, F. (2012). Rethinking convenience sampling: Defining quality criteria. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 784 – 792. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203 – 210. doi: 10.1037/h0041593
Finch, E., & Munro, V. E. (2005). Juror stereotypes and blame attribution in rape cases
involving Intoxicants: the findings of a pilot study. The British Journal of
Criminology, 45(1), 25-38. doi:10.1093/bjc/azh055
Francis, L. J. (1997). The impact of personality and religion on attitude towards substance use
among 13-15 year olds. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 44, 95 – 103. doi:
10.1016/S0376-8716(96)01325-7
70
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Francis, L. J., Fearn, M., & Lewis, C. A. (2005). The impact of personality and religion on
attitudes toward alcohol among 16-18 year olds in Northern Ireland. Journal of
Religion and Health, 44(3), 267 – 289. doi: 10.1007/s10943-005-5464-z
Frazier, P. A. (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. doi:
10.1177/088626093008001005
Giacopassi, D. J., & Dull, R. T. (1986). Gender and racial differences in the acceptance of
rape myths within a college population. Sex Roles, 15(1-2), 63 – 75. doi:
10.1007/BF00287532
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464 – 1480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Grubb, A., & Harrower, J. (2008). Attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of
participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 13(5), 396 – 405. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006
Grubb, A., & Turner, E. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of
rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming.
Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 17(5), 443-452. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002
Hammond, E. M., Berry, M. A., & Rodriguez, D. N. (2011). The influence of rape myth
acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility
in a date rape scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 242 – 252. doi:
10.1348/135532510X499887
71
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1997). College women’s fears and precautionary
behaviors relating to acquaintance rape and stranger rape. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 21, 527 – 547. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00129.x
Hine, B., & Murphy, A. (2017). The impact of victim-perpetrator relationship, reputation and
initial point of resistance on officers’ responsibility and authenticity ratings towards
hypothetical rape cases. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 1 – 13. doi:
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.01.001
Hocket, J. M., Saucier, D. A., & Badke, C. (2016). Rape myths, rape scripts, and common
rape experiences of college women: differences in perceptions of women who have
been raped. Violence Against Women, 22(3), 307-323.
Horvath, M., & Brown, J. (2007). Alcohol as drug of choice: Is drug-assisted rape a
misnomer? Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(5), 417 – 429. doi:
10.1080/10683160601061117
Houben, K., Havermans, R. C., & Wiers, R. W. (2010). Learning to dislike alcohol:
conditioning negative implicit attitudes toward alcohol and its effect on drinking
behavior. Psychopharmacology, 211, 79 – 86. doi: 10.1007/s00213-010-1872-1
Huitema, A., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2016). Attitudes of Dutch citizens towards male victims
of sexual coercion by a female perpetrator. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(3), 308 –
322. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2016.1159343
Hunter, L. (2012). Challenging the reported disadvantages of e-questionnaires and addressing
methodological issues of online data collection. Nurse Researcher, 20(1), 11 – 20. doi:
10.7748/nr2012.09.20.1.11.c9303
72
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into
depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1798 –
1809. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1798
Javaid, A. (2016). Feminism, masculinity and male rape: Bringing male rape ‘out of the
closet’. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(3), 283 – 293. doi:
10.1080/09589236.2014.959479
Kassing, L. R., & Prieto, L. R. (2003). The rape myth and blame-based beliefs of counsellors-
in-training toward male victims of rape. Journal of Counselling and Development,
81(4), 455 – 461. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=11261441&site=eh
ost-live
Kaysen, D., Neighbors, C., Martell, J., Fossos, N., & Larimer, M. E. (2006). Incapacitated
rape and alcohol use: a prospective analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1820-1832. Doi:
10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.12.025
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
Quarterly, 12, 1 – 24. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1988.tb00924.x
Krahé, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility
attributions to victims of rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(1), 50 – 58.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00004.x
Lamb, S. (1999). The Trouble with Blame: Victims, Perpetrators, and Responsibility. London:
Harvard University Press. Retrieved from books.google.com
73
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Larimer, M. E., Lydum, A. R., Anderson, B. K., & Turner, A. P. (1999). Male and female
recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: prevalence rates,
alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40(3), 295 – 308. doi:
10.1023/A:1018807223378
Lens, K. M. E., Doorn, van J., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2014). You shouldn’t feel that
way! Extending the emotional victim effect through the mediating role of expectancy
violation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(4), 326 – 338. doi:
10.1080/1068316X.2013.777962
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking
back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030 – 1051. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.85.5.1030
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental
Delusion (pp. 9-30). New York, NY: Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5_2
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994) Rape myths: in review. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 18(2), 133-164. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x
Lorenz, K., & Ullman, S. E. (2016). Exploring correlates of alcohol-specific social reactions
in alcohol-involved sexual assaults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
25(10), 1058 – 1078. doi: 10.1080/10926771.2016.1219801
Mantler, J., Schellenberg, E. G., & Page, J. S. (2003). Attributions for serious illness: Are
controllability, responsibility and blame different constructs? Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 35(2), 142 – 152. doi: 10.1037/h0087196
McCarty, D., Morrison, S., & Mills, K. C. (1983). Attitudes, beliefs and alcohol use: An
analysis of relationships. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44(2), 328 – 341. doi:
10.15288/jsa.1983.44.328
74
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Meyer, A. (2010). “Too drunk to say no”. Feminist Media Studies, 10(1), 19-34.
doi:10.1080/14680770903457071
Mitchell, D., Hirschman, R., & Hall, G. C. N. (1999). Attributions of victim responsibility,
pleasure, and trauma in male rape. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(4), 369 – 373. doi:
10.1080/00224499909552009
Nagel, B., Matsuo, H., McIntyre, K. P., & Morrison, N. (2005). Attitudes toward victims of
rape: Effects of gender, race, religion, and social class. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 20(6), 725 – 737. doi: 10.1177/0886260505276072
Norris, J., & Cubbins, L. A. (1992). Dating, drinking, and rape: Effects of victim’s and
assailant’s alcohol consumption on judgments of their behavior and traits. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 16, 179 – 191. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00248.x
Pallant, J (2013). SPSS Survival Manual (5th ed.). Birkshire: Open University Press
Parratt, K. A., & Pina, A. (2017). From “real rape” to real justice: A systematic review of
police officers’ rape myth beliefs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 68 – 83. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.005
Raphael, J. (2008). Book Review: Until proven innocent: Political correctness and the
shameful injustices of the Duke lacrosse rape case. Violence Against Women, 14, 370-
375. Retrieved from http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-faculty-pubs/587
Richardson, D., & Campbell, J. L. (1982). Alcohol and rape: The effect of alcohol attributions
of blame for rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(3), 468 – 476. doi:
10.1177/0146167282083013
75 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Ricciardelli, L. A., Connor, J. P., Williams, R. J., & McD Young, R. (2001). Gender
stereotypes and drinking cognitions as indicators of moderate and high risk drinking
among young women and men. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 61(2), 129 – 136. doi:
10.1016/S0376-8716(00)00131-9
Rubenfeld, J. (2013). The riddle of rape-by-deception and the myth of sexual autonomy. Yale
Law Journal, 122(6), 1372 – 1443. Retrieved from:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ylr122&g_sent=1&collection=j
ournals&id=1446
Rye, B. J., Greatrix, S. A., & Enright, C. S. (2006). The case of the guilty victim: The effects
of gender of victim and gender of perpetrator on attributions of blame and
responsibility. Sex Roles, 54, 639 – 649. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9034-y
Sable, M. R., Danis, F., Mauzy, D. L., & Gallagher, S. K. (2006). Barriers to reporting sexual
assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. Journal of American
College Health, 55(3), 157 – 162. doi: 10.3200/JACH.55.3.157-162
Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the
responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
14(2), 101 – 113. doi: 10.1037/h0028777
Sleath, E., & Bull, R. (2010). Male rape victim and perpetrator blaming. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 25(6), 969 – 988. doi: 10.1177/0886260509340534
Smith, R. E., Pine, C. J., & Hawley, M. E. (1988). Social cognitions about adult male victims
of female sexual assault. The Journal of Sex Research, 24(1), 101-112. doi:
10.1080/00224498809551401
76
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Stormo, K., Lang, A., & Stritzke, W. (1997). Attributions about acquaintance rape: the role of
alcohol and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 279 –
305. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00633
Thornton, B., & Ryckman, R. M. (1983). The influence of a rape victim’s physical
attractiveness on observers’ attributions of responsibility. Human Relations, 36(6),
549 – 562. doi: 10.1177/001872678303600604
Torrey, M. (1990). When will we be believed? Rape myths and the idea of a fair trial in rape
prosecutions. U.C. Davis Law Review, 24(4), 1013 – 1072. Retrieved from
https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/24/4/articles/DavisVol24No4_Torrey.pdf
Venema, R. M. (2016). Police officer schema of sexual assault reports: Real rape, ambiguous
cases, and false reports. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(5), 872 – 899. doi:
10.1177/0886260514556765
Wegner, A. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2006). The effects of victim’s substance use and
relationship closeness on mock jurors’ judgements in an acquaintance rape case. Sex
Roles, 54, 547 – 555. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9014-2
Wiers, R. W., Van Woerden, N., Smulders, F. T. Y., & De Jong, P. J. (2002). Implicit and
explicit alcohol-related cognitions in heavy and light drinkers. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 111(4), 648 – 658. doi: 10.1037//0021-843X.111.4.648
Yung, C. R. (2015). Rape law fundamentals. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 27(1), 1 –
46. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol27/iss1/1
77
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Appendix
1. Vignettes used in this study (Dutch)
C1 (female)
Mark en Lisa ontmoeten elkaar in een studentenbar. Beiden dragen ze jeans en een t-shirt. Ze hebben elkaar wel eens zien lopen op de campus, maar hebben nooit direct contact gehad. De twee raken aan de praat en hebben het gedurende de avond erg gezellig. Omdat beiden tentamens hebben binnenkort, drinken ze geen alcohol en gedurende de hele avond consumeren ze frisdrank. Aan het eind van de avond, biedt Mark aan met Lisa mee naar huis te lopen. Omdat Lisa moe is en liever niet alleen loopt, stemt ze in met zijn voorstel. Eenmaal bij haar huis aangekomen, vraagt Mark of hij even naar het toilet mag, wat Lisa goed vindt. Eenmaal binnen begint Mark Lisa te zoenen. In eerste instantie zoent Lisa terug, maar wanneer Mark verder wilt gaan, stribbelt Lisa tegen. Ze duwt hem eerst voorzichtig weg, zegt dan dat ze niet verder wilt gaan, en verzoekt hem om te gaan. Mark blijft aandringen. Ondanks Lisa’s pogingen om hem te stoppen, gaat Mark toch door en heeft uiteindelijk geslachtsgemeenschap met Lisa.
C2 (female)
Mark en Lisa ontmoeten elkaar in een studentenbar. Beide dragen ze jeans en een t-shirt. Ze hebben elkaar wel eens zien lopen op school, maar hebben nooit echt direct contact gehad. De twee raken aan de praat en hebben het gedurende de avond erg gezellig. Lisa drinkt gedurende de avond alcoholische drankjes. Mark houdt het op één of twee biertjes na met name bij fris. Hoe langer de avond duurt, hoe meer alcoholische drankjes Lisa consumeert. Lisa voelt zich steeds minder onder controle, duizelig en heeft moeite met helder nadenken. Mark heeft daar geen last van. Aan het eind van de avond, bied Mark aan met Lisa mee naar huis te lopen. Omdat Lisa moe is en liever niet alleen loopt, stemt ze in met zijn voorstel. Eenmaal bij haar huis aangekomen, vraagt Mark of hij even naar het toilet mag, wat Lisa goed vindt. Eenmaal binnen begint Mark Lisa te zoenen. In eerste instantie zoent Lisa terug, maar wanneer Mark verder wilt gaan, stribbelt Lisa tegen. Lisa voelt zich nog steeds duizelig en heeft zichzelf niet onder controle. Ondanks Lisa’s pogingen om hem te stoppen, blijft Mark toch aandringen en heeft uiteindelijk geslachtsgemeenschap met Lisa.
78 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
C3 (female)
Mark en Lisa ontmoeten elkaar in een studentenbar. Beide dragen ze jeans en een t-shirt. Ze hebben elkaar wel eens zien lopen op school, maar hebben nooit echt direct contact gehad. De twee raken aan de praat en hebben het gedurende de avond erg gezellig. Mark biedt Lisa een drankje aan. Lisa zegt dat ze liever fris heeft, vanwege aankomende tentamens. Mark lacht haar argument weg en accepteert geen ‘nee’. Hij blijft aandringen op het trakteren van een wijntje, en uiteindelijk stemt Lisa daar mee in. Hoe langer de avond duurt, hoe meer alcoholische drankjes Mark aan Lisa aanbiedt die ze aanneemt. Lisa voelt zich steeds minder onder controle, duizelig en heeft moeite met helder nadenken. Mark drinkt weinig alcohol en voelt er niks van. Aan het eind van de avond, bied Mark aan met Lisa mee naar huis te lopen. Omdat Lisa moe is en liever niet alleen loopt, stemt ze in met zijn voorstel. Eenmaal bij haar huis aangekomen, vraagt Mark of hij even naar het toilet mag, wat Lisa goed vindt. Eenmaal binnen begint Mark Lisa te zoenen. In eerste instantie zoent Lisa terug, maar wanneer Mark verder wilt gaan, stribbelt Lisa tegen. Ondanks Lisa’s pogingen om hem te stoppen, blijft Mark toch aandringen en heeft uiteindelijk geslachtsgemeenschap met Lisa.
C4 (male)
Mark en Lisa ontmoeten elkaar in een studentenbar. Beiden dragen ze jeans en een t-shirt. Ze hebben elkaar wel eens zien lopen op school, maar hebben nooit direct contact gehad. De twee raken aan de praat en hebben het gedurende de avond erg gezellig. Omdat beiden tentamens hebben binnenkort, drinken ze geen alcohol en gedurende de hele avond consumeren ze frisdrank. Aan het eind van de avond, vraagt Lisa of Mark met haar mee naar huis wilt lopen. Hij stemt daar mee in. Eenmaal bij haar huis aangekomen, vraagt Lisa of hij even nog even binnen wilt komen voor een drankje, wat Mark goed vindt. Eenmaal binnen begint Lisa Mark te zoenen. In eerste instantie zoent Mark terug, maar wanneer Lisa verder wilt gaan, stribbelt Mark tegen. Hij duwt haar eerst voorzichtig weg en zegt dat hij niet verder wilt en verzoekt haar om te gaan. Lisa blijft aandringen. Ondanks Marks pogingen om haar te stoppen, gaat Lisa toch door en heeft uiteindelijk geslachtsgemeenschap met Mark.
79 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
C5 (male)
Mark en Lisa ontmoeten elkaar in een studentenbar. Beiden dragen ze jeans en een t-shirt. Ze hebben elkaar wel eens zien lopen op school, maar hebben nooit direct contact gehad. De twee raken aan de praat en hebben het gedurende de avond erg gezellig. Mark drinkt gedurende de avond alcoholische drankjes. Lisa houdt het op één of twee wijntjes na met name bij fris. Hoe langer de avond duurt, hoe meer alcoholische drankjes Mark consumeert. Mark voelt zich steeds minder onder controle, duizelig en heeft moeite met helder nadenken. Lisa heeft daar geen last van. Aan het eind van de avond, vraagt Lisa of Mark met haar mee naar huis wilt lopen. Hij stemt daar mee in. Eenmaal bij haar huis aangekomen, vraagt Lisa of hij even nog even binnen wilt komen voor een drankje, wat Mark goed vindt. Eenmaal binnen begint Lisa Mark te zoenen. In eerste instantie zoent Mark terug, maar wanneer Lisa verder wilt gaan, stribbelt Mark tegen. Lisa blijft druk uitoefenen op Mark. Ondanks Marks pogingen om haar te stoppen, gaat Lisa toch door en heeft uiteindelijk geslachtsgemeenschap met Mark.
C6 (male)
Mark en Lisa ontmoeten elkaar in een studentenbar. Beiden dragen een jeans en een t-shirt. Ze hebben elkaar wel eens zien lopen op school, maar hebben nooit direct contact gehad. De twee raken aan de praat en hebben het gedurende de avond erg gezellig. Lisa biedt Mark een drankje aan. Mark zegt dat hij liever fris heeft, vanwege aankomende tentamens. Lisa lacht zijn argument weg en accepteert geen ‘nee’. Na een paar keer aandringen op het trakteren van een biertje, stemt Mark daar uiteindelijk mee in. Hoe langer de avond duurt, hoe meer alcoholische drankjes Lisa Mark aanbiedt, die hij aanneemt. Mark voelt zich steeds minder onder controle, duizelig en heeft moeite met helder nadenken. Lisa drinkt weinig alcohol en voelt er niks van. Aan het eind van de avond, vraagt Lisa of Mark met haar mee naar huis wilt lopen. Hij stemt daar mee in. Eenmaal bij haar huis aangekomen, vraagt Lisa of hij even nog even binnen wilt komen voor een drankje, wat Mark goed vindt. Eenmaal binnen begint Lisa Mark te zoenen. In eerste instantie zoent Mark terug, maar wanneer Lisa verder wilt gaan, stribbelt Mark tegen. Lisa blijft druk uitoefenen op Mark. Ondanks Marks pogingen om haar te stoppen, gaat Lisa toch door en heeft uiteindelijk geslachtsgemeenschap met Mark.
80 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
2. Questionnaires (Dutch)
Form of consent
Je staat op het punt een vragenlijst te starten die bij zal dragen aan een thesisproject gericht op de opinies van de maatschappij op slachtoffers van seksuele misdaden. Graag willen we je van te voren informeren over het feit dat met het invullen van deze vragenlijst je privacy gewaarborgd blijft en dat het invullen ervan geheel vrijwillig is. Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 15 minuten. Als u zich ongemakkelijk voelt tijdens het invullen van de vragenlijst, mag u op elk moment stoppen. Denk niet te lang na tijdens het beantwoorden van de vragen en geef zo eerlijk mogelijk antwoord. Het invullen is anoniem en er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden.
Voor verdere vragen of opmerkingen kan de volgende persoon benaderd worden:
- Eline Chavanu Dit project valt onder de supervisie van Tilburg University. Door op ‘volgende’ te klikken, erken je de hierboven getoonde informatie gelezen en begrepen te hebben.
Demographic questions Question Answer options Wat is je geslacht? 1 = vrouw
2 = man Wat is je leeftijd? *nominal number Op dit moment volg ik een fulltime 0 = nee of een parttime studie op een MBO, HBO of Universiteit. 1 = ja Wat is je seksuele oriëntatie? 0 = Heteroseksueel
1 = homoseksueel
2 = biseksueel
3 = Ik wil deze vraag niet beantwoorden
81 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Observers’ opinion on alcohol
Op een schaal van 1 tot 7, geef aan in welke mate je het drinken van alcohol plezierig of onplezierig vindt.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Onplezierig Plezierig
Op een schaal van 1 tot 7, geef aan in welke mate je het drinken van alcohol saai of leuk vindt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Saai Leuk
Op een schaal van 1 tot 7, geef aan in welke mate je het drinken van alcohol slecht of goed vindt.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Slecht Goed
Op een schaal van 1 tot 7, geef aan in welke mate je het drinken van alcohol onverstandig of verstandig vindt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Onverstandig Verstandig
Control questions fitting vignettes 1, 2 and 3, concerning a female victim
Lees het volgende verhaal aandacht voordat je verder gaat met de vragenlijst.
Vignette 1, 2, 3.
Vraag 1 Waarom dronk Lisa alcohol? a) Lisa dronk geen alcohol (= false (0)) b) Lisa dronk alcohol op vrijwillige basis (= false (0)) c) Lisa dronk alcohol omdat er druk op haar werd uitgeoefend (= true(1)) Vraag 2 Hoeveel alcohol dronk Mark vergeleken met Lisa? a) Mark dronk minder alcohol dan Lisa (= true (1)) b) Mark dronk evenveel alcohol als Lisa (false (0)) c) Mark dronk meer alcohol dan Lisa (= false (0)) Vraag 3 Wie nam in deze situatie het initiatief tot seksuele handelingen? a) Lisa (= false(0)) b) Mark (= true(1))
82 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Control questions fitting vignettes 4, 5, and 6, concerning a male victim.
Lees het volgende verhaal aandacht voordat je verder gaat met de vragenlijst.
Vignette 4, 5, 6.
Vraag 1 Waarom dronk Mark alcohol? a) Mark dronk geen alcohol (= false (0)) b) Mark dronk alcohol op vrijwillige basis (= false (0)) c) Mark dronk alcohol omdat er druk op hem werd uitgeoefend (= true (1)) Vraag 2 Hoeveel alcohol dronk Lisa vergeleken met Mark? a) Lisa dronk minder alcohol dan Mark (= true (1)) b) Lisa dronk evenveel alcohol als Mark (= false (0)) c) Lisa dronk meer alcohol dan Mark (= false (0)) Vraag 3 Wie nam in deze situatie het initiatief tot seksuele handelingen? a) Lisa (= true (1)) b) Mark (= false(0))
Victim responsibility and victim blaming
Beantoord de volgende vragen over het verhaal dat je net gelezen hebt. verantwoordelijkheid
Op een schaal van 1 tot 7, in hoeverre waren de acties van beide personen verantwoordelijk voor de uitkomst van dit incident?
verantwoordelijkheid = de mate waarin de keuzes van de persoon, ongeacht of deze persoon zich bewust was van de mogelijke consequenties, hebben bijgedragen aan de uitkomst van dit incident.
Verantwoordelijkheid [naam slachtoffer]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal niet Helemaal verantwoordelijk verantwoordelijk
83 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Verantwoordelijkheid [naam dader]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal niet Helemaal verantwoordelijk verantwoordelijk
Schuld
Lees de volgende stellingen en geef aan wat je beoordeling is bij elke stelling. Lees goed te antwoordmogelijkheden per stelling.
In hoeverre vind je dat [naam slachtoffer] zichzelf de schuld moet geven voor wat er gebeurd is? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal Helemaal niet wel
Hoeveel controle denk je dat [naam slachtoffer] had over de situatie? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal Helemaal niet wel
Denk je dat dit incident had door [naam slachtoffer] had kunnen worden voorkomen?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal Helemaal niet wel
Hoeveel sympathie voel je voor [naam slachtoffer]?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal Helemaal niet wel
Op een schaal van 1 tot 7, in hoeverre was de uitkomst van dit incident toe te schrijven aan de acties van de personen?
Definitie van toeschrijven aan: schuld, een waardeoordeel over de mate waarin iemand aansprakelijk kan worden gehouden voor de uitkomst en daardoor ook eventueel consequenties in de toekomst kan ervaren
84 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
Schuld van [naam slachtoffer]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal Helemaal niet toe te toe te wijzen aan wijzen aan
Schuld van [naam dader]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal Helemaal niet toe te toe te wijzen aan wijzen aan
Thank Page
Beste deelnemer,
Dank voor het participeren in de studie en je bijdrage aan het onderzoek naar sociale percepties van seksuele misdaden. Voor vragen of opmerkingen over deze studie en/of vragenlijst en met vragen over het doel van de thesis, kunnen de volgende mensen benaderd worden:
- Eline Chavanu (student)
De resultaten zijn opgeslagen en het venster kan gesloten worden.
85 OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
3. Figures
Figure 1: Expectation of patterns
Figure 2: True pattern victim variables
Figure 3: True pattern perpetrator variables
86
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
4. Graphs:
87
OBSERVERS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE
88