Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 191–200

The Effect of Participant Sex, Victim Dress, and Traditional Attitudes on Causal Judgments for Marital Rape Victims

Article

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of participant sex, victim dress, and attitudes influencing the tendency to blame a marital rape victim. College undergraduates completed the Attitudes toward Marriage Scale, an intervening cognitive task, and a read fictitious scenario of a marital rape incident where the victim was dressed somberly or seductively. Participants then completed a brief questionnaire. As predicted, males rated the victim more deserving of the attack than females. As predicted, the suggestively dressed victim was rated more responsible and deserving than the somberly dressed victim. As predicted, participants holding more traditional attitudes toward marriage were more likely to assign more victim responsibility and deservingness than participants with more egalitarian attitudes. These findings are discussed within an attitudinal framework.

Keywords

attitudes rape marital relationships victim responsibility victim dress 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allison, J. A., and Wrightsman, L. S. (1993). Rape: The Misunderstood crime, Sage, New York.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Am. Psychol. 47: 1597–1611.Google Scholar
  3. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38: 217–230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, J. C. (1989). Women’s responses to sexual abuse in intimate relationships. Health Care Women Int. 10: 335–346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Check, J. V. P., and Malamuth, N. (1985). An empirical assessment of some feminist hypotheses about rape. Int. J. Women’s Studies 8: 414–423.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Deitz, S. R., and Byrnes, L. E. (1981). Attribution of responsibility for sexual assault: The influence of observer empathy and defendant occupation and attractiveness. J. Psychol. 108: 17–29.Google Scholar
  8. Edmonds, E. M., and Cahoon, D. D. (1986). Attitudes concerning crimes related to clothing worn by female victims. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 24: 444–446.Google Scholar
  9. Finkelhor, D., Gelles, R. J., Hotaling, G. T., and Straus, M. A. (1983). The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Finkelhor, D., and Yllo, K. (1985). License to Rape: Sexual Abuse of Wives, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Giacopassi, D. J., and Dull, R. T. (1986). Gender and racial differences in the acceptance of rape myths within a college population. Sex Roles 15: 63–75.Google Scholar
  12. Jacobson, A. H. (1951). A study of conflict in attitudes toward the roles of the husband and the wife in marriage (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1951). Dissertation Abstr. Int. [AAC0276710].Google Scholar
  13. Jenkins, M. J., and Dambrot, F. H. (1987). The attribution of date rape: Observer’s attitudes and sexual experiences and the dating situation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 17: 875–895.Google Scholar
  14. Kanekar, S., and Kolsawalla, M. B. (1980). Responsibility of a rape victim in relation to her respectability, attractiveness, and provocativeness. J. Soc. Psychol. 112: 153–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanekar, S., and Nazareth, A. M. (1988). Attributed rape victim’s fault as a function of her attractiveness, physical hurt, and emotional disturbance. Soc. Behav. 3: 37–40.Google Scholar
  16. Kirkwood, M. K., and Cecil, D. K. (2001). A student assessment of rape laws and marital exemption. Violence Women 7: 1234–1253.Google Scholar
  17. Koss, M. P., Dinero, T. E., Seibel, C. A., and Cox, S. L. (1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim’s experience. Psychol. Women Q. 12: 1–24.Google Scholar
  18. Krulewitz, J. E., and Nash, J. E. (1979). Effects of rape victim resistance, assault outcome, and sex of observer on attributions about rape. J. Pers. 47: 557–574.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., and Monson, C. M. (1998). Marital rape: Is the crime taken seriously without co-occurring physical abuse? J. Fam. Violence 13(4): 433–443.Google Scholar
  20. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of the a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just word scale. Pers. Individ. Differences 12: 1171–1178.Google Scholar
  22. Mathias, B. (1986). Lifting the shade on family violence. Fam. Ther. Networker 10: 20–29.Google Scholar
  23. Merrell, J. L. (1998). The effects of gender role attitudes, participant gender, and situational factors on attitudes toward marital rape and sexual obligation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1998). Dissertation Abstr. Int. 59: 1373.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, W. R., Williams, A. M., and Bernstein, M. H. (1982). The effects of rape on marital and sexual adjustment. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 10: 51–58.Google Scholar
  25. Monson, C. M., Byrd, G. R., and Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). To have and to hold: Perceptions of marital rape. J. Interpers. Violence 11: 410–424.Google Scholar
  26. Monson, C. M., and Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1998). Sexual and nonsexual marital aggression: Legal considerations, epidemiology, and an integrated typology of perpetrators. Aggression Violent Behav. 3: 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Monson, C. M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., and Binderup, T. (2000). Does “no” really mean “no” after you say “yes”?: Attributions about date and marital rape. J. Interpers. Violence 15: 1156–1174.Google Scholar
  28. Muehlenhard, C. (1988). Misinterpreted dating behavior and the risk of date rape. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 6: 20–37.Google Scholar
  29. National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape. (1985). Prosecution Statistics, Author, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  30. National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape. (1991). State Law Chart, Author, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  31. Painter, K., and Farrington, D. P. (1998). Marital violence in Great Britain and its relationship to marital and non-marital rape. Int. Rev. Victimol. 5: 257–276.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, D. H. (1990). Rape in Marriage, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  33. Sanchez, D. M. (1997). The relationship between attitudes toward women, rape myth acceptance, and perceptions of marital versus stranger rape (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 1997). Dissertation Abstr. Int. 58: 1545.Google Scholar
  34. Scroggs, J. R. (1976). Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 6: 360–368.Google Scholar
  35. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51: 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shaver, K. G. (1985). The Attribution of Blame: Causality, Responsibility, and Blameworthiness, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Shotland, R. L., and Goodstein, L. (1983). Just because she doesn’t want to doesn’t mean it’s rape: An experimentally based causal model of the perception of rape in a dating situation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 46: 220–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Simonson, K., and Subich, L. M. (1999). Rape perceptions as a function of gender-role traditionality and victim-perpetrator association. Sex Roles 40(7–8): 617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spence, J. T., and Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity & Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents, The University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  40. Sullivan, J. P., and Mosher, D. L. (1990). Acceptance of guided imagery of marital rape as a function of macho personality. Violence Victims 5: 275–286.Google Scholar
  41. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics, 2nd edn., Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 3: 73–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ward, C. (1988). The attitudes toward rape victims scale: Construction, validation, and cross-cultural applicability. Psychol. Women Q. 12: 127–146.Google Scholar
  44. Westwell, C. A. (1998). Cognitive processing therapy in the treatment of marital rape. Psychother. Priv. Pract. 17: 63–77.Google Scholar
  45. Whatley, M. A. (1993). For better or worse: The case of marital rape. Violence Vict. 8: 31–41.Google Scholar
  46. Whatley, M. A. (1994, November). Factors Affecting Attributions of Blame for Date Rape. In Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Southeastern Social Psychologists, Winston-Salem, NC.Google Scholar
  47. Whatley, M. A. (1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression Violent Behav. 1: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Whatley, M. A., and Riggio, R. E. (1993). Gender differences in attributions of blame for male rape victims. J. Interpers. Violence 8: 502–511.Google Scholar
  49. Willis, C. E. (1992). The effect of sex role stereotype, victim and defendant race, and prior relationship on rape culpability attributions. Sex Roles 26: 213–226.Google Scholar
  50. X, L. (1999). Accomplishing the impossible: An advocate’s notes from the successful campaign to make marital and date rape a crime in all 50 U.S. states and other countries. Violence Women 5: 1064–1081.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Valdosta State UniversityValdosta
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyValdosta State UniversityValdosta

Personalised recommendations