Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Why do People Blame Victims of Abuse? The Role of Stereotypes of Women on Perceptions of Blame

Abstract

Stereotyping research suggests that traditional women (e.g., housewives) are seen as warm and weak, whereas nontraditional women (e.g., career women) are seen as lacking warmth but competent. We expected a nontraditional female abuse victim to be perceived as less warm than a traditional victim, and thus be blamed more in an abuse scenario. In an experiment, 118 Midwestern United States college students read a marital conflict in which the husband perpetrated high levels of psychological abuse. The victim’s gender role and reaction to the abuse each were manipulated. As expected, when the victim was nontraditional or she reacted negatively to the abuse (e.g., yelled back), she was rated more negatively and blamed more due to her lack of warmth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abrams, D., Viki, G., 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, 111–125.

  2. Arias, I., & Pape, K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse: Implications for adjustment and commitment to leave violent partners. Violence and Victims, 14, 55–67.

  3. Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.

  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

  5. Branscombe, N. R., & Weir, J. A. (1992). Resistance as stereotype-inconsistency: Consequences for judgments of rape victims. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 80–112.

  6. Capezza, N. M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2008a). Factors associated with acceptance of psychological aggression against women. Violence Against Women, 14, 612–633.

  7. Capezza, N. M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2008b). You can degrade but you can’t hit: Differences in perceptions of psychological versus physical aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 225–245.

  8. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.

  9. Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 835–848.

  10. DeWall, C. N., Altermatt, T. W., & Thompson, H. (2005). Understanding the structure of stereotypes of women: Virtue and agency as dimensions distinguishing female subgroups. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 396–405.

  11. Dovidio, J., Evans, N., & Tyler, R. (1986). Racial stereotypes: The contents of their cognitive representation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 22–37.

  12. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

  13. Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? An analysis of attitudes, beliefs, and emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203–216.

  14. Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47, 99–114.

  15. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.

  16. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.

  17. Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. The Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489.

  18. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

  19. Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & de Souza, M. A. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 292–297.

  20. Harris, R. J., & Cook, C. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553–565.

  21. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–154.

  22. Hillier, L., & Foddy, M. (1993). The role of observer attitudes in judgments of blame in cases of wife assault. Sex Roles, 29, 629–644.

  23. Howard, J. A. (1984). Societal influences on attribution: Blaming some victims more than others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 494–505.

  24. Hynie, M., Schuller, R. A., & Couperthwaite, L. (2003). Perceptions of sexual intent: The impact of condom possession. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 75–79.

  25. Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). Just say no (to stereotyping): Effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 871–888.

  26. Kawakami, K., Young, H., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Automatic stereotyping: Category, trait, and behavioral activations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 3–15.

  27. Kristiansen, C. M., & Giulietti, R. (1990). Perceptions of wife abuse: Effects of gender, attitudes toward women, and just world beliefs among college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 177–189.

  28. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.

  29. Napier, J. L., Mandisodza, A. N., Andersen, S. M., & Jost, J. T. (2006). System justification in responding to the poor and displaced in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 6, 57–73.

  30. Netter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  31. O’Leary, K. D. (1999). Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention in domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14, 3–23.

  32. Pavlou, M., & Knowles, A. (2001). Domestic violence: Attributions, recommended punishments and reporting behavior related to provocation by the victim. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 8, 76–85.

  33. Pierce, M. C., & Harris, R. J. (1993). The effect of provocation, race, and injury description on men’s and women’s perceptions of a wife-battering incident. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 767–790.

  34. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.

  35. Rudman, L. A. (2005). Implicit power brokers: Benevolent barriers to gender equity. In C. S. Crandall & M. Schaller (Eds.), Social psychology of prejudice: Historical & contemporary issues (pp. 35–54). Lawrence, KS: Lewinian Press.

  36. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.

  37. Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328.

  38. Sackett, L. A., & Saunders, D. G. (1999). The impact of different forms of psychological abuse on battered women. Violence and Victims, 14, 105–117.

  39. Schuller, R. A., & Wall, A. M. (1998). The effect of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 555–573.

  40. Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame. New York: Springer.

  41. Simonson, K., Subich, L. M., & Mezydlo, L. (1999). Rape perceptions as a function of gender-role traditionality and victim–perpetrator association. Sex Roles, 40, 617–634.

  42. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

  43. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the attitudes toward women scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219–220.

  44. Straight, E. S., Harper, F. W. K., & Arias, I. (2003). The impact of partner psychological abuse on health behaviors and health status in college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1035–1054.

  45. Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 1009–1037.

  46. Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159–177.

  47. Viki, G., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289–293.

  48. Whatley, M. A. (2005). The effect of participant sex, victim dress, and traditional attitudes on causal judgments for marital rape victims. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 191–200.

  49. Willis, C. E., Hallinan, M. N., & Melby, J. (1996). Effects of sex role stereotyping among European American students on domestic violence culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 34, 475–491.

  50. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598.

  51. Witte, T. H., Schroeder, D., & Lohr, J. (2006). Blame for intimate partner violence: An attributional analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 647–668.

  52. Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1251–1263.

  53. Workman, J. E., & Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261–277.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Nicole M. Capezza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Capezza, N.M., Arriaga, X.B. Why do People Blame Victims of Abuse? The Role of Stereotypes of Women on Perceptions of Blame. Sex Roles 59, 839 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9488-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Victim blame
  • Stereotypes
  • Psychological abuse
  • Warmth
  • Competence
  • Traditional and sexist beliefs