Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 433–443 | Cite as

Marital Rape: Is the Crime Taken Seriously Without Co-occurring Physical Abuse?

  • Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
  • Candice M. Monson


This vignette study was conducted to determine how observers' beliefs about marital rape are altered by the knowledge of a prior history of husband-to- wife physical violence. Participants (n = 50 college students) read three different marital rape situations; in one situation the husband had been physically violent in the past; in another he had not. In the third situation, participants were not given any information about the physical abuse history between the spouses. As expected, participants blamed the victim most for the marital rape and minimized the seriousness of the rape when they had been told that there was not a prior history of husband-to-wife physical abuse. These findings suggest that observers use a physical violence history to establish the coercion needed to determine that marital rape had occurred. The legal implications of these findings are discussed.

marital rape spouse abuse 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Augustine, R. (1991). Marriage: The safe haven for rapists. J. Fam. Law, 29: 559-590.Google Scholar
  2. Bowker, L. H. (1983). Marital rape: A distinct syndrome?. Social Casework. J. Contemp. Social Work 64: 347-352.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, J. C. (1989). Women's responses to sexual abuse in intimate relationships. Health Care Wom. Int. 10: 335-346.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, J. C., and Alford, P. (1989). The dark consequences of marital rape. Am. J. Nurs. 89: 946-949.Google Scholar
  5. Finkelhor, D., and Yllo, K. (1985). License To Rape: Sexual Abuse of Wives, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Frieze, I. H. (1983). Investigating the causes and consequences of marital rape. Signs 8: 532-553.Google Scholar
  7. Hanneke, C. R., Shields, N. M., and McCall, G. J. (1986). Assessing the prevalence of marital rape. J. Interper. Viol. 1: 350-362.Google Scholar
  8. Jeffords, C. R. (1984). Prosecutorial discretion in cases of marital rape. Victimology 9: 415-425.Google Scholar
  9. 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?. Psychology of Wom. Quart. 12: 1-24.Google Scholar
  10. Monson, C. M., and Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (in press). Sexual and nonsexual marital aggression: Legal considerations, epidemiology, and an integrated typology of perpetrators. Aggress. Viol. Behav. Google Scholar
  11. Monson, C. M., Byrd, G., and Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). To have and to hold: Perceptions of marital rape. J. Interpers. Viol. 11: 331-346.Google Scholar
  12. Monson, C. M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., and Strand, T. (1997). Does ‘no’ really mean ‘no’ after you say ‘yes': Attributions about date and marital rape. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  13. Pagelow, M. D. (1984). Family Violence, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Russell, D. E. (1990). Rape in Marriage. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  15. Searles, P., and Berger, R. J. (1987). The current status of rape reform legislation: An examination of state statutes. Wom. Rights Law Rep. 10: 25-43.Google Scholar
  16. Sitton, J. (1993). Old wine in new bottles: The “marital” rape allowance. North Carol. Law Rev. 72: 261-289.Google Scholar
  17. Walker, L. E. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome. Springer, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
  • Candice M. Monson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations