Advertisement

Societal Responses to Sexual Violence Against Women: Rape Myths and the “Real Rape” Stereotype

  • Barbara KrahéEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Sexual violence is an omnipresent threat to women’s sexual well-being, physical and mental health all over the world. In addition to the impact of the victimization experience itself, many survivors are faced with negative social reactions when they disclose it to third parties, which amount to a form of secondary victimization and differ from reactions toward victims of other forms of violent crime. Negative reactions and stereotypic judgments about victims of sexual violence can also be found to operate in the legal handling of sexual violence allegations, playing a part in the widely observed “justice gap” for victims of sexual assault. This chapter examines the role of stereotypes and myths about rape in understanding societal responses to survivors of sexual violence. After presenting prevalence rates of sexual assault worldwide, the process of attrition is examined, from the occurrence of a sexual assault to the potential conviction of a perpetrator in a court trial. A large body of international research shows that attrition may be linked to the influence of extra-legal factors, particularly the tendency to blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator, which reflect socially shared myths and stereotypes about rape. Evidence will be presented showing the impact of rape myths and stereotypes on the handling of rape complaints by members of the criminal justice system and by the general public. The chapter concludes with a review of potential strategies for challenging rape myths and stereotypes and reducing their influence in the criminal justice system.

Keywords

Sexual Assault Police Officer Criminal Justice System Sexual Violence Secondary Victimization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abrahams, N., Devries, K., Watts, C., Pallitto, C., Petzold, M., Shamu, S., et al. (2014). Worldwide prevalence of non-partner sexual violence: A systematic review. The Lancet, 383(9929), 1648–1654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aebi, M. F., Aromaa, K., Aubusson de Cavarlay, B., Barclay, G.,Gruszczyñska, B., von Hofer, H., et al. (2006). European sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics (3rd ed.). Retrieved February 22, 2016, from: http://wp.unil.ch/europeansourcebook/printed-editions-2/third-edition.
  3. Aebi, M. F., Aubusson de Cavarlay, B., Barclay G., Gruszczyńska, B., Harrendorf, S., Heiskanen, M., et al. (2010). European sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics (4th ed.). Retrieved February 22, 2016, from: http://wp.unil.ch/europeansourcebook/printed-editions-2/printed-editions.
  4. Alderden, M. A., & Ullman, S. E. (2012a). Creating a more complete and current picture: Examining police and prosecutor decision-making when processing sexual assault cases. Violence against Women, 18, 525–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alderden, M. A., & Ullman, S. E. (2012b). Gender difference or indifference? Detective decision making in sexual assault cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anders, M. C., & Christopher, F. S. (2011). A socioecological model of rape survivors’ decisions to aid in case prosecution. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 92–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, I. (2007). What is a typical rape? Effects of victim and participant gender in female and male rape perception. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson, K. B., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ask, K. (2010). A survey of police officers’ and prosecutors’ beliefs about crime victim behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1132–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Basile, K. C. (2002). Attitudes toward wife rape: Effects of social background and victim status. Violence and Victims, 17, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Basow, S. A., & Minieri, A. (2011). “You owe me”: Effects of date cost, who pays, participant gender, and rape myth beliefs on perceptions of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ben-David, S., & Schneider, O. (2005). Rape perceptions, gender role attitudes, and victim-perpetrator acquaintance. Sex Roles, 53, 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bieneck, S. (2009). How adequate is the vignette technique as a research tool in psycho-legal research? In M. E. Oswald, S. Bieneck, & J. Hupfeld-Heinemann (Eds.), The social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 277–271). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Bieneck, S., & Krahé, B. (2011). Blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator in cases of rape and robbery: Is there a double standard? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1785–1797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Branscombe, N. R., & Weir, J. A. (1992). Resistance as stereotype inconsistency: Consequences for judgments of rape victims. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 80–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brown, J. M., Hamilton, C., & O’Neill, D. (2007). Characteristics associated with rape attrition and the role played by scepticism or legal rationality by investigators and prosecutors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown, J., & Horvath, M. (2009). Do you believe her and is it really rape? In M. Horvath & J. Brown (Eds.), Rape - Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 325–342). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, J. M., & King, J. (1998). Gender differences in police officers’ attitudes towards rape: Results of an exploratory study. Psychology, Crime and Law, 4, 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Campbell, R., Sefl, T., Barnes, H. E., Ahrens, C. E., Wasco, S. M., & Zaragoza-Diesfeld, Y. (1999). Community services for rape survivors: Enhancing psychological well-being or increasing trauma? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 847–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell, R., Wasco, S. M., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivors experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1239–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chudasama, R. K., Kadri, A, M,, Zalavadiya, D., Joshi, N., Bhola, C., & Verma, M. (2013). Attitude and myths towards rape among medical students in Rajkot, India. Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences, 12, 16. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from: http://www.ojhas.org/issue47/2013-3-4.html.
  22. Cohn, A. M., Zinzow, H. M., Resnick, H. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2013). Correlates of reasons for not reporting rape to police: Results from a national telephone household probability sample of women with forcible or drug-or-alcohol facilitated/incapacitated rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crown Prosecution Service (2014). Violence against women and girls. Crime report 2013-2014. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from: http://www.cps.gov.uk/data/violence_against_women/vawg_2013_14_report.html.
  24. Daly, K., & Bouhours, B. (2010). Rape and attrition in the legal process: A comparative analysis of five countries. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 39, 565.650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deitz, S. R., Blackwell, K. T., Daley, P. C., & Bentley, B. J. (1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y. T., García-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child, J. C., Falder, G., et al. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340(6140), 1527–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Earnshaw, V. A., Pitpitan, E. V., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2011). Intended responses to rape as functions of attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions. Sex Roles, 64, 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Edwards, K. M., Turchik, J. A., Dardis, C. M., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65, 761–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009a). Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009b). Reacting to rape: Exploring mock jurors’ assessments of complainant credibility. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 202–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Felson, R. B., & Paré, P. P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Finch, E., & Munro, V. E. (2005). Juror stereotypes and blame attribution in rape cases involving intoxicants. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frazier, P. A., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gemberling, T. M., & Cramer, R. J. (2014). Expert testimony on sensitive myth-ridden topics: Ethics and recommendations for psychological professionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2007). The Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 422–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gray, J. M. (2006). Rape myth beliefs and prejudiced instructions; Effects on decisions of guilt in a case of date rape. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hannon, R., Hall, D. S., Kuntz, T., Van Laar, S., & Williams, J. (1995). Dating characteristics leading to unwanted vs. wanted sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 33, 767–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hellmann, D. (2014). Repräsentativbefragung zu Viktimisierungserfahrungen in Deutschland. Hannover: Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachen. Retrieved September 1, 2014, from: www.kfn.de/versions/kfn/assets/fob122.pdf.
  41. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for the Crown Prosecution Service (HMCPSI) (2012). Forging the links: Rape investigation and prosecution. Retrieved August 14, 2014, http://www.hmic.gov.uk/publication/forging-the-links-rape-investigation-and-prosecution/.
  42. Home Office (2010). The Stern Review. A report by Baroness Vivien Stern CBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from: http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/Stern_Review_of_Rape_Reporting_1FINAL.pdf.
  43. Horvath, M. A. H., Tong, S., & Williams, E. (2011). Critical issues in rape investigation: An overview of reform in England and Wales. The Journal of Criminal Justice Research, 1(2), 1–18. Retrieved February 22,2016, from: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6983/4/Horvath%252C%2520Tong%2520%2526%2520Williams%2520%25282011%2529.pdf.
  44. Jehle, J. M. (2012). Attrition and conviction rates of sexual offences in Europe: Definitions and criminal justice responses. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 18, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jordan, J. (2004). Beyond belief? Police, rape, and women’s credibility. Criminal Justice, 4, 29–59.Google Scholar
  46. Kahlor, L., & Morrison, D. (2007). Television viewing and rape myth acceptance among college women. Sex Roles, 56, 729–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kahn, A. S., Mathie, V. A., & Torgler, C. (1994). Rape scripts and rape acknowledgement. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kamal, A., Shaikh, A. I., & Shaikh, M. A. (2010). Comparative analysis of attitudes and perceptions about rape among male and female university students. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 22, 108–110. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/22-2/Anila.pdf.Google Scholar
  49. Kaufmann, G., Drevland, G. C. B., Wessel, E., Overskeid, G., & Magnussen, S. (2003). The importance of being earnest: Displayed emotions and witness credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kelly, L., Temkin, J. and Griffiths, S. (2006). Section 41: An evaluation of new legislation limiting sexual history evidence in rape trials. London: Home Office Online Report 20/06. Retrieved September 20, 2014, from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128103514/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr2006.pdf.
  51. Kelly, L., Horvarth, M., Uzelac, G, Lovett, J. (2007). Rape in the 21st century: Old behaviours, new contexts and emerging patterns. Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-1679. Swindon: ESRC. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from: http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/5827%5Cmrdoc%5Cpdf%5C5827userguide.pdf.
  52. Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., Ruggiero, K. J., Conoscenti, L. M., & McCauley, J. (2007). Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved September 1, 2014, from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf.Google Scholar
  53. Klippenstine, M. A., & Schuller, R. (2012). Perceptions of sexual assault: Expectancies regarding the emotional response of a rape victim over time. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Koss, M. P. (2006). Restoring rape survivors. Justice, advocacy, and a call for action. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087, 206–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Koss, M. P., Bachar, K. J., Hopkins, C. Q., & Carlson, C. (2004). Expanding a community’s justice response to sex crimes through advocacy, prosecutorial, and public health collaboration: Introducing the RESTORE program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1435–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Krahé, B. (1985). Verantwortungszuschreibungen in der sozialen Eindrucksbildung über Vergewaltigungsopfer und -täter. Gruppendynamik, 16, 169–178.Google Scholar
  57. Krahé, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility attributions to victims of rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Krahé, B. (1991a). Police officers’ definitions of rape: A prototype study. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Krahé, B. (1991b). Social psychological issues in the study of rape. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 279–309). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Krahé, B., & Temkin, J. (2009). Addressing the attitude problem in rape trials: Some proposals and methodological considerations. In M. Horvath & J. Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 301–321). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  61. Krahé, B., Temkin, J., & Bieneck, S. (2007). Schema-driven information processing in judgments about rape. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 601–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Krahé, B., Temkin, J., Bieneck, S., & Berger, A. (2008). Prospective lawyers’ rape stereotypes and schematic decision-making about rape cases. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 461–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Krippner, S., Pitchford, D. B., & Davies, J. (2012). Post-traumatic stress disorder. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  64. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. LaFree, G. D. (1981). Official reactions to social problems: Police decisions in sexual assault cases. Social Problems, 28, 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Langton, L., Berzofsky, M., Krebs, C., & Smiley-McDonald, H. (2012). Victimizations not reported to the police, 2006-2010. National Crime Victimization Survey, Special Report, ncj 238536. Retrieved August 11, 2014, from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vnrp0610.txt.
  67. Lea, S. J., Lanvers, U., & Shaw, S. (2003). Attrition in rape cases: Developing a profile and identifying relevant factors. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 583–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. LeDoux, J. C., & Hazelwood, R. R. (1985). Police attitudes and beliefs toward rape. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13, 211–220.Google Scholar
  69. Lee, J., Lee, C., & Lee, W. (2012). Attitudes toward women, rape myths, and rape perceptions among male police officers in South Korea. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Littleton, H., Rhatigan, D. L., & Axom, D. (2007). Unacknowledged rape: How much do we know about the hidden rape victim? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 14, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lonsway, K. A. (2005). The use of expert witnesses in cases involving sexual assault. Violence against Women Online Resources. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from: http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/commissioned/svandexpertwitnesses/svandexpertwitnesses.pdf.
  73. Lonsway, K. A., & Archambault, J. (2012). The “Justice Gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions for research and reform. Violence Against Women, 18, 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lovett, J., & Kelly, L. (2009). Different systems – similar outcomes? Tracking attrition in reported rape cases across Europe. Retrieved August 12, 2014, from: http://www.cwasu.org/publication_display.asp?pageid=PAPERS&type=1&pagekey=44&year=2009.
  75. Luginbuhl, J., & Mullin, C. (1981). Rape and responsibility: How and how much is the victim blamed? Sex Roles, 7, 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. MacCrae, C. N., & Shepard, J. W. (1989). Sex differences in the perception of rape victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Maddox, L., Lee, D., & Barker, C. (2011). Police empathy and victim PTSD as potential factors in rape case attrition. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 26, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Maddox, L., Lee, D., & Barker, C. (2012). The impact of psychological consequences of rape on rape case attrition: The police perspective. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Martin, S. L., Macy, R. J., & Young, S. K. (2011). Health and economic consequences of sexual violence. In: J. W. White, M. P. Koss, A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence against women and children (Vol. 1: Mapping the terrain, pp. 173–195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  80. McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Bongiorno, R. (2014). What counts as rape? The effect of offense prototypes, victim stereotypes, and participant gender on how the complainant and defendant are perceived. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2273–2303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Miller, A. K., Amacker, A. M., & King, A. R. (2011). Sexual victimization history and perceived similarity to a sexual assault victim: A path model of perceiver variables predicting victim culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 64, 372–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ministry of Justice, Home Office and the Office for National Statistics (2013). An overview of sexual offending in England and Wales: Statistics bulletin. Retrieved August 11, 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf.
  83. Nayak, M. B., Byrne, C. A., Martin, M. K., & Abraham, A. G. (2003). Attitudes toward violence against women: A cross-nation study. Sex Roles, 49, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. O’Keefe, S., Brown, J. M., & Lyons, E. (2009). Seeking proof or truth? Naturalistic decision-making by police officers when considering rape allegations. In M. Horvath & J. Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 229–254). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  85. Page, A. D. (2007). Behind the blue line: Investigating police officers’ attitudes toward rape. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Page, A. D. (2010). True colors: Police officers and rape myth acceptance. Feminist Criminology, 5, 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Perilloux, C., Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2014). Blame attribution in sexual victimization. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Pollard, P. (1992). Judgements about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rich, K., & Seffrin, P. (2012). Police interviews of sexual assault reports: Do attitudes matter? Violence and Victims, 27, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rich, K., & Seffrin, P. (2013). Police officers’ collaboration with rape victim advocates: Barriers and facilitators. Violence and Victims, 28, 681–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Romero-Sánchez, M., Megiás, J. L., & Krahé, B. (2012). The role of alcohol and victim sexual interest in Spanish students’ perceptions of sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2230–2258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rose, V. M., & Randall, S. C. (1982). The impact of investigator perceptions of victim legitimacy on the processing of rape/sexual assault cases. Symbolic Interaction, 5, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schuller, R. A., & Hastings, P. A. (2002). Complainant sexual history evidence: Its impact on mock jurors’ decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schuller, R., & Klippenstine, M. A. (2004). The impact of complainant sexual history evidence on jurors’ decisions: Considerations from a psychological perspective. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schuller, R. A., & Stewart, A. (2000). Police responses to sexual assault complaints: The role of perpetrator/complainant intoxication. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schuller, R. A., & Wall, A. M. (1998). The effects of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 555–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2005). How warnings about false claims become recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 713–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sleath, E., & Bull, R. (2012). Comparing rape victim and perpetrator blaming in a police officer sample. Differences between police officers with and without special training. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Smith, K., Coleman, K., Eder, S., & Hall, P. (Eds.) (2011). Homicides, firearm offences and intimate violence 2009/10. Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2009/10. London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin HOS 01/11. Retrieved August 3, 2014, from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0111/hosb0111?view=Binary.
  101. Spanos, N. P., Dubreuil, S. C., & Gwynn, M. I. (1991–92). The effects of expert testimony concerning rape on the verdicts and beliefs of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 11, 37-51.Google Scholar
  102. Sperry, K., & Siegel, J. T. (2013). Victim responsibility, credibility, and verdict in a simulated rape case: Application of Weiner’s attribution model. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2012). The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. Violence against Women, 18, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Starzynski, L. L., Ullman, S. E., Filipas, H. H., & Townsend, S. M. (2005). Correlates of women’s sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims, 20, 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stewart, M. W., Dobbin, S. A., & Gatowski, S. I. (1996). “Real rapes” and “real victims”: The shared reliance on common cultural definitions of rape. Feminist Legal Studies, 4, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010–2035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tasca, M., Rodriguez, N., Spohn, C., & Koss, M. P. (2013). Police decision making in sexual assault cases: Predictors of suspect identification and arrest. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1157–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Temkin, J. (1999). Reporting rape in London: A qualitative study. The Howard Journal, 38, 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Temkin, J. (2010). “And always keep a-hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse”: Challenging rape myths in the court room. New Criminal Law Review, 13, 710–734.Google Scholar
  110. Temkin, J., & Krahé, B. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  111. The Havens (2010). Wake Up To Rape Research Summary Report. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from: http://www.zerotolerance.org.uk/vaw/resources?page=1&type=28&subject=30.
  112. Ullman, S. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Vetten, L., Jewkes, R, Sigsworth, R., Christofides, N., Loots, L., & Dunseith, O. (2008). Tracking Justice: The attrition of rape cases through the Criminal Justice System in Gauteng. Johannesburg: Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre, the South African Medical Research Council and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from www.csvr.org.za/docs/tracking_justice.pdf.
  114. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Masser, B. (2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Ward, C. (1995). Attitudes toward rape. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  116. Weir, J. E., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors’ verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Wentz, E., & Archbold, C. A. (2012). Police perceptions of sexual assault victims: Exploring the intra-female gender hostility thesis. Police Quarterly, 15, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wheatcroft, J. M., Wagstaff, G. F., & Moran, A. (2009). Revictimizing the victim? How rape victims experience the UK legal system. Victims and Offenders, 4, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Williams, J. E., & Holmes, K. A. (1981). The second assault: Rape and public attitudes. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  120. Winkel, F. W., & Koppelaar, L. (1991). Rape victims’ style of self-presentation and secondary victimization by the environment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Winkel, F. W., & Koppelaar, L. (1992). Perceived credibility of the communicator: Studies of perceptual bias in police officers conducting rape interviews. In F. Lösel (Ed.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 219–232). Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
  122. Workman, J. E., & Orr, R. L. (1996). Clothing, sex of subject, and rape myth acceptance as factors affecting attributions about an incident of acquaintance rape. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14, 276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations