Abstract
According to a legal model of the attribution of responsibility for rape, judgments of physical and psychological causality of an alleged rapist are combined into overall evaluations of attacker responsibility. It was hypothesized that observers evaluate psychological causality by reconstructing the thought patterns of the accused rapist and by classifying this mental activity along dimensions of responsibility. Subjects read crime briefs, rated dimensions of responsibility, and assigned sentences. Factor analysis and analyses of variance indicate that observers organize psychological causality of the rapist around dimensions of intended violence, and the extent to which the attacker's thoughts are attributable to the victim. Multivariate analysis of variance confirmed the expected effects of the attacker's thoughts on judgments of culpability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aacock, A. C., & Ireland, N. K. Attribution of blame in rape cases. The impact of norm violation, gender and sex-role attitudes. Sex Roles, 1983, 9, 179–183.
Burt, M. R., & Albin, R. S. Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of conviction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1981, 11(3), 212–230.
Calhourn, L. G., Selby, J. W., Cann, A., & Keller, G. T. The effects of victim physical attractiveness and sex of respondent on social reactions to victims of rape. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 17, 191–192.
Deitz, S. R., Blackwell, K. T., Daley, P. C., & Bentley, B. J. Measurement of emapthy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 43(2), 372–384.
Feild, H. S. Rape trials and juror's decisions: A psycholegal analysis of the effects of victim defendant, and case characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 1979, 4, 261–284.
Fincham, F. D., & Jaspars, J. M. Attributions of responsibility: From man the scientist to man as lawyer. In In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Volume 13. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
Hamilton, V. L. Intuitive psychologist or intuitive lawyer? Alternative models of the attribution process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39(5), 767–772.
Hart, H., & Honoré, A. Causation in law. London and New York: Oxford University Press, (Claredon), 1959.
Jacobson, M. B., & Popovich, P. M. Victim attractiveness and perceptions of responsibility in an ambiguous rape case. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1983, 8(1), 100–104.
Jones, C., & Aronson, E. Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26(3), 415–419.
Towson, S. M. J., & Zanna, M. P. Retaliation against sexual assault: Self defense or public duty? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1983, 8(1), 89–98.
Wiener, R. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. The evaluation of culpability for rape: A model of legal decision making. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1986.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by a St. Louis University Beaumont Grant. The authors wish to express their gratitude to Kevin Wayne for assisting in data collection and analysis. A special thank you is extended to Audrey Feldman, who reviewed an earlier draft of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wiener, R.L., Rinehart, N. Psychological causality in the attribution of responsibility for rape. Sex Roles 14, 369–382 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288422
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288422