College Women’s Attributions of Blame for Experiences of Sexual Assault

Abstract

Little research has examined the factors that help to explain or predict different attributions of blame that rape survivors assign to their assault experiences. The current study sought to examine (a) rape survivors’ attributions of blame to themselves and to external sources, specifically the perpetrator, the circumstances surrounding the assault (i.e., the situation), and society; (b) whether or not rape survivors attribute more blame to certain sources than others; and (c) which individual and situational factors that have been discussed in the sexual assault research literature help to explain self-blame, perpetrator blame, situational blame, and societal blame within a college sample (N = 129). Results indicated that rape survivors attributed the most blame to themselves and to society, some blame to the situation, and the least blame to the male involved. Multiple regression analyses revealed that, for the most part, variables specific to the rape survivor (e.g., history of childhood sexual abuse, clarity of refusing sex, and perceived level of intoxication) significantly related to self-blame, whereas variables specific to assault severity significantly related to perpetrator blame (e.g., level of physical harm, type of rape, and recency of the assault), although in some unexpected ways. Age and recency of the assault were significantly related to situational blame. Clarity of refusing sex was the only variable that was significantly related to societal blame. Implications are discussed for prevention, education, and practice.

Keywords

attributions of blame college women sexual assault rape

Sexual victimization of adolescent and college-aged females remains a serious societal problem in the United States as evidenced by recent increased national attention (Mangan, 2015; The White House Council On Women And Girls, 2014; Wilson, 2014). The National Crime Victimization Survey reports that women between the ages of 12 and 34 experienced sexual violence at a significantly higher rate (7.8 victimizations per 1,000 women) than older women (approximately 1.7 victimizations per 1,000 women; Planty, Langton, Krebs, Berzofsky, & Smiley-McDonald, 2013). Other research has shown that between 15% and 20% of college women have experienced forced sexual intercourse (Brener, McMahon, Warren, & Douglas, 1999; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987).

Studies conducted over several decades have consistently revealed significant physical and mental health consequences of sexual assault (Black et al., 2011; Golding, 1999; Hanson et al., 2001; Koss, 1994; Ullman & Brecklin, 2003). Research has shed light on the impact of attributions of blame on women’s adjustment and recovery after having experienced sexual assault. Numerous studies have linked self-blame to multiple negative outcomes such as emotional and psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression (Arata, 1999; Arata & Burkhart, 1998; Branscombe, Wohl, Owen, Allison, & N’gbala, 2003; Filipas & Ullman, 2006; Frazier, 1991, 2000; Hill & Zautra, 1989; Janoff-Bulman, 1979; Katz, May, Sörensen, & DelTosta, 2010; Meyer & Taylor, 1986; Ullman, 1997). Studies with both community and college samples have shown that women blame their perpetrators more than themselves (Branscombe et al., 2003; Frazier, 1990, 2000; Perilloux, Duntley, & Buss, 2014; Ullman, 1997), particularly the less intimately they were acquainted with them (Frazier, 2003; Meyer & Taylor, 1986; Murnen, Perot, & Byrne, 1989). Branscombe et al. (2003) found comparable levels of self-blame and societal blame in rape survivors, whereas other studies found slight differences in rates with survivors engaging in either more (Frazier, 1990) or less (Meyer & Taylor, 1986) societal blame in relation to self-blame. Similar to the findings on self-blame, external blame has also been associated with negative outcomes, such as revictimization, psychological distress, negative views about the world, and low self-worth (Arata, 1999; Branscombe et al., 2003; Regehr, Cadell, & Jansen, 1999; Tennen & Affleck, 1990; Ullman, 1997).

Research on societal blame of rape survivors (i.e., experimental studies assessing third-party observers’ attributions of blame while reviewing sexual assault vignettes) has established significant links between blaming survivors and situational aspects of sexual assault, such as survivor intoxication, survivors’ verbal and physical resistance, perpetrator force, and acquaintance with the perpetrator (for extensive reviews, see Grubb & Turner, 2012; van der Bruggen & Grubb, 2014). Research has found that race does have an impact on how third-party observers view rape survivors, that is, Black survivors of rape were viewed in a more stigmatizing manner than White survivors, when perpetrators in vignettes were assigned to be White (Donovan, 2007). However, individual characteristics, such as both race and age, have been noted as important variables needed for future study, as their links with attributions of blame have not yet adequately been established (van der Bruggen & Grubb). Thus, much work has illuminated the underlying reasons for blaming rape survivors in third-party observers, and mainly with regard to situational aspects of sexual assault.

In contrast, only a few studies have investigated the factors that help to explain or predict rape survivors’ internal and external attributions of blame for their unwanted sexual experiences. Rape survivors, who were incapacitated or impaired due to substances and utilized less resistance during the assault, engaged in increased self-blame (Bowie, Silverman, Kalick, & Edbril, 1990; Koss, Figueredo, & Prince, 2002; Littleton, Grills-Taquechel, & Axsom, 2009; Perilloux et al., 2014) and blamed perpetrators less for their unwanted sexual experiences than survivors raped by force or threat of force (Brown, Testa, & Messman-Moore, 2009; Schwartz & Leggett, 1999). Assault severity (e.g., survivors’ subjective and objective ratings of severity as well as stranger rape) was directly associated with increased external blame (Koss et al., 2002). Having a trauma history was also associated with increased self-blame in sexual assault survivors (Ullman, Peter-Hagene, & Relyea, 2014).

In sum, the field of sexual assault research has made tremendous progress in furthering our understanding of both the complex relationships between attributions of blame and post-assault recovery as well as explanations of third-party societal attributions of blame, particularly linking situational aspects of sexual assault and blaming the survivor. However, due to the shifting societal attitudes over time regarding sexual violence, including the proliferation of recent efforts on college campuses addressing sexual assault policies and Title IX, bystander prevention programs, and perpetration of sexual violence (Exner & Cummings, 2011; Koss, Wilgus, & Williamsen, 2014; Mangan, 2015; Silbaugh, 2015; Tharp et al., 2013), understanding attributions of blame in rape survivors still warrants attention and examination. Furthermore, very little focus to date has been directed toward investigating the factors, particularly situational variables (Tennen & Affleck, 1990), that help to explain or predict rape survivors’ attributions of different forms of blame (MacLeod, 1999) for their unwanted sexual experiences.

The present study sought to address this gap in the literature by drawing from Brodsky and Hobart’s (1978) early work that proposed four distinct models of blame: self-blame, perpetrator blame, situational blame (i.e., circumstances surrounding the assault), and societal blame (i.e., societal beliefs and values). This study examined (a) rape survivors’ attributions of blame to themselves and to external sources, specifically the perpetrator, the circumstances surrounding the assault (i.e., the situation), and society; (b) whether or not rape survivors attribute more blame to certain sources than others; and (c) which individual and situational factors (i.e., those discussed in the sexual assault research literature) help to explain the four attributions of blame. In particular, individual characteristics, such as age and prior victimization history (i.e., childhood sexual abuse), and situational aspects of the assault, such as level of acquaintance with the perpetrator, behavioral resistance strategies, perceived perpetrator force and physical harm, recency of the assault, and level of intoxication were included as independent variables.

Based on preliminary evidence from prior studies, it was hypothesized that women would blame their perpetrators more than themselves or other external sources (e.g., situational and societal blame) and engage in self-blame and societal blame at comparable rates. In addition, it was expected that different predictor variables would be implicated in explaining the four blame attributions. Variables measuring factors specific to survivors’ individual characteristics, such as history of childhood sexual abuse, survivors’ level of intoxication, and behavioral resistance strategies, were thought to best explain variation in self-blame. Contrariwise, variables specific to the assault severity, such as perceived perpetrator force, the level of physical harm experienced, recency of the assault, and type of rape were thought to best explain variation in perpetrator blame. No specific hypotheses were generated for societal or situational blame.

Method

Participants

Recruitment targeted female undergraduates at a private university in a metropolitan area and was conducted via an email advertising the opportunity to participate in a study examining the personal attitudes and experiences of female undergraduates. Email advertisements were sent to the entire undergraduate population via email addresses provided by the university registrar. A total of 1,463 females (26% of all female students) responded to the survey, and a total of 1,458 females consented to participate in the study. Participants (n = 241) were excluded from the study if they had ever been diagnosed with PTSD, engaged in self-harm (e.g., hospitalization due to a suicide attempt), or were missing data on either of these screening questions, as per requirements of the university’s institutional review board (IRB). The remaining participants provided demographic information and completed the Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form for Victims (SES-SFV; see below for more on these measures). Further participation in the study ended for those who did not endorse an item indicating an unwanted sexual experience, whereas participants who reported an unwanted sexual experience completed the comprehensive study protocol containing all of the study measures. Only those participants who had fully completed the SES-SFV (n = 1,115) were retained in the study. Approximately 17% of the participants (n = 186) reported having experienced completed penetration by force, threat of force, or while incapacitated due to substance use, a comparable percentage to other prevalence rates of rape reported in prior studies (Brener et al., 1999; Koss et al., 1987; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009; Lawyer, Resnick, Bakanic, Burkett, & Kilpatrick, 2010).

Participants with missing data on key variables were excluded (n = 51), and six participants with outlier data were removed on examination of results from tests of statistical assumptions underlying regression analyses (e.g., tests of homoskedasticity, linearity, normality). Thus, the final sample consisted of 129 women. Chi-square analyses were conducted between the sample of rape survivors and those women who were excluded from the study (e.g., missing data, non-survivors, or not victimized by rape) and revealed no statistically significant differences on demographic characteristics.

The demographics information for the study sample closely matched those of the overall undergraduate female population. The mean age of participants was 20 years (ages ranged from 18 to 24). The majority of women identified as White or Caucasian (75.2%). Minority participants self-identified as follows: 3.9% African American/Black (n = 5), 6.2% Asian (n = 8), 2.3% Latino (n = 3), 0.8% Native American (n = 1), and 11.6% other (n = 15). The sample contained a slightly smaller percentage of seniors (17.8%), in comparison with freshmen (27.9%), sophomores (26.4%), and juniors (27.9%). Most participants lived in an apartment or dormitory on campus (76%), and approximately 94% of the sample identified as heterosexual.

Procedure

Participation in the study entailed completion of an online survey, accessed by clicking on a link contained within the recruitment email. The survey was created via Survey Monkey, a secure online survey website that is staffed 24/7 under digital surveillance. Access to data collected by this website is restricted only to authorized individuals. An online survey format was thought to increase participant anonymity and convenience. Participants who experienced any distress throughout the duration of the study were instructed to contact the author, who was an advanced clinical psychology graduate student and trained rape crisis counselor. Participants were also provided with resources located both on campus and within the metropolitan area at the end of the survey and encouraged to reach out for help if they needed support. The author did not receive any phone calls or emails from study participants in crisis throughout the course of the study.

Measures

SES

Sexual victimization was assessed by the revised SES-SFV (Koss et al., 2007), which was closely modeled after the original SES (Koss & Oros, 1982) and reflected a concerted effort to update the measure as well as address various critiques of the original SES. Items assess specific instances of sexual victimization and asked how many times it happened in the past year and since the participant’s 14th birthday. Scoring involves categorizing participant experiences based on the most severe unwanted sexual experience. The present study focused on the sample of women whose experiences met the legal definition of rape, that is, completed vaginal, oral, or anal sex by force, threat of force, or while incapacitated due to substance use and unable to give consent.

Demographics Questionnaire

Basic demographic information, such as race, age, year in college, current residence (whether on campus or off campus), and sexual orientation, was gathered. However, as noted above, due to the very small number of participants within each racial category, race was dropped as an independent variable from subsequent analyses. Past history of sexual victimization, that is, history of childhood sexual abuse, was assessed by a question developed expressly for this study: “Have you ever experienced sexual assault, sexual abuse, molestation, or rape before the age of 14?”

Situational characteristics of the assault

The following questions and response formats (i.e., all used Likert-type scales from 1 to 5, except where indicated) assessing situational characteristics of assaults represented close approximation to the work of Koss (1985) and other sexual assault researchers (Bondurant, 2001; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003; Layman, Gidycz, & Lynn, 1996; McMullin & White, 2006). Participants were asked to complete this measure with the most distressing or upsetting SES-SFV item that they had experienced with a male. Assault severity was assessed with the following: “How well did you know him?” “How much physical force did he use during the incident?” and “To what degree did you suffer from physical harm after the incident?” Recency of the assault was measured via a dichotomous variable that coded for rapes that had occurred within the past 12 months. Survivor behavioral resistance strategies were measured by the following: “To what degree did you physically resist?” “To what degree did you verbally resist” and “How clear do you think you made it to the male that you didn’t want to participate in the sexual activity?” Consistent with expert researchers in the field of incapacitated rape who have used Likert-type scale formats (Abbey, 2002; Testa, Vanzile-Tamsen, & Livingston, 2004), subjective level of perceived intoxication was measured by the following questions: “Assess how much you remember being intoxicated or high” and “Assess how much you remember the male being intoxicated or high.” An objective measure of substance use was also used assessing type of rape, that is, forcible rape or incapacitated rape, which was coded into a dichotomous variable using the SES-SFV.

Attributions of blame

Measurement of attributions of personal and external blame were adapted from previous research (Botta & Pingree, 1997; Frazier, 1990; Murnen et al., 1989; Shimp, 2000) and rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (most of the time; totally; highly likely): “How much do you believe that you were to blame for what happened?” “How much do you believe that the male involved was to blame for what happened?” “How much do you think the circumstances surrounding the incident (i.e., the situation) are to blame for what happened (e.g., party, intoxication, date/partner, etc.)?” and “How much do you believe that values and beliefs of society are to blame for what occurred?”

Results

Table 1 presents the frequency data for the four forms of attributions of blame. A majority of women reported engaging in self-blame (62%) and societal blame (65.9%), such that they or society were to blame “quite a bit” or “totally” for their experiences of assault. In marked contrast, only 7% of the women in the sample indicated that they felt the male involved was “quite a bit” to blame, whereas 0% indicated that the male involved was “totally” to blame. In fact, approximately 52% of women reported that they felt the male involved was “not at all” to blame for what happened. Approximately 23% of women felt that the situation was to blame either “quite a bit” or “totally,” whereas the majority of women (61%) reported that the situation was to blame “a little” or “somewhat.”

Table 1.

Frequency Data of Attributions of Blame.

	Self-Blame	Perpetrator Blame	Situational Blame	Societal Blame
Not at all	6 (4.7%)	67 (51.9%)	21 (16.3%)	6 (4.7%)
A little	15 (11.6%)	34 (26.4%)	40 (31.0%)	16 (12.4%)
Somewhat	28 (21.7%)	19 (14.7%)	38 (29.5%)	22 (17.1%)
Quite a bit	44 (34.1%)	9 (7.0%)	25 (19.4%)	54 (41.9%)
Totally	36 (27.9%)	0 (0%)	5 (3.9%)	31 (24.0%)

A series of paired-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether the sample means across the four blame attributions were significantly different from one another. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of each blame attribution. Women reported engaging in self-blame and societal blame at comparable rates (t = 0.05, df = 128, p = .96). Women reported engaging in significantly more self-blame (t = 15.11, df = 128, p < .001) and societal blame (t = −16.36, df = 128, p < .001) than perpetrator blame. Women also blamed themselves (t = 8.27, df = 128, p < .001) and society (t = 7.62, df = 128, p < .001) at a significantly higher level than the situation (i.e., the circumstances surrounding the assault). Women’s endorsement of situational blame was significantly higher than perpetrator blame (t = −8.80, df = 128, p < .001).

Table 2.

Results of Paired-Samples t Tests.

	M	SD
Self-blame	3.69	1.14^a,b
Perpetrator blame	1.77	0.95^a,c,d
Situational blame	2.64	1.09^b,c,e
Societal blame	3.68	1.11^d,e

Note. Notations indicate pairs of attributes with significantly different means (p < .05).

Table 3 presents results from four distinct multiple regression analyses conducted with each of the four attributions of blame, that is, self-blame, perpetrator blame, situational blame, and societal blame, as dependent variables. There was no evidence of multicollinearity among the predictor variables; variance inflation factor (VIF) scores ranged between 1.09 and 2.76 for all four blame attributions. Standardized beta estimates are reported across the four blame models. Three of the overall models, for example, self-blame, perpetrator blame, and societal blame were significant (p < .001). The amount of variance explained by individual and situational factors for these models was 35% for self-blame, 27% for perpetrator blame, and 25% for societal blame. Although situational blame was only marginally significant (p = .08; R² = .15), two predictor variables in the model were statistically significant.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Analyses for Attributions of Blame.

	Self-Blame	Perpetrator Blame	Situational Blame	Societal Blame
	β	β	β	β
Age	−.17*	−.24**	−.25**	−.18
Childhood sexual abuse	−.19*	.05	.02	.02
Level of acquaintance	−.03	−.10	−.133	−.02
Type of rape	−.01	−.31**	−.14	−.05
Perceived perpetrator force	.02	−.002	−.14	.17
Physical harm	.07	.31**	.15	.06
Verbal resistance	.05	.03	.17	−.02
Physical resistance	−.14	.15	−.12	−.02
Clarity of refusing sex	−.22*	.12	.06	.34**
Degree of perpetrator intoxication	.22*	−.06	−.03	−.14
Degree of survivor intoxication	.23*	.12	.03	.001
Recency of the assault	−.002	−.18*	−.21*	.07
F	5.22	3.49	1.68	3.14
df	(12, 116)	(12, 116)	(12, 116)	(12, 116)
p value	<.0001	.0002	.08	.0007
R ²	.35	.27	.15	.25

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results revealed that increased self-blame was associated with being younger, not having a history of childhood sexual abuse, decreased clarity of refusing sex to the perpetrator, and increased perceived intoxication of both the survivor and the perpetrator. Increased perpetrator blame was associated with variables assessing assault severity, that is, increased physical harm, less recent assaults, and rapes where the survivor was incapacitated and unable to give consent, as well as the survivor’s age (e.g., older college women blamed perpetrators less). Situational blame was associated with age and recency of the assault, such that older college women and those who had experienced recent assaults tended to engage in less situational blame. Societal blame was only associated with increased clarity of refusing sex. Although most variables were unique explanatory variables for different attributions of blame (e.g., type of rape, physical harm, etc.), there were three variables that had overlap (i.e., age, clarity of refusing sex, and recency of the assault) between the four blame attributions. Age was significantly associated with decreased self-blame, perpetrator blame, and situational blame. Clarity of refusing sex was significantly linked to an increase in societal blame whereas it was associated with a decrease in self-blame. Recency of the assault was associated with decreased perpetrator and situational blame.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to explore attributions of blame in a sample of college-aged women who had experienced rape. Consistent with previous work, rates of self-blame and societal blame were comparable (Branscombe et al., 2003). However, contrary to past work examining perpetrator blame (Branscombe et al., 2003; Frazier, 1990, 2000; Perilloux et al., 2014; Ullman, 1997), results from this study revealed that women who had experienced rape blamed their perpetrators the least, whereas they blamed themselves and society the most. In fact, over half (52%) of the women reported that the male involved was “not at all” to blame. Thus, these findings indicate a significant departure from previous studies in how college women attribute blame for experiences of sexual assault and merit further study to determine whether trends in attributions of blame have indeed shifted.

Consistent with the study hypotheses, variables measuring survivors’ individual characteristics (e.g., history of childhood sexual abuse and age) as well as survivors’ behaviors (e.g., perceived level of substance use intoxication and clarity of refusing sex) were significantly associated with self-blame. Older college women and women with a prior childhood sexual abuse history engaged in less self-blame. Rape survivors who perceived that they had been more intoxicated and had not been as clear in refusing sex blamed themselves more which is consistent with previous research (Bowie et al., 1990; Koss et al., 2002; Littleton et al., 2009; Perilloux et al., 2014). Furthermore, variables specific to the assault severity predicted perpetrator blame, namely, the level of physical harm experienced, type of rape, and recency of the assault. As would be expected, greater physical harm experienced as a result of the assault was predictive of more perpetrator blame.

Several findings were either contrary to the study’s hypotheses or in the opposite directions than that which would be expected. First, age was significantly associated with two sources of external blame, that is, older college women engaged in less perpetrator and situational blame in addition to less self-blame. This finding is interesting in light of the evidence linking psychological distress to self-blame or external blame. Perhaps older college women have more psychological and emotional resources to process, recover, and obtain meaning from traumatic events as well as a more established social support system, which might lead toward a lessened need to place blame on anything at all, whether that be themselves, the male involved, or the situation.

A surprising result was that survivors’ subjective perceived level of increased perpetrator intoxication (as well as their own level of intoxication) was significantly associated with increased self-blame. Yet, type of rape (i.e., an objective measure of forcible versus incapacitated rape) was also significantly associated with perpetrator blame, such that women who had experienced rape while incapacitated (i.e., impaired due to the substance use and unable to give consent) engaged in more perpetrator blame. Therefore, women who subjectively perceived themselves or the male involved to have been increasingly intoxicated by the use of substances engaged in increased self-blame. However, those women who endorsed experiencing sexual assault within the context of being incapacitated and unable to give consent engaged in more perpetrator blame. Furthermore, those participants who reported having experienced forcible rape rather than incapacitated rape engaged in less perpetrator blame, which is opposite to what would be expected given prior work linking assault severity and greater perpetrator blame as well as increased use of substances and less perpetrator blame (Brown et al., 2009; Schwartz & Leggett, 1999). In addition, recency of the assault, which was also thought to reflect assault severity, was significantly associated with less perpetrator and situational blame. Thus, some of the findings run contrary to that which would be expected and present interesting, if not puzzling, results that warrant further exploration.

Only one variable was significantly associated with societal blame, accounting for 25% of the variance: clarity of refusing sex, which was also found to be significantly associated with self-blame. Thus, women who had made their refusal of sex clear to the male involved increasingly blamed the values and beliefs of society for the assault. Perhaps, women who are raped and who made their non-consent known may feel a sense of disappointment and anger toward society for experiences of assault due to the emphasis on consent in prosecuting sexual assault within the criminal justice system or in college campus prevention programs that may highlight the importance of obtaining consent. In addition, this same variable had the opposite effect for self-blame, in that clearer refusal of sex was related to decreased self-blame. One might intuit that women who engaged in clear behavioral resistance strategies may feel that they had done everything within their power to stop the assault from happening and therefore, do not assume the blame for what occurred.

There were several limitations to the current study. Blame attributions were measured with single items only. Although single items to assess attributions of blame have been used by other sexual assault researchers (Botta & Pingree, 1997; Branscombe et al., 2003; Frazier, 1990; Murnen et al., 1989; Ullman, 1997) and have been suggested as representing less interpretive challenges (Shaver & Drown, 1986), scales of blame attributions might have yielded more reliable results. In addition, although much research has not supported Janoff-Bulman’s (1979) theory proposing a delineation of self-blame into characterological and behavioral self-blame (Filipas & Ullman, 2006; Frazier, 1990, 2000; Frazier, Mortensen, & Steward, 2005; Frazier & Schauben, 1994; Hill & Zautra, 1989; Katz et al., 2010; Meyer & Taylor, 1986; Ullman, 1996), future studies might include these forms of self-blame to determine whether the same results are obtained. Finally, other potential sources of external blame such as fate, chance, and God (or a spiritual higher power) were not included in the study.

Another limitation was the potential generalizability of these findings. Due to significant concerns from the IRB at the researcher’s university, women who had endorsed having had a history of being diagnosed with PTSD or engaging in self-harm had to be excluded from the study. Thus, the findings from this study may not be generalizable to populations that experience more heightened trauma responses to sexual assault. Furthermore, the lack of diversity of the sample represents another significant limitation to generalizability, as most participants identified as “White/Caucasian” (75.2%). The number of participants who identified with a specific racial category was very small, thus preventing a nuanced understanding of race/ethnicity as a possible explanatory variable in understanding blame attributions. In addition, the study was focused on female survivors of male-perpetrated rape and with a sample in which the majority of women identified as heterosexual (94%). Thus, inclusion of more diversity within college samples of rape survivors would help to shed light on the phenomenon of attributions of blame for sexual assault further.

Finally, the present study’s focus was on attributions of blame, specifically, and did not include other constructs such as responsibility or causality. Shaver and Drown (1986) illuminated the tendency for research to entangle these constructs and argued for the importance of assessing blame, responsibility, and causality separately. Thus, future research efforts might examine whether rape survivors engage in comparable rates of self-blame, personal responsibility, and causality to determine whether there are differences in the individual and situational variables that best explain each construct.

Given the high levels of societal blame found in this study, an area of research that warrants further investigation is that of examining blame attributions for rape and societal constructs, such as rape survivors’ endorsement of rape myths, feminist identity, and conservative or liberal attitudes. In fact, substantial research has been conducted on rape myth acceptance in college samples and endorsement of traditional gender roles in relation to blaming survivors and cultural acceptance of rape (Grubb & Turner, 2012). Thus, studies examining rape survivors’ attributions of blame within the context of variables assessing their own societal and cultural attitudes might help to further elucidate women’s attributions of societal blame for sexual assault.

Furthermore, despite substantial societal advancements for women since the feminist movement in the areas of sexuality, dating and marriage, and career advancement (Wolf, 2013), the present study revealed that college women engaged in high levels of both self-blame and societal blame for their unwanted sexual experiences. More work is needed to better understand these findings. In particular, qualitative studies examining college women’s experiences of sexual assault and why they may attribute more blame to themselves and to society would help to shed light on the quantitative findings obtained in this study.

As noted earlier, substantial efforts have been made on college campuses with regard to programs addressing bystander intervention and perpetration of sexual assault as well as sexual assault policies (Exner & Cummings, 2011; Koss et al., 2014; Mangan, 2015; Silbaugh, 2015; Tharp et al., 2013). These programs and policies have already made progress in working to create cultures on college campuses that do not tolerate sexual assault. The results of the present study bolster the ongoing need for these programs to counteract young people’s tendencies to have stereotypical notions of sexual assault (i.e., rape only occurs in violent situations) that encourage blaming of survivors, particularly in those situations involving substance use of either the perpetrator or the survivor.

The present study’s findings also provide some evidence that college campus programs still need to target important interventions toward rape survivors through prevention and practice. Prevention and educational sexual assault programs on campus would benefit from addressing self-blame in workshops, by normalizing the tendency for rape survivors to do so, but also providing information to help survivors feel they are not to blame for sexual assault, even if they have engaged in substance use. In addition, targeting this programming for freshmen and sophomores may also help with preventing younger women who have experienced sexual assault from engaging in increased self-blame.

College campus counseling centers may benefit from collaborating with local rape crisis centers to obtain trauma-informed trainings on working with survivors’ tendency to engage in self-blame. Rape crisis centers often utilize feminist empowerment models that seek to meet survivors wherever they may be in their recovery process and to help survivors to view their own responses and behaviors more compassionately and within a survival framework, that is, they did whatever was needed at the time to survive the experience of rape. This empowerment framework may help to further enhance the counseling services on college campuses that are provided to rape survivors, particularly with regard to attributions of blame.

In conclusion, the present study’s goals were to explore college women’s attributions of blame for sexual assault, in a manner that had not been investigated previously. Rape survivors engaged in increased levels of self-blame and societal blame, and blamed the perpetrator the least for their experiences of assault. While different variables predicted attributions of blame and in the hypothesized manner, there was overlap between blame attributions, and some findings were unexpected. It is hoped that this work will spark future efforts to further understand the factors that underlie both internal and external attributions of blame for sexual assault.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dr. Luis Zayas for editing assistance on a draft of this article and Ms. Sally Amen for providing statistical consultation.

Author’s Note

This article is based on data from the author’s doctoral dissertation titled “Investigating Acknowledgment of Unwanted Sexual Experiences in College Women.” Research materials related to this article may be accessed by contacting the author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Sapana D. Donde, PhD, is a licensed clinical psychologist and the Dean’s Post-doctoral Fellow in Neuroscience and Mental Health in the School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Austin. She received her doctorate in clinical psychology, with a specialty in clinical child psychology, from The George Washington University. Her research interests include the neurobiology of trauma, somatic and mind-body trauma treatment interventions, interpersonal violence, and trauma-informed mental health services.

References

Abbey

(2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Suppl. 14, 118-128.

Arata

C. M.

(1999). Coping with rape: The roles of prior sexual abuse and attributions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 62-78. doi:10.1177/088626099014001004

Arata

C. M.

Burkhart

B. R.

(1998). Coping appraisals and adjustment to nonstranger sexual assault. Violence Against Women, 4, 224-239. doi:10.1177/1077801298004002006

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . .Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bondurant

(2001). University women’s acknowledgement of rape: Individual, situational, and social factors. Violence Against Women, 7, 294-314. doi:10.1177/10778010122182451

Botta

R. A.

Pingree

(1997). Interpersonal communication and rape: Women acknowledge their assaults. Journal of Health Communication, 2, 197-212. doi:10.1080/108107397127752

Bowie

S. I.

Silverman

D. C.

Kalick

S. M.

Edbril

S. D.

(1990). Blitz rape and confidence rape: Implications for clinical intervention. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 44, 180-188.

Branscombe

N. R.

Wohl

M. A.

Owen

Allison

J. A.

N’gbala

(2003). Counterfactual thinking, blame assignment, and well-being in rape victims. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 265-273. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2504_1

Brener

N. D.

McMahon

P. M.

Warren

C. W.

Douglas

K. A.

(1999). Forced sexual intercourse and associated health-risk behaviors among female college students in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 252-259. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.2.252

10.

Brodsky

S. L.

Hobart

S. C.

(1978). Blame models and assailant research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 5, 379-388. doi:10.1177/009385487800500409

11.

Brown

A. L.

Testa

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2009). Psychological consequences of sexual victimization resulting from force, incapacitation, or verbal coercion. Violence Against Women, 15, 898-919. doi:10.1177/1077801209335491

12.

Donovan

R. A.

(2007). To blame or not to blame: Influences of target race and observer sex on rape blame attribution. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 722-736. doi:10.1177/0886260507300754

13.

Exner

Cummings

(2011). Implications for sexual assault prevention: College students as prosocial bystanders. Journal of American College Health, 59, 655-657. doi:10.1080/07448481.2010.515633

14.

Filipas

H. H.

Ullman

S. E.

(2006). Child sexual abuse, coping responses, self-blame, posttraumatic stress disorder, and adult sexual revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 652-672. doi:10.1177/0886260506286879

15.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003). Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape: Results from a national-level study. Justice Quarterly, 20, 535-574.

16.

Frazier

P. A.

(1990). Victim attributions and post-rape trauma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 298-304. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.298

17.

Frazier

P. A.

(1991). Self-blame as a mediator of postrape depressive symptoms. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 10, 47-57. doi:10.1521/jscp.1991.10.1.47

18.

Frazier

P. A.

(2000). The role of attributions and perceived control in recovery from rape. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 5, 203-225.

19.

Frazier

P. A.

(2003). Perceived control and distress following sexual assault: A longitudinal test of a new model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1257-1269. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1257

20.

Frazier

P. A.

Mortensen

Steward

(2005). Coping strategies as mediators of the relations among perceived control and distress in sexual assault survivors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 267-278. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.267

21.

Frazier

P. A.

Schauben

L. J.

(1994). Causal attributions and recovery from rape and other stressful life events. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 13, 1-14. doi:10.1521/jscp.1994.13.1.1

22.

Golding

J. M.

(1999). Sexual-assault history and long-term physical health problems: Evidence from clinical and population epidemiology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 191-194. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00045

23.

Grubb

Turner

(2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 443-452. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002

24.

Hanson

R. F.

Saunders

Kilpatrick

Resnick

Crouch

J. A.

Duncan

(2001). Impact of childhood rape and aggravated assault on adult mental health. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 108-119. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.71.1.108

25.

Hill

J. L.

Zautra

A. J.

(1989). Self-blame attributions and unique vulnerability as predictors of post-rape demoralization. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 8, 368-375. doi:10.1521/jscp.1989.8.4.368

26.

Janoff-Bulman

(1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798-1809. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1798

27.

Katz

May

Sörensen

DelTosta

(2010). Sexual revictimization during women’s first year of college: Self-blame and sexual refusal assertiveness as possible mechanisms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2113-2126. doi:10.1177/0886260509354515

28.

Koss

M. P.

(1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1985.tb00872.x

29.

Koss

M. P.

(1994). The physical and psychological aftermath of rape. In Koss

M. P.

Goodman

L. A.

Browne

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Keita

G. P.

Russo

N. F.

(Eds.), No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community (pp. 177-199). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

30.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

. . .White

(2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x

31.

Koss

M. P.

Figueredo

A. J.

Prince

R. J.

(2002). Cognitive mediation of rape’s mental, physical and social health impact: Tests of four models in cross-sectional data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 926-941. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.4.926

32.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162

33.

Koss

M. P.

Oros

C. J.

(1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455

34.

Koss

M. P.

Wilgus

J. K.

Williamsen

K. M.

(2014). Campus sexual misconduct. Restorative justice approaches to enhance compliance with Title IX guidance. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15, 242-257. doi:10.1177/1524838014521500

35.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57, 639-647. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649

36.

Lawyer

Resnick

Bakanic

Burkett

Kilpatrick

(2010). Forcible, drug- facilitated, and incapacitated rape and sexual assault among undergraduate women. Journal of American College Health, 58, 453-460. doi:10.1080/07448480903540515

37.

Layman

M. J.

Gidycz

C. A.

Lynn

S. J.

(1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape victims: Situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 124-131. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.105.1.124

38.

Littleton

Grills-Taquechel

Axsom

(2009). Impaired and incapacitated rape victims: Assault characteristics and post-assault experiences. Violence and Victims, 24, 439-457. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.24.4.439

39.

MacLeod

M. D.

(1999). Why did it happen to me? Social cognition processes in adjustment and recovery from criminal victimisation and illness. Current Psychology, 18, 18-31. doi:10.1007/s12144-999-1014-2

40.

Mangan

(2015, January 8). Seeking to strengthen sex-assault policies, colleges draw fire from all sides. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(18), p. 1.

41.

McMullin

White

J. W.

(2006). Long-term effects of labeling a rape experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 96-105. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00266.x

42.

Meyer

C. B.

Taylor

S. E.

(1986). Adjustment to rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1226-1234. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1226

43.

Murnen

S. K.

Perot

Byrne

(1989). Coping with unwanted sexual activity: Normative responses, situational determinants, and individual differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 85-106. doi:10.1080/00224498909551493

44.

Perilloux

Duntley

J. D.

Buss

D. M.

(2014). Blame attribution in sexual victimization. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 81-86. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.058

45.

Planty

Langton

Krebs

Berzofsky

Smiley-McDonald

(2013). Special report: Female victims of sexual violence, 1994-2010. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

46.

Regehr

Cadell

Jansen

(1999). Perceptions of control and long-term recovery from rape. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 110-115. doi:10.1037/h0080386

47.

Schwartz

M. D.

Leggett

M. S.

(1999). Bad dates or emotional trauma? The aftermath of campus sexual assault. Violence Against Women, 5, 251-271. doi:10.1177/10778019922181211

48.

Shaver

K. G.

Drown

(1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 697-702. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.697

49.

Shimp

L. N.

(2000). A model of sexual assault acknowledgment: Blame, social support, posttraumatic stress, and posttraumatic growth. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Order No. NQ63922). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304662976?accountid=7118

50.

Silbaugh

(2015). Reactive to proactive: Title IX’S unrealized capacity to prevent campus sexual assault. Boston University Law Review, 95, 1049-1076.

51.

Tennen

Affleck

(1990). Blaming others for threatening events. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 209-232. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.209

52.

Testa

Vanzile-Tamsen

Livingston

J. A.

(2004). The role of victim and perpetrator intoxication on sexual assault outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 320-329.

53.

Tharp

A. T.

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Brookmeyer

K. A.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

(2013). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 14, 133-167. doi:10.1177/1524838012470031

54.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996). Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 505-526. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00319.x

55.

Ullman

S. E.

(1997). Attributions, world assumptions, and recovery from sexual assault. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6, 1-19. doi:10.1300/J070v06n01_01

56.

Ullman

S. E.

Brecklin

L. R.

(2003). Sexual assault history and health-related outcomes in a national sample of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 46-57.

57.

Ullman

S. E.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Relyea

(2014). Coping, emotion regulation, and self-blame as mediators of sexual abuse and psychological symptoms in adult sexual assault. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23, 74-93. doi:10.1080/10538712.2014.864747

58.

van der Bruggen

Grubb

(2014). A review of the literature relating to rape victim blaming: An analysis of the impact of observer and victim characteristics on attribution of blame in rape cases. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 523-531. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.008

59.

The White House Council on Women and Girls. (2014). Rape and sexual assault: A renewed call to action. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sexual_assault_report_1-21-14.pdf

60.

Wilson

(2014, June 6). Why colleges are on the hook in cases of sexual assault. Chronicle of Higher Education, 60, p. A.10.

61.

Wolf

(2013). The XX factor: How the rise of working women has created a far less equal world. New York, NY: Crown.