“Why Did She Talk to Him Again?” The Effects of the Justice Motive,Relationship Type,and Degree of Postassault Contact on Perceptions of Sexual Assault

Abstract

Victim blaming attitudes are prevalent within the criminal justice system where survivor behavior before, during, and following an assault is heavily scrutinized. Although dispositional characteristics (e.g., strength of one’s justice motive) and characteristics of the assault (e.g., the type of relationship between a survivor and an offender) have been found to predict the degree of victim blaming, the effects of these variables on sexual assault myth endorsement are unclear. In addition, a variable that has not been examined in past literature is the degree of contact maintained between a survivor and offender after the assault. The purpose of the current study was to examine the extent to which the justice motive (strong vs. weak), the relationship between a fictional survivor and an offender (strangers vs. intimate partners), and contact between a survivor and offender postassault (contact vs. no contact) influenced endorsement of sexual assault myths. Undergraduate students read a vignette depicting a fictional sexual assault that varied with respect to the relationship and the amount of postassault contact between the survivor and offender and completed measures of the strength of their justice motive and their endorsement of sexual assault myths. Results indicated that participants (N = 419) who held a strong justice motive showed higher endorsement of sexual assault myths. Participants were also more likely to endorse sexual assault myths when there was postoffense contact between the survivor and offender. The implications of these findings and their relevance to the criminal justice system are discussed, including the need for further research into the creation of survivor-oriented education and training capable of counteracting bias toward survivors of sexual violence and producing sustained attitudinal changes.

Keywords

sexual assault anything related to sexual assault revictimization reporting/disclosure support seeking

The prevalence and impact of sexual assault is a widespread societal concern. The World Health Organization (2013) has estimated that one in three women have experienced sexual violence or physical violence. Survivors of sexual violence are at greater risk of physical health concerns including injury (Zilkens et al., 2017), sexually transmitted infections (Jina & Thomas, 2013), gastrointestinal disturbances (Golding, 1994), and health conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic pain (Ciccone, Elliott, Chandler, Nayak, & Raphael, 2005; Golding, 1994). Survivors of sexual violence are also more likely to develop psychological conditions, including depression, eating disorders, anxiety, substance abuse, and posttraumatic stress disorder (see Jina & Thomas, 2013). These outcomes comprise a complex, interconnected pattern of symptomology that significantly impairs quality of life, as is evidenced by the elevated rates of health care utilization among survivors of sexual violence (Dolezal, McCollum, & Callahan, 2009).

Further harm results from the reactions of others toward survivors (Ullman, Townsend, Filipas, & Starzynski, 2007). Ullman and colleagues found that negative social reactions following a disclosure of sexual victimization predicted survivor self-blame, which was linked to the development of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. The current study investigated three factors that may precipitate biases toward survivors of sexual violence: survivor interaction with an offender following an incident of sexual assault,¹ the nature of the relationship between the survivor and perpetrator, and the justice motive, commonly known as the belief in a just world.

There are multiple theories aimed at accounting for why some people react negatively toward survivors and blame them for their circumstances. For example, Niemi and Young (2016) posited that endorsement of specific moral values (i.e., purity, loyalty, obedience to authority) drives victim blaming attitudes. An additional explanation is the justice motive, originally proposed by Lerner (1980). According to Lerner, people blame victims because they hold the belief that the world is an inherently just place, with fair and deserved outcomes that coincide with one’s actions and choices. In such a world, a dichotomous categorization arises in which individuals are seen as either bad or good, and it is expected that individuals who are good will subsequently experience positive outcomes, whereas those who are bad will justifiably suffer negative outcomes (Hayes, Lorenz, & Bell, 2013). This conceptualization of the world as fair and predictable serves an important purpose; it enables individuals to perceive that they possess a means of control over their experiences by virtue of their choices, which provides a sense of safety and security (Hayes et al., 2013). Consistent with this purpose, previous research has found that a stronger justice motive is associated with improved mental health outcomes, including reduced stress and depressive attitudes, as well as increased life satisfaction (Lipkus, Dalbert, & Siegler, 1996).

Despite the security provided by such a worldview, the reality is that good people do experience injustice. According to Lerner, Miller, and Holmes (1976), when an individual with a strong justice motive encounters a situation where an apparently good individual has been wronged or victimized, this acts as a threat to that person’s sense of security, which causes feelings of discomfort. To restore one’s sense of justice, the individual may attempt to reconcile this threat in a number of ways, including resorting to tactics of minimizing or blaming survivors for their own circumstances. Although a strong endorsement of the justice motive may result in a number of associated personal benefits, these tactics are incompatible with the reality that survivors of sexual assault are never to blame for the violence committed against them and sexual assault is never justified.

Blaming survivors of sexual assault for their victimization relies on a number of false assumptions about survivors, offenders, and sexual violence that shift the responsibility for sexual violence from perpetrators to survivors (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Examples of these sexual assault myths include maximizing the relevance of survivor behaviors (e.g., if the victim does not fight back, it is not sexual assault) and excusing perpetrator behaviors (e.g., it should not be considered sexual assault if the perpetrator was intoxicated; McMahon & Farmer, 2011). In addition to their utility in preserving a personally held justice motive, these myths may also enable individuals to ignore the realities of the widespread issue of sexual violence (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Furthermore, these myths are pervasive. Numerous studies have been conducted to document sexual assault myth endorsement in various contexts (Edwards, Turchik, Dardis, Reynolds, & Gidycz, 2011). For example, in a study of personal beliefs and perceived cultural stereotypes of sexual assault among college students, Buddie and Miller (2001) found that the majority of the sample (57%) indicated that their personal beliefs about survivors of sexual assault were influenced by a combination of sexual assault myths and victim reactions. Studies have also been conducted with non-undergraduate samples; for example, Page (2007) surveyed 891 police officers and found that although 93% of the sample endorsed the belief that any individual could be sexually assaulted, 44% reported that they would be unlikely to believe an allegation of sexual assault if it was made by a sex worker.

In light of the pervasiveness of sexual assault myths, it is unsurprising that they have significant implications for survivors’ success in the pursuit of justice after such violence. Shaw, Campbell, Cain, and Feeney (2017) analyzed police sexual assault case records and found that officers’ statements routinely incorporated myths about survivor behaviors and the causes of sexual violence within their reports, including denying or minimizing the crime based on expectations about survivor behavior, such as details about survivors’ perceived levels of promiscuity, mental state, or lack of distress or injury. Within the judicial system, systematic reviews of case law have found that the degree of a woman’s physical resistance toward an offender during the commission of a sexual assault is often central to a complainant’s perceived credibility and the determination of guilt in criminal cases (see Randall, 2010). Historically, judges have been shown to endorse survivor conduct as a key component to sexual victimization, including patterns of dress and seductive behavior (Feldman-Summers & Palmer, 1980). In addition, sexual assault myths may influence juror decision making. Dinos, Burrowes, Hammond, and Cunliffe (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of nine mock-juror studies, and found that sexual assault myth endorsement significantly affected decision making in eight of the nine studies analyzed. Specifically, mock jurors who endorsed more sexual assault myths were more likely to render not guilty verdicts in fictional cases of sexual assault.

The presence of sexual assault myths and victim blaming attitudes in these contexts may inhibit reporting of sexual violence. Statistics Canada (2015) found a large disparity between self-reported rates of sexual assault and rates reported to the police, concluding that approximately 95% of survivors do not report their victimization. Commonly cited reasons survivors provide for not reporting sexual violence include not wanting friends or family members to find out about the victimization and fear of the justice system (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). Wolitzky-Taylor and colleagues found that the top reason that survivors chose not to report their sexual assault was fear of being blamed. Given the prevalence of sexual assault myth endorsement within the criminal justice system, such fears may not be unfounded.

In light of the effects that myths about sexual assault can have on survivors, establishing the origins of these myths is crucial. One possibility is that individuals’ schemas drive their perceptions of incidents of sexual violence. Schemas are assumptions used to facilitate information processing and speed up perceptual judgments, but they can bias interpretations of events that are schema incongruent (Eyssel & Bohner, 2011; Sigre-Leirós, Carvalho, & Nobre, 2015). For example, as a result of social and cultural learning, people often conceptualize sexual assault according to “scripts” that map out how a prototypical sexual assault occurs (i.e., a sudden and violent attack of a woman by an unknown man, usually outdoors and at night; Ryan, 2011). In turn, these scripts inform individuals’ perceptions of what constitutes a sexual assault, and may serve as a guiding framework for an individual’s justice motives as they relate to sexual assault (Crome & McCabe, 2001; Ryan, 2011).

Despite the pervasiveness of assumptions about what a prototypical sexual assault looks like, these assumptions often do not align with reality. For instance, the majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the survivor knows, such as an acquaintance or partner, rather than a stranger (Statistics Canada, 2015). As such, these schemas about sexual violence may impair one’s ability to recognize sexual assaults that are committed by a perpetrator known to the survivor (Ryan, 2011), and explain the tendency to blame survivors who have been assaulted by someone they know (Brown & Testa, 2008; Krahé, Temkin, & Bieneck, 2007; Sleath & Bull, 2012).

A second example of a sexual assault myth that operates contrary to reality is the belief that survivors never remain in contact with offenders following an assault (Fanflik, 2007). There are notable examples of the influence of this myth within the legal context. In the Canadian case of R. v. Ghomeshi (2016), former radio host Jian Ghomeshi was accused of sexually assaulting multiple women, and was judged not guilty by Justice William B. Horkins. In his official ruling, Horkins cited the survivors’ behaviors after their alleged assaults as part of his justification for his verdict, noting that their maintained contact after the alleged assaults was inconsistent with their accusations of violence. This is despite the fact that contact with a perpetrator has been identified as a common survivor response following sexual violence (Littleton, Axsom, & Grills-Taquechel, 2009). Littleton and colleagues found that survivors in 37.4% of unacknowledged sexual assaults and 19.8% of acknowledged sexual assaults reported that they maintained a relationship with their assailant. For survivors of sexual violence, seemingly counterintuitive behaviors such as maintaining contact with offenders may function as a means of coping with their experiences and managing their emotions, for example, by allowing survivors to avoid stressful feelings about their victimization by denying that it occurred altogether (Fanflik, 2007). Furthermore, survivors who have been assaulted by a perpetrator known to them (as is the case in the vast majority of sexual assaults; Statistics Canada, 2015) have a preexisting relationship with their assailants that may constrain their ability or desire to sever contact following a sexual assault. For example, survivors who have been assaulted by an intimate partner may encounter a number of barriers to limiting perpetrator contact, perhaps by virtue of residing in the same household, financial dependence on the offender, or close, complex emotional ties.

The issue of maintaining contact with a perpetrator has additionally been highlighted in the discourse surrounding the recent events of the #MeToo movement, a widespread social media campaign aimed at raising awareness of the issue of sexual violence and harassment precipitated by multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against film producer Harvey Weinstein (Schmidt, 2017). Among these accounts were those of complainants who detailed how that they felt trapped into maintaining working relationships with Weinstein following the alleged incidents of sexual violence to preserve their careers (Davies & Khomami, 2017).

The Current Study

Despite the pervasiveness of discussions surrounding sexual violence in the media, the dimension of contact with an offender following an assault has been virtually unexplored in the literature. Although survivors’ preassault contact with perpetrators has been previously examined in connection with victim blaming (Feldman-Summers & Palmer, 1980) and multiple studies have examined the effects of previously established relationships with an offender on blame (e.g., Brown & Testa, 2008; Krahé et al., 2007; Sleath & Bull, 2012), we are unaware of any published research that has specifically examined how maintenance of postassault contact with an offender affects endorsement of sexual assault myths.

In addition, although there has been investigation into the relationship between the justice motive and victim blaming for survivors of sexual violence, the literature has been mixed as to whether stronger justice motives predict victim blame, with many studies reporting that they do (e.g., Landström, Strömwall, & Alfredsson, 2016; Sleath & Bull, 2012; Strömwall, Alfredsson, & Landström, 2013; Vonderhaar & Carmody, 2015) but others that they do not (e.g., Hammond, Berry, & Rodriguez, 2011; Pedersen & Strömwall, 2013; Rye, Greatrix, & Enright, 2006). Also, although multiple studies have examined victim blaming attitudes and behaviors, few studies have directly examined the extent to which the justice motive predicts endorsement of sexual assault myths, which may precipitate victim blame (Hayes et al., 2013; Vonderhaar & Carmody, 2015). The current study aimed to clarify the link between the justice motive and attitudes about sexual violence by manipulating two schema-relevant sexual assault variables: the type of relationship and the level of postassault contact between the survivor and perpetrator.

Hypotheses

Based on the bulk of the previous literature (Hayes et al., 2013; Landström et al., 2016; Sleath & Bull, 2012; Strömwall et al., 2013; Vonderhaar & Carmody, 2015), the following was hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1: Participants with a strong justice motive would endorse sexual assault myths to a greater degree than those with a weak justice motive.

Despite the lack of empirical literature examining perceptions of survivor contact with an offender following a sexual assault, given evidence of expectations of survivor behavior following sexual violence in the legal domain (e.g., R. v. Ghomeshi, 2016), the following was hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2: When the survivor maintained contact with her assailant, participants would endorse sexual assault myths at higher levels than when the survivor terminated contact with her assailant immediately following the sexual assault.

Finally, given the general trend in the literature with respect to victim blaming as a function of the relationship between survivors and perpetrators (see Grubb & Harrower, 2008), the following was hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3: When the survivor and perpetrator were described as intimate partners, participants would be more likely to endorse sexual assault myths than when the survivor and perpetrator were described as strangers.

Specific hypotheses were not made with regard to possible interactions between these variables, given the general inconsistency in the literature as to the impact of the justice motive on victim blaming, as well as the virtually unexplored variable of survivor–offender contact.

Method

Participants

Seven hundred fifty undergraduate students were recruited to participate in the study in exchange for course credit. Inclusion criteria for participation required that participants be fluent in English, as the study involved reading comprehension of a fictional vignette and multiple measures. Of the original 750 participants, 419 were included in the final analysis. Eight participants withdrew from the study due to technical difficulties and 323 participants were excluded due to failure of the manipulation checks,² which used a multiple-choice format and asked participants two questions about the vignette that they had read: What type of relationship the fictional perpetrator and survivor in the vignette shared? and What type of contact, if any, occurred between them after the evening described in the vignette? Participants’ data were retained in the stranger conditions if they reported either a stranger or acquaintance relationship between the perpetrator and survivor as it was determined that the interactions between the pair over the course of the evening created some ambiguity as to the nature of their relationship. The final sample was 81.86% women (n = 343) and 17.42% men (n = 73). Three participants did not specify their gender. The self-reported distribution of ethnicities within the final sample was 53.22% White/European (n = 223), 11.46% South Asian (n = 48), 10.98% East Asian (n = 46), 7.16% Southeast Asian (n = 30), 6.21% Mixed Ancestry (n = 26), 3.58% Black (n = 15), 3.58% West Asian (n = 15), 2.63% Latin/Hispanic (n = 11), and 1.19% Indigenous (n = 5). Data on participants’ political orientations were also obtained: 56.08% of the final sample identified as either extremely liberal (n = 6), strongly liberal (n = 34), liberal (n = 100), or somewhat liberal (n = 95); 19.33% identified as centrist (n = 81); and 18.38% identified as extremely conservative (n = 3), strongly conservative (n = 4), conservative (n = 25), or somewhat conservative (n = 45). The age of the final sample ranged from 17 to 40 years (M = 20.03 years, SD = 2.80 years).

Materials

Fictional vignettes

Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four fictional vignettes adapted from Sleed, Durrheim, Kriel, Solomon, and Baxter (2002) to conform to the manipulations of this study.³ Each vignette depicted an incident of sexual assault that occurred between two undergraduate students: Matthew, the perpetrator of the assault, and Jill. In each condition, the vignette described a night out at the bar during which Matthew bought Jill a number of drinks. At the end of the evening, Matthew walked Jill home and Jill invited Matthew inside. Once inside Jill’s apartment, Matthew and Jill kissed, and Matthew then sexually assaulted Jill. To avoid socially desirable responding, the sexual assault was referred to as intercourse in all four versions of the vignette, although the sexual contact was clearly depicted as nonconsensual (i.e., Jill attempted to move away from Matthew, asked him to stop, and said no five times while he physically restrained her).

The four adapted vignettes varied in content according to two factors. The first was relationship type; Matthew and Jill were described either as intimate partners who had been dating for two months or as strangers who met for the first time that evening at the bar. The second variable was the amount of contact Jill had with Matthew postassault; Jill was described as either cutting off contact with Matthew immediately after the sexual assault and reporting the incident to the police, or maintaining contact with Matthew after the assault through a text exchange, an invitation to a party, and one meet up for coffee, and later reporting the incident to the police.

Composite Belief in a Just World (BJW) Scale

Two measures were used to more thoroughly measure participants’ endorsement of the justice motive. Level of agreement for all items was assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Items were combined from the General BJW Scale (Dalbert, Montada, & Schmitt, 1987) and the Just World Scale (Rubin & Peplau, 1975) to create the 24-item Composite BJW Scale after two items were removed to prevent overlap. Fifteen of the 24 items on the Composite BJW Scale are structured so that endorsement indicates strong justice motives, whereas the remaining nine items are structured so that endorsement indicates weak justice motives. Reverse coding was applied to these nine items so that higher scale totals corresponded to stronger justice motives. Both scales have demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties including construct validity, predictive validity, test–retest reliability, and internal reliability (Dalbert, 2000; Furnham & Procter, 1989; Rubin & Peplau, 1975). The composite scale also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .73).

Updated Illinois Sexual Assault Myth Acceptance (SAMA) Scale

The Updated Illinois SAMA Scale is a refined version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale developed by Payne, Lonsway, and Fitzgerald (1999). The updated version of the scale includes revisions in language, as well as additional items, and has been empirically validated (McMahon & Farmer, 2011). To align with updated language used to describe sexual assault, for the purposes of the current study, the language within the items was altered from “rape” to “sexual assault.” The 22-item scale contains four subscales of sexual assault myths: (a) she asked for it, (b) he did not mean to, (c) it was not really sexual assault, and (d) she lied. Endorsement of each item is measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of sexual assault myths.

Adapted SAMA Scale

An adapted version of the Updated Illinois SAMA Scale (Adapted SAMA Scale) was developed for the purposes of this study. This choice was informed by past research that has demonstrated significant differences in judgments as a function of whether they are being made about specific individuals, as in the Adapted SAMA Scale, versus groups, as in the Original Illinois SAMA Scale (see Shih, Wang, Trahan Bucher, & Stotzer, 2009). In the adapted version of the scale, items were modified where appropriate to personalize the statements by including the names of the two individuals featured in the fictional vignettes, Matthew and Jill. For example, the Updated Illinois SAMA Scale item, “If a girl doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say it was sexual assault” was altered to read, “Jill didn’t physically fight back, so you can’t really say it was sexual assault” in the adapted scale. As with the Updated Illinois SAMA Scale, responses on the Adapted SAMA Scale are measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Procedure

Participants completed the study individually via the Qualtrics survey platform in a computer lab on campus. Each participant was randomly assigned to read one of the eight versions of the vignette that varied with respect to the type of relationship between the offender and victim (either intimate partners or strangers), level of contact between the offender and victim postassault (some contact, no contact), and the order of presentation of the Updated Illinois and Adapted SAMA scales. After providing consent, participants were asked to provide the following demographic information: their age, gender, ethnicity, and political orientation. Participants completed the Composite BJW Scale and then read the vignette specific to their assigned conditions. Next, participants responded to items from the Updated Illinois SAMA Scale and the Adapted SAMA Scale, with the presentation of these scales counterbalanced between conditions. Finally, they then responded to the manipulation check. On completion of the study, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results

A median split was applied to participants’ Composite BJW Scale scores (minimum possible score = 24, maximum possible score = 168, median = 98) to generate two groups of participants: those with a strong justice motive (n = 208) and those with a weak justice motive (n = 211). Composite BJW scores were normally distributed and reflected a tendency toward low overall endorsement of the justice motive by the sample. The final analysis compared the scores of those with a strong justice motive with those with a weak justice motive.

Separate 2 (strength of justice motive: strong, weak) × 2 (relationship type: stranger, intimate partner) × 2 (contact postassault: yes, no) between-subjects factorial analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted on the Updated (minimum possible score = 22, maximum possible score = 154, median = 45) and Adapted (minimum possible score = 22, maximum possible score = 154, median = 36) SAMA scales to determine whether the sample’s mean levels of endorsement of sexual assault myths varied as a function of the strength of their justice motive, the type of relationship, or the amount of contact between the victim and the offender following the sexual assault. The group means and standard deviations on the Updated Illinois SAMA Scale and the Adapted SAMA Scale for each of these variables may be found in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Updated Illinois Sexual Assault Myth Acceptance Scale Scores by Strength of Justice Motive, Relationship Type, and Postassault Contact.

Variable	Condition	M	SD
Justice motive	Strong	50.75	18.76
Justice motive	Weak	45.34	18.87
Relationship type	Stranger	48.04	19.27
Relationship type	Intimate partner	48.01	18.69
Postassault contact	No contact	47.07	19.24
Postassault contact	Contact	49.10	18.69

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations of Adapted Sexual Assault Myth Acceptance Scale Scores by Strength of Justice Motive, Relationship Type, and Postassault Contact.

Variable	Condition	M	SD
Justice motive	Strong	42.67	16.06
Justice motive	Weak	38.00	15.52
Relationship type	Stranger	40.84	16.56
Relationship type	Intimate partner	39.69	15.18
Postassault contact	No contact	38.71	15.26
Postassault contact	Contact	42.13	16.54

Endorsement of Sexual Assault Myths

Updated Illinois SAMA Scale

Consistent with our first hypothesis, a significant main effect for participant strength of justice motive was found. Participants with a strong justice motive were significantly more likely to endorse sexual assault myths on the Updated Illinois SAMA Scale than those with a weak justice motive, F(1, 411) = 7.76, mean square error (MSE) = 356.97, p = .006, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02. However, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were not supported, as participants did not differ in their levels of general sexual assault myth endorsement as a function of postassault contact, F(1, 411) = 1.36, MSE = 356.97, p = .244, or type of relationship between perpetrator and survivor, F < 1. In addition, analyses revealed no significant interactions between any of the variables on general endorsement of sexual assault myths, all Fs < 1.

Adapted SAMA Scale

Our first hypothesis was, again, supported; the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of participants’ justice motive, whereby those with a strong justice motive were significantly more likely to endorse sexual assault myths than those with weak justice motive, F(1, 411) = 8.58, MSE = 249.36, p = .004, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02. In addition, a significant main effect of postassault contact was found, F(1, 411) = 5.21, MSE = 249.36, p = .023, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01; consistent with our second hypothesis, participants demonstrated significantly higher levels of endorsement of sexual assault myths toward the survivor and perpetrator in the vignette when the survivor maintained contact with the perpetrator after the assault than when she did not. However, our final hypothesis was unsupported. Participants who read about a stranger assault did not differ in their endorsement of sexual assault myths relative to those who read about an intimate partner assault, F < 1. Once again, there were no significant interactions between any of the variables on specific endorsement of sexual assault myths, all Fs < 1.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to investigate how endorsement of sexual assault myths varies as a function of the strength of one’s justice motive and the degree of postassault contact and nature of the relationship between a survivor and an offender. The first finding, that participants with stronger justice motives endorsed higher levels of sexual assault myths, specific to the case and generally, supports past studies that have found a relationship between the justice motive and victim blaming in cases of sexual violence, including studies that specifically examined sexual assault myth endorsement (Hayes et al., 2013; Landström et al., 2016; Sleath & Bull, 2012; Strömwall et al., 2013; Vonderhaar & Carmody, 2015). However, there have also been several studies that found no effect of the justice motive on victim blaming attitudes (e.g., Hammond et al., 2011; Lambert & Raichle, 2000; Pedersen & Strömwall, 2013; Rye et al., 2006).

There may be a number of reasons for this discrepancy in the literature. For example, Lambert and Raichle (2000) speculated that null findings may reflect the difficulty in measuring the justice motive through self-report measures, as the justice motive may be held on an implicit rather than explicit level. The current study assessed sexual assault myth endorsement to capture victim blaming attitudes as opposed to directly measuring victim blame, which may also account, in part, for this discrepancy. Studies that have examined endorsement of sexual assault myths in relation to the justice motive have yielded significant effects (e.g., Hayes et al., 2013; Vonderhaar & Carmody, 2015), whereas those that have measured levels of victim blame have produced more variable results (e.g., Hammond et al., 2011; Pedersen & Strömwall, 2013; Landström et al., 2016; Strömwall et al., 2013). Despite this inconsistency in the literature, the current findings contribute to the evidence that individuals’ perceptions of survivors of sexual violence are affected by the strength of their justice motive.

Although postassault contact between survivors and offenders has not been previously examined, the second finding, that participants reported higher endorsement of sexual assault myths specific to the case when the victim maintained contact with her offender is in line with recent legal discourse surrounding sexual violence (e.g., R. v. Ghomeshi, 2016). As such, these preliminary findings indicate that assumptions about appropriate survivor conduct may influence a survivor’s ability to procure social support following a sexual assault and to obtain justice.

Postassault contact affected attitudes toward the specific case at hand but not sexual assault myth endorsement more generally, which may indicate that although individuals are able to reject sexual assault myths when applied generally, they are still prone to biases in specific situations when a survivor violates their schemas for how a victim of a sexual assault is supposed to behave (Eyssel & Bohner, 2011; Page, 2007; Sigre-Leirós et al., 2015). Interestingly, Shih and colleagues (2009) found that taking the perspective of an out-group member increased empathy and reduced bias toward an individual and the out-group to which the individual belonged. Rather than experience a decrease in endorsement of sexual assault myths in the fictional case, participants in the current study experienced greater bias if the survivor maintained contact with her perpetrator postassault, which may indicate that participants did not take the survivor’s perspective when reading the vignette and, as a result, failed to experience empathy toward her.

Finally, the unexpected lack of a significant effect for relationship type given the past literature (see Grubb & Harrower, 2008) may be attributed to participant confusion regarding the relationship between the Matthew and Jill in the stranger conditions. Vignettes were structured to maintain similarity across conditions while preserving the narrative element of postassault contact, resulting in ambiguity as to whether Matthew and Jill could be regarded as acquaintances by the end of the vignette. The inclusion of participants in the analysis who interpreted Matthew and Jill as acquaintances in the stranger conditions may have obscured effects of relationship type on endorsement of sexual assault myths.

Implications

The results of the current study highlight that victim blaming attitudes that underlie sexual assault myths continue to endure and influence the perceptions of those who have been subjected to such violence. Given that endorsement of these myths has been identified among individuals within contexts that survivors of sexual assault often encounter in the aftermath of an assault, including police officers, judges, juries, health care providers, clergy, and social support networks (Dinos et al., 2015; Page, 2007; Randall, 2010; Sheldon & Parent, 2002; Ullman et al., 2007), it is crucial that empirically informed action be implemented to counteract these beliefs.

Research has found that supportive reactions to a disclosure of sexual assault foster better outcomes for survivors (Ullman et al., 2007). However, studies examining the effectiveness of present programming indicate that there is substantial room for improvement, particularly among law enforcement (Lonsway, Welch, & Fitzgerald, 2001; Sleath & Bull, 2012). Sleath and Bull found that sexual assault myth endorsement persisted among police officers after receiving specialized training on interacting with survivors. In addition, a study aimed at evaluating a specialized training program for police recruits found that, although behavioral performance in victim interviewing improved posttraining, recruits’ levels of sexual assault myth endorsement were unaffected, and their knowledge of sexual assault investigation was unimproved (Lonsway et al., 2001). Furthermore, it was unclear whether these initial improvements in victim interviewing skills were maintained long term, or whether behavioral changes during the interviewing process generalized to ways in which police reports were written, a medium through which officers have been found to express sexual assault myths (Shaw et al., 2017). As such, the findings of the current study pertaining to individual attitudes about survivor conduct following a sexual assault underscore the need for additional research into the development of effective survivor-oriented programming and education aimed at dismantling sexual assault myths through sustained cognitive and behavioral changes.

A novel contribution of the current study is that the findings highlight the existence of bias toward survivors who maintain contact with perpetrators following a sexual assault, despite postassault contact being documented as a relatively common behavior among survivors (Littleton et al., 2009). Continued exploration of this bias in future research will serve to better inform the development of sexual assault education and programming that address the misconception that continued contact compromises the credibility of a survivor’s account. This programming is particularly important for those who work in contexts where they are likely to interact with those who have been sexually victimized, especially for those who find themselves in a position to evaluate a sexual assault claim made by a survivor.

Future research should also aim to examine strategies to increase the effectiveness of sexual assault education and program delivery. For example, it has previously been found that an individual’s emotional responses are better predictors of behavior than one’s stereotypes (Cuddy, Glick, & Fiske, 2007). Given this, interventions may be more effective if delivered in formats that elicit positive emotional responses from their audience.

Limitations and Future Directions

Like all research, the current study is not without its limitations. One area of note is the generalizability of the results. The sample was comprised entirely of undergraduate students, the majority of whom were women and politically left of center, characteristics that may help to explain the relatively low overall levels of sexual assault myth endorsement within the sample. Previous research has found higher sexual assault myth endorsement among men and those with lower educational attainment (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010), as well as an association between conservative attitudes and sexual assault victim blaming (Lambert & Raichle, 2000). Given these findings, it is likely that the effects found in this study would be magnified with a more diverse sample. The results of this study may be more generalizable toward particular settings that have practical importance for survivors of sexual violence, including within judicial, health care, and legal systems, by drawing participants from broader, more representative segments of the population, in addition to sampling individuals within these aforementioned settings.

A further limitation of the current study was the structure of the vignettes. As noted, in endeavoring to maintain similarity between the vignettes across conditions, the narrative construction of the vignette in the stranger conditions may have generated confusion among participants as indicated by the elevated rates at which they failed the manipulation check relative to the intimate partner conditions. Future research should mitigate possible confusion through the development of less ambiguous vignettes, or by examining the effects of victim conduct postassault in isolation of potentially conflicting variables, such as relationship type.

The use of a median split to dichotomize Composite BJW Scale scores may also limit the interpretation of our findings, although a number of previous studies examining the justice motive and sexual assault victim blaming have similarly dichotomized justice motive scores (see Murray, Spudafore, & McIntosh, 2005; Strömwall et al., 2013). A primary concern with dichotomizing continuous predictors is a loss of information about the variability that exists between individuals within the resulting groups with the potential to both reduce statistical power and introduce Type I errors (see MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). Future research should aim to address this by using a categorical measure to assess for low versus high justice motive levels or by utilizing alternative statistical analyses, such as a regression.

A notable drawback of the current study is the limited scope of its portrayal of sexual assault. Although elevated rates of sexual violence against women by men warranted limiting the content of the fictional vignettes to describe the survivor as a woman and the perpetrator as a man, the reality of sexual violence is much more complex (Statistics Canada, 2015). Individuals of any gender can be survivors or perpetrators of sexual assault. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may be at an increased risk of sexual victimization, and trans persons may be especially vulnerable (Langenderfer-Magruder, Walls, Kattari, Whitfield, & Ramos, 2016). To address this complexity, future research should aim to employ a variety of descriptions of sexual assault that better reflect the diversity and reality of survivor experiences.

Conclusion

The current study supports past findings that those with a strong justice motive show higher endorsement of sexual assault myths. In addition, this study provides a novel contribution to the literature as the first study to empirically show that individuals are more likely to endorse victim blaming myths when a survivor of a sexual assault maintains contact with an offender after the assault. Identifying and deconstructing sources of potential biases toward survivors of sexual violence is crucial to ensure that they receive the support and legal outcomes they deserve. Investigation into the factors that drive endorsement of these attitudes can be used to inform the development of effective interventions to target and dismantle biases, improve legal decision making, and foster ethical and supportive interactions with survivors to establish a culture of equitable treatment for those who have been affected by sexual violence.

Footnotes

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Lorna H. Breen graduated with her bachelor of arts (honors) in psychology from the University of Calgary. Her research interests include sexual and intimate partner violence, trauma, and mechanisms to foster resilience.

Melissa A. Boyce is a senior instructor at the University of Calgary. Her research interests include juror decision making and perceptions of eyewitness identification evidence.

References

Brown

A. L.

Testa

(2008). Social influences on judgments of rape victims: The role of negative and positive social reactions of others. Sex Roles, 58, 490-500. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9353-7

Buddie

A. M.

Miller

A. G.

(2001). Beyond rape myths: A more complex view of perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles, 45, 139-160. doi:10.1023/A:1013575209803

Ciccone

D. S.

Elliott

D. K.

Chandler

H. K.

Nayak

Raphael

K. G.

(2005). Sexual and physical abuse in women with fibromyalgia syndrome: A test of the trauma hypothesis. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 21, 378-386. doi:10.1097/01.ajp.0000149796.08746.ea

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.46, s.231(6).

Crome

S. A.

McCabe

M. P.

(2001). Adult rape scripting within a victimological perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 395-413. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00013-6

Cuddy

A. J.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(2007). The BIAS map: From intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631-648. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631

Dalbert

(2000). Belief in a just world questionnaire. In Maltby

Lewis

C. A.

Hill

(Eds.), Commissioned reviews of 250 psychological tests (pp. 461-465). Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen Press.

Dalbert

Montada

Schmitt

(1987). Glaube an eine gerechte welt als motiv: Validierungskorrelate zweier skalen [Belief in a just world as motive: Validity correlates of two scales]. Psychologische Beiträge, 29, 596-615.

Davies

Khomami

(2017, October 21). Harvey Weinstein: A list of the women who have accused him. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/the-allegations-against-harvey-weinstein-what-we-know-so-far

10.

Dinos

Burrowes

Hammond

Cunliffe

(2015). A systematic review of juries’ assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43, 36-49. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.001

11.

Dolezal

McCollum

Callahan

(2009). Hidden costs in health care: The economic impact of violence and abuse. Eden Prairie, MN: Academy on Violence & Abuse. Retrieved from http://www.ccasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/economic-cost-of-vaw.pdf

12.

Edwards

K. M.

Turchik

J. A.

Dardis

C. M.

Reynolds

Gidycz

C. A.

(2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65, 761-773. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2

13.

Eyssel

Bohner

(2011). Schema effects of rape myth acceptance on judgments of guilt and blame in rape cases: The role of perceived entitlement to judge. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1579-1605. doi:10.1177/0886260510370593

14.

Fanflik

P. A.

(2007). Victim responses to sexual assault: Counterintuitive or simply adaptive? Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.

15.

Feldman-Summers

Palmer

G. C.

(1980). Rape as viewed by judges, prosecutors, and police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 19-40. doi:10.1177/009385488000700103

16.

Furnham

Procter

(1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique of the individual difference literature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 365-384. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00880.x

17.

Golding

J. M.

(1994). Sexual assault history and physical health in randomly selected Los Angeles women. Health Psychology, 13, 130-138. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.13.2.130

18.

Grubb

Harrower

(2008). Attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 396-405. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006

19.

Hammond

E. M.

Berry

M. A.

Rodriguez

D. N.

(2011). The influence of rape myth acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 242-252. doi:10.1348/135532510x499887

20.

Hayes

R. M.

Lorenz

Bell

K. A.

(2013). Victim blaming others: Rape myth acceptance and the just world belief. Feminist Criminology, 8, 202-220. doi:10.1177/1557085113484788

21.

Jina

Thomas

L. S.

(2013). Health consequences of sexual violence against women. Best Practice & Research: Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 27, 15-26. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.08.012

22.

Krahé

Temkin

Bieneck

(2007). Schema-driven information processing in judgements about rape. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 601-619. doi:10.1002/acp.1297

23.

Lambert

A. J.

Raichle

(2000). The role of political ideology in mediating judgments of blame in rape victims and their assailants: A test of the just world, personal responsibility, and legitimization hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 853-863. doi:10.1177/0146167200269010

24.

Landström

Strömwall

L. A.

Alfredsson

(2016). Blame attributions in sexual crimes: Effects of belief in a just world and victim behavior. Nordic Psychology, 68, 2-11. doi:10.1080/19012276.2015.1026921

25.

Langenderfer-Magruder

Walls

N. E.

Kattari

S. K.

Whitfield

D. L.

Ramos

(2016). Sexual victimization and subsequent police reporting by gender identity among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer adults. Violence and Victims, 31, 320-331. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00082

26.

Lerner

M. J.

(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

27.

Lerner

M. J.

Miller

D. T.

Holmes

J. G.

(1976). Deserving and the emergence of forms of justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 133-162. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60060-x

28.

Lipkus

I. M.

Dalbert

Siegler

I. C.

(1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 666-677. doi:10.1177/0146167296227002

29.

Littleton

Axsom

Grills-Taquechel

(2009). Sexual assault victims’ acknowledgment status and revictimization risk. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 34-42. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01472.x

30.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.xh

31.

Lonsway

K. A.

Welch

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(2001). Police training in sexual assault response. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 695-730. doi:10.1177/009385480102800602

32.

MacCallum

R. C.

Zhang

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

(2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19-40. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19

33.

McMahon

Farmer

G. L.

(2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71-81. doi:10.1093/swr/35.2.71

34.

Murray

J. D.

Spudafore

McIntosh

W. D.

(2005). Belief in a just world and social perception: Evidence for automatic activation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 35-47. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.1.35-48

35.

Niemi

Young

(2016). When and why we see victims as responsible: The impact of ideology on attitudes towards victims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1127-1242. doi:10.1177/0146167216653933

36.

Page

A. D.

(2007). Behind the blue line: Investigating police officers’ attitudes toward rape. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, 22-32. doi:10.1007/s11896-007-9002-7

37.

Payne

D. L.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238

38.

Pedersen

S. H.

Strömwall

L. A.

(2013). Victim blame, sexism and just-world beliefs: A cross-cultural comparison. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 932-941. doi:10.1080/13218719.2013.770715h

39.

R. v. Ghomeshi, 155 Ontario Court of Justice. (2016).

40.

Randall

(2010). Sexual assault law, credibility, and “ideal victims”: Consent, resistance, and victim blaming. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 22, 397-433. doi:10.3138/cjwl.22.2.397

41.

Rubin

Peplau

L. A.

(1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65-89. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.xh

42.

Ryan

K. M.

(2011). The relationship between rape myths and sexual scripts: The social construction of rape. Sex Roles, 65, 774-782. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0033-2h

43.

Rye

B. J.

Greatrix

S. A.

Enright

C. S.

(2006). The case of the guilty victim: The effects of gender of victim and gender of perpetrator on attributions of blame and responsibility. Sex Roles, 54, 639-649. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9034-y

44.

Schmidt

(2017, October 16). #MeToo: Harvey Weinstein case moves thousands to tell their own stories of abuse, break silence. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/16/me-too-alyssa-milano-urged-assault-victims-to-tweet-in-solidarity-the-response-was-massive/?utm_term=.267c340dec23

45.

Shaw

Campbell

Cain

Feeney

(2017). Beyond surveys and scales: How rape myths manifest in sexual assault police records. Psychology of Violence, 7(4), 6-2. doi:10.1037/vio0000072

46.

Sheldon

J. P.

Parent

S. L.

(2002). Clergy’s attitudes and attributions of blame toward female rape victims. Violence Against Women, 8, 233-256. doi:10.1177/10778010222183026

47.

Shih

Wang

Trahan Bucher

Stotzer

(2009). Perspective taking: Reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific individuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 565-577. doi:10.1177/1368430209337463

48.

Sigre-Leirós

Carvalho

Nobre

P. J.

(2015). Rape-related cognitive distortions: Preliminary findings on the role of early maladaptive schemas. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 41, 26-30. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.03.003h

49.

Sleath

Bull

(2012). Comparing rape victim and perpetrator blaming in a police officer sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 646-665. doi:10.1177/0093854811434696

50.

Sleed

Durrheim

Kriel

Solomon

Baxter

(2002). The effectiveness of the vignette methodology: A comparison of written and video vignettes in eliciting responses about date rape. South African Journal of Psychology, 32(3), 21-28. doi:10.1177/008124630203200304

51.

Statistics Canada. (2015). Criminal victimization in Canada, 2014 (No.85-002-X). Ottawa, Ontario.

52.

Strömwall

L. A.

Alfredsson

Landström

(2013). Blame attributions and rape: Effects of belief in a just world and relationship level. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 254-261. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02044.x

53.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010-2035. doi:10.1177/0886260509354503

54.

Ullman

S. E.

Townsend

S. M.

Filipas

H. H.

Starzynski

L. L.

(2007). Structural models of the relations of assault severity, social support, avoidance coping, self-blame, and PTSD among sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 23-37. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00328.x

55.

Vonderhaar

R. L.

Carmody

D. C.

(2015). There are no “innocent victims”: The influence of just world beliefs and prior victimization on rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1615-1632. doi:10.1177/0886260514549196h

56.

Wolitzky-Taylor

K. B.

Resnick

H. S.

Mccauley

J. L.

Amstadter

A. B.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Ruggiero

K. J.

(2011). Is reporting of rape on the rise? A comparison of women with reported versus unreported rape experiences in the national women’s study-replication. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 807-832. doi:10.1177/0886260510365869

57.

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/9789241564625/en/

58.

Zilkens

R. R.

Smith

D. A.

Kelly

M. C.

Mukhtar

S. A.

Semmens

J. B.

Phillips

M. A.

(2017). Sexual assault and general body injuries: A detailed cross-sectional Australian study of 1163 women. Forensic Science International, 279, 112-120. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.08.001