Alcohol-Related Victim Behavior and Rape Myth Acceptance as Predictors of Victim Blame in Sexual Assault Cases

Abstract

Two studies analyzed the influence of victim behavior, drink type, and observer rape myth acceptance (RMA) on attributions of blame to victims of sexual assault. In Study 1, people higher in RMA blamed the victim more when she accepted rather than rejected the aggressor’s invitation to buy her a drink. In Study 2, we analyzed if the effects depended on who offered the invitation for a drink (a friend or aggressor). RMA was more closely related to victim blame when she accepted (vs. rejected) the offer of a drink from the aggressor. In both studies, drink type (alcoholic vs. nonalcoholic) did not interact with the other variables.

Keywords

victim blame alcohol rape myth acceptance

Introduction

Among the different types of male aggression toward women, one of the most devastating and humiliating is that of sexual assault, which is not only “one of the biggest human rights violations that we know today, but it also devastates lives, fractures communities and stalls development” (United Nations Development Fund for Women, 2008, p. 1). Thus, numerous studies have focused on studying the consequences for the victims, including anxiety, depression, negative self-perception, posttraumatic stress syndrome, and suicidality (Demaris & Kaukinen, 2005; Holmes & Sher, 2013; Vanwesenbeeck, 2008). However, in spite of its severity and the harm it carries for individual women and society in general, sexual violence is one of the least reported and prosecuted crimes (Campbell, 2008; Daly & Bouhours, 2010; Temkin & Krahé, 2008). Among a variety of reasons for the underreporting of sexual assault is victims’ fear of being blamed and negatively judged (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). The literature has identified several factors that play a role in the blaming of sexual assault victims, such as certain characteristics of the perceiver (e.g., rape myth acceptance [RMA] or sexist attitudes), contextual variables (e.g., the place of the assault), and the victim’s behavior (e.g., alcohol consumption or the acceptance of various types of invitation from the aggressor; Bohner, Eyssel, Pina, Siebler, & Viki, 2009; Grubb & Turner, 2012; Romero-Sánchez, Megías, & Krahé, 2012).

The current research used short scenarios of sexual assault incidents to analyze the tendency to blame the victim of a sexual assault on the basis of her behavior prior to the assault in conjunction with additional situational features and perceiver characteristics. In particular, we attempted to clarify how the tendency to blame the victim was modulated by (a) alcohol consumption by the victim and (b) her acceptance or rejection of different types of drinks offered by either the aggressor or another person who was unrelated to the subsequent assault. In addition, we considered the moderating role of the perceiver’s level of RMA.

The literature has shown that judgments of blame are influenced by the victims’ behavior (Maurer & Robinson, 2008; Pollard, 1992). For example, women who behave differently from stereotypical beliefs about the behavior of “genuine” victims of sexual assault are more likely to be blamed (Koepke, Eyssel, & Bohner, 2014; Masser, Lee, & McKimmie, 2010; Schuller, McKimmie, Masser, & Klippenstine, 2010). Dressing in a “provocative” way, not showing active resistance against the aggressor, having had previous sexual contact with the aggressor, and inviting him home have all been related to a higher degree of victim blaming (Cohn, Dupuis, & Brown, 2009; Sims, Noel, & Maisto, 2007; Whatley, 2005). In a recent Eurobarometer Survey, 10% of respondents across the European Union (EU) indicated that having sexual intercourse without consent was justified if the woman was wearing revealing, sexy, or provocative clothing, and 12% said it was justified if she was drunk or used drugs (European Commission, 2016).

When trying to account for these findings, researchers have emphasized that in all those circumstances, the aggressor may have been seen as falsely perceiving the victim to show sexual interest, which is in accordance with the findings of studies on “sexual scripts” (Krahé, Bieneck, & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2007; Littleton & Axsom, 2003). According to these studies, people hold cognitive scripts that include the typical actions taking place in a sexual encounter, the order in which they are expected to occur (Frith, 2009), and the expectancy about the other person’s behavior and the outcome of the situation (Metts & Spitzberg, 1996; Simon & Gagnon, 1986). Moreover, some overlapping features of sexual scripts for consensual and coercive sexual interactions, such as alcohol and drug consumption and the ambiguous communication of sexual intentions, have been identified (Krahé et al., 2007). In particular, if a woman in a context with sexual overtones appears friendly or receptive to a man’s invitations by, for instance, accepting the offer of buying her a drink, dancing with him, and allowing him to escort her home, such behaviors could be misinterpreted as signals of sexual interest, which lead to her being blamed in the case of sexual assault (Romero-Sánchez et al., 2012, Study 2).

In addition, information about the victim’s alcohol consumption significantly affects people’s judgments and perception of nonconsensual sexual contact (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004; Finch & Munro, 2005; Lynch, Wasarhaley, Golding, & Simcic, 2013). In particular, the literature shows that women who consumed alcohol prior to the assault tend to be judged more severely than those who were sober (Cameron & Stritzke, 2003; Maurer & Robinson, 2008; Schuller & Stewart, 2000). Observers interpret the victims’ drinking as a behavior that made them blameworthy for the sexual assault, believing that they exposed themselves to dangerous situations that ultimately led to the negative outcome (Jordan, 2004; Wenger & Bornstein, 2006).

However, not everyone responds in the same way when assessing incidents of sexual assault in which alcohol is involved. The perceiver’s acceptance of rape myths is one of the most relevant factors affecting victim blame (Lynch et al., 2013; Romero-Sánchez et al., 2012). RMA is defined as the endorsement of “descriptive or prescriptive beliefs about rape (i.e., about its causes, context, consequences, perpetrators, victims, and their interaction) that serve to deny, downplay or justify sexual violence that men commit against women” (Gerger, Kley, Bohner, & Siebler, 2007, p. 423). For instance, Romero-Sánchez et al. (2012, Study 2) showed male participants assigned more blame to a victim who accepted versus rejected the aggressor’s offer to buy her an alcoholic drink and rated the incident as a less serious case of sexual assault, but only when they scored high on RMA. Similarly, Krahé, Temkin, Bieneck, and Berger (2008, Study 1) showed that the tendency to blame an intoxicated victim was particularly strong for participants who scored high on RMA.

However, studies that analyzed the effects of the victim’s alcohol consumption on the attribution of victim blame cannot distinguish between the effect of consumption/nonconsumption of alcohol and the effect of the acceptance/rejection of the aggressor’s invitation to buy her a drink (e.g., Schuller & Wall, 1998). To our knowledge, the only study that has attempted to analyze these effects independently is that of Lynch et al. (2013). In this study, the authors used the mock juror paradigm to analyze judgments from 158 college students about the aggressor’s guilt and the perceived credibility of the victim, depending on the type of drink consumed (alcohol or soft drink) and the person who bought the drink (aggressor or victim). They found that when the victim consumed alcohol, the participants attributed less blame to the aggressor, and, due to her intoxicated state, saw the victim’s testimonial as less credible. If the aggressor (as opposed to the victim) had bought the drink, the aggressor was seen as more blameworthy and the victim judged more positively, regardless of the victim’s level of intoxication. However, while this study provides a differential analysis of the effects of the victim’s intoxication and alcohol-related behavior, it does not take into account crucial variables, such as the observer’s attitude (e.g., RMA) or the victim’s explicit acceptance of the aggressor’s invitation.

The Current Research

The current research aimed to expand previous findings (Lynch et al., 2013; Schuller & Wall, 1998) by analyzing different factors that can help to clarify the issue of blaming sexual assault victims when the victim’s alcohol-related behavior is taken into account in a more differentiated way. In particular, we aimed to distinguish between two aspects that can affect the tendency to blame the victim: the victim’s consumption of alcohol and her acceptance of a drink from the later aggressor. In Study 1, participants judged a sexual assault victim depending on whether she had accepted or rejected a drink offered by the man who later sexually assaulted her and on whether the offered drink was alcoholic or nonalcoholic. In our Study 2, we did not manipulate the victim’s acceptance or rejection behavior; she always accepted an invitation to a drink that could be alcoholic or nonalcoholic. Instead, the victim could accept the invitation from either the later aggressor (as in Study 1) or from a friend. The moderating impact of participants’ acceptance of rape myths was included in both studies.

Study 1

To analyze the differential effect of the victim’s behavior in response to the later aggressor’s offer of a drink and the type of drink on judgments of victim blame, we manipulated both the type of drink consumed by the victim (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) and her behavior (explicitly accepting or rejecting the aggressor’s offer to buy her a drink), using hypothetical scenarios. We also examined how these judgments would be influenced by participants’ RMA.

We expected participants to attribute more blame to the victim if she accepted (vs. rejected) the aggressor’s invitation to buy her a drink (Hypothesis 1a), if she consumed an alcoholic (vs. a nonalcoholic) drink (Hypothesis 1b), and if the perceivers were more accepting of rape myths (Hypothesis 1c). This hypothesis predicts three main effects of rejecting versus accepting the offer of a drink, the type of drink, and the participants’ level of RMA.

Based on previous research, we further predicted that the main effects would be qualified by interaction effects of the variables related to victim behavior and perceivers’ RMA. First, we expected an interaction of acceptance versus rejection of a drink from the aggressor and participants’ RMA, assuming that higher victim blame in the acceptance than in the rejection condition would only be found among participants with high RMA (Hypothesis 2a). Second, we predicted an interaction of type of drink and participants’ RMA: Only high RMA participants were expected to attribute more blame to the victim drinking alcohol than to the victim drinking a nonalcoholic beverage (Hypothesis 2b).

Method

Participants

A total of 137 students (65 female and 72 male) enrolled in a range of courses at a public university in the south of Spain participated in the study. The participants were between 18 and 28 years old (female: M = 21.05, SD = 2.25; male: M = 21.22, SD = 2.40). Details of the sample composition are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Main Characteristics of the Samples Used in Studies 1 and 2.

Gender	n	AgeM (SD)	Age range	Rape myth acceptanceM (SD)	Victim blameM (SD)
Study 1 (N = 137)
Male	72	21.22 (2.40)	18-28	3.25 (0.87)	2.69 (1.18)
Female	65	21.05 (2.25)	18-27	3.13 (0.89)	2.31 (1.25)
Study 2 (N = 133)
Male	62	21.22 (2.52)	18-29	3.41 (0.96)	3.18 (1.43)
Female	71	20.43 (2.11)	18-30	3.33 (1.03)	2.76 (1.08)

Measures

RMA

The Spanish version of the Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) scale (Gerger et al., 2007) by Megías, Romero-Sánchez, Durán, Moya, and Bohner (2011) was used to measure participants’ RMA. The original AMMSA is a self-report scale with 30 items designed to measure “modern” myths about sexual violence in a more subtle way than “traditional” measures of RMA (e.g., Burt, 1980; Costin, 1985; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999). Based on research by Eyssel, Bohner, and Siebler (2006), we used a shortened version with 16 items, which had similar psychometric properties as the full version. Example items are “Women often accuse their husbands of marital rape just to retaliate for a failed relationship” and “When a woman starts a relationship with a man, she must be aware that the man will assert his right to have sex.” Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The internal consistency was high, α = .85, similar to previous Spanish studies using both the full and shortened versions of the scale (Megías et al., 2011; Romero-Sánchez et al., 2012).

Victim blame

Four scenarios were created to introduce the experimental manipulations. Each scenario described a casual interaction between a woman (Alicia) and a man (Juan), who met in a pub. After Alicia rejects Juan’s request for sexual relations, the story ends with a sexual assault committed by Juan. In two of the scenarios, it was mentioned that Alicia had previously accepted Juan’s offer to buy her a drink (either alcoholic or nonalcoholic), whereas in the other two scenarios, Alicia had rejected Juan’s invitation and paid for her drink herself, which was alcoholic in one case and nonalcoholic in the other. The exact description of the scenarios is presented in Appendix A. After each scenario, participants were given six questions extracted from Romero-Sánchez et al. (2012) to measure their attributions of blame to the victim. An example item was “Do you think that Alicia’s behavior provoked what happened at the end of this story?” Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). High scores indicated higher victim blame. This measure had a high internal consistency, α = .86.

Manipulation checks

After each scenario, participants were asked to respond to the items designed to check the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation. In the drink invitation acceptance/rejection case, the question was “Did Alicia accept Juan’s invitation?” (response options: yes/no). Regarding the type of drink consumed, the question was “What type of drink did Alicia have during the evening?” (response options: alcoholic drink [Whiskey] or nonalcoholic drink [Coke/soft drink]). An additional question was included to test if the participants perceived the victim as “drunk” in the two alcohol scenarios. Responses were made on a scale ranging from 1 (not drunk at all) to 5 (very drunk).

Sociodemographic data

Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality.

Design and procedure

The design had two experimental factors (victim’s behavior: acceptance or rejection of the aggressor’s invitation, and type of drink consumed by the victim: alcoholic vs. nonalcoholic) and included participants’ RMA as a continuous covariate. The attribution of blame to the victim was the dependent variable.

Participants were approached in different campus libraries and invited to participate in a study about young people’s attitudes toward various topics. The instructions included assurances regarding anonymity, confidentiality of the answers, and the data being used only for research purposes. Those who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. Before reading and responding to the scenarios, they completed the RMA measure. Once all the measures were completed, participants were thanked for their collaboration, debriefed, and given information of how to access the results of the study.

Results and Discussion

Preliminary analyses

Across all conditions, we found a positive correlation between the RMA scores and the attribution of blame to the victim, r(137) = .40, p = .001. Because there were no significant gender differences on victim blame, F(1, 135) = 3.31, p = .07, η² = .02, or RMA, F(1, 135) = 0.64, p = .42, η² = .01, gender was not included in the further analyses.

Responses to the manipulation check items confirmed the success of the experimental manipulations. The percentages of correct answers to the question about acceptance or rejection of the offer of a drink were 88.6% in the acceptance condition and 100% in the rejection condition. The percentages of correct answers to the question of what type of drink Alicia had consumed were 98.7% in the alcoholic drink condition and 94.7% in the nonalcoholic drink condition. The 15 participants who failed to answer these questions correctly were excluded from the analyses, leaving a final sample of N = 137. The means of the additional item “How drunk was Alicia?” were significantly higher for the groups in which the scenario described her as having consumed an alcoholic drink (M = 3.28, SD = 0.79) than for the groups where she was described as having consumed a soft drink (M = 1.06, SD = 0.30), F(1, 135) = 451.24, p < .001, η² = .77.

Main analyses

We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to test the main effects of both our experimental manipulations (victim’s behavior and drink consumed), the attitudinal variable (RMA), and the predicted interactions on the level of blame attributed to the victim. We centered the continuous variable (RMA) before computing the interaction terms (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). We then coded the victim’s behavior (acceptance of the aggressor’s invitation = 1; rejection of the aggressor’s invitation = 0) and type of drink (alcoholic = 1; nonalcoholic = 0). Next, we computed the interaction terms by multiplying the centered RMA scores by the dummy-coded variables. We tested the two-way interactions using a multiple regression approach with the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 1; Hayes, 2013).

The overall regression model with victim blame as the criterion variable was significant, F(3, 136) = 11.43, p < .001. The findings for the two-step analysis are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Victim Blame as a Function of Victim Behavior (Acceptance or Rejection of the Aggressor’s Invitation), Type of Drink (Alcoholic or Nonalcoholic), and RMA.

Variable	Model 1					Model 2
Variable	R ²	F	SE	B	t	R ²	F	SE	B	t
	.205	11.43***	1.10			.253	7.35***	1.08
Acceptance or rejection			0.19	.21	2.75**			0.27	.31	2.77**
Type of drink			0.19	.03	0.46			0.25	.09	0.96
RMA			0.11	.43	5.52***			0.16	.28	2.33*
RMA × Acceptance or rejection								0.21	.27	2.71**
RMA × Type of drink								0.21	−.03	−.35

Note. RMA = rape myth acceptance.

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

In the main effects model (Model 1), we found the predicted effects of the acceptance/rejection of the aggressor’s invitation and of participants’ RMA, but not for the type of drink consumed by the woman. That is, the participants blamed the victim more when she accepted the aggressor’s invitation (M = 2.71, SD = 1.27) to buy her a drink than when she rejected the invitation and bought the drink herself (M = 2.34, SD = 1.17) and blamed her more the higher they scored on the RMA measure. These findings support Hypotheses 1a and 1c, but not Hypothesis 1b.

In Model 2 with the added interaction effects, we found a significant interaction between RMA and the victim’s acceptance versus rejection of the offer of a drink, as predicted in Hypothesis 2a. As shown in Figure 1, victim behavior only predicted differences in victim blame in participants high in RMA, b = 1.06 (.27), t(137) = 3.93, p < .001 (95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.1411, 0.3997]), but it had no effect on participants with low RMA, b = .02 (.26), t(137) = .11, p = .912 (95% CI = [-0.5307, 1.601]). The two-way interaction between type of drink and RMA was not significant, which means that Hypothesis 2b was not supported by the data.

Figure 1.

Blame attributed to the victim depending on victim behavior (acceptance or rejection to the aggressor’s offer to buy her a drink) and participant RMA.

The results of Study 1 provided partial support for our hypotheses. The woman’s acceptance of the aggressor’s offer to buy her a drink—but not the fact that she drank alcohol—led to a higher attribution of blame to the victim (Hypothesis 1a). In accordance with previous results (Bohner et al., 2009; Mason, Riger, & Foley, 2004), higher acceptance of rape myths was related to higher attributions of blame to the victim (Hypothesis 1c). However, these main effects were qualified by the interaction between RMA and the victim’s acceptance or rejection of the offer of a drink, which affected participants’ blame judgments differentially depending on their RMA. For participants with low RMA, whether the victim accepted or rejected the later aggressor’s offer to buy her a drink had no effect, but participants with high RMA blamed the woman significantly more when she had accepted rather than rejected the offer of a drink, consistent with Hypothesis 2a. Whether the victim drank an alcoholic or a nonalcoholic drink was unrelated to victim blame, both on its own and in conjunction with participants’ RMA scores. These findings point to the critical role of the victim’s prior interaction with the aggressor in shaping perceptions of victim blame among people endorsing rape myths.

Study 2

In Study 1, participants with a high RMA score blamed the victim more when she had accepted rather than rejected the aggressor’s invitation to buy her a drink. This finding could be explained by the possibility that those holding false and stereotypical beliefs regarding sexual aggression (high RMA) tend to perceive the victim’s acceptance as a signal of sexual interest toward the aggressor. In Study 2, we aimed to address this explanation by manipulating who offered the woman to buy her a drink, the man who later sexually assaulted, or a friend unrelated to the sexual assault incident. If the offer of a drink comes from a friend of the later victim, the acceptance could not be taken as signaling sexual interest to the aggressor. With this manipulation, we could test more clearly whether blaming the victim is related to accepting an invitation coming from the subsequent aggressor. In addition, although we did not find significant effects of the type of drink consumed by the victim (Study 1), we decided to assess this variable again given that in previous studies, it has been shown to be of relevance in determining whether observers blame the victim when she was drunk (Cameron & Stritzke, 2003; Jordan, 2004; Lynch et al., 2013; Schuller & Wall, 1998).

Thus, Study 2 was designed to analyze attributions of blame to a victim of sexual assault when the person who offers the drink and the type of drink are manipulated. We hypothesized that the victim would be blamed more if she accepted the offer of a drink from the aggressor (vs. a friend; Hypothesis 1a) and when she consumed an alcoholic drink (vs. a nonalcoholic drink; Hypothesis 1b). In addition, we predicted that victim blame would be higher the more participants endorsed rape myths (Hypothesis 1c). Thus, the hypothesis predicts main effects of all three of these variables.

The RMA scores of the participants were included as an individual difference variable seeking to replicate the results found in Study 1. We predicted an interaction between RMA and information about who offered the drink, with differences in RMA being more predictive of victim blame in the aggressor than in the friend condition (Hypothesis 2a). Similarly, we predicted an interaction between the type of drink consumed and participants’ RMA, with differences in RMA being more predictive of victim blame in the alcoholic than in the nonalcoholic drink condition (Hypothesis 2b).

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 133 volunteers (71 female and 62 male) from a public university in Spain, between 18 and 30 years old (female: M = 20.43; SD = 2.10; male: M = 21.22; SD = 2.52). More detailed information about the sample can be seen in Table 1.

Measures

Victim blame

As in Study 1, we created four scenarios to introduce the experimental manipulations. The only difference was that for two of the experimental conditions, it was a friend who offered to buy the victim a drink (alcoholic vs. nonalcoholic), whereas for the other two conditions, it was the later aggressor. The exact description of the scenarios is presented in Appendix B. The items measuring victim blame were identical to Study 1, and the scale had a high internal consistency of α = .83 in the present sample.

Manipulation checks

After reading the scenarios, the participants were asked to answer two questions to test the effectiveness of the experimental manipulations: “Who offered to buy Alicia a drink?” (response options: “Juan” or “a friend”) and “What kind of drink did Alicia consume during the evening?” (response options: “alcoholic drink” or “nonalcoholic drink”). We again included a question to check if the participants perceived the victim as “drunk” in those scenarios in which she was described as having consumed an alcoholic drink compared with those in which she was described as having consumed a nonalcoholic drink, using a scale from 1 (not drunk at all) to 5 (very drunk).

RMA

The measure of RMA was the same as in Study 1 and again had a high internal consistency of α = .86.

Sociodemographic data

Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality.

Design and procedure

We followed a 2 (person who offers to buy the woman a drink: aggressor or friend) × 2 (type of drink consumed by the victim: alcoholic or nonalcoholic) design, with both factors being manipulated between groups. As an individual difference variable, we measured participants’ RMA. The dependent variable was the attribution of blame to the victim. The procedure was the same as described in Study 1.

Results and Discussion

Preliminary analyses

Across the four experimental conditions, there was a positive correlation between RMA and victim blame, r(133) = .54, p = .001. Because no significant gender differences were found on victim blame, F(1, 131) = 3.63, p = .06, η² = .03, or RMA, F(1, 131) = 0.17, p = .68, η² = .07, gender was not included in any further analyses.

The analysis of the participant’s scores for the two questions to test the experimental manipulations confirmed their validity. Only four participants gave incorrect answers and were excluded, leading to the final sample size of N = 133. The means for the additional item “How drunk was Alicia?” were significantly higher for the groups in which the scenario described her as having had an alcoholic drink (M = 3.61, SD = 0.62) than for those that described her as having drunk a soft drink (M = 1.42, SD = 0.91), F(1, 131) = 275.70, p < .001, η² = .07.

Main analyses

As in Study 1, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to test the main effects of our experimental manipulations (who invites the woman to a drink and type of drink consumed), the attitudinal variable (RMA), and the predicted interactions on victim blame. We centered the continuous variable (RMA) before computing the interaction terms (Cohen et al., 2003). The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Victim Blame as a Function of Who Invited the Woman to a Drink (Aggressor or Friend), Type of Drink (Alcoholic or Nonalcoholic), and RMA.

Variable	Model 1					Model 2
Variable	R ²	F	SE	B	t	R ²	F	SE	B	t
	.316	19.84***	1.06			.358	11.68***	1.04
Type of drink			0.18	.15	2.09*			0.26	.24	2.37*
RMA			0.09	.55	7.57***			0.16	.32	2.45*
Aggressor or friend			0.18	.01	0.13			0.26	.11	1.06
RMA × Aggressor or friend								0.18	.21	1.99*
RMA × Type of drink								0.18	.19	1.14

Note. RMA = rape myth acceptance.

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

In the first step (Model 1), we found a significant effect of the type of drink consumed by the victim and RMA. Participants attributed more blame to the victim when she had consumed an alcoholic drink (M = 3.10, SD = 1.35) compared with a nonalcoholic drink (M = 2.82, SD = 1.17), consistent with Hypothesis 1b. As the RMA scores of the participants increased, they attributed more blame to the victim, which is consistent with Hypothesis 1c. No support was found for Hypothesis 1a, predicting higher victim blame if the offer of a drink was accepted from the later aggressor, as opposed to a friend.

In accordance with Hypothesis 2a, the second step of the regression analysis (Model 2) revealed a significant interaction between RMA and who offered to buy the victim a drink. To further investigate this interaction, a moderation model was specified using the macro PROCESS for SPSS developed by Hayes (2013). As shown in Figure 2, high and low RMA participants differed in their victim blame scores more in the aggressor, b = .88 (.12), t(133) = 7.03, p < .001 (95% CI = [0.6358, 1.1335]), than in the friend condition, b = .45 (.13), t(133) = 3.36, p < .01 (95% CI = [0.1886, 0.7285]).

Figure 2.

Blame attributed to the victim depending on the person who offered to buy her a drink (aggressor or friend) and participant RMA.

The results of Study 2 partially support our hypotheses and the findings of previous research. Although information on the type of drink consumed by the victim was not found to have an effect in Study 1, the significant effect of type of drink found in the present study is in line with earlier studies (Jordan, 2004; Maurer & Robinson, 2008; Wenger & Bornstein, 2006). With respect to the differences in RMA, participants with higher RMA showed a greater tendency to blame the victim for the assault. In combination, these results partially support Hypothesis 1.

Furthermore, individual differences in RMA had a stronger impact on victim blame in the aggressor than in the friend condition, as predicted in Hypothesis 2a. The predicted interaction of RMA and type of drink consumed was not significant, failing to support Hypothesis 2b.

General Discussion

The present research contributes to the understanding of the role of alcohol and the victim’s behavior toward the man who subsequently assaulted her in the perception of victim blame. The results from the two studies with Spanish college students replicate, expand, and clarify the findings of previous research (Ben-David & Schneider, 2005; Romero-Sánchez et al., 2012; Temkin & Krahé, 2008) regarding the impact of certain aspects of victim behavior and participants’ RMA on the tendency to blame the victim. Although the scores of RMA and victim blame were below the midpoint of the response scale, indicating low levels on both constructs, contextual variables, such as the acceptance of a drink from a stranger, had an impact on the perception of victim blame among participants who showed a higher acceptance of rape myths.

Previous studies have shown that victims are blamed more for having been sexually assaulted if they consumed alcohol prior to the aggressive episode (Cameron & Stritzke, 2003; Jordan, 2004; Sims et al., 2007; Wenger & Bornstein, 2006) or if they accepted the offer of a drink from a stranger who then went on to sexually assault them (Romero-Sánchez et al., 2012, Study 2). However, in these studies, victims either consumed an alcoholic drink that was offered to them by another person or no information about drink provider was given. Thus, it was not possible in these studies to decide whether the victim’s acceptance of the drink or the consumption of alcohol was critical for attributions of blame. The victim’s acceptance of a drink from a stranger—regardless of the type of drink consumed—could be seen as sending a signal of sexual interest and as being part of a sexual “script” that may be a first step toward a sexual interaction (Frith, 2009). Thus, the main aim of this research was to clarify if attributions of blame to a sexual assault victim who drank alcohol were dependent on her acceptance of the aggressor’s offer to buy her a drink, her consumption of alcohol, or a combination of both factors.

The results from the two studies partially support the hypotheses. In Study 1, we found that the attribution of blame to the victim did not depend on her drinking alcohol but on her acceptance of the aggressor’s offer to buy her a drink (alcoholic or nonalcoholic), and the effect was more pronounced the more participants endorsed rape myths. Moreover, in Study 2, the acceptance of the offer of a drink was kept constant, that is, the victim was described as accepting the offer in all scenarios. This study showed that RMA was more related to victim blaming when she accepted a drink of any kind from a stranger as compared with a friend. These results are in line with studies about the concept of sexual scripts (Farris, Treat, Viken, & McFall, 2008; Frith & Kitzinger, 1997). The mere acceptance of a drink from a stranger in a situation with sexual overtones (e.g., a disco, party, pub) is seen as suggesting sexual interest and, thereby, as the victim contributing to the aggressor’s misperception of her sexual interest through her behavior. In addition, when the circumstances surrounding a sexual assault differ from those included in the stereotypical “real rape”, the victim is blamed more and the incident is described as not serious (Frese, Moya, & Megías, 2004). Thus, it may be assumed that accepting a drink from a stranger in a potentially sexualized context, such as an interaction in a pub, would move women away from the prototypical “credible victim” and move the situation away from one in which “real rapes” occur. In line with this explanation, we found that RMA was especially important in predicting victim blame when the victim accepted a drink from a stranger who later became the aggressor.

The results of this research have several practical implications for the development of prevention programs to reduce sexual aggression. Previous research has shown that scripts for consensual sex and scripts about sexual aggression overlap (e.g., Littleton & Axsom, 2003) and that sexual scripts guide sexual behavior (Krahé et al., 2007). Thus, determining the elements that are incorporated into the concept of “sexual aggression” among young people and the degree to which these elements overlap with sexual scripts for consensual sexual interactions is an important step in developing prevention programs. Considering the results of this research, an important aspect would be the correction of the false belief that some aspects of behavior shown by a woman—such as accepting a drink from a stranger—are signals of her sexual interest that warrant ignoring her communication of nonconsent. This is particularly important, as we have shown that this behavior gives rise to attributions of blame. Dispelling myths about sexual aggression should also be part of prevention programs, as the present work shows that they are systematically and significantly related to the tendency to blame victims of sexual assault, particularly when such incidents include elements that are at odds with the “real rape” stereotype (Krahé, 2016).

Although our findings are partially consistent with our hypotheses and compatible with previous research, limitations must be noted that could serve to explain some aspects of our results. First, we did not measure whether participants had experienced sexual victimization themselves, a factor that can influence attributions of victim blame (Mason et al., 2004; Miller, Amacker, & King, 2011). Another limitation is related to the characteristics of the sample used in our study—young university students. Future research needs to examine whether the same patterns of results can be obtained in more diverse samples from different educational backgrounds and age groups. However, the sample used in this study allows us to compare the results obtained with those from other similar studies, given that most of the literature concerning the social perception of sexual assaults involving alcohol consumption is based on college students (Amacker & Littleton, 2013; Cameron & Stritzke, 2003; Lynch et al., 2013; Romero-Sánchez et al., 2012).

In spite of these limitations, the results of this research open up new paths to understanding the effects of contextual and attitudinal variables on the attribution of blame to victims of sexual assault. We hope that a better understanding of these effects can help to reduce the secondary victimization of victims whose experiences of sexual assault fail to meet the stereotype of the “real rape.”

Footnotes

Appendix A

Scenario used in Study 1, varying information about the victim’s acceptance/rejection of the offer of a drink, and the type of drink consumed.

Appendix B

Scenario used in Study 2, varying information about who offers to buy the victim a drink, and the type of drink consumed.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Grants No. PSI2013-45041-P and PSI2016-79812-P from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación).

Author Biographies

Mónica Romero-Sánchez has a PhD from the School of Psychology at the University of Granada in Spain. She received her doctoral training in social psychology. Her research interests include the social perception of sexual aggression against women, intimate partner violence, and sexist humor.

Barbara Krahé is a professor of social psychology at the University of Potsdam, Germany. Her research interests lie in the area of applied social psychology, in particular, aggression research (sexual aggression, media violence, and aggression) and social cognition research applied to legal decision making (rape myths and biases in judgments about sexual assault).

Miguel Moya is a professor of social psychology at the University of Granada (Spain). His research interests focus on antecedents and consequences of ambivalent sexism, prejudice toward minority groups, and social class and psychological processes.

Jesús L. Megías is a senior lecturer in experimental psychology at the School of Psychology of the University of Granada (Spain). He received his PhD in learning; now his main research interests concern intimate partner violence and social perception of sexual aggression against women.

Scenario used in Study 1, varying information about the victim’s acceptance/rejection of the offer of a drink, and the type of drink consumed.

Scenario used in Study 2, varying information about who offers to buy the victim a drink, and the type of drink consumed.

References

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

Forbes

G. B.

(2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 91-122. doi:10.1177/1524838003262331

Amacker

A. M.

Littleton

H. L.

(2013). Perceptions of similarity and responsibility attributions to an acquaintance sexual assault victim. Violence Against Women, 19, 1384-1407. doi:10.1177/1077801213514860

Ben-David

Schneider

(2005). Rape perceptions, gender role attitudes, and victim-perpetrator acquaintance. Sex Roles, 53, 385-399. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-6761-4

Bohner

Eyssel

Pina

Siebler

Viki

G. T.

(2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective and behavioral effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In Horvath

Brown

(Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17-45). Collumpton, UK: Willan.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Cameron

C. A.

Stritzke

W. G. K.

(2003). Alcohol and acquaintance rape in Australia: Testing the presupposition model of attributions about responsibility and blame. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 983-1008. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01935.x

Campbell

(2008). The psychological impact of rape victims. American Psychologist, 63, 702-717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.702

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohn

E. S.

Dupuis

Brown

T. M.

(2009). In the eye of the beholder: Do behavior and character affect victim and perpetrator responsibility for acquaintance rape? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1513-1535. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00493.x

10.

Costin

(1985). Beliefs about rape and women’s social roles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 319-325. doi:10.1007/BF01550847

11.

Daly

Bouhours

(2010). Rape and attrition in the legal process: A comparative analysis of five countries. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 39, 565-650.

12.

Demaris

Kaukinen

(2005). Violent victimization and women’s mental and physical health: Evidence from a national simple. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 42, 384-411. doi:10.1177/0022427804271922

13.

European Commission. (2016). Special Eurobarometer 449 report gender-based violence. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/75837

14.

Eyssel

Bohner

Siebler

(2006). Perceived rape myth acceptance of others predicts rape proclivity: Social norm or judgmental anchoring? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 93-99. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.65.2.93

15.

Farris

Treat

A. T.

Viken

R. J.

McFall

R. M.

(2008). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 48-66. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.002

16.

Finch

Munro

V. E.

(2005). Juror stereotypes and blame attribution in rape cases involving intoxicants. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 25-38. doi:10.1093/bjc/azh055

17.

Frese

Moya

Megías

J. L.

(2004). Social perception of rape: How rape myth acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143-161. doi:10.1177/0886260503260245

18.

Frith

(2009). Sexual scripts, sexual refusals and rape. In Horvath

Brown

(Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 99-122). Collumpton, UK: Willan.

19.

Frith

Kitzinger

(1997). Talk about sexual miscommunication. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20, 517-528.

20.

Gerger

Kley

Bohner

Siebler

(2007). The Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 422-440. doi:10.1002/ab.20195

21.

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

22.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

23.

Holmes

Sher

(2013). Dating violence and suicidal behaviour in adolescents. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25, 257-261. doi:10.1515/ijamh-2013-0059

24.

Jordan

(2004). Beyond belief? Police, rape, and women’s credibility. Criminal Justice, 4, 29-59. doi:10.1177/1466802504042222

25.

Koepke

Eyssel

Bohner

(2014). “She deserved it”: Effects of sexism norms, type of violence, and victim’s pre-assault behavior on blame attributions toward female victims and approval of the aggressor’s behavior. Violence Against Women, 20, 446-464. doi:10.1177/1077801214528581

26.

Krahé

(2016). Societal responses to sexual violence against women: Rape myths and the “real rape” stereotype. In Kury

Redo

Shea

(Eds.), Women and children as victims and offenders (pp. 671-700). New York: Springer.

27.

Krahé

Bieneck

Scheinberger-Olwig

(2007). The role of sexual scripts in sexual aggression and victimization. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 687-701. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9131-6

28.

Krahé

Temkin

Bieneck

Berger

(2008). Prospective lawyers’ rape stereotypes and schematic decision-making about rape cases. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 461-479. doi:10.1080/10683160801932380

29.

Littleton

H. L.

Axsom

(2003). The rape and seduction scripts of university students: Implications for rape attributions and unacknowledged rape. Sex Roles, 49, 465-475. doi:10.1023/A:1025824505185

30.

Lynch

K. R.

Wasarhaley

N. E.

Golding

J. M.

Simcic

T. A.

(2013). Who bought the drinks? Juror perceptions of intoxication in a rape trial. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 3205-3222. doi:10.1177/0886260513496900

31.

Mason

G. E.

Riger

Foley

L. A.

(2004). The impact of past sexual experiences on attributions of responsibility for rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1157-1171. doi:10.1177/0886260504269094

32.

Masser

Lee

McKimmie

B. M.

(2010). Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim blame. Sex Roles, 62, 494-504. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9648-y

33.

Maurer

T. W.

Robinson

D. W.

(2008). Effects of attire, alcohol, and gender on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 58, 423-434. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9343-9

34.

Megías

J. L.

Romero-Sánchez

Durán

Moya

Bohner

(2011). Spanish validation of the Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression Scale (AMMSA). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 912-925.

35.

Metts

Spitzberg

B. H.

(1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script based approach. In Burleson

B. R.

Kunkel

A. W.

(Eds.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 49-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Miller

A. K.

Amacker

A. M.

King

A. R.

(2011). Sexual victimization history and perceived similarity to a sexual assault victim: A path model of perceiver variables predicting victim culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 64, 372-381. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9910-3

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.

Pollard

(1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307-326. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00975.x

39.

Romero-Sánchez

Megías

J. L.

Krahé

(2012). The role of alcohol and victim sexual interest in Spanish students’ perceptions of sexual assaults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2230-2258. doi:10.1177/0886260511432149

40.

Schuller

R. A.

McKimmie

B. M.

Masser

B. M.

Klippenstine

M. A.

(2010). Judgments of sexual assault: The impact of complainant emotional demeanour, gender and victim stereotypes. New Criminal Law Review, 13, 759-780.

41.

Schuller

R. A.

Stewart

(2000). Police responses to sexual assault complaints: The role of perpetrator/complaint intoxication. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 535-551.

42.

Schuller

R. A.

Wall

A. M.

(1998). The effects of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 555-573. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00177.x

43.

Simon

Gagnon

J. H.

(1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97-120.

44.

Sims

C. M.

Noel

N. E.

Maisto

S. A.

(2007). Rape blame as a function of alcohol presence and resistance type. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2766-2775. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.04.013

45.

Suarez

Gadalla

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

46.

Temkin

Krahe

(2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford, UK: Hart.

47.

United Nations Development Fund for Women. (2008). Violence against women: Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://www.unifem.org/attachments/gender_issues/violence_against_women/facts_figures_violence_against_women_2007.pdf

48.

Vanwesenbeeck

(2008). Sexual violence and the MDGs. International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 25-49. doi:10.1080/19317610802157028

49.

Wenger

A. A.

Bornstein

B. H.

(2006). The effects of victim’s substance use and relationship closeness on mock jurors’ judgments in an acquaintance rape case. Sex Roles, 54, 547-555. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9014-2

50.

Whatley

M.A.

(2005). The effects of participants’ sex, victim dress, and traditional attitudes on casual judgments for marital rape victims. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 191-200. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-3655-8