The Effects of Victim and Perpetrator Characteristics on Ratings of Guilt in a Sexual Assault Case

Abstract

Scholars have long investigated how perceptions of the victim affect judgments in a sexual assault case, but little research has investigated perceptions of the perpetrator. Participants (N = 322) read a scenario about an alleged sexual assault that manipulated victim behavior (speed of reporting) and perpetrator characteristics (athlete status and celebrity status) and then made judgments about the victim and perpetrator. Results showed that victim behavior was the most important factor in judgments. Furthermore, significant three-way interactions suggested that participants may attend to perpetrator characteristics but only when the victim’s behavior is consistent with stereotypes about sexual assault victims.

Keywords

sexual assault athletes celebrities

Recent attention to high-profile sexual assault cases and sexual assaults on college campuses has once again highlighted the problems that plague victims and prosecutors when attempting to get a conviction in a sexual assault case. The pervasive “rape culture” in the United States (and around the world) continues to excuse perpetrators and blame victims for their sexual assaults. Accordingly, most research on sexual assault has addressed characteristics of the victim (e.g., intoxication, dress, behavior) when evaluating how people assign guilt and blame in a sexual assault case, and this research has consistently shown that people rely on rape myths about the victim to dismiss and explain away sexual assault. Very little research, however, has investigated characteristics of the perpetrator and how those characteristics may affect ratings of guilt and blame in a sexual assault case. Given our culture’s focus on victims’ responsibility in their sexual assaults, it is consistent that little research has focused on the perpetrator, but it is also important to understand how people’s perceptions of the perpetrator may affect their judgments and decision-making in a sexual assault case. Furthermore, it’s important to understand how perceptions of the perpetrator may interact with perceptions of the victim. This article aims to investigate characteristics of the perpetrator and their interaction with characteristics of the victim in evaluations of a sexual assault case. More specifically, the current research investigates the perpetrator’s celebrity and athlete status and their interaction with a victim’s speed in reporting her sexual assault to the authorities.

Rape Myths and the Justice Gap

Sexual assault is a common yet a grossly under-punished crime due to low reporting, low arrest, low prosecution, and low conviction rates. It is estimated that about 18% of women and 1% of men have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). However, only about 15% of sexual assaults are reported to the police, and only 20% of reported sexual assaults go to trial (Daly & Bouhours, 2010). Of sexual assaults that are reported, only 12% result in conviction (thus, 2% of sexual assaults committed result in a conviction), and the ratio of arrests to reports is lower for sexual assault than for other violent crimes (Lonsway & Archambault, 2012).

Researchers speculate that a primary reason for the “justice gap” in regard to sexual assault cases is the prevalence and use of rape myths. Rape myths are false beliefs about sexual assault that fuel attitudes of victim blame and perpetrator exoneration in sexual assault cases (Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980). People hold rape myths about the victim (e.g., she’s lying) and the perpetrator (e.g., he’s not the type), but all rape myths serve the similar function of dismissing the sexual assault (Burt, 1980). Rape myths are widespread, commonly applied, and are myths in the sense that they rarely reflect accurate descriptions of victims and perpetrators (see Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994, for a review). Ultimately, sexual assaults that deviate from prototypes of “real” rape are less likely to be considered sexual assault, yet most sexual assaults are inconsistent with rape myths (Estrich, 1987; Hockett, Smith, Klausing, & Saucier, 2016; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; McKimmie, Masser, & Bongiorno, 2014). Unfortunately, people do not always assign guilt and blame in a sexual assault case based on characteristics that are diagnostic of a sexual assault, but rather people often rely on beliefs that are unlikely associated with whether or not the sexual assault actually occurred. In the current research, we use the term “diagnostic” to refer to characteristics that are correlated with or predictive of the occurrence of sexual assault. Furthermore, we use “nondiagnostic” to refer to characteristics that are not correlated with or predictive of the occurrence of sexual assault. As noted above, research has consistently shown that participants often misuse nondiagnostic information about sexual assault victims and treat this information as diagnostic. However, there is very little research on how participants use diagnostic and nondiagnostic information about perpetrators. In the current research, we were interested in investigating participants’ evaluations of perpetrator characteristics that are and are not diagnostic of sexual assault.

Correlational research and laboratory experiments consistently show an association between rape myth endorsement and consequences that reinforce the justice gap between sexual assault occurrence and conviction. Not only is rape myth acceptance more common among convicted sex offenders than nonoffenders (see Johnson & Beech, 2017, for a review), but the employment of rape myths makes women less likely to identify their own sexual assaults (Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2004), is related to sexual coercion and rape proclivity in men (e.g., Boehner, Jarvis, Eyssel, & Siebler, 2005; Young, Desmarais, Baldwin, & Chandler, 2017), and leads women and (especially) men to assign more blame to the victim and less blame to the perpetrator in a sexual assault (see Grubb & Turner, 2012, for a review). Further contributing to the justice gap, studies have shown that police officers hold rape myths (Jordan, 2004; Parratt & Pina, 2017; Schuller & Stewart, 2000; Shaw, Campbell, Cain, & Feeney, 2017) and with similar frequency as college students (Sleath & Bull, 2015). Police officers’ use of rape myths may partially explain the low prosecution rates for sexual assault (e.g., Alderen & Ullman, 2012; Lord & Rassel, 2000; Parratt & Pina, 2017; Shaw et al., 2017) and, similarly, prosecutors’ rape myths may also contribute to whether or not they decide to pursue a sexual assault case (e.g., Alderen & Ullman, 2012; Beichner & Spohn, 2005). This is not to suggest that police officers and prosecutors ignore legally relevant factors when making decisions about whether or not to pursue charges against a perpetrator, but merely offers that there are multiple steps in the criminal justice system where legally irrelevant factors may enter into decision-making.

A thorough review of victim characteristics that have been studied in the literature for their impact on perceptions in (real and hypothetical) sexual assault cases is beyond the scope of this article, but female victims have been the focus of such research and commonly studied victim characteristics have been her level of intoxication (see Grubb & Turner, 2012, for a review), her clothing (e.g., Bernard, Loughnan, Marchal, Godart, & Klein, 2015; Whatley, 1996, 2005; Workman & Orr, 1996), her moral character (typically her promiscuity/chastity) (e.g., Spears & Spohn, 1996; Whatley, 1996), her resistance (e.g., Du Mont, Miller, & Myhr, 2003; Frazier & Haney, 1996), and her speed in reporting her sexual assault (e.g., Beichner & Spohn, 2012; Bronitt, 1998; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Spears & Spohn, 1996). Consistent with rape myths, this research has generally found that when victims are intoxicated, when they are wearing less conservative clothing, when they are promiscuous, when they do not show clear or expected signs of resisting the assault, and when they delay reporting, they are more likely to be blamed for their assaults. Ultimately, when women act or appear as the counter-stereotypical victim, they are more likely to be blamed for their sexual assaults (Masser, Lee, & McKimmie, 2010).

Perpetrator Characteristics and Sexual Assault

Most research on sexual assault and culpability has focused on (female) victim characteristics, but some research has investigated (male) perpetrator characteristics for their impact on attitudes about sexual assault cases. One of the most commonly studied perpetrator characteristics has been race, but research has been mixed, with some research showing that men of color are more likely to be found guilty of and receive harsher punishments for sexual assault than White men (e.g., Frazier & Haney, 1996; Wriggins, 1983), whereas other research has shown no main effect for perpetrators’ race in sexual assault cases (e.g., Bouffard, 2000; Hymes, Leinart, Rowe, & Rogers, 1993; Knight, Guiliano, & Sanchez-Ross, 2001; Spears & Spohn, 1996). While few other perpetrator characteristics have been studied for their impact on attributions of blame in sexual assault cases, research has found that low socioeconomic status (SES) perpetrators received stronger punishments from mock juries than high SES perpetrators (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994), and unattractive perpetrators were more likely to be found guilty of a hypothetical sexual assault than attractive perpetrators (Bagby, Parker, Rector, & Kalemba, 1994). Furthermore, research by Stuart, McKimmie, and Masser (2019) suggests that people may have one general schema about sexual assaults rather than having multiple individual stereotypes about sexual assault victims, perpetrators, and the offense itself. These findings are consistent with the rape myth that perpetrators of sexual assault fit a certain prototype (Lev-Wiesel, 2004), and the further a sexual assault deviates from that prototype, the harder it is to find a perpetrator guilty of sexual assault.

With the exception of perpetrator intoxication (e.g., Ferguson & Ireland, 2012; Maurer, 2016; Qi, Starfelt, & White, 2016; Schuller & Wall, 1998), most research on perpetrator characteristics and perceived guilt has focused on characteristics consistent with rape myths yet nondiagnostic of actual perpetration of sexual assault. However, when investigating men who have committed sexual assault or sexual aggression, a different set of (diagnostic) characteristics emerges in the literature. Much focus on predicting men’s sexual aggression has stemmed from the Confluence Model of Sexual Aggression, which suggests that the interaction between interest in casual sex and hostile attitudes toward women best predicts sexual aggression (Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991). Many researchers have supported the Confluence Model in incarcerated and community samples of men (e.g., Abbey, Jaques-Tiura, & LeBreton, 2011; Casey et al., 2017; DeGue, DiLillo, & Scalora, 2010; Koss & Dinero, 1989; Lisak & Roth, 1988; Logan-Greene & Cue Davis, 2011; Malamuth, Linz, Heavy, Barnes, & Acker, 1995). However, little research has investigated how participants evaluate diagnostic information about perpetration.

Furthermore, many scholars have attempted to identify groups or social contexts that might be more likely to encourage characteristics or attract participants with the characteristics that increase risk for perpetration of sexual assault. Two groups that are commonly discussed in the literature are male athletic teams and fraternities. Consistent with the Confluence Model, these groups are commonly identified given that they are all-male groups that often encourage hypermasculinity inclusive of aggression, dominance of others, and sexual conquest (e.g., Martin, 2016; McCray, 2015; Melnick, 1992; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007). Murnen and Kohlman (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 29 studies investigating male athletes, fraternity members, and sexual aggression. They found that participation in athletics and fraternities was associated with rape-supportive attitudes and sexually aggressive behavior (i.e., diagnostic). Although studies have consistently shown associations between attitudes and behaviors that are supportive of sexual aggression among fraternity members and athletes (see McCray, 2015, for a review of literature on athletes and sexual violence), we are not aware of any study investigating observers’ perceptions of such group membership on attributions in sexual assault cases. In the current research, we were interested in investigating participants’ perceptions of an athlete perpetrator in attributions of blame and responsibility in a sexual assault case.

Overview

The abundance of research on victim characteristics and the relative dearth of research on perpetrator characteristics underscore the disproportionate responsibility our culture places on victims in sexual assault cases. Furthermore, the reliance on rape myths in sexual assault cases contributes to the low reporting, arrest, and conviction rates in these cases. In the current research, we investigated two perpetrator characteristics (one diagnostic and one nondiagnostic characteristic) and one (nondiagnostic) victim characteristic. Although diagnostic information suggests that a sexual assault is more likely to have occurred, participants can use diagnostic information appropriately (they can use it to increase the likelihood of a guilty verdict) or inappropriately (they can ignore it or use it to decrease the likelihood of a guilty verdict). Furthermore, nondiagnostic information suggests that the information is irrelevant to a sexual assault occurring, but participants can use this information appropriately (ignore this information) or inappropriately (they can use it to increase or decrease the likelihood of a guilty verdict). The central aim of the current research is to investigate how participants use diagnostic and nondiagnostic information about the perpetrator and victim in a sexual assault case.

Given that male athletes have been shown to be a high-risk group for committing sexual assault (i.e., diagnostic) and given the recent attention in the news media to sexual assaults involving athletes (e.g., Baylor University’s football team, NFL quarterback Jameis Winston), we sought to assess whether or not a perpetrator’s athlete status would affect participants’ attributions of guilt and blame in a sexual assault case. Furthermore, we included celebrity status to assess how participants used a nondiagnostic characteristic in their evaluation of a perpetrator. Although we are not aware of any research that associates celebrity status with actual sexual assault perpetration (i.e., it is nondiagnostic of sexual assault), some research has shown that participants believe that celebrity status provides information about sexual assault perpetration (i.e., they use nondiagnostic information inappropriately). Research by Knight and colleagues (2001) showed that celebrity status had protective benefits for White perpetrators but did not offer the same protection for Black perpetrators in a hypothetical sexual assault. Pica, Sheahan, and Pozzulo (2017) found greater victim blame when the perpetrator was a star athlete (than a bartender), but they did not independently manipulate celebrity status and athlete status. Also, studies have shown that although professional and college athletes were more likely to get arrested than their nonathlete peers in sexual assault cases, they were less likely to get convicted (Benedict & Klein, 1997; Repetto, 2016; Weir & Brady, 2003). Finally, we included a victim characteristic to assess whether this information was the primary factor in participants’ evaluations of the sexual assault or this characteristic interacted with the perpetrator characteristics. We included a victim characteristic that was nondiagnostic of sexual assault (i.e., it does not offer relevant information to the decision) given that nondiagnostic information is often used inappropriately by laypeople and those in the criminal justice system when making decisions in a sexual assault case. We chose the victim’s delay in reporting given that research has shown this characteristic affects decisions in hypothetical and real cases of sexual assault (e.g., Beichner & Spohn, 2012; Bronitt, 1998; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Spears & Spohn, 1996).

There has been little research on the impact of diagnostic/nondiagnostic perpetrator characteristics, but Rempala and Bernieri (2005) found that including nondiagnostic perpetrator information affected ratings of perpetrator guilt, whereas Rempala and Geers (2011) found that perpetrator information was unrelated to ratings of perpetrator guilt. Although Rempala and colleagues did not systematically vary perpetrator information, Rempala and Geers (2011) speculated that when negative stereotypes are activated about the victim, people are less likely to pay attention to perpetrator characteristics, but when the victim acts more in line with expectations for victim behavior, people may then give attention to the perpetrator. Thus, using an experimental approach in the current research, we expect that when negative stereotypes or rape myths are triggered about the victim (i.e., she delays reporting her sexual assault), participants will be less likely to pay attention to perpetrator characteristics than when the victim acts in a more “expected” way (i.e., she reports her sexual assault immediately). Furthermore, when the victim acts in a more expected way, we investigated how participants use diagnostic (e.g., athlete status) and nondiagnostic (e.g., celebrity status) information about the perpetrator.

Hypotheses

In this research, we investigated how perpetrator characteristics (athlete status and celebrity status) may interact with victim behavior (delayed or immediate reporting) in evaluating the perpetrator and victim and in determining guilt in a sexual assault case. Given the weight that people put on a victim’s characteristics in sexual assault cases, we expected a main effect for the victim’s speed of reporting such that participants would find the perpetrator more guilty, evaluate the perpetrator more negatively (e.g., find him less credible), and evaluate the victim more positively (e.g., find her more credible) when she reported immediately than when she delayed reporting (Hypothesis 1). We also expected a three-way interaction between perpetrator’s celebrity status, perpetrator’s athlete status, and victim’s speed of reporting such that the perpetrator characteristics would only be used for participants’ judgments when the victim reported immediately and there would be no interaction between celebrity status and athlete status when the victim delayed reporting (Hypothesis 2a). Although we found no research to date on perceptions of athletes and sexual assault, we thought that the celebrity status of a professional athlete might serve a protective function for the athlete [given the research on celebrities by Knight and colleagues (2001), star athletes by Pica and colleagues (2017), and the research on low professional athlete convictions by Benedict and Klein (1997)]. However, this protective status may disappear and people may rely on associations between aggression and athletes, especially football players (Cox, 1998; Singer, 1975), when they are not celebrities. Thus, when reporting immediately, we expected the two-way interaction between athlete status and celebrity status to be significant such that athletes who were celebrities would be rated less guilty and more positively than nonathletes who were celebrities, but athletes who were not celebrities would be rated more guilty and less positively than nonathletes who were not celebrities (Hypothesis 2b).

Method

Participants

Three hundred twenty-two participants (53% female) were recruited from the online marketplace, Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participation was exclusive to U.S. residents over the age of 18, and each worker was paid US$0.50 for their participation. Approximately 74% of the participants (N = 238) identified as White; 10% (N = 33) identified as Black or African American; 8% (N = 26) identified as Hispanic or Latino/a; 4% (N = 13) identified as Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander; and 0.6% (N = 2) identified as Native American or Alaska Native. Five participants identified as being multiracial or as belonging to another racial/ethnic group. The average age of the participants was 38.5 years.

Procedure

The study title and a brief description about the research were posted on MTurk, along with the payment information and an estimate that the study would take about 10-15 min to complete. Once clicking on the study, MTurk workers were able to see the informed consent as a “preview” option before they decided to participate. If they chose to participate, participants read the informed consent and indicated their consent to participate by clicking a “next” button at the bottom of the page to continue with the study. Next, all participants read a summary of a sexual assault case and trial testimony adapted from Quilter (2011) and were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions. In each condition, all details of the sexual assault case and testimony were the same with the exception of the defendant characteristics and the alleged victim’s speed in reporting. The three independent variables were defendant athlete status (athlete or nonathlete), defendant celebrity status (high-profile person or college student), and alleged victim delay in reporting (alleged victim reports immediately or reports 2 months later). We used language of “defendant” and “alleged victim” instead of “perpetrator” and “victim” throughout the study materials given that we wanted to minimize the impact of language on assumptions of guilt and innocence in an ongoing case. The trial summary was three pages (1,054 words) and included testimony from the alleged victim, defendant, a witness for the alleged victim, and a witness for the defendant. After reading the summary of the case and witness testimony, participants were instructed to imagine that they were on a jury and that they were responsible for rendering a verdict in the case. They were instructed:

You will find the Defendant guilty of Criminal Sexual Assault under this instruction if, and only if, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following:

A. That in this county, on or about December 23^rd, 2011, Mr. S.C. engaged in sexual intercourse with Ms. L.T. AND

B. That he did so by force or threat of force.

Then, participants filled out a questionnaire assessing their beliefs about the case. Finally, participants filled out a short demographics questionnaire. At the end of the experiment, participants were debriefed and given a link to a national resource for sexual assault support. Once the participants read the debriefing page, they entered their MTurk ID to receive credit for participation. The MTurk ID is an alphanumerical sequence that offers no personal identifying information about the participant.

Measures

The questionnaire assessing participants’ beliefs about the case, the alleged victim, the defendant, and the witnesses (the alleged victim and defendant’s friends) was adapted from Lynch, Wasarhaley, Golding, and Simcic (2013). Participants were asked 23 questions about the verdict they would render, their confidence in their verdict, the defendant’s guilt, the strength of the prosecution and defense, the alleged victim’s and defendant’s characteristics (e.g., honesty, credibility), their feelings toward the alleged victim and defendant (e.g., anger), and the credibility of the alleged victim’s and defendant’s friends. Participants rated the defendant’s guilt by choosing either “guilty” or “not guilty.” All of the remaining items were rated on a 1-7 Likert-type scale (including an item assessing beliefs about the defendant’s guilt on a “completely not guilty” to “completely guilty” scale). From these items, composite measures of the alleged victim’s credibility, the defendant’s credibility, negative feelings toward the victim, and negative feelings toward the defendant were created. The alleged victim’s credibility was assessed with six items (strength of the prosecution’s case, alleged victim’s credibility, alleged victim’s honesty, alleged victim’s believability, alleged victim’s general ability to remember daily events, and alleged victim’s general ability to remember the incident in question), and this measure had strong internal consistency (α = .90). The defendant’s credibility was assessed with six items (strength of defense’s case, defendant’s credibility, defendant’s honesty, defendant’s believability, defendant’s general ability to remember daily events, and defendant’s general ability to remember the incident in question), and this measure had strong internal consistency (α = .90). The participant’s general negative feelings toward the alleged victim were assessed with three items (anger toward the alleged victim, sympathy for the alleged victim [reverse scored], and the alleged victim’s responsibility for the incident), and the measure had good internal consistency (α = .73). The participant’s general negative feelings toward the defendant were assessed with three items (anger toward the defendant, sympathy for the defendant [reverse scored], and the defendant’s responsibility for the incident), and the measure had good internal consistency (α = .71).

Power Analysis

An a priori power analysis was conducted to estimate sample size using a medium effect size for an F test = 0.25, α = .05, and power = .80 (Cohen, 1992). The estimated sample size needed for this effect using G*Power 3.1 is approximately 128 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Thus, our sample size of 213 was more than adequate to test the hypotheses in this study.

Manipulation Check

We included three questions to assess whether or not participants accurately identified the experimental conditions. After answering questions about the trial, participants were asked whether or not the defendant was an athlete, whether or not the defendant was “well-known/a celebrity/famous,” and whether the victim reported the alleged assault immediately or delayed in reporting. Of the 322 participants, 8% (N = 27) of participants incorrectly identified whether or not the defendant was an athlete, 10% (N = 31) of participants incorrectly identified whether or not the defendant was a celebrity, and 21% (N = 68) incorrectly identified whether the victim reported immediately or delayed reporting. Across all three conditions, 109 participants incorrectly identified at least one condition and were removed from the analyses. The following analyses were performed on the remaining 213 participants (54% female, 73% White, M_age = 38.4, SD = 12.1).

Results

To test our main hypotheses, we conducted 2 (victim speed of reporting) × 2 (athlete status) × 2 (celebrity status) factorial between-group analyses of variance (ANOVAs) predicting the main dependent variables of defendant guilt, alleged victim credibility, defendant credibility, feelings toward the alleged victim, and feelings toward the defendant. We include a table of intercorrelations of the main dependent variables below (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Intercorrelations Between Dependent Variables.

	DG	VC	DC	FV	FD
Defendant guilt (DG)	—	.79*	−.65*	−.46*	.67*
Victim credibility (VC)	.79*	—	−.50*	−.53*	.66*
Defendant credibility (DC)	−.65*	−.50*	—	.45*	−.58*
Negative feelings toward victim (FV)	.46*	.53*	−.45*	—	−.57*
Negative feelings toward defendant (FD)	.67*	.66*	−.58*	−.57*	—

p < .001.

Defendant Guilt

Supporting Hypothesis 1, the three-way ANOVA predicting defendant guilt revealed a significant main effect for speed of victim reporting such that participants were more likely to rate the defendant guilty when the alleged victim reported immediately than when she delayed reporting, F(1, 204) = 10.98, p = .001 (see Table 2 for cell means). The three-way ANOVA also revealed a significant three-way interaction between athlete status, celebrity status, and victim speed in reporting, F(1, 204) = 26.6, p = .004. Given that the three-way interaction was significant, we split the file along victim delay in reporting and conducted a two-way ANOVA to investigate the simple interactions between athlete and celebrity status at each level of victim delay of reporting. Supporting Hypothesis 2a, the two-way interaction was significant when the victim reported immediately, F(1, 92) = 6.27, p = .014, but was not significant when the victim delayed reporting, F(1, 112) = 2.68, p = .104 (see Figure 1). Breaking down the significant two-way interaction for simple main effects, we split the file by victim delay of reporting and celebrity status and conducted a one-way ANOVA at each level of victim delay of reporting and celebrity status. When the victim reported immediately, celebrities who were athletes were not rated differently from celebrities who were nonathletes, F(1, 32) = 2.54, p = .121, but noncelebrities who were athletes were less likely to be rated guilty than noncelebrities who were nonathletes, F(1, 60) = 4.32, p = .042. Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

Table 2.

Means for Three-Way ANOVA Predicting Defendant Guilt.

Victim rep.	Athlete stat.	Celebrity stat.	M	SD	N
Delay	Athlete	Celebrity	3.43	1.87	28
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	4.19	1.71	27
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	3.67	2.08	24
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	3.30	1.70	37
Immediate	Athlete	Celebrity	5.13	1.20	16
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	3.83	1.72	35
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	4.22	1.96	18
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	4.74	1.70	27

Note. Victim rep. = speed of victim reporting; athlete stat. = athlete status; celebrity stat. = celebrity status.

Figure 1.

Two-way interactions between perpetrator celebrity status and athlete status predicting defendant guilt separated by victim’s speed of reporting.

Alleged Victim Credibility

The three-way ANOVA predicting the credibility of the alleged victim revealed a significant main effect for victim speed of reporting such that alleged victim was rated as more credible if she reported immediately than if she delayed reporting, F(1, 205) = 13.38, p < .001 (see Table 3 for cell means). Hypothesis 1 was supported. The three-way interaction between athlete status, celebrity status, and victim speed in reporting predicting alleged victim credibility was not significant, F(1, 204) = 2.93, p = .089. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were not supported.

Table 3.

Means for Three-Way ANOVA Predicting Victim Credibility.

Victim rep.	Athlete stat.	Celebrity stat.	M	SD	N
Delay	Athlete	Celebrity	4.05	1.54	28
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	4.60	1.23	27
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	4.28	1.35	24
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	4.29	1.09	38
Immediate	Athlete	Celebrity	5.24	1.01	16
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	4.70	1.25	35
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	4.88	1.03	18
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	5.01	1.29	27

Note. Victim rep. = speed of victim reporting; athlete stat. = athlete status; celebrity stat. = celebrity status.

Defendant Credibility

The three-way ANOVA predicting credibility of the defendant revealed a nonsignificant main effect for victim speed of reporting, F(1, 205) = 2.92, p = .089 (see Table 4 for cell means). Hypothesis 1 was not supported. The three-way ANOVA also revealed a significant three-way interaction between athlete status, celebrity status, and victim speed in reporting, F(1, 205) = 9.62, p = .002. Given that the three-way interaction was significant, we split the file along victim delay in reporting to investigate the two-way interactions between athlete and celebrity status. Supporting Hypothesis 2a, the two-way interaction was significant when the victim reported immediately, F(1, 92) = 13.4, p < .001, but was not significant when the victim delayed reporting, F(1, 113) = 1.23, p = .386. Breaking down the significant two-way interaction for simple simple main effects, when the victim reported immediately, celebrities who were athletes were rated as less credible than nonathletes, F(1, 32) = 10.29, p = .003, but noncelebrities who were athletes were not rated differently from noncelebrities who were nonathletes, F(1, 60) = 2.28, p = .136. Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

Table 4.

Means for Three-Way ANOVA Predicting Defendant Credibility.

Victim rep.	Athlete stat.	Celebrity stat.	M	SD	N
Delay	Athlete	Celebrity	4.48	1.07	28
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	4.27	1.26	27
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	4.32	1.59	24
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	4.51	1.20	38
Immediate	Athlete	Celebrity	3.29	1.26	16
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	4.47	1.16	35
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	4.58	1.09	18
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	4.08	0.79	27

Note. Victim rep. = speed of victim reporting; athlete stat. = athlete status; celebrity stat. = celebrity status.

Negative Feelings Toward the Alleged Victim

The three-way ANOVA predicting feelings toward the alleged victim revealed no main effect for victim speed of reporting, F(1, 205) = 2.76, p = .098 (see Table 5 for cell means). Hypothesis 1 was not supported. The three-way interaction between athlete status, celebrity status, and victim speed in reporting predicting feelings toward the alleged victim was not significant, F(1, 204) = 1.14, p = .286. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were not supported.

Table 5.

Means for Three-Way ANOVA Predicting Negative Feelings Toward Victim.

Victim rep.	Athlete stat.	Celebrity stat.	M	SD	N
Delay	Athlete	Celebrity	3.48	1.51	28
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	3.09	1.26	27
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	3.33	1.77	24
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	3.24	1.41	38
Immediate	Athlete	Celebrity	2.67	1.56	16
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	3.07	1.36	35
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	3.11	1.41	18
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	2.93	1.21	27

Note. Victim rep. = speed of victim reporting; athlete stat. = athlete status; celebrity stat. = celebrity status.

Negative Feelings Toward the Defendant

The three-way ANOVA predicting feelings toward the defendant revealed a significant main effect for victim speed of reporting such that the defendant was rated more negatively when the victim reported immediately than when she delayed reporting, F(1, 205) = 5.76, p = .017 (see Table 6 for cell means). Hypothesis 1 was supported. The three-way ANOVA was marginally significant, F(1, 205) = 3.66, p = .057. Given that the three-way interaction was marginally significant, we explored further and split the file along victim delay in reporting to investigate the two-way interactions between athlete and celebrity status. Supporting Hypothesis 2a, the two-way interaction was significant when the victim reported immediately, F(1, 92) = 4.08, p = .046, but was not significant when the victim delayed reporting, F(1, 113) = 0.347, p = .557. Breaking down the significant two-way interaction for simple main effects, when the victim reported immediately, celebrities who were athletes were rated more negatively than nonathletes, F(1, 32) = 4.56, p = .04, but noncelebrities who were athletes were not rated differently from noncelebrities who were nonathletes, F(1, 60) = 0.174, p = .678. Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

Table 6.

Means for Three-Way ANOVA Predicting Negative Feelings Toward Defendant.

Victim rep.	Athlete stat.	Celebrity stat.	M	SD	N
Delay	Athlete	Celebrity	4.04	1.74	28
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	4.43	1.27	27
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	4.25	1.26	24
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	4.34	1.20	38
Immediate	Athlete	Celebrity	5.48	1.18	16
	Athlete	Noncelebrity	4.45	1.39	35
	Nonathlete	Celebrity	4.43	1.62	18
	Nonathlete	Noncelebrity	4.59	1.31	27

Note. Victim rep. = speed of victim reporting; athlete stat. = athlete status; celebrity stat. = celebrity status.

Participant Gender as Moderator

We did not make specific predictions about how gender would interact with the main independent variables in this research, but the gender of the observer is a variable that remains of interest in sexual assault cases. Past research has shown that men are more likely than women to hold rape myths and are more likely to assign blame to female victims in sexual assault cases (see van der Bruggen & Grubb, 2014, for a review), but a recent meta-analysis by Hockett and colleagues (2016) suggested that these gender differences are much smaller when scenarios are consistent with rape myths than when they are inconsistent with rape myths. Consistent with Hockett and colleagues’ (2016) research suggesting gender differences are moderated by rape myth consistency, we did not find any significant gender differences across conditions for verdict rendered (χ² = 3.96, ns) or across defendant credibility, feelings toward the alleged victim, and feelings toward the defendant (ts < 1.87, ns). We found a significant gender difference for defendant guilt such that women were more likely to rate the defendant guilty than men, t(206) = 1.94, p = .05, and we found a significant gender difference for alleged victim credibility such that women found the alleged victim more credible than men did, t(207) = 2.10, p < .05. Furthermore, the four-way ANOVAs including participant gender were not significant for any of the key dependent variables (Fs < 2.34, ns).

Discussion

There is a vast literature on the impact of victim characteristics on judgments and decision-making in sexual assault cases, both hypothetical and real, but there is relatively little research on the impact of perpetrator characteristics in the same regard. Whether it is the case that null findings with regard to perpetrator characteristics have not been published or researchers’ focus on victims reflects a rape culture that emphasizes victim responsibility and downplays perpetrator blame, there is ample room to add to the literature where perpetrator characteristics are concerned. Not only is it important to understand how rape myths are used to more harshly punish some yet exonerate other perpetrators, but it is also important to understand how well people understand factors that are diagnostic of (i.e., predictive of the occurrence of sexual assault) and nondiagnostic of sexual assault (i.e., not predictive of the occurrence of sexual assault). In the current research, we assessed a diagnostic (athlete status) and nondiagnostic (celebrity) perpetrator characteristic to investigate whether or not (and how) people used this information in a hypothetical sexual assault case. We also included a victim characteristic to assess whether this characteristic was participants’ sole focus or it moderated the focus on perpetrator characteristics.

As expected in Hypothesis 1, we found that participants were more likely to think the perpetrator was guilty, find the victim credible, and have negative feelings toward the perpetrator when the victim reported immediately (the same night) as compared with delaying reporting (2 months later). There were no similar main effects for the perpetrator’s athlete status or celebrity status, suggesting that participants are not giving appropriate weight to a diagnostic characteristic (athlete status) but are treating celebrity status as nondiagnostic. Also, as expected in Hypothesis 2a, the speed of victim reporting moderated the interaction between the perpetrator characteristics such that participants only used perpetrator characteristics in their judgments about the case when the victim reported the sexual assault immediately. When the victim delayed reporting the sexual assault, there was no difference across conditions for any of the dependent variables. This is consistent with a large body of research showing that when sexual assault victims do not behave in an expected way people are less likely to believe that a sexual assault occurred. Consistent with research by Smith, Stasson, and Hawkes (1998) that showed that nondiagnostic information about the victim can dilute diagnostic information, we found that a victim’s delay in reporting (nondiagnostic information) may have diluted attention to the perpetrator’s athlete status (which is diagnostic of sexual assault).

However, the current research adds to the literature by suggesting that, when sexual assault victims act more consistently with expectations for the prototypical sexual assault victim, people may attend to perpetrator characteristics. When the victim acted consistently with stereotypes about sexual assault victims and reported her assault immediately, the two-way interaction between athlete status and celebrity status of the perpetrator was significant in predicting perpetrator guilt, perpetrator credibility, and feelings toward the perpetrator. Interestingly, although victim characteristics and behaviors often have an impact on ratings of the perpetrator in a sexual assault case (and we found that in the current research as well), perpetrator characteristics did not affect participants’ ratings of the victim. This finding underscores the weight given to victim characteristics and behaviors in sexual assault cases. Furthermore, there were no main effects for athlete status or celebrity status, but the interaction between these variables suggested that celebrity status did not offer protection to athletes (contrary to our prediction in Hypothesis 2b). When the victim reported her sexual assault immediately, athletes who were celebrities (professional athletes) were rated as less credible and more negatively than celebrities who were nonathletes (a movie actor). In addition, when the victim reported her sexual assault immediately, professional athletes were more likely to be rated as guilty and were rated more negatively than noncelebrity athletes (college athletes; Fs > 6.6, ps < .014).

Although these findings were inconsistent with Hypothesis 2b, to date, there has been little research conducted on perceptions of perpetrator characteristics in sexual assault cases, especially characteristics that are diagnostic of sexual assault (e.g., athlete status). First, given that participants evaluated a hypothetical case, it is possible that standards for conviction are quite different than for real cases. Thus, the research findings presented here may be consistent with research that shows that elite athletes are more likely to get arrested for sexual assault (but, less likely to get convicted of sexual assault) than their nonathlete peers, but consistent with our prediction in Hypothesis 2b, celebrity status may still serve a protective function for athletes when ultimate decisions are made about conviction in real cases, and our methods may not have been able to assess this distinction between decisions in real and hypothetical cases. Second, it is possible that recent media attention to high-profile cases of athlete violence (e.g., Patrick Kane, Derrick Rose, Baylor University, Jameis Winston, Ray Rice) is creating stronger associations (either temporarily or more permanently) for the lay public between athletes and intimate partner violence. Although investigated in the context of assault (and not sexual assault), Shaw and Skolnick (1996) found that high status can sometimes be a liability to a defendant. Considering the spate of news recently with regard to allegations of sexual assault against several high-profile celebrities and the #MeToo movement, it would be interesting for further research to not only continue to investigate perceptions of celebrity status in sexual assault cases but also to investigate whether or not celebrities are more likely to commit sexual assault than their noncelebrity peers. Finally, it is possible that there are additional moderators of this association between athlete status and celebrity status such that certain athletes may be more protected by celebrity than others. For example, sports that are more likely to be associated with violence and aggression (e.g., football, as used in the current research) may benefit less from the protection of celebrity than sports that are less likely to be associated with violence. Furthermore, athletes who are Black may be less likely to benefit from protections of celebrity than athletes who are White. This finding would be consistent with research conducted by Knight and colleagues (2001) showing that celebrity status was a liability for Black movie stars while an asset for White movie stars in a hypothetical sexual assault case. Research has also shown that stereotypes about White athletes differ from stereotypes about Black athletes (e.g., Billings, 2004; Stone, Perry, & Darley, 1997; Thomas, Good, & Gross, 2015). We would suggest that future research investigate additional moderators of the interaction between celebrity and athlete status in sexual assault cases.

As noted earlier, one of the limitations of this research is that we employed hypothetical scenarios of a sexual assault trial. Although some research has shown that mock juries perform similar to real juries (Bornstein, 1999; MacCoun, 1989; Speckart, 2010), it is difficult to compare the decisions made in a hypothetical case with less information and lower stakes than an actual case. However, the consistency between how rape myths are used by participants in hypothetical cases and by police officers and prosecutors in real cases of sexual assault offers further support for the consistency between decisions in the laboratory and the field. Another limitation of this research may have been the strength of the manipulation or the attention that this particular sample paid to the research materials. As noted, we dropped 109 participants from this study because they did not answer all three manipulation check questions correctly. It is possible that victim and perpetrator characteristics were not sufficiently salient for some participants, but often the tradeoff for salience is subtlety and minimizing participant demand. However, that two thirds of our participants correctly identified all independent variables gives us some confidence that our manipulation was sufficiently strong to assess their impact on dependent variables, and given the subtlety of the manipulation, suggests that our results may come from a rather conservative test of these variables. Alternatively, although research has shown that MTurk participants are comparable with (and often better than) offline participants (Mason & Suri, 2012), it is possible that the nature of this study (e.g., reading a court case) is not as well attended to online as in person. Finally, given that we dropped 109 participants from our analysis, it is possible that our analyses were not sufficiently powered to detect smaller effects when investigating the two- and three-way interactions.

Conclusion

In the current research, we hoped to add to the literature by studying perpetrator characteristics that were diagnostic and nondiagnostic of sexual assault, given the literature’s focus on nondiagnostic characteristics. While it is important to investigate nondiagnostic and legally irrelevant factors that influence people’s judgments in sexual assault cases, it is also important to investigate if and when people attend to factors that are predictive of sexual assault. Rempala and Geers (2011) studied diagnosticity and victim information, showing support for their Victim Stereotype Hypothesis such that nondiagnostic information triggers negative stereotypes about the victim (in sexual assault cases but not assault cases where victim stereotypes are uncommon). In the current research, we extend the existing literature on victim information to include perpetrator information that is diagnostic and nondiagnostic. Although our research confirms that people attend more to victim information (and inappropriately use the victim’s delay in reporting against her) when making judgments in a sexual assault case, this research also suggests that participants may attend, at times, to perpetrator characteristics, including characteristics that are diagnostic of sexual assault. Much research has focused on how rape myths are used to dismiss sexual assault, but recent media attention to high-profile cases of sexual assault and a focus on college athletes and sexual assault may be altering prototypical notions of sexual assault to incorporate accurate information. Of course, the higher ratings of guilt for professional athletes found in this study may be temporary or may be moderated by other factors (like the athlete’s race), but this research underscores the importance of continued efforts, particularly those in mass media, to break myths about sexual assault and draw attention to groups that are at greater risk for committing sexual assault.

Many studies and education efforts have identified male athletes as an at-risk group for committing sexual violence (e.g., McCray, 2015; Moynihan, Banyard, Arnord, Eckstein, & Stapleton, 2010; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007), but given the low conviction rates of professional athletes, people still seem rather dismissive and rationalizing of sexual violence committed by male athletes. In the current research, we offer that the evaluation of male athletes’ sexually violent behavior remains complicated but that people may be starting to recognize the higher risk that male athletes pose with regard to sexual assault. We encourage further investigation of factors that are diagnostic of sexual assault perpetration (e.g., fraternity membership, history of sexual violence, hostile attitudes toward women). This research may inform not only education to break myths about sexual assault perpetrators, but also successful prosecution of perpetrators by offering recommendations for which perpetrator characteristics should be highlighted in sexual assault trials.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by a grant from Aurora University.

Author Biographies

Renae Franiuk is a professor of psychology at Aurora University. She received her PhD in social psychology from the University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign in 2002 and spent 3 years as an assistant professor in psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point before coming to Aurora University in 2005. Her research mainly focuses on sexual assault.

Austin Luca received his bachelor’s degree in psychology with a minor in Organizational Management from Aurora University in 2017. He is currently a sales executive in Chicago, IL.

Shelby Robinson received her bachelor’s degree in psychology, graduating cum laude, from Aurora University in 2015. She is currently a residence director at Fort Lewis College in Durango, CO, and is pursuing a master’s degree in Higher Education Administration at Southern New Hampshire University.

References

Abbey

Jaques-Tiura

LeBreton

J. M.

(2011). Risk factors for sexual aggression in young men: An expansion of the confluence model. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 450-464. doi:10.1002/ab.20399

Alderen

M. A.

Ullman

S. E.

(2012). Creating a more complete and current picture: Examining police and prosecutor decision-making when processing sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women, 18, 525-551. doi:10.1177/1077801212453867

Bagby

R. M.

Parker

J. D.

Rector

N. A.

Kalemba

(1994). Racial prejudice in the Canadian legal system. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 339-350.

Beichner

Spohn

(2005). Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 461-498. doi:10.1177/0887403405277195

Beichner

Spohn

(2012). Modeling the effects of victim behavior and moral character on prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Violence and Victims, 27, 3-24. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.3

Benedict

Klein

(1997). Arrest and conviction rates for athletes accused of sexual assault. Sociology of Sport Journal, 14, 86-94.

Bernard

Loughnan

Marchal

Godart

Klein

(2015). The exonerating effect of sexual objectification: Sexual objectification decreases rapist blame in a stranger rape context. Sex Roles, 72, 499-508. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0482-0

Billings

(2004). Depicting the quarterback in Black and White: A content analysis of college and professional football broadcast commentary. Howard Journal of Communications, 15, 201-210.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

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

10.

Boehner

Jarvis

C. I.

Eyssel

Siebler

(2005). The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men’s rape proclivity: Comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 819-828. doi:10.1002/ejsp.284

11.

Bornstein

(1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91. doi:10.1023/A:1022326807441

12.

Bouffard

J. A.

(2000). Predicting type of sexual assault case closure from victim, suspect, and case characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 527-542.

13.

Bronitt

(1998). The rules of recent complaint: Rape myths and the legal construction of the “reasonable” rape victim. In Easteal

(Ed.), Balancing the scales: Rape, law reform and Australian culture (pp. 41-59). Sydney, Australia: Federation Press.

14.

Brownmiller

(1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

15.

Burt

M. R.

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

16.

Casey

E. A.

Masters

N. T.

Beadnell

Hoppe

M. J.

Morrison

D. M.

Wells

A. E.

(2017). Predicting sexual assault perpetration among heterosexually active young men. Violence Against Women, 23, 3-27. doi:10.1177/1077801216634467

17.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

18.

Cox

R. C.

(1998). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

19.

Daly

Bouhours

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

20.

DeGue

DiLillo

Scalora

(2010). Are all perpetrators alike? Comparing risk factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 402-426. doi:10.1177/1079063210372140

21.

Du Mont

Miller

Myhr

T. L

. (2003). The role of “real rape” and “real victim” stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 9, 466-486. doi:10.1177/1077801202250960

22.

Estrich

(1987). Real rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

23.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavior, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

24.

Ferguson

Ireland

(2012). Attitudes towards victims and perpetrators of hypothetical rape scenarios involving intoxication: An application to the UK. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4, 96-107. doi:10.1108/17596591211208300

25.

Frazier

P. A.

Haney

(1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628.

26.

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 & Violent Behavior, 17, 443-452. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002

27.

Hockett

J. M.

Smith

S. J.

Klausing

C. D.

Saucier

D. A.

(2016). Rape myth consistency and gender differences in perceiving rape victims: A meta-analysis. Violence Against Women, 22, 139-167. doi:10.1177/1077801215607359

28.

Hymes

R. W.

Leinart

Rowe

Rogers

(1993). Acquaintance rape: The effect of race of defendant and race of victim on White juror decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 627-634.

29.

Johnson

L. G.

Beech

(2017). Rape myth acceptance in convicted rapists: A systematic review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 20-34. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.004

30.

Jordan

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

31.

Knight

J. L.

Giuliano

T. A.

Sanchez-Ross

M. G.

(2001). Famous or infamous? The influence of celebrity status and race on perceptions of responsibility for rape. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 183-190.

32.

Koss

M. P.

Dinero

T. E.

(1989). Predictors of sexual aggression among a national sample of male college students. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 133-146.

33.

Lev-Wiesel

(2004). Male university students’ attitudes toward rape and rapists. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21, 199-210.

34.

Lisak

Roth

(1988). Motivational factors in nonincarcerated sexually aggressive men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 795-802.

35.

Logan-Greene

Cue Davis

(2011). Latent profiles of risk among a community sample of men: Implications for sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1463-1477. doi:10.1177/0886260510369138

36.

Lonsway

K. A.

Archambault

(2012). The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions for research and reform. Violence Against Women, 18, 145-168. doi:10.1177/1077801212440017

37.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164.

38.

Lord

V. B.

Rassel

(2000). Law enforcement’s response to sexual assault. Women & Criminal Justice, 11(1), 67-88. doi:10.1300/J012v11n01_04

39.

Lynch

K. R.

Wasarhaley

N. E.

Golding

J. M.

Simcic

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

40.

MacCoun

R. J.

(1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046-1050. doi:10.1126/science.244.4908.1046

41.

Malamuth

N. M.

Linz

Heavey

Barnes

Acker

(1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 353-369.

42.

Malamuth

N. M.

Sockloskie

R. J.

Koss

M. P.

Tanaka

J. S.

(1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670-681.

43.

Martin

P. Y.

(2016). The rape prone culture of academic contexts: Fraternities and athletics. Gender & Society, 30, 30-43. doi:10.1177/0891243215612708

44.

Mason

Suri

(2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavioral Research Methods, 44, 1-23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6.

45.

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

46.

Maurer

T. W.

(2016). Perceptions of incapacitated heterosexual sexual assault: Influences of relationship status, perpetrator intoxication, and post-assault sleeping arrangements. Violence Against Women, 22, 780-797. doi:10.1177/1077801215612599

47.

Mazzella

Feingold

(1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1344.

48.

McCray

K. L.

(2015). Intercollegiate athletes and sexual violence: A review of literature and recommendations for future study. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 438-443. doi:10.1177/1524838014537907

49.

McKimmie

B. M.

Masser

B. M.

Bongiorno

(2014). What counts as rape? The effect of offense prototypes, victim stereotypes, and participant gender on how the complainant and defendant are perceived. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2273-2303. doi:10.1177/0886260513518843

50.

Melnick

(1992). Male athletes and sexual assault. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(5), 32-36.

51.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Arnord

J. S.

Eckstein

R. P.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2010). Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. Journal of American College Health, 59, 197-204.

52.

Murnen

S. K.

Kohlman

M. H.

(2007). Athletic participation, fraternity membership, and sexual aggression among college men: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 57, 145-157. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9225-1

53.

Parratt

K. A.

Pina

(2017). From “real rape” to real justice: A systematic review of police officers’ rape myth beliefs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 68-83. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.005

54.

Peterson

Z. D.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(2004). Was it rape? The function of women’s rape myth acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles, 51, 129-144.

55.

Pica

Sheahan

Pozzulo

(2017). “But he’s a star football player!” How social status influences mock jurors’ perceptions in a sexual assault case. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260517713715

56.

S. J.

Starfelt

L. C.

White

K. M.

(2016). Attributions of responsibility, blame and justifiability to a perpetrator and victim in an acquaintance rape scenario: The influence of marijuana intoxication. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22, 20-35. doi:10.1080/13552600.2015.1025868

57.

Quilter

J. A.

(2011). Re-framing the rape trial: Insights from critical theory about the limitations of legislative reform. Australian Feminist Law Journal, 35, 23-56.

58.

Rempala

D. M.

Bernieri

F. J.

(2005). The consideration of rape: The effect of target information disparity on judgments of guilt. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 536-550.

59.

Rempala

D. M.

Geers

A. L.

(2011). The influence of nondiagnostic information and victim stereotypes on perceptions of guilt. Western Criminology Review, 12(3), 90-105.

60.

Repetto

N. K.

(2016). Domestic violence, sexual assault, and elite athletes: Analyzing arrest and conviction rates (Unpublished senior honors thesis). Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti. Retrieved from http://commons.emich.edu/honors/485

61.

Schuller

R. A.

Stewart

(2000). Police responses to sexual assault complaints: The role of perpetrator/complainant intoxication. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 535-551. doi:10.1023/A:1005519028528

62.

Schuller

R. A.

Wall

(1998). The effects of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 555-573.

63.

Shaw

J. I.

Campbell

Cain

Feeney

(2017). Beyond surveys and scales: How rape myths manifest in sexual assault police records. Psychology of Violence, 7, 602-614. doi:10.1037/vio0000072

64.

Shaw

J. I.

Skolnick

(1996). When is defendant status a shield or a liability? Clarification and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 431-442.

65.

Singer

R. N.

(1975). Myths and truths in sports psychology. New York: Harper & Row.

66.

Sleath

Bull

(2015). A brief report on rape myth acceptance: Differences between police officers, law students, and psychology students in the United Kingdom. Violence and Victims, 30, 136-147. doi:10.1891/0B86-6708.VV-D-13-00035

67.

Smith

H. D.

Stasson

M. F.

Hawkes

W. G.

(1998). Dilution in legal decision making: Effect of non-diagnostic information in relation to amount of diagnostic evidence. Current Psychology, 17, 333-345.

68.

Spears

J. W.

Spohn

C. C.

(1996). The genuine victim and prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 183-205.

69.

Speckart

(2010, Summer). Do mock trials predict actual trial outcomes? In-House Defense Quarterly, pp. 14-17.

70.

Stone

Perry

Z. W.

Darley

J. M.

(1997). “White men can’t jump”: Evidence for the perceptual confirmation of racial stereotypes following a basketball game. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 291-306.

71.

Stuart

S. M.

McKimmie

B. M.

Masser

B. M.

(2019). Rape perpetrators on trial: The effect of sexual assault-related schemas on attributions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 310-336. doi:10.1177/0886260516640777

72.

Thomas

Good

J. J.

Gross

A. R.

(2015). Racial athletic stereotype confirmation in college football recruiting. Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 238-254.

73.

van der Bruggen

Grubb

A. R

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

74.

Weir

Brady

(2003, December 22). In sexual assault cases, athletes usually walk. USA Today. Retrieved from https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/2003-12-21-athletes-sexual-assault_x.htm

75.

Whatley

M. A.

(1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 81-95.

76.

Whatley

M. A.

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

77.

Workman

J. E.

Orr

R. L.

(1996). Clothing, sex of subject, and rape myth acceptance as factors affecting attributions about an incident of acquaintance rape. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14, 276-284.

78.

Wriggins

(1983). Rape, racism, and the law. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 6, 103-141.

79.

Young

Desmarais

S. L.

Baldwin

J. A.

Chandler

(2017). Sexual coercion practices among undergraduate male recreational athletes, intercollegiate athletes, and non-athletes. Violence Against Women, 23, 795-812. doi:10.1177/1077801216651339