It Won’t Happen to Me: An Examination of the Effectiveness of Defensive Attribution in Rape Victim Blaming

Abstract

Defensive attribution posits that victim blame results from one’s underlying perception of vulnerability. The resulting blame is believed to reduce perceived similarity to the victim and vulnerability to victimization, though extant research has neglected to examine its effectiveness in men and women. The current study employed multigroup analysis structural equation modeling with 618 male and female undergraduates exposed to fictional police reports of a reported rape. The theory was partially supported; among women, defensive attribution of blame effectively reduced perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization, whereas among men, blame had no effect on perceived similarity or vulnerability. Recommendations for interventions to target perceived vulnerability are discussed.

Keywords

defensive attribution victim blame sexual assault/rape gender differences structural equation modeling

Introduction

Decades ago, Walster (1966) conceptualized victim blame as a result of the defensive attribution theory, which posits that observers are motivated to blame victims to quell their own feelings of vulnerability to experiencing a similar tragedy. The theory has been referenced in over a dozen studies over the years aiming to understand the underlying mechanisms of attributions of responsibility and blame (Amacker & Littleton, 2013; Anderson, 1999; Burger, 1981; Burt & DeMello, 2002; Daugherty & Esper, 1998; Feldman, Ullman, & Dunkel-Schetter, 1998; Finch & Munro, 2007; Fulero & Delara, 1976; Gold, Landerman, & Bullock, 1977; Hirschberger, 2006; Idisis, Ben-David, & Ben-Nachum, 2007; Kaplan & Miller, 1978; Laufer & Gillespie, 2004; Libow & Doty, 1979; Muller, Caldwell, & Hunter, 1994; Olsen-Fulero & Fulero, 1997; Savage, Scarduzio, Harris, & Carlyle, 2017; Workman & Freeburg, 1999; Yarmey, 1985), though many of the aforementioned studies have evoked defensive attribution as a post hoc explanation for findings rather than measuring its components directly (Daugherty & Esper, 1998; Finch & Munro, 2007; Hirschberger, 2006; Idisis et al., 2007; Kaplan & Miller, 1978; Yarmey, 1985). By attributing blame, it is hypothesized that the observer can effectively distance themselves from the victim and feel protected from experiencing a similar tragedy, as the observer is reassured that they can avoid a similar attack by simply being different from the victim in some fundamental way. Thus, defensive attribution involves two necessary processes that both predict and, presumably, are affected by victim blame: perceived vulnerability to the victimization experience and perceived similarity to the victim. The current study sought to examine whether defensive attribution is effective at reducing perceived vulnerability and similarity as proposed by the theory.

Components of Defensive Attribution

Though considered the key component of defensive attribution, vulnerability has been investigated more as a theory than empirical construct (Coates, Wortman, & Abbey, 1979; Fulero & Delara, 1976; Shaver, 1970), highlighting the need for more stringent scrutiny. A study of male and female consumer responses to a fictional crisis in which people were hospitalized after drinking a contaminated beverage found that women attributed greater blame toward the company than men did and that this relationship was mediated by personal vulnerability. The female participants in the study felt greater vulnerability to falling victim to a similar negative experience and reacted by attributing greater blame to the company, whereas male participants felt less vulnerable and did not need to attribute such high levels of blame (Laufer & Gillespie, 2004). A study using a sample of breast cancer victims found that victims who felt that they were behaviorally to blame for developing cancer were more likely to believe that they could avoid a recurrence in the future, likely because they could alter the behaviors they perceived as causing the cancer in the first place (Timko & Janoff-Bulman, 1985). The results support Janoff-Bulman’s (1979) explanation that behavioral blame, when directed at the self, can serve an adaptive purpose because it leads to greater perceived future invulnerability. Similarly, the theory that greater perceived vulnerability leads to greater attributions of blame may be extended to include the reduction in feelings of vulnerability following said attributions of blame, which would prove defensive attribution as an effective, protective mechanism for observers.

Although researchers agree that perceived similarity to the victim appears to influence this relationship, there is some disagreement as to how this effect functions. For example, it has often been stated that increased feelings of similarity to and empathy for the victim lead to less blame, conceivably out of fear that the observer themself would be similarly blamed should the same event ever happen to them (Shaver, 1970). In comparison with this “blame avoidance” model of defensive attribution, it is also theorized that observers who feel more similar to the victim attribute greater blame to seek “harm avoidance” of a similar tragedy happening to them (Burger, 1981). The defensive attribution theory broadly posits that whether an individual engages in victim blaming is due to whatever protective function is needed for that individual—be it blame avoidance or harm avoidance—and is dependent on the effects of perceived similarity and vulnerability.

Similarity is often differentiated as either actual, personal similarity (i.e., similarity of personal characteristics like age, race, gender), or experiential/situational similarity (i.e., similarity of actual experiences or perceived vulnerability to those experiences) (Workman & Freeburg, 1999), though the latter can be arguably conceptualized as vulnerability and is labeled as such throughout this article. Research on blame attributions of sexual assault victims has often found an inverse relationship between similarity and blame, such that increased similarity to the victim is associated with decreased blame (Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Feldman et al., 1998; Fulero & Delara, 1976; Miller, Amacker, & King, 2011; Thornton, 1984; Workman & Freeburg, 1999). These findings support the “blame avoidance” model of defensive attribution. However, although this inverse relationship between similarity and victim blame has been frequently observed at the bivariate level, the sequelae of this relationship are less understood (Grubb & Harrower, 2008) which highlights the need for research that examines perceived similarity both before and after blame attribution.

Defensive Attribution and Sexual Victimization

The methodology of previous literature has made it difficult to determine whether perceived similarity impacts victim blame, as previously assumed, or if victim blame changes perceptions of similarity—both of which, theoretically, are believed to occur. To address this limitation, Amacker and Littleton (2013) assessed both situational similarity (i.e., vulnerability) and personal similarity in a female sample at multiple time points before and after the observer learned during an audio-recorded date narrative of the completed sexual assault. Although overall participants’ perceived similarity (i.e., combination of vulnerability and personal similarity) to the victim decreased after learning that she had been sexually assaulted, this effect was only significant for vulnerability and not personal similarity. Amacker and Littleton (2013) speculate that decreased vulnerability relates to perceptions that women could behave differently than the victim and avoid being sexually assaulted themselves, whereas a decrease in personal similarity, such as with hobbies or interests, might not do much by way of reducing perceived vulnerability to victimization. Furthermore, although more easily manipulated, vulnerability was unrelated to blame; only post-manipulation personal similarity ratings were significantly predicted by victim blame, suggesting that participants adjusted their perceptions of personal similarity to the victim after attributing blame to her for being sexually assaulted. In other words, women used defensive attribution to distance themselves from the victim after blaming her for being assaulted. This finding supports the theory that victim blame leads to a change in perceived personal similarity rather than being a result of perceived personal similarity, perhaps because attributions of blame decrease perceived similarity and protect an individual from feeling vulnerable to a similar tragedy.

When examining defensive attribution in cases of sexual victimization, it is crucial to consider the effects of participants’ own experience with sexual victimization as well as participant gender. Both women who had themselves experienced sexual victimization and women to whom a rape victim had previously disclosed an assault reported greater similarity to the rape victim in the audio vignette and were also less likely to adjust their perceived similarity to the victim after learning about the assault (Amacker & Littleton, 2013). Another study found that, contrary to hypotheses, vulnerability did not directly or indirectly predict attributions of blame in a sample of college women, though it did predict offering more social support to the victim (Feldman et al., 1998). However, personal experience with victims and victimization was not considered, which may explain the relatively high levels of perceived vulnerability in the sample. Participants who have personal experience with sexual victimization may feel a certain level of vulnerability to sexual violence that is unmalleable and, as a result, engagement in victim blame may not substantially impact perceived vulnerability, whereas participants who do not have personal experience with sexual victimization may have feelings of vulnerability that are more malleable by engagement in victim blame. Moreover, women are more likely than men to experience sexual victimization and likely feel increased vulnerability to sexual violence (Breiding et al., 2014).

With few exceptions (e.g., Cameron & Stritzke, 2003), research has widely suggested that men attribute greater blame to rape victims than do women (e.g., K. A. Black & Gold, 2008; Grubb & Harrower, 2008; Kleinke & Meyer, 1990; Workman & Freeburg, 1999). Within the context of victimization, many argue that women are more sympathetic to victims than are men because they are more likely to identify with the victim given their increased likelihood of experiencing similar victimization (Dunlap, Hodell, Golding, & Wasarhaley, 2012; Herzog, 2008; Scott, Rajakaruna, Sheridan, & Gavin, 2015; Sinclair, 2012). The vast majority of research on victim blame has employed female rape victims, which may invoke the “blame avoidance” motivational model of defensive attribution in female participants, wherein female participants feel more similar to the female rape victim and thus blame her less as a form of self-protection. Male participants, on the contrary, may feel ostensibly less similar to the victim and less vulnerable to sexual victimization generally, and are motivated to blame for different reasons. More recently, defensive attribution has been used to explain attributions of blame toward bystanders of sexual victimization. Levy and Ben-David (2015) used vignettes with a sample of undergraduate students in which a woman is raped by a male offender after not being accompanied by a female friend. The authors found that participants were more likely to judge the bystander who was less personally similar to them and, similar to studies examining victim blame, bystander blame was greater from male participants than female participants. The findings suggest that defensive attribution can also explain attitudes toward bystanders of sexual victimization and that men may generally hold more negative attitudes toward women, regardless of whether they are the victim or bystander, perhaps due to reduced personal similarity to someone of the opposite gender.

Understanding the mechanisms that underlie the mistreatment of sexual assault survivors is crucial given the incidence and consequences of sexual victimization and postassault social support. One in five women in the United States is sexually assaulted in their lifetime (M. C. Black et al., 2011), leading to increased risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), mood disorders, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, and physical health problems (Campbell, Dworkin, & Cabral, 2009; Faravelli, Giugni, Salvatori, & Ricca, 2004; Pegram & Abbey, 2019; Smith & Breiding, 2011). Between 70 and 80% of women who are sexually victimized experience victim blame from friends, peers, family, or professionals (e.g., police, medical, or legal professionals; Filipas & Ullman, 2001; Ullman, 1996a), responses that are linked to several negative victim outcomes, including poorer self-rated recovery, perceived health (Ullman, 1996b; Ullman & Siegel, 1995), and self-esteem (Ullman, 2000), and increased PTSD (e.g., Andrews, Brewin, & Rose, 2003; Ullman, Filipas, Townsend, & Starzynski, 2007; Ullman, Townsend, Filipas, & Starzynski, 2007), depression (Campbell & Raja, 2005; Davis, Brickman, & Baker, 1991), self-blame, use of avoidant coping (Ullman, 1996b), alcohol consumption (Ullman, Starzynski, Long, Mason, & Long, 2008), and feelings of guilt, anxiety, distrust of others, and reluctance to seek further help (Campbell & Raja, 2005).

The Current Study

Although, as described above, vulnerability and similarity have been examined as factors contributing to victim blame, rarely have the two constructs been examined empirically and within the same study. As such, given the relations between the constructs (e.g., Feldman et al., 1998), contradictions in the literature may be due to the confounding effects of the other construct. Similarly, many studies claim to support the defensive attribution theory but do not directly measure its components (i.e., perceived similarity and vulnerability). Research that does directly measure defensive attribution often focuses on the first step in the cognitive process—why blame is initiated—and presumes, rather than directly measures, the second step—whether and how blame actually reduces perceived victim similarity and vulnerability. Thus, the primary aim of the current study is to examine the effectiveness of defensive attribution, or the supposed reductions in perceived victim similarity and vulnerability, controlling for sexual assault history and experimental condition, in men and women. We hypothesized that, for women, greater attributions of victim blame would predict reduced perceived victim similarity and perceived vulnerability. Second, we hypothesized that the relationship between victim blame and perceived vulnerability would be mediated by perceived victim similarity, such that the reduction in perceived similarity would underlie the relationship. For men, we hypothesized that the mediation model would be nonsignificant, such that victim blame would not predict victim similarity nor perceived vulnerability, but greater victim similarity would increase perceived vulnerability.

Method

Participants

Data were obtained from 707 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a large Midwestern university. Participants who answered incorrectly to one or both forced response items (e.g., “Please select false”) were removed from analyses; a total of 89 participants were removed for invalid responding, leaving a final sample of 618 for analysis. Participants ranged in age from 18-53 (M = 19.6, SD = 2.6), 53.2% identified as female, and 59.2% as White, 23.3% as Black, 7.0% as Asian or South Asian, 0.9% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.7% as American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 8.9% as other. In addition, 15.3% of the sample identified as Hispanic or Latino/a. Invalid responders were significantly older, t(690) = 2.07, p < . 05, and more likely to be non-White, t(117.19) = −5.08, p < .001).

Measures

Assault history

History of sexual assault, included to control for the influence of sexual assault exposure that disproportionately impacts female participants, was measured using the revised version of the Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV; Koss et al., 2007). The SES-SFV assesses different types of sexual victimization, ranging from fondling to rape, as well as specific tactics used during each victimization experience (e.g., using force or having a weapon). Participants were categorized as having a history of sexual assault if they endorsed one or more experience of any type of sexual victimization on the SES-SFV. Approximately 34% of the sample (n = 200) reported a history of sexual assault, 70% of whom were female (n = 140).

Similarity and vulnerability

Given that no standardized measure currently exists, 22 items were created for the current study to examine perceived victim similarity and perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization. Defensive attribution as a latent construct was represented by two scales of perceived similarity to the victim and perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization. All items were rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale, with 14 items ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree and eight items ranging from 1 = not at all to 4 = very. Although the items were created with these constructs in mind, the final measurement model was based on model fit and strength of factor loadings. The similarity scale was comprised of six items and reliability analyses confirmed adequate internal consistency for men (α = .69) and women (α = .73). The vulnerability scale was comprised of six items and reliability analyses confirmed adequate internal consistency for men (α = .73) and women (α = .69). Additional psychometric data for these scales are detailed in the Results section.

Victim blame

Attributions of blame toward the fictional rape victim were measured using items previously created for the vignettes (Brown & Testa, 2008) and one additional item created for this study that was found to load most strongly onto the victim blame factor based on modification indices (i.e., “Jessica should have taken responsibility for her own actions”). Participants answered on a 9-point Likert-type scale the degree to which they agreed with the statement or blamed the victim for the assault (e.g., “To what extent is Jessica to blame for what happened?”). The three items yielded strong internal consistency in previous research (α = .92; Brown & Testa, 2008), and the four items altogether yielded similar internal consistency in the current study for men (α = .86) and women (α = .90). Factor loadings for victim blame were high for both men and women (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Factor Loadings of Victim Blame and Defensive Attribution Items.

	Women			Men
	Victim blame	Similarity	Vulnerability	Victim blame	Similarity	Vulnerability
B1. How responsible do you think that Jessica was for what happened?	.78	—	—	.78	—	—
B2. How much did Jessica’s behavior cause the rape to happen?	.85	—	—	.85	—	—
B3. To what extent is Jessica to blame for what happened?	.89	—	—	.88	—	—
B4. Jessica should have taken responsibility for her own actions.	.59			.59
S1. How close in build or physical fitness do you imagine you are to Jessica?	—	.57	—	—	.36	—
S2. How similar do you imagine your group of friends is to Jessica’s group of friends?	—	.53	—	—	.52	—
S3. How similar do you imagine your family is to Jessica’s family?	—	.21	—	—	.43	—
S4. How much do you imagine you look like Jessica?^a	—	.67	—	—	.44	—
S5. How similar do you imagine your daily activities are to Jessica’s daily activities?	—	.67	—	—	.66	—
S6. How similar do you imagine your interests are to Jessica’s interests?	—	.75	—	—	.73	—
V1. What happened to Jessica would never happen to me.	—	—	.57	—	—	.61
V2. I am not concerned about being sexually assaulted.	—	—	.44	—	—	.52
V3. I am just as vulnerable to being sexually assaulted as anyone else.	—	—	−.37	—	—	−.52
V4. I sometimes do things that might put me at risk for being sexually assaulted.	—	—	−.47	—	—	−.58
V5. The possibility of being sexually assaulted is something that is often on my mind.	—	—	−.45	—	—	−.57
V6. How much could you see yourself being in a similar situation as Jessica?^a	—	—	−.81	—	—	−.57

Items were found to be variant across genders in multigroup confirmatory factor analysis partial invariance tests. Jessica = fictional rape victim.

All factor loadings significant at p < .001, with the exception of S3 for women, which was significant at p < .01.

Procedure

Participants were recruited using an online survey platform and were offered partial course credit for participation. They were informed that they would be reading actual police transcripts from a reported campus incident. Participants provided informed consent, answered demographic questions, and read fictional police transcripts adapted from Brown and Testa (2008). The transcripts described an acquaintance rape between two students, were designed to appear as authentic legal documents, and were comprised of interviews with the perpetrator (i.e., Kevin), victim (i.e., Jessica), and the victim’s friend and sister. The vignettes describe an encounter between two acquaintances, Kevin and Jessica, at a college party. Jessica becomes intoxicated and is brought to Kevin’s room where he then sexually assaults her while she is unconscious. Jessica reports the incident to campus police but ultimately drops the charges because she no longer wanted to “deal with it.” Jessica’s interview concludes with a description of her academic and psychological struggles since the sexual assault, while Kevin’s concludes with his concerns that others have labeled him a rapist. Following the vignettes, participants were asked to rate the amount of blame attributed to the victim and then answered items assessing their perceived victim similarity and perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization. The defensive attribution components were measured following blame attribution and are conceptualized as reflecting the outcome, rather than cause, of victim blaming.¹

Data Analysis Plan

Independent samples t tests and chi-square tests were conducted in SPSS to determine how gender influences victim blame, perceived similarity, perceived vulnerability, and sexual assault history. Structural equation modeling (SEM) using multigroup analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted in the statistical program, R. The full measurement model defined the latent constructs of victim blame, similarity, and vulnerability, covaried by sexual assault history and social support condition. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was used to cross-validate the model across the two groups by adding equality constraints in a stepwise fashion. In MGCFA, a series of constrained models are run successively to examine whether the model is invariant across groups: Model 1 tests whether the proposed factor structure is equal across groups; Model 2 tests whether factor loadings are equal across groups; Model 3 tests whether factor loadings and intercepts are equal across groups; Model 4 tests whether manifest variable residuals are equal across groups; and Model 5 tests whether factor means are equal across groups (see Table 2) (Milfont & Fischer, 2010). The significant change in chi-square and comparative fit index (CFI) (> .01) from Model 1 (configural) to Model 2 (metric) suggested that the model was variant across genders, such that the strength of the loadings differed as a function of gender. Partial invariance tests revealed that two items loaded onto their latent factors differently for men and women—“How much could you see yourself being in a similar situation as Jessica?” (V6 onto Vulnerability); and “How much do you imagine you look like Jessica?” (S4 onto Similarity). These items had stronger factor loadings for women than men (see Table 2), suggesting that they are more salient representations of the respective factors for women than for men. A nonsignificant chi-square difference, χ² difference (14) = 16.15, p = .30, between the configural and metric models after allowing the two items to freely load on their factors suggested that a model in which all factor loadings are equally constrained—except for V6 and S4, which are allowed to load variantly onto their respective factors—is suggested by MGCFA and partial invariance tests.

Table 2.

Measurement Variance of Defensive Attribution Model Between Men and Women.

Invariance model	df	χ²	χ² difference	df difference	p
1. Configural	196	402.92	—	—	—
2. Metric (weak)	212	488.71	85.79	16	***
3. Scalar (strong)	225	581.05	92.35	13	***
4. Strict	241	685.41	104.36	16	***
5. Factor means	244	930.85	245.44	3	***
Fit measures
Invariance model	CFI	RMSEA	CFI delta	RMSEA delta
1. Configural	.918	.066	—	—
2. Metric (weak)	.890	.073	.028	.007
3. Scalar (strong)	.858	.081	.032	.007
4. Strict	.823	.087	.035	.006
5. Factor Means	.727	.108	.096	.021

Note. Model 1 tests differences in factor structure; Model 2 tests differences in factor loadings; Model 3 tests differences in factor loadings and intercepts; Model 4 tests differences in residuals; Model 5 tests differences in latent means. Nonsignificant chi-square differences between models support measurement invariance. Small changes in CFI (<.001) support measurement invariance. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

***

p < .001.

The constrained structural model depicted blame attribution predicting perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization, with this relationship mediated by perceived victim similarity. In addition, sexual assault history and social support condition were included as covariates (see Figure 1). Multigroup analysis was employed to examine gender differences in the effectiveness of defensive attribution (i.e., victim blame reducing perceived similarity and vulnerability). Multigroup analysis provides factor loadings and path coefficients for each group (see Tables 1 and 2).

Figure 1.

Structural equation model of defensive attribution in women and men.

Results

SEM with multigroup analysis informed creation of the similarity and vulnerability scales. Because multigroup analysis was used, factor loadings were provided for men and women separately. Items were excluded only if they had low factor loadings for both genders; as a result, two items were removed due to very low factor loadings for both genders (<.20). Similarity was comprised of six items with factor loadings between .38 and .74 (men) and .23 and .86 (women) and examined perceived physical and social similarity to the victim on a 4-point Likert-type scale (e.g., “How similar do you imagine your group of friends is to Jessica’s group of friends?”). Vulnerability was comprised of six items with factor loadings between .51 and .61 (men) and –.37 and –.82 (women) and examined perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization on a 4-point Likert-type scale (e.g., “What happened to Jessica would never happen to me.”). See Table 1 for factor loadings. Similarity and vulnerability were significantly correlated with each other with a medium effect size (r = .48, p < .001). Victim blame was significantly correlated with small effect sizes for similarity (r = −.18, p < .001) and vulnerability (r = −.28, p < .001). In addition, sexual assault history was significantly correlated with small to medium effect sizes for similarity (r = .19, p < .001) and vulnerability (r = .35, p < .001), but not victim blame.

As hypothesized, women reported significantly higher perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization, t(568) = −17.19, p < .001, perceived victim similarity, t(561.42) = −9.02, p < .001), and were more likely to report a history of sexual assault (70%) compared with men (30%), χ²(1) 35.29, p < .001. Men attributed significantly more blame to the rape victim (M = 4.44, SD = 2.09) than women, (M = 3.57, SD = 2.09; t(578) = 5.00, p < .001.

The unconstrained model yielded good fit, χ² = 439.46, df = 196, p < .001; CFI = .92, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .90; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07, p = .002; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .06. The proposed factor structure of the model was tested for women and men separately. Results showed good fit for women (χ² = 204.66, df = 98, p < .001; CFI = .94, TLI = .92; RMSEA = .06, p = .10; SRMR = .06) as well as for men (χ² = 234.80, df = 98, p < .001; CFI = .89, TLI = .86; RMSEA = .07, p = .002; SRMR = .07), suggesting that the model was supported for both groups.

SEM with multigroup analysis using the constrained model examined the regression coefficients and mediation analysis (see Table 3). As expected, among women, greater victim blame predicted significantly less perceived vulnerability (β = −.04, p < .05), though only marginally less perceived similarity (β = −.01, p = .07). In addition, as expected, perceived similarity predicted greater perceived vulnerability (β = .3.18, p < .01). Contrary to hypotheses, the indirect effect of similarity on the relationship between victim blame and perceived vulnerability was nonsignificant (β = −.02, p = .12). As a covariate, assault history was significantly predictive of both perceived similarity (β = .01, p = .01) and perceived vulnerability (β = .05, p < .05). Among men, consistent with predictions, victim blame was not predictive of perceived similarity nor perceived vulnerability. As expected, perceived similarity predicted greater perceived vulnerability (β = .37, p = .001), and the indirect effect of perceived similarity on the relationship between victim blame and perceived vulnerability was nonsignificant. As a covariate, assault history was only marginally predictive of perceived vulnerability (β = .02, p = .08).

Table 3.

Path Coefficients Predicting Mediating Model of Defensive Attribution.

	Women			Men
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Similarity
Victim blame (a)	−.08	.05	−.01	−.06	.04	−.03
Assault history	.18	.07	.01**	.12	.09	.03
Social support condition	.08	.05	1.00	−.03	.04	−.96
Vulnerability
Victim blame (c)	−.02	.01	−.04*	−.002	.01	−.002
Similarity (b)	.15	.05	3.18**	.22	.07	.37***
Assault history	.05	.02	.05*	.05	.03	.02
Social support condition	−.02	.01	−4.15	−.01	.01	−.64
Mediating effect of similarity
Indirect effect (c′)	−.01	.01	−.02	−.01	.01	−.01
Total effect	−.03	.01	−.06**	−.02	.01	−.01

Note. Results from constrained model in which all factor loadings are equal across women and men with the exception of two items.

p < .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Discussion

Defensive attribution theory (Walster, 1966) posits that observers, feeling conspicuously similar to an innocent victim, will attribute blame to the victim because of their own underlying perceptions of vulnerability to experiencing a similar tragedy. It is believed that this increased blame serves a protective distancing function whereby the observer can feel distant and somehow “different” from the victim, effectively reducing their perceived vulnerability, though the effectiveness of defensive attribution has yet to be examined empirically. Most research examining defensive attribution focuses on the first step in the process, or the role of perceived victim similarity in predicting blame (e.g., Burger, 1981; Burt & DeMello, 2002; Feldman et al., 1998; Fulero & Delara, 1976; Gold et al., 1977; Laufer & Gillespie, 2004; Libow & Doty, 1979; Muller et al., 1994; Tennen et al., 1986; Workman & Freeburg, 1999). Although proponents of the defensive attribution theory widely accept that victim blame results in decreased perceived victim similarity and vulnerability, in fact very little research has actually examined these outcomes (e.g., Amacker & Littleton, 2013). Moreover, several studies claim to support the defensive attribution theory without explicitly measuring the primary mechanisms, similarity and vulnerability (e.g., Daugherty & Esper, 1998; Finch & Munro, 2007; Hirschberger, 2006; Idisis et al., 2007; Kaplan & Miller, 1978; Yarmey, 1985). The current study sought to extend the breadth of defensive attribution literature by explicitly measuring these components to determine whether defensively attributed blame is actually effective at reducing perceived similarity and vulnerability as proposed by the theory.

We predicted that following blame attribution to a female rape victim, female observers would perceive themselves as less vulnerable to sexual victimization, whereas victim blame would have no effect on perceived vulnerability for men. Our hypothesis was supported: for women, greater attribution of blame predicted less perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization, whereas for men, blame attribution had no effect on perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization. These findings suggest that, consistent with the theory, defensive attribution of blame onto a rape victim is effective at reducing perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization among women. In addition, they converge with previous research findings that increased vulnerability predicts greater blame (Laufer & Gillespie, 2004), suggesting that the defensive attribution process involves increased vulnerability predicting greater victim blame, subsequently predicting decreased vulnerability. The nonsignificant finding for men does not preclude the possibility that defensive attribution is effective for men in some cases; in fact, given that the current study employed a male perpetrator and female victim, it may be that male participants feel more vulnerable to being accused of sexual misconduct than they are of being a victim. If true, we would expect findings similar to that of women in the current study when examining perpetrator blame. A study on revenge pornography found that men perceived the situation to be more serious when it involved a male perpetrator rather than a female perpetrator, suggesting that defensive attribution may be more relevant for men in cases of perpetration rather than victimization (Scott & Gavin, 2018). Future research may wish to examine scenarios involving perpetrator blame, similarity, and vulnerability, as well as scenarios involving male victims to determine if and when defensive attribution is effective for men, particularly in light of research that suggests that men and women blame male and female rape victims differently (Anderson, 1999).

Consistent with hypotheses, among women, greater victim blame predicted less perceived similarity. This finding is consistent with that of Amacker and Littleton (2013), who found that women adjusted their perceptions of personal similarity to a female victim after attributing blame for her sexual assault. The reduction in perceived similarity following blame attribution is evidence that victim blame serves a “distancing” function, whereby women may convince themselves that they are dissimilar to the victim and are not vulnerable to a similar attack. Amacker and Littleton (2013) assessed the trajectory of vulnerability and personal similarity before and after learning that an individual had been sexually assaulted. Using a sample of only women, they found that whereas vulnerability (but not personal similarity) decreased after learning about the sexual assault, personal similarity decreased following blame attribution, indicating that women initially feel situationally different from victims (e.g., I would not act that way) after learning about an assault, but may also eventually feel personally different from victims (e.g., I am not like her) after they have engaged in victim blaming. Men, on the contrary, appear less impacted by perceived similarity, at least in cases involving female rape victims; in the current study, blame attributions had no effect on men’s perceived victim similarity, which was also notably significantly lower than that of women. Given that men felt less similar to the victim than did women, it may be that a scenario involving a female rape victim is not salient enough to invoke the need for defensive attribution, or, as described above, the defensive attribution is instead more relevant for attributions about perpetrators.

Despite gender differences in the effect of victim blame on perceived victim similarity, perceived similarity was also predictive of perceived vulnerability for both men and women. In both cases, men and women who felt more similar to the victim also felt more vulnerable to sexual victimization, and vice versa—a relationship that is crucial within the context of defensive attribution because perceived similarity in the absence of perceived vulnerability is otherwise meaningless. This finding is consistent with the defensive attribution theory that perceived similarity and vulnerability are related constructs predictive of each other, and perhaps suggests that these “similar” individuals are at risk for continued victim blaming because of their perceived vulnerability (Pascal, 2019). Our prediction that perceived similarity to the victim would mediate the relationship between victim blame and perceived vulnerability in women but not men was partially supported. This relationship was nonsignificant in men as predicted, but contrary to predictions, was also nonsignificant in women. This nonsignificant finding appears to be due to the trending relationship between victim blame and perceived similarity (p = .07), as the total effect of the mediation model was statistically significant. It is possible that the vignette method used in this study was not salient enough to evoke strong enough effects on perceived similarity. Perhaps more likely, vignettes in the form of fictional police reports may not provide enough context for participants to accurately assess their perceived similarity, as the content is focused solely on the assault and its aftermath and does not provide contextual information about the victim’s life pre-assault. Given that women appear to adjust their perceived similarity after learning about a sexual assault (Amacker & Littleton, 2013), a more effective defensive attribution paradigm may involve providing more background information on the victim as well as measurement of perceived victim similarity and perceived vulnerability to sexual victimization at multiple time points (e.g., before learning of the assault, after learning of the assault, and after attributing blame to the victim). However, it may also be that women’s tendency to feel less vulnerable to sexual victimization following engagement in victim blaming may not be explained by perceived similarity at all; instead, it may be that defensive attribution is an effective mechanism for reducing victim blame regardless of one’s perceived similarity to the victim.

Limitations

In addition to the aforementioned limitations, the current study was limited by its reliance on a convenience sample. As college undergraduates, participants in the current study may have greater exposure to sexual violence and victims, so their need for defensive attribution may not generalize to other populations. In addition, due to a lack of available standardized measures, victim blame, perceived vulnerability, and perceived similarity were measured using items created for this study; this may have decreased construct validity and reliability. Although participants rated their perceived vulnerability and similarity after attributing blame to the victim, the data are still cross-sectional so it is not possible to definitively determine directionality. Perhaps perceived vulnerability is not immediately malleable—the higher vulnerability that has been found to predict greater blame (Laufer & Gillespie, 2004) may linger after blame has been attributed, though it is not known whether this vulnerability may reduce over time. Future research on the effectiveness of defensive attribution may wish to employ either longitudinal designs or measure defensive attribution components pre- and post-manipulation to determine whether any immediate changes in vulnerability are present. Longitudinal designs would also provide stronger evidence for the proposed directionality and causal pathways of these relationships. Because the effect of perceived similarity only marginally explained the relationship between victim blame and perceived vulnerability, this relationship may be more complex than defensive attribution theory allows.

Conclusion

The current study extends previous research on the defensive attribution theory by examining its effectiveness in reducing perceived victim similarity and vulnerability to sexual victimization. We note that our findings converge with previous literature (Laufer & Gillespie, 2004) to suggest that women may be motivated to blame rape victims because of their underlying sense of vulnerability to sexual victimization, and, unfortunately, this victim blame is reinforced by the reduction in perceived vulnerability that is felt. Victim blame and other negative responses to victims of sexual violence are extremely common and are well understood in the literature to exacerbate negative posttraumatic outcomes, including increased PTSD, anxiety, depression, self-blame, guilt, alcohol use, distrust, and reluctance to seek help (Andrews et al., 2003; Campbell & Raja, 2005; Davis et al., 1991; Ullman, 1996b; Ullman et al., 2007; Ullman et al., 2008; Ullman et al., 2007). Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that reduced perceived vulnerability translates to actual reduced vulnerability. In fact, it may be that individuals who artificially feel less vulnerable to sexual victimization may engage in riskier behaviors, paradoxically putting them at an increased risk. Thus, the apparent need for college women, who are ostensibly vulnerable to sexual victimization, to feel less vulnerable must be met through means other than victim blaming. Perhaps women can feel less vulnerable—or, at least, less distressed by vulnerability—if they are well- informed of campus and community resources, such as victim advocacy, legal, and mental health services. Perceived vulnerability may also be reduced through psychoeducation and training emphasizing bystander intervention, particularly among friends who may be most likely to intervene in assaultive situations. In addition, self-defense training has proven immensely beneficial for women both with and without sexual assault histories in terms of increasing various domains of self-efficacy, self-esteem, perceived internal control, and assertiveness, and reducing helplessness relating to a potential future assault, anxiety, and location-based fears (Frost, 1991; Lidsker, 1991; Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Pinciotti & Orcutt, 2018; Rowe, 1993; Smith, 1983; Weitlauf, Smith, & Cervone, 2000). Notably, self-defense training also decreases perceived vulnerability to sexual assault (Ozer & Bandura, 1990), and, unlike victim blaming, is functional because it appears to also decrease actual vulnerability as well (Brecklin & Ullman, 2005; Hollander, 2014; Senn et al., 2015). Reduction of perceived vulnerability—and increased preparedness—through means other than engagement in victim blaming may be invaluable in reducing the alarmingly high rates of victim blame experienced by victims of sexual violence.

Conversely, it is important to continue to examine the mechanisms underlying the motivation for men to blame female rape victims, who seem to attribute more blame than women (e.g., Grubb & Harrower, 2008). Determining the function of victim blaming for men may help illuminate the needs that are being met by this behavior, and inform interventions targeted at meeting those needs in more adaptive, prosocial ways. Alternatively, victim blaming in men may be less functional and more reflective of unfamiliarity or ignorance, in which case targeted psychoeducation about sexual violence and consent may be sufficient to reduce blaming behaviors. Regardless of the differential function of victim blame on perceived vulnerability in men and women, perceived victim similarity appears to universally predict reduced victim blame, so interventions, trainings, and everyday interactions which serve to normalize and humanize rape victims are strongly recommended. Informed education and increased public awareness of bystanders, friends, and professionals likely to encounter victims of sexual violence explaining the natural tendency for observers to blame victims of rape and other tragedies may shift public discourse about sexual violence, thereby reducing the well-documented adverse effects of victim blaming on survivors of sexual violence.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Thomas J. Smith, PhD, of the department of Educational Technology, Research and Assessment at Northern Illinois University, who provided extensive statistical support and knowledge.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Caitlin M. Pinciotti

Notes

Author Biographies

Caitlin M. Pinciotti, MA, is a doctoral candidate in the Clinical Psychology program at Northern Illinois University. Her research focuses on gender, trauma, and sexual victimization, including factors that facilitate or inhibit healing, and the etiological and symptom overlap between posttraumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Holly K. Orcutt, PhD, is a professor in the department of Psychology at Northern Illinois University. Her research focuses on the broader framework of traumatic stress, including the prevention of trauma exposure, and risk and prevention factors such as emotion regulation, acceptance, and avoidance. Recently, she has conducted research using psychophysiological techniques to measure fear-potentiated startle in female survivors of trauma.

References

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

Anderson

(1999). Characterological and behavioral blame in conversations about female and male rape. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 377-394. doi:10.1177/0261927X99018004002

Andrews

Brewin

C. R.

Rose

(2003). Gender, social support, and PTSD in victims of violent crime. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 421-427. doi:10.1023/A:1024478305142

Bell

S. T.

Kuriloff

P. J.

Lottes

(1994). Understanding attributions of blame in stranger rape and date rape situations: An examination of gender, race, identification, and students’ social perceptions of rape victims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1719-1734.

Black

K. A.

Gold

D. J.

(2008). Gender differences and socioeconomic status biases in judgments about blame in date rape scenarios. Violence and Victims, 23, 115-128. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.115

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: 2010 summary report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Brecklin

L. R.

Ullman

S. E.

(2005). Self-defense/assertiveness training and women’s responses to sexual attacks. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 738-762. doi:10.1177/0886260504272894

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. MMWR: Surveillance Summaries, 638, 1-18.

Brown

A. L.

Testa

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

10.

Burger

J. M.

(1981). Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 496-512.

11.

Burt

D. L.

DeMello

L. R.

(2002). Attribution of rape blame as a function of victim gender and sexuality, and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 39-57. doi:10.1300/J082v43n02_03

12.

Cameron

C. A.

Stritzke

W. 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

13.

Campbell

Dworkin

Cabral

(2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 225-246.

14.

Campbell

Raja

(2005). The sexual assault and secondary victimization of female veterans: Help-seeking experiences in military and civilian social systems. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 97-106. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00171.x

15.

Coates

Wortman

C. B.

Abbey

(1979). Reactions to victims. In Frieze

I. H.

Bar-Tal

Carroll

J. S.

(Eds.), New approaches to social problems (pp. 21-52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Daugherty

T. K.

Esper

J. A.

(1998). Victim characteristics and attributions of blame in male rape. Traumatology, 4, 5-10. doi:10.1177/153476569800400205

17.

Davis

R. C.

Brickman

Baker

(1991). Supportive and unsupportive responses of others to rape victims: Effects on concurrent victim adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 443-451. doi:10.1007/BF00938035

18.

Dunlap

Hodell

Golding

Wasarhaley

(2012). Mock jurors’ perception of stalking: The impact of gender and expressed fear. Sex Roles, 66, 405-417. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9970-z

19.

Faravelli

Giugni

Salvatori

Ricca

(2004). Psychopathology after rape. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 1483-1485. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.161.8.1483

20.

Feldman

P. J.

Ullman

J. B.

Dunkel-Schetter

(1998). Women’s reactions to rape victims: Motivational processes associated with blame and social support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 469-503.

21.

Filipas

H. H.

Ullman

S. E.

(2001). Social reactions to victims of sexual assault from social network members. Violence and Victims, 16, 673-692.

22.

Finch

Munro

V. E.

(2007). The demon drink and the demonized woman: Socio-sexual stereotypes and responsibility attribution in rape trials involving intoxicants. Social Legal Studies, 16, 591-614.

23.

Frost

H. L.

(1991). “Model mugging”: A way to reduce women’s victimization (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.

24.

Fulero

S. M.

Delara

(1976). Rape victims and attributed responsibility: A defensive attribution approach. Victimology, 1, 551-563.

25.

Gold

A. R.

Landerman

P. G.

Bullock

K. W.

(1977). Reactions to victims of crime: Sympathy, defensive attribution, and the just world. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 295-305. doi:10.2224/sbp.1977.5.2.295

26.

Grubb

Harrower

(2008). Attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 396-405. doi:10.1080/13552600802641649

27.

Herzog

(2008). An attitudinal explanation of biases in the criminal justice system: An empirical testing of defensive attribution theory. Crime and Delinquency, 54, 457-481. doi:10.1177/0011128707308158

28.

Hirschberger

(2006). Terror management and attributions of blame to innocent victims: Reconciling compassionate and defensive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 832-844. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.832

29.

Hollander

J. A.

(2014). Does self-defense training prevent sexual violence against women? Violence Against Women, 20, 252-269. doi:10.1177/1077801214526046

30.

Idisis

Ben-David

Ben-Nachum

(2007). Attribution of blame to rape victims among therapists and non-therapists. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 103-120. doi:10.1002/bsl.721

31.

Janoff-Bulman

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

32.

Kaplan

M. F.

Miller

L. E.

(1978). Effects of jurors’ identification with the victim depend on likelihood of victimization. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 353-361.

33.

Kleinke

C. L.

Meyer

(1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 343-353. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00024.x

34.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

Ullman

West

White

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

35.

Laufer

Gillespie

(2004). Differences in consumer attributions of blame between men and women: The role of perceived vulnerability and empathic concern. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 141-157. doi:10.1002/mar.10119

36.

Levy

Ben-David

(2015). Mechanism of bystander-blaming: Defensive attribution, counterfactual thinking, and gender. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 59, 96-113. doi:10.1177/0306624X13503297

37.

Libow

J. A.

Doty

D. W.

(1979). An exploratory approach to self-blame and self-derogation by rape victims. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49, 670-679.

38.

Lidsker

(1991). Women and self-defense training: A study of psychological changes experienced by participants in relation to assault history (Doctoral dissertation). Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA.

39.

Milfont

T. L.

Fischer

(2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111-121.

40.

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.

41.

Muller

R. T.

Caldwell

R. A.

Hunter

J. E.

(1994). Factors predicting the blaming of victims of physical child abuse or rape. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 26, 259-279.

42.

Olsen-Fulero

Fulero

S. M.

(1997). Commonsense rape judgments: An empathy-complexity theory of rape juror story making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 402-427.

43.

Ozer

E. M.

Bandura

(1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472-486. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.472

44.

Pascal

(2019). Being similar while judging right and wrong: The effects of personal and situational similarity on moral judgements. International Journal of Psychology, 54, 188-196. doi:10.1002/ijop.12448

45.

Pegram

S. E.

Abbey

(2019). Associations between sexual assault severity and psychological and physical health outcomes: Similarities and differences among African American and Caucasian survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 4020-4040. doi:10.1177/0886260516673626

46.

Pinciotti

C. M.

Orcutt

H. K.

(2017). Understanding gender differences in rape victim blaming: The power of social influence and just world beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260517725736

47.

Pinciotti

C. M.

Orcutt

H. K.

(2018). Rape aggression defense: Unique self-efficacy benefits for survivors of sexual trauma. Violence Against Women, 24, 528-544. doi:10.1177/1077801217708885

48.

Rowe

N. P.

(1993). Self-defense training: An empowerment process for women (Doctoral dissertation). California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco.

49.

Savage

M. W.

Scarduzio

J. A.

Harris

Carlyle

K. E.

(2017). A mixed method study of intimate partner violence: How sex and severity impact perpetrator prior involvement, abnormality, and responsibility. Violence and Victims, 32, 897-918. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-16-00100

50.

Scott

A. J.

Gavin

(2018). Revenge pornography: The influence of perpetrator-victim sex, observer sex and observer sexting experience on perceptions of seriousness and responsibility. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 8, 162-172. doi:10.1108/JCP-05-2017-0024

51.

Scott

A. J.

Rajakaruna

Sheridan

Gavin

(2015). International perceptions of relational stalking: The influence of prior relationship, perpetrator sex, target sex, and participant sex. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 3308-3323. doi:10.1177/0886260514555012

52.

Senn

C. Y.

Eliasziw

Barata

P. C.

Thurston

W. E.

Newby-Clark

I. R.

Radtke

H. L.

Hobden

K. L.

(2015). Efficacy of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 2326-2335. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1411131

53.

Shaver

K. G.

(1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.

54.

Sinclair

H. C.

(2012). Stalking myth-attributions: Examining the role of individual and contextual variables on attributions in unwanted pursuit scenarios. Sex Roles, 66, 378-391. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9853-8

55.

Smith

D. R.

(1983). A program evaluation: The effects of women’s self-defense training upon efficacy expectancies, behaviors, and personality variables (Doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing.

56.

Smith

S. G.

Breiding

M. J.

(2011). Chronic disease and health behaviours linked to experiences of non-consensual sex among women and men. Public Health, 125, 653-659. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2011.06.006

57.

Tennen

Affleck

Gershman

(1986). Self-blame among parents of infants with perinatal complications: The role of self-protective motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 690-696. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.690

58.

Thornton

(1984). Defensive attribution of responsibility: Evidence for an arousal-based motivational bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 721-734.

59.

Timko

Janoff-Bulman

(1985). Attributions, vulnerability, and psychological adjustment: The case of breast cancer. Health Psychology, 4, 521-544.

60.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996a). Do social reactions to sexual assault victims vary by support provider? Violence and Victims, 11, 143-157.

61.

Ullman

S. E.

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

62.

Ullman

S. E.

(2000). Psychometric characteristics of the Social Reactions Questionnaire: A measure of reactions to sexual assault victims. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 257-271. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00208.x

63.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

Townsend

S. M.

Starzynski

(2007). Psychosocial correlates of PTSD symptom severity in sexual assault survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 821-831. doi:10.1002/jts.20290

64.

Ullman

S. E.

Siegel

J. M.

(1995). Sexual assault, social reactions and physical health. Women’s Health, 1, 289-308.

65.

Ullman

S. E.

Starzynski

L. L.

Long

S. M.

Mason

G. E.

Long

L. M.

(2008). Exploring the relationships of women’s sexual assault disclosure, social reactions, and problem drinking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1235-1257. doi:10.1177/0886260508314298

66.

Ullman

S. E.

Townsend

S. M.

Filipas

H. H.

Starzynski

L. L.

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

67.

Walster

(1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 73-79.

68.

Weitlauf

J. C.

Smith

R. E.

Cervone

(2000). Generalization effects of coping-skills training: Influence of self-defense training on women’s efficacy beliefs, assertiveness, and aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 625-633. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.625

69.

Workman

J. E.

Freeburg

E. W.

(1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261-277.

70.

Yarmey

A. D.

(1985). Older and younger adults’ attributions of responsibility toward rape victims and rapists. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 17, 327-338.