Does no mean yes? – Understanding the relationship between victim resistance and attribution of rape victim responsibility

Rape is a pervasive global issue with devastating consequences for its victims. Unlike other interpersonal crimes, rape victims are often held responsible for their assault, which deters them from reporting or seeking help. The perception of responsibility in rape cases is therefore an important...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Teo, Hazel Jia Ying
Other Authors: Olivia Choy
Format: Final Year Project
Language:English
Published: Nanyang Technological University 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10356/166977
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Nanyang Technological University
Language: English
Description
Summary:Rape is a pervasive global issue with devastating consequences for its victims. Unlike other interpersonal crimes, rape victims are often held responsible for their assault, which deters them from reporting or seeking help. The perception of responsibility in rape cases is therefore an important area of study. Previous research has produced conflicting findings on the influence of victim resistance on the amount of responsibility allocated to rape victims. To contribute to the literature, this paper examines the relationship between the type of resistance displayed by victims (i.e., no, verbal, physical or combination) during a rape case and the amount of responsibility attributed to the victim, while investigating the potential moderating effect of sexism on this relationship. We predict that victims who display any resistance will be held less responsible than those who do not resist. Additionally, victims who display a combination of resistance will be attributed the least amount of responsibility compared to victims who display other types of resistance. Sexism is proposed to influence the responsibility attributed to victims who display less overt resistance. Our findings revealed that victims who resisted were allocated less responsibility than those who did not resist, and victims who displayed a combination of resistance were perceived to be the least responsible for their victimisation compared to victims who displayed either verbal or physical resistance only. Sexism was found to moderate the differences observed in attribution of victim responsibility between the condition of combined resistance and the conditions of either verbal or physical resistance only.