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...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
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 |
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. |
---|