1
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
A gendered ‘Just’ World:
Observers’ reactions to the feminine and masculine victim of
acquaintance rape
E. Mulder
U1260443
ANR: 623988
August 2014
Master Thesis MSc Victimology & Criminal Justice
Law School & Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Tilburg
Supervised by: Prof. dr. A. Pemberton
Second evaluator: dr. P. van Eck-Aarten
2
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
“Just for once I’d like to see all these things sort of straightened out, with each person getting
exactly what he deserves. It might give me some confidence in this universe”
In Catch 22, Joseph Heller, p. 196.
3
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Abstract
This thesis will explore the importance of an interaction between victimological theories and
notions within gender studies in relation to the crime of rape. Lerner’s Just World Theory as
well as Christie’s Ideal Victim and the relation of both theories to victim blaming will be
examined using what gender studies teach us about normativity and social sex-role
expectations. A sample of 147 undergraduate law students (102 female, 42 male) read one of
four versions of a victim description and rape scenario which varied according to sex of the
victim (male or female) and gendered attributes (masculine or feminine). Participants answered
questions relating to Lerner’s coping strategies, in particular victim blame and character
derogation. A Multiple Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) and independent sample t-tests
showed that gendered descriptions of victims affect observer’s ratings of characterological
blame and assigned victim traits. These findings are discussed using an integrated gendervictimological approach.
4
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Contents
1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………
5
2. Theoretical background …………………………………………………..
2.1.
Theories of victim blame ……………………………………………
2.1.1. Just World Theory …………………………………………..
2.1.2. Rape Myth Acceptance ……………………………………..
2.1.3. Defensive Attribution Theory ………………………………
2.1.4. Limitations ………………………………………………….
2.2.
A conception of rape ………………………………………………..
2.2.1. Rape in the legal system …………………………………….
2.2.2. Classic v. acquaintance rape ………………………………..
2.2.3. Feminist perspective on rape ………………………………..
2.3.
Integration of societal influences ……………………………………
2.3.1. Defining gender ……………………………………………..
2.3.2. The ideal (rape) victim ………………………………………
2.4.
Previous study findings ……………………………………………..
6
6
8
10
10
12
12
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
3. Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………….
23
4. Methods …………………………………………………………………….
26
5. Results ………………………………………………………………………
5.1.
Manipulation check and control variables …………………………..
5.2.
Main hypotheses …………………………………………………….
30
30
35
6. Discussion …………………………………………………………………..
6.1.
Main hypotheses …………………………………………………….
6.2.
Implications …………………………………………………………
6.2.1. A victimizing paradox ………………………………………
6.2.2. Who is the ideal victim? …………………………………….
6.2.3. What is a just world? ………………………………………..
6.3.
Limitations and future research ……………………………………..
46
46
52
52
53
54
55
7. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….
58
8. References …………………………………………………………………..
Appendix A: Questionnaire English version ……………………………….
Appendix B: Questionnaire Dutch version …………………………………
58
67
75
5
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
A gendered ‘Just’ World: Observers’ reactions to the feminine and masculine victim of
acquaintance rape
Within the relatively new field of victimology, academic focus is, among other things,
directed towards effects of crime on the victim. Victim blame and secondary victimization are
terms frequently used to denote the negative social or psychological consequences and
sufferings that befall victims after victimization. Although the intent of victimological
research is certainly worthy of praise, within this young movement not enough connection has
been made with other academic fields that may complement frequently used theories such as
Lerner’s Just World Theory (1966). In particular, I believe that a fruitful approach would
consist of integrating ideas of gender studies within a victimological perspective. Gender
studies is one of the fields that most explicitly deconstructs superficially neutral concepts such
as male-or femaleness, justice, and normativity; and as will be argued in this thesis, a “Just
World” theory is meaningless without close examination of such concepts.
Furthermore, certain crimes call specifically for interaction between these approaches.
Perhaps the most prominent of these crimes is that of rape, which is not only known to elicit
an absurd quantity of victim blame, but is also frequently referred to as a ‘gendered’ and
‘gendering’ crime. Although in recent years increased attention has been given to differences
between female and male victims of sexual assault, the well-known gender-sex distinction has
largely been ignored in these studies. In fact, Howard (1984b) recognized that reactions to
victims change not just as a result of sex differences, but also in response to gender
stereotypes. Nevertheless, no attempt has ever been made to distinguish the masculine from
the feminine victim. It is remarkable that hitherto the importance of the relationship between
gender, norms and victimhood has been highlighted so little within criminological or
victimological studies.
6
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
This thesis will therefore attempt to shed more light on this relationship in the
particular case of rape – where the co-existence of victimological theories and gender notions
cannot be denied. I will start by exploring the motivation behind victim blame using Lerner’s
Just World Theory, to be supplemented by Walster’s and Shaver’s versions of the Defensive
Attribution Theory (1966; 1970). It will be emphasized that these theories neglect to
acknowledge a variety of factors that may influence reactions to victims of sexual assault. The
danger of taking Lerner’s “Just World” too literally and placing it outside the context of
societal norms will be highlighted by looking at the creation and development of definitions
of rape and anti-rape laws. In particular, I will argue that stereotypical images of ‘real’ or
‘classic’ rape trivialize accounts of acquaintance rape and increase victim blame and feelings
of vulnerability in certain types of victims. Christie’s description of the ‘ideal victim’ (1986)
will be used to explain how notions of gender and victimhood intersect in the conception of
vulnerability. Considering that rape has often been called a gendered and gendering crime,
and that victim traits seem to overlap with those we call feminine, I will state that we cannot
neglect the variable of gender when examining justice beliefs. The empirical study conducted
in this paper provides support for this argument.
I would like to note that the present study will focus on acquaintance rape rather than
stranger rape (concepts that will be explained in the following sections) for several reasons.
First, although acquaintance rape occurs with a much higher frequency than stranger rape,
conviction is more difficult and underreporting is more widespread for acquaintance rape than
for stranger rape (Koss, 1985). Second, acquaintance rape is perceived as less serious than
stranger rape (Simonson & Subich, 1999) and victim blame is more common (Mitchell,
Hirshman & Hall, 1999) and finally, “role expectations are applied more strongly to date than
stranger rape” (Bridges, 1991, p.304).
Theoretical background
7
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Theories of Victim blame
Several theories have been employed to explain the phenomenon of victim blaming.
Considering that the victim is the one who has (unjustly) suffered, it is rather appalling to note
how often (s)he is held responsible for that suffering1. Especially in relation to sexuallyrelated crimes, victim blame, either by the victim him- or herself or by the environment, is a
very common reaction (e.g. Anderson, 1999). This thesis is concerned with the second form,
although recognizing that blame by others and self-blame may be strongly interrelated2. Being
blamed for one’s own suffering is viewed as a major component of secondary victimization
(Brickman et al., 1982), a process in which a victim’s suffering is increased though his/her
interactions with the legal system, social services and/or general environment. Understanding
and attempting to prevent victim blame is therefore of the utmost importance. Victim blaming
can result from both an observer’s cognitive and/or motivational processes. One of the
cognitive processes involved is what we call ‘hindsight’. Fischoff (1975) has found that when
we, as observers, know the outcome of an event, we judge that it was more likely to happen
than is statistically appropriate. In this way, we forget that a victim had to rely on ‘foresight’
instead and we become convinced that the victim could have seen the harmful result coming
and thus should have adjusted his/her behavior accordingly. As such, benign actions, such as
drinking alcohol, can be re-interpreted as blameworthy by others who know of the harmful
consequences (e.g. sexual assault) that followed (Janoff-Bulman, Timko & Carli, 1985). This
theory has been integrated into the present study by creating two conditions in which
observers know of the harmful outcome before answering several questions in one condition
but not in the other. For the purpose of this paper, however, I am more interested in the
1
Following several other authors, Pemberton (2011) notes “the threat posed by the offender’s action is more
proportionate to the wrong committed rather than the harm caused (p.7)”. ‘Wrongfulness’, when equated to
transgression, is a threat in itself to which the victim has contributed by becoming victim. So, when two parties
are involved in a transgression (even if it is unwillingly) it hardly seems far-fetched to conclude that the
wrongness of that action unfortunately is perceived to rub off on, or contaminate, both perpetrator and victim.
2
E.g. they constitute the two phases of the secondary victimization process in Brickman et al. (1982).
8
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
motivational theories because they may serve to explain why more victim blame is appointed
in some circumstances than in others.
Just World Theory. The well-known Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger &
Carlsmith, 1959) describes how a discrepancy between personal beliefs and overt actions or
stated opinions in an individual causes discomfort, and subsequently attempts to reduce such
discomfort either by changing one’s overt behavior or adjusting personal beliefs. Social
psychologist Melvin Lerner built upon this theory to construct a new hypothesis, later termed
the Belief in a Just World (BJW), or Just World Theory (JWT; Lerner, 1980). In reaction to
studies conducted by Milgram (1963), whereby ordinary research participants were induced to
administer electric shocks (ranging from painful to deadly if they had indeed been
administered) to a confederate as part of a ‘learning experiment’, Lerner and colleagues
observed that people seem to employ several cognitive techniques to satisfy their need for a
just world. In their words,
It seems obvious that most people cannot afford, for the sake of their own sanity, to
believe in a world governed by a schedule of random reinforcements. (...) If this is
true, then the person who sees suffering or misfortune will be motivated to believe that
the unfortunate victim in some sense merited his fate (Lerner and Simmons, 1966, p.
203).
In other words, people have a (usually implicit) need to believe that their good actions will
lead to reward. If this assumption is proven to be false, the purpose of many of the things we
do in our lives would be lost. However, the BJW is threatened by the confrontation of an
essentially good and innocent person who is suffering “because they provide evidence that
people may not reap their just desserts” (Hafer, 2000, p.171). Assuming there are only three
main causes of suffering, namely “a sufferer’s prior behavior, his low intrinsic personal
worth, or chance”, then the last option is the most threatening one to BJW (Shaver, 1970, p.
113). Consequently, for a third party witnessing this injustice it is most ‘beneficial’ to deny
9
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
the factor of chance and instead point towards the character or behavior of the victim3. Lerner
(1980) thus hypothesized that when a victim is virtually innocent yet suffering continuously,
and the observer is powerless to intervene to stop this suffering, then other psychological
methods will be employed to decrease the observer’s discomfort. These methods are not
always rational and may include reinterpretations of the cause, victim character, or outcome;
possibly resulting in behavioral blame of the victim, derogation of their character and/or
trivialization of their suffering (Hafer & Bègue, 2005). It should be noted that, because the
BJW is implicit, acting in accordance to it is mostly unconsciously done (Hafer & Begue,
2005). Possibly, this implicit desire is rationally rephrased or denied by people in their
realization of its immature resonance. Accounting for this in his later work, Lerner
distinguishes between two forms of justice motive, affirming that both coexist within the
individual (Lerner, 1998). As summarized by Hafer, the first form is related to “relatively
conscious deliberations about society’s norms regarding how we should perceive and respond
to injustice. The second (…) is characterized by more preconscious, defensive processes often
resulting in counternormative behavior” (Hafer, 2000, p.172). In other words, while the first
motive refers to deliberate reasonings as to what type of behavior or opinion is desirable to
display, the second points more towards what we might call the intuitive ‘gut feeling’. It
follows that the influence of BJW on people’s behaviors and attitudes in its second form
cannot be reliably measured in questionnaire formats that ask people their thoughts on explicit
statements. Using a modified (emotional) Stroop task, however, Correia and Vala (2003; also
Correia, Vala & Aguiar, 2007) showed that a victim is indeed evaluated more negatively, thus
secondarily victimized, when the belief in a just world of the observer is stronger, the victim
is innocent, and the suffering of the victim is more persistent.
3
Or possibly of the perpetrator, e.g. by demonizing him/her (Baumeister, 1997).
10
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Rape Myth Acceptance. As stated above, empirical evidence for JWB statements as
predictor of victim blame in sexual assault cases has been inconsistent. For example, in a
study by Hammond, Berry and Rodriquez (2011), just world beliefs did not predict
attributions of victim responsibility in date rape scenarios. Rape myth acceptance (RMA)4,
however, did predict victim blame. It may be possible that one’s just world belief in the
context of sexual assault is better measured by RMA than by acceptance of explicit ‘just
world’ statements. For example, as Sinclair and Bourne (1998) show, rape myths can serve as
an irrational tool for restoring faith in a just world. Their study indicated that, surprisingly,
women showed reduced RMA after a not-guilty verdict and enhanced RMA after a guilty
verdict against the perpetrator. This can be explained by noting that a guilty verdict implies
that the rape is acknowledged by the judicial system, inferring that the victim was innocent
yet a bad event happened to her. According to JWT-reasoning, female observers who feel
threatened by the possibility of rape may need to find fault in the victim to restore their faith
in a just world (e.g. Foley & Pigott, 2000). Thus, as soon as the reality of a rape is confirmed,
a female observer may endorse victim-blaming rape myths related to acting promiscuously,
dressing provocatively and drinking, i.e. behavior that is ‘asking for trouble’. These myths
serve as a set of rules that women construct for themselves, not just as reassurance or
protection but possibly also to maintain their just world view. RMA may just be a tool
employed in coping with an unjust world.
Defensive Attribution Theory. Related to the JWT is the Defensive Attribution
Theory (DAT) that attaches the above described sense of justice to an observer’s selfprotection strategies, insinuating that we do not necessarily desire the world to be just, we
desire our world to be just. According to a theory by Walster (1966), if an observer is
4
RMA refers to the personal endorsement of “prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape
victims, and rapists” (Burt, 1980, p. 217). Frequently these false beliefs refer to notions that only certain types
of people/women get raped – those that were ‘asking for it’. They also relate to what is mistakenly held as a
common or stereotypical rape, i.e. ‘stranger rape’.
11
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
confronted with the victimization of someone else, and the observer regards the event as
‘relevant’ because (s)he admits the possibility of the same event happening to him-or herself,
then the observer is likelier to blame the victim. This is assumed to be especially true if
consequences for the victim are severe:
If we can categorize a serious accident as in some way the victim’s fault, it is
reassuring. We then simply need to assure ourselves that we are a different kind of
person from the victim, or that we would behave differently under similar
circumstances, and we feel protected from catastrophe (Walster, 1966, p. 74).
So, according to this theory, (victim) blame follows more from a desire to control certain
outcomes in the world than from a preoccupation with justice, especially if we perceive
ourselves to be similar to a victim and suspect comparable harmful events may befall
ourselves. However, whereas Walster (1966) predicted and found an increase in blame the
more serious and relevant a scenario became, Shaver (1970) used the same theory and found
opposite effects. Participants judged a same-stimulus person to be more careful than persons
dissimilar from the observer, suggesting that the factor ‘relevance’ may decrease the
perceiver’s tendency to blame the victim. Shaver’s Defensive Attribution Theory thus poses
that “people increase or reduce blame depending on their perceived similarity with the victim
and the perceived likelihood of similar future victimization befalling them” (Grubb &
Harrower, 2008, p.398) with greater identification leading to less blame. Surprisingly, Shaver
did find that observers dissociated themselves from the victim. The author concluded that a
relevant confrontation with injustice might lead observers to wield all kinds of defensive
coping, such as withholding blame in serious consequences while simultaneously denying
likeness to the victim. For the purpose of this paper, most attention will be given to the
premises of the JWT in relation to expectations raised by gender literature. This is because I
am particularly interested in the relationship between our views of (threat to) justice and our
acceptance of what is ‘normal’ when it comes to gendered crime. Although I choose to focus
12
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
on the JWT because the underlying motivation that is at the root of this theory is of more
interest to me, I employ DAT in those cases where it may serve as an extension of the JWT in
making certain predictions.
Limitations. It should be noted that none of the theories discussed above were
developed specifically to explain the occurrence of victim blame in cases of rape or sexual
assault. A major limitation, as social scientist Judith Howard (1984a) already pointed out
three decades ago, is that although these theories may account for variations in blame in
different circumstances, they “do not point to variations in the degree to which different
victims are blamed” (p. 495; own emphasis). Yet much variation has been proven to exist. In
the past, observer reactions in rape scenarios have been forced to fit within the frameworks of
these theories. Though they may yet serve as an interesting basis, an exploration of the
concept of rape in the legal system and from a gender-focused point of view shows why a
more specified and encompassing theory is necessary.
A conception of rape
Rape in the legal system. Originally anti-rape laws were created to safeguard a
woman’s virginity (Whatley, 1996), meaning that those who were seen as less (sexually)
respectable, could be viewed as less deserving of protection. A virtuous woman at this point
was still seen as an asset to a man and so “rape laws were originally introduced to protect the
property interests of males, not the rights of women” (Rumney & Morgan-Taylor, 1997, p.
212). Whereas rape was previously only defined as forced vaginal intercourse, beginning in
the 1970s national and international definitions were gradually broadened5 to include males as
victims and women as perpetrators, and to broaden the act from penetration of the vagina by a
penis to penetration of the vagina, anus and in some cases the mouth, by a penis, hand or
5
Only in 2012 did the U.S. government expand the definition of ‘forcible rape’ that is used in the collection of
national data on the occurrence of sexual victimization! Before this, it was limited to vaginal penetration
(Savage, 2012).
13
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
object (Bonthuys, 2008). Non-consensual sex within marriage was in most countries only
labeled (marital) rape and criminalized as such from the 1990s onwards (Bennice & Resick,
2003). By now, rape is frequently recognized as more than physical assault of a sexual nature,
and is described as a very serious crime that violates the integrity of the self and aims to
dehumanize the victim (Campbell, 2004). Inherent to this is the now more popular notion that
rape has less to do with sex than with power and a wish to dominate the victim6 (Rumney &
Morgan-Taylor, 1997). Yet rape remains a complicated crime, both in terms of punishing the
offender and in providing compensation or relief to the victim. Within the judicial system,
issues such as non-consent and the demand for multiple pieces of evidence play a role.
However, stereotypical representations of rape within society may be an even bigger cause of
such detrimental consequences as underreporting, acquittal of the offender, and psychological
secondary victimization7.
Classic v. acquaintance rape. These stereotypical images place emphasis on and
assign credibility to ‘classic’ or ‘real’ rape, often described as stranger rape (where the victim
is unacquainted with the perpetrator), in contrast to the more common acquaintance, or ‘date’
rape scenarios8. Judgments relating to the innocence or blamelessness of the victim depend on
how much the rape in question resembles the classic rape (e.g. Randall, 2010). The classic
(stranger) rape first of all involves an ‘ideal’ perpetrator, meaning that the perpetrator is
unmistakably ‘big and bad’ (or, powerful and evil), while the victim is clearly innocent and
could not help being overpowered. She9 is what sociologist and criminologist Nils Christie
(1986) has termed the “ideal victim” because she is both vulnerable and innocent. Christie,
6
Although it should be noted that in one of their studies, Anderson and Swainson (2001) found that layparticipants still saw rape as primarily motivated by sex rather than by power.
7
For example, Rickert, Wiermann and Vaughan (2005) found that the closer the relationship between victim
and perpetrator is, the less likely a woman was to report sexual victimization. The number of unreported
crimes of male sexual assault may be even larger due to fear of stigmatization (Donnelly & Kenyon, 1996).
8
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2010,
78% of the offenders in sexual assault victimization against females was a ‘non-stranger’.
9
One criterion of the ideal victim, especially in relation to stranger rape, is femaleness.
14
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
when first coining the term, referred to the ideal victim as someone who was most readily
labeled victim due to his or her features and circumstances, inferring that no blame would be
attributed to him/her. In relation to stranger rape, the victim finds herself at the wrong place at
the wrong time by little fault of her own, for she was on a legitimate and respectable errand.
She did not provoke any attack whatsoever and puts up a fight during the assault. Stranger
rape fits a “fashionable” form of victimization within modern-day society precisely because
the relationship between victim and offender is “relatively straightforward and unambiguous”
(Best, 1997, p.11). Such clear-defined and sensational stories are more easily processed and
sold by the media; questions of who was right or wrong need not be asked. Besides being
popular in the media, it is also true that in court, “a strong case, one which has the greatest
possibility of conviction, comprises as many features from the classic rape stereotype as
possible” (Anderson, 2007, p. 4). What is perhaps most worrisome, is that although academics
within the field recognize the flaws of representing rape as classic rape, the majority of rape
victim-related studies still use stranger rape vignettes when measuring observers’ reactions to
rape.
Feminist perspective on rape. Regrettably, the result of the classic ‘real’ rape acquaintance rape distinction is that often acquaintance rape is not recognized as ‘real’ or
valid. In acquaintance rape, the perpetrator frequently does not fit our image of an ideal
criminal (Christie, 1986) but may in fact be an (ex-)boyfriend, family member, or someone
else who is closely associated with, and perhaps generally liked by the victim. Acquaintance
rape may then be trivialized as reflecting a sexual experience gotten out of hand or later
regretted by the female partner. In such cases, victims may simultaneously be assigned more
responsibility while perpetrators are assigned less (e.g. Sleath & Bull, (2010). This also ties in
with a commonly held belief that male sexuality is simply difficult to control10, making “he
10
E.g. this is noted as one of the ‘rape myths’ in the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway &
Fitzgerald, 1999).
15
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
just got carried away” a valid excuse and sign of sympathy for the male offender. The
suggestion exists that rapists can be reliably differentiated from non-sexual offenders by their
characteristics, even though research indicates they cannot (Ellison & Munro, 2009). This
imaginary separation between sex offenders and other men necessarily leads to the same
distinction between sexual offenses (rape) and normative sexual behavior, making it difficult
to accuse a ‘normal guy’, who forced sex upon someone in circumstances that resemble those
occurring in normative sex, of rape. In fact, within gender literature, rape is frequently viewed
as “an extreme form of traditional male-female sexual interaction rather than a sign of
pathological disturbance” (Bridges, 1991, p. 292), emphasizing that there is no clear-cut
division between normative sex and rape and that normative sexual relations may in truth
facilitate the possibility of rape. Specifically, sex-role socialization causes both sexes to act
according to certain expectations, whereby “males are socialized to be the sexual aggressors
and females the passive targets, whose societally prescribed role is to control the extent of
sexual activity” (ibid, p.292). According to several feminist theorists, it is this socialization,
and a patriarchal society in general (Hunnicutt, 2009), that perpetuates the dominance of men
and the vulnerability of women, and produces rape as one of its symptoms.
Integration of societal influences
Clearly, what is perceived as acceptable in (sexual) relationships is to a large extent
socially constructed, and the notion of what ought to be considered ‘real’ rape is clouded in
ambiguity. Returning to our perceptions of the just world, we can safely assume that not only
our explicit/conscious justice deliberations (first form of justice motive) are shaped by what
norms and values permeate the society we live in, but that our unconscious notions of what is
just (second form justice motive) are also influenced by cultural norms. These cultural norms
surely include gender stereotypes. Empirical evidence for this has been found in several
studies, including those that found that men with a high BJW generally evaluated rape victims
16
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
more negatively than men with a low BJW, while in contrast women with a high BJW
evaluated them less negatively than women who had a low BJW (Kleinke & Meyer, 1990).
This finding shows how beliefs in a just world may be expressed differently by various types
of persons, indicating a high degree of subjectivity embedded within the concept.
Furthermore, from a study by Bieneck and Krahé (2011) it appears that the JWT is not
sufficient to explain the phenomenon of victim blaming in sexual assault. The authors
compared scenarios of robberies and scenarios of rape and looked at what factors would
increase appointed responsibility to the victim. Factors such as drunkenness and acquaintance
with the perpetrator did nothing to increase victim blame in robbery scenarios, but they did
have a moderating effect in sexual assault scenarios. Besides this, the authors also examined
perpetrator blame, and found it to decrease when the victim was drunk or acquainted with the
perpetrator in rape cases, but not in robbery cases. In both scenarios the victims were
described as equally innocent, which, using the JWT, should have indicated the same amount
of blame irrespective of factors that are irrelevant to the legal definition of a crime. It is clear
that gender norms and notions of what makes a just world mutually affect each other to create
different manners of accepting and coping with a variety of unjust situations. Considering that
rape has indeed often been called a gendered and gendering crime, we cannot neglect the
variable of gender when predicting certain justice-related outcomes.
Defining gender. To understand what is respectively meant by ‘gendered’ and
‘gendering’, it is first of all important to grasp the meaning of the distinction between sex and
gender. In colloquial language, the two terms are frequently used interchangeably. However,
in scientific fields, someone’s ‘sex’ refers to the biological characteristics that in our
understanding usually make someone male or female. ‘Gender’, on the other hand, has been
described as “the social consequences ascribed to differently sexed bodies” (Bonthuys, 2008,
p.254). It is the cultural significance we assign to being male or female, leading to the
17
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
expectation of feminine females and masculine males11. Stating that gender is socially or
culturally constructed by no means translates into saying that the construct is easily ignored or
changed. In fact, Connell states that:
Closest to common-sense ideas is the notion of masculinity as a psychological
essence, an inner core to the individual. This may be inherited, or it may be acquired
early in life. In either case it is carried forward into later life as the essence of a man’s
being (1993, p.599).
Though in contrast with common expectations, the distinction between sex and gender makes
it possible to find masculine females and feminine males as much as the other way around
(Stets & Burke, 2000). More logically of course, it can be assumed that each individual
possesses qualities that could be labeled ‘masculine’ and others that are ‘feminine’ in varying
degrees.
Following the sex-gender distinction, the word ‘gendered’, though often used to
describe crimes normatively committed by males towards females (Rumney & MorganTaylor, 1997), therefore really should mean the masculine against the feminine (or possibly
the other way around) in reference to crime. ‘Gendering’ is a more complex phrase,
describing how an act can make one more masculine or feminine, a process that is not
necessarily related to the sex of a person. In sexual crimes, this usually refers to the belief that
the perpetrator becomes more masculine, while the victim (be they male or female) is
established as increasingly feminine. So, “a man who is raped loses his masculine status and
becomes, in terms of his sexual role, a woman – while the sexually subordinate status of a
woman who is raped is thereby confirmed” (Bonthuys, 2008, p.255). A clear example of this
somewhat vague notion can be found in male prisons, where a man who is forced to perform
11
Although I speak of sex and gender as being dichotomous, I do so for the sake of creating workable variables
for this study. Also, though gender may be more appropriately measured on a continuous scale, both
femaleness/maleness and femininity/masculinity are at least still thought of as exclusively categorical in most
societies. So while not objective nor perhaps ‘correct’ notions, this dichotomy reflects general gender
perceptions.
18
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
sexual favors for another more dominant man is called a “prison bitch”, whistled and called
after and is sometimes made to dress more femininely or wear make-up. Clearly, this person
cannot actually become more female, but is indeed feminized by the act of (prison) rape and
even referred to as female: “Basically anyone who has been penetrated in a power-defined
sexual interaction is a woman” (Gear & Ngubeni, 2002, p.39). Bonthuys (2008) also points
out how men who lack characteristics associated with masculine power are especially
vulnerable to rape in prison. Importantly, she states that “male rape, in this sense, therefore
serves to punish transgressions of stereotypical gender roles” (p. 256; own emphasis added).
One author and therapist states that “recreating masculinity” was a recurring theme during his
sessions with male sexual assault victims (Mulkey, 2004, p.21). Even in non-sexual assaults, a
male victim may equate his newly discovered or increased sense of vulnerability with a
change in gendered identity. As one male victim of physical assault stated during interviews
conducted by Stanko and Hobdell (1993): “Your manhood is taken away from you” (p. 409).
Possibly, not only rape, but victimization in general counts as a feminizing experience
(Howard, 1984b).
The ideal (rape) victim. From the above we can conclude that people may be
perceived as more feminine after (sexual) victimization, and victims are generally assumed to
be female. Victim traits thus seem to overlap with those we call feminine. While Christie
(1986) seemed to equate ‘ideal’ to ‘blameless’ in his phrasing of the “ideal victim”, he also
emphasized the vulnerability of the victim. The term ‘ideal’ might then simultaneously be
taken to signify ‘easy’ in a pre-victimization context, making the ideal victim one who is
easily targeted for victimization, for example by answering to the description of being weak,
submissive and passive. It should be noted that this description of the ideal victim seems to
overlap with constructed notions of femininity. Both victims and normative women may be
described as “weak, passive, helpless and physically inferior [..]” (Cermele, Daniels &
19
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Anderson, 2001, p. 238). Hollander (2001) also argued that notions of vulnerability are
inherent to the conception of the female gender. Accordingly, although Christie (1986)
describes the ideal victim as weak, and as female, the weakness of the victim may
paradoxically make it easier to blame her. It might be said of the victim that because she was
weak, she was an easy target; hence something bad was bound to happen to her if she walked
the streets at night unaccompanied. Assuming she realized her innate weakness herself, she
can be held responsible for putting herself in a disadvantaged position.
Previous study findings
Although so far few authors have looked at specific personality traits or (gendered)
characteristics of victims in relation to blame, the varying reactions to different victims found
in previous studies are encouraging enough to expect that these play a role in attribution of
victim responsibility. Many studies have looked at more general JWT-related aspects such as
victim suffering and innocence (Lerner & Simmons, 1966; Correia, Vala & Aguiar, 2001;
Correia & Vala, 2003); and others at relevant factors of the observer, such as RMA (Gray,
Palileo & Johnson, 1993; Sinclair & Bourne, 1998; Hammond, Berry & Rodriquez, 2011) or
identification with the rape victim (Shaver, 1970; Grubb & Harrower, 2008). Very few to no
studies, however, have looked into the possibility that perceived innocence and suffering
(JWT-related constructs) may be related to certain victim character traits. For example, we
may, perhaps unconsciously, expect a gentle soft-spoken young woman to be more innocent
(and virtuous) than one who is extremely critical and likes to argue with others. Of course,
this is a controversial topic to get into because if victim blame is found to be associated with
certain traits, there seems to be little that we might do to prevent victim blame. Still, knowing
whether there is any truth in this assumption may provide us with the tools necessary to fight
injustice.
20
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Several findings provide support for the suggestion that the gendered identity, over
and above the sex, of a sexual assault victim may influence reactions to that victim. First,
most studies find that female rape victims are globally blamed more than male rape victims
(e.g. Anderson & Swainson, 2001; Schneider, Ee & Aronson, 1994). However, distinguishing
characterological blame from behavioral blame (Janoff-Bulman, 1979) suggests that not only
a woman’s external behavior but also (or even more so) her character is under scrutiny.
Several studies found, for example, that more characterological blame was appointed to the
female victim while more behavioral blame was assigned to the male victim (e.g. Howard,
1984; White & Kurpius, 2002; Sleath & Bull, 2010). This may lead one to suspect that it is at
least in part the perceived essence of femininity that is the target of blame. Second, some
studies have compared observer opinions about rape vignettes in which either a heterosexual
man or a homosexual man is sexually assaulted. Participants frequently indicated that the
heterosexual man suffered more from the rape, both in terms of trauma and ridicule from
society (Doherty & Anderson, 2004). On the other hand, homosexual male victims have been
found to be blamed more than heterosexual male victims for their victimization and judged to
experience more pleasure during the rape (Wakelin & Long, 2003; Mitchell, Hirschman &
Hall, 1999). A related finding indicates that observers who report more homophobic attitudes
engage in more (homosexual) male victim blaming (Burt & DeMello, 2003; Davies & Rogers,
2006). One explanation that has been offered is that for a heterosexual man, being raped by
another man is ‘aggravated rape’: someone is not just used sexually against his will, it is also
done in a way that is ‘unnatural’ for a heterosexual man12. On the other hand, for women and
12
In this thesis, no reference is made to female perpetrators. Though I do not wish to deny this variant, a
conscious decision was made not to include this option in the scenario. Firstly, because too little is known
about this type of perpetration to incorporate within the theoretical framework of this thesis. Secondly, my
main focus is on the victim in these scenarios and not on the perpetrator. To include a female offender would
have created too many experimental conditions, misdirecting the emphasis of this study. The different
dynamics involved in these perpetrator-victim relations would be an interesting point of exploration for future
studies.
21
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
homosexual men, the experience of rape is thought to at least replicate normative sex with the
difference being that no consent was given in this case (Doherty & Anderson, 2004). In fact,
specifically in relation to sex differences,
Penetration of the female body remains less ‘shocking’ than that of the male body,
because the definition of the male corporeal boundary is contradicted directly by such
penetration, in a way that the boundaries of the female body are not. (Graham, 2006, p.
198).
A second explanation, however, transcending the physical, could be that we expect
homosexual men to be more feminine, and our perception of femininity includes the
possibility of being dominated, subordinated or humiliated by a more powerful actor. For the
normative heterosexual man, “cultural expectations dictate that “macho” men exhibit strength,
autonomy and sexual aggression. By definition then, “macho” men cannot also be victims.”
(Doherty and Anderson, 2004, p. 13). If the latter explanation is valid, we can expect that a
description of a ‘feminine’ man without ever being named a homosexual will still be
perceived as suffering less, and possibly blamed more, when raped than a ‘masculine’ man.
Finally, following Burt (1980) and Howard (1984ab), several authors have noted that
endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs correlates with increased RMA and rape
minimization in acquaintance rape (e.g. White & Kurpius, 2002; White & Yamawaki, 2009).
The few factors or personal characteristics that have so far been explored in studies of victim
blame are usually related to a woman’s sexual reputation, or the “societal prescriptions for the
female role in the context of sexual behavior” (Howard, 1984a, p.496). Examples include the
way a woman is dressed, as well as her marital status and previous sexual activity (Whatley,
1996), alcohol consumption (Bieneck & Krahé, 2011), and her occupation (e.g. a nun versus
topless dancer; Luginbuhl & Mullin, 1981). Of course, the assumption goes that the more
(sexually) innocent and thus respectable a woman is, the less deserving she is of (sexual)
22
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
harm coming to her (Whatley, 1996)13. Realistically, however, there is a good chance that any
of these factors may play out to the disadvantage of the female victim. This is especially true
in acquaintance rape, where the fact that a woman decided to spend time with a man may
already insinuate a strong possibility of flirtation from her side. Unfortunately, any factor
hinting at a female’s sexuality may simultaneously provide a reason to blame her for
initiatives taken by a male perpetrator:
‘Good’ women are perceived as passive and essentially asexual and more plausible
than their ‘promiscuous’ sisters. At the same time though, there is a view of all women
as being, by nature, sexually unreliable [..] (Easteal & Judd, 2008, p. 337).
In this way, the BJW connects with gender stereotypes: a bad person deserving of harmful
consequences can be one who defied acting in accordance with ideal gender norms.
It is reasonable to assume that the factors discussed above will yield little results when
studied in male victims. It seems preposterous to believe that a man had sexual assault coming
to him more when he was wearing shorts or walked around ‘topless’ than when he was
wearing jeans and a sweater. His sexual ‘respectability’ is probably not related to the clothes
he wears when going out. Besides that, there are obvious double standards in some of the
previous factors. For example, though a woman’s perceived respectability seems to decrease
the more sexual partners she has known throughout her life, a man’s respectability seems to
increase. The societal norm is for men to ‘chase’ women and the more he succeeds in
‘conquering’ them, the more he may be admired and envied (e.g. Byers, 1996, regarding the
Traditional Sexual Script14). But, a woman, thought to be on the other end of the chase, loses
respect the more she lets herself be captured or conquered. A casual hook-up between a man
13
A noteworthy addition to these findings is that in a study conducted with more than 300 hospital nurses, it
was found that “nurses’ judgments of rape victims are shaped by their perceptions of the victim’s character [..],
whereas similar judgments of beating victims are based on assessments of the victim’s behavior [..]. Thus
perceptions of victim ‘respectability’ are important only in evaluations of rape” (Alexander, 1980, p.30-31; own
emphasis).
14
For an insightful explanation of the metaphorical use of the word ‘script’ in relation to rape as narrative, see
Marcus (1992).
23
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
and woman is almost never thought to be the woman’s ‘success’, because we assume she was
not the initiator but the one who ‘gave in’. So, excessive alcohol consumption, a history of
sexual promiscuity and showing off your body are all not becoming in a ‘proper’ woman (i.e.
a feminine woman). On the other hand, they are perfectly respected, and in fact even
sometimes sought after, in a ‘proper’ man (i.e. a masculine man). Thus, the factors themselves
do not necessarily explain victim blame, it is their relation to gendered ideas and expectations
that might.
Hypotheses
The main purpose of this study will be to explore whether the statement of “rape as a
gendered crime” can be taking more literally. If this is true, then we would expect reactions to
victims in the following scenarios to differ according to described gendered characteristics
and not only according to the sex of a victim, although of course sex cannot be seen as
separate from gendered ideas and so will also have a strong influence. We may expect that, in
general, masculine character traits are judged more positively than feminine character traits.
Rape may then not only cause victim derogation but also be judged as more horrific when the
victim was previously described as being ‘masculine’. In relation to this, the victim may be
judged to suffer more from the same act compared to the more ‘feminine’ victim. The
‘feminine’ victim was already described as such, and thus is not thought to lose any qualities
after the gendering/feminizing act or rape. If anything, rape seems to confirm his or her
stereotypic role.
Victim suffering and crime severity
As stated before, this feminine stereotype seems to overlap greatly with Nils Christie’s
observations of the ideal victim. However, while in many types of crime this may be
something positive, for example by causing the reception of greater empathy from the public,
in rape this may have a contrasting effect. Precisely because rape is such a gendered act, the
24
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
woman who possesses valued feminine traits (which overlap with acceptable victim traits), is
inherently a victim. She is a pre-victim and when sexually assaulted, she ‘could have seen it
coming’. So, we might expect that the assault of those people described as having a ‘feminine
character’ (be they male or female) will be perceived as more inevitable/likely and
consequently as more ‘normal’. The normativity of the act may cause the crime to be seen as
less severe for feminine females than masculine females, and less severe for feminine males
compared to masculine males (H1a). Extending this line of thought, in this study I expect to
find that masculine males are judged to suffer more from a described sexual assault than
feminine males and masculine females judged to suffer more than feminine females (H1b).
Following Doherty and Anderson (2004), I also anticipate that male victims as one group will
be judged to suffer more from what is perceived as a more severe crime than female victims
as one group (H1c).
Victim blame and victim traits
If masculine victims are indeed thought to suffer more than feminine victims, the Just
World Theory may predict the first to be blamed more by observers because a confrontation
with more suffering leads to more discrepancy the actual world and the perceived (just) world
of the observer, and consequently to more discomfort that the observer wants to reduce.
Similarly, a ‘feminist theory’ such as the sex role expectation hypothesis (Bridges, 1991)
might also predict more blame of the masculine victim for breaking the stereotype of
invulnerability (and for breaking the stereotype of victim; van Dijk, 2009). However, if we at
the same time value masculine qualities more in general, observers may be reluctant to blame
the (masculine) character of the victim. A ‘solution’ is to blame their behavior (and possibly
chance) instead. The JWT may still be used to come up with this prediction, because it does
not restrict itself to stating that bad things happen to bad people but also that “if one fails to
prepare, take normal precautions … then one is entitled to a certain level of negative
25
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
consequences, such as failure, deprivation, and suffering” (Crome & McCabe, 2001, p. 399),
meaning that bad or careless behavior may also legitimately lead to ‘punishment’ in a just
world.
On the other hand, the idea that we perceive sexual assault of a feminine character as
more ‘normal’ (in accordance maybe not with our ‘just’ world view, but at least with our
normative world view) because of her character, would also imply that this character is more
deserving or “less undeserving” of sexual perpetration. More responsibility may be appointed
to the feminine character because he/she should have seen it coming: a defined (pre-) victim is
more responsible for their victimization. This leads to the second main hypothesis that
feminine characters will be attributed more characterological blame, while the masculine
characters will be attributed more behavioral blame (H2a). Correspondingly, employing
Christie’s notion of the ideal victim, respondents are expected to ascribe more victim-like
traits to the feminine character than to the masculine character (H2b). Appointing victim-like
traits to a person may work to normalize the victimization, as well as placing more
responsibility with the victim. As such, we can regard it as a different outlet of victim blame.
Assuming that victim blaming and perpetrator excusing are not necessarily two sides
of the same coin, several questions were added to measure attitudes towards the perpetrator in
the sexual assault scenario. The expectation is that the perpetrator will be blamed less in the
feminine female scenario than in the masculine female scenario and less in the feminine male
scenario than in the masculine male scenario (H3).
Victim character derogation and feminization
The previous hypotheses focus on the reactions between different combinations of sex
(male/female) and gender (masculine/feminine). To cover how reactions toward the same
person change after their victimization, the following predictions were defined. First, all
fictional characters will be judged more positively before the sexual assault than after the
26
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
assault (H4a). Second, participants will be less able to identify with the character after than
before the assault (H4b). Lastly, as a gesture towards gender-related literature and the notion
that rape may be considered a gendering act, it is predicted that all characters will be judged
as more ‘typically feminine’ after the sexual assault than before the sexual assault (H4c).
Method section
Participants
For the purpose of this research, undergraduate law students were approached and
asked to fill in an online survey. All of these students attended either Tilburg University or the
University of Groningen, both located in the Netherlands. Out of the 147 respondents, 102
were female and 45 were male. Participants’ ages ranged between 17 and 54 years, with a
mean age of 22.7 years (SD = 3.99). In Tilburg, students were told about the study in class,
after which they were requested to fill in the questionnaire by clicking on the link that was
posted on their study (Blackboard) website. In Groningen, the questionnaire link together with
an announcement was also posted on the law faculty’s website and participants were recruited
through more informal networks such as the law class’s Facebook page.
Materials and procedure
To create the questionnaire, the online survey program Qualtrics was used. The
questionnaire took approximately between five and ten minutes to complete. Participants were
informed about the anonymity of their responses and the importance of their honest
cooperation. They were further warned about the sensitive contents of the survey and given
the possibility to stop at any time they felt uncomfortable. Respondents were then requested to
name their gender, age, and faculty at which they studied. After this, a description of a student
was given, followed by an acquaintance rape vignette and questions about the description and
scenario. All questions were closed-ended and answering options frequently consisted of
either 6-point or 7-point Likert scales. Participants could not skip any questions or return to
27
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
previously filled in answers to prevent them from changing their replies. Out of all the
questionnaires started, 70% (147 surveys) were completed.
Variables
Description of characters. Participants were exposed to one of 8 conditions
according to a 2 (male vs. female) x 2 (masculine vs. feminine) x 2 (Victim-character
Evaluation Before vs. Victim Evaluation After rape scenario; VEB vs. VEA15) between
participants design. Participants read one of four descriptions of a student who would later
become the victim of acquaintance rape. The student was male in two of the descriptions and
female in the other two. The male student was named Lucas, and the female student named
Lisa. Besides the sex of the student, his or her gendered characteristics were also manipulated,
with the result that one male and one female student were given a study and hobby, and
character traits that are seen as typically ‘masculine’, while the other male and female were
described in such a way that can be interpreted as typically ‘feminine’.
Masculinity/femininity manipulation. Character traits that were used to describe the
masculine student, whether male or female, included ‘ambitious’, ‘assertive’ and ‘analytical’.
Words used to describe the feminine student included such phrases as ‘compassionate’,
‘gentle’ and ‘sensitive to other people’s feelings’. The decision to use these words among
others depended mainly on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI)16, because the “BSRI was
founded on a conception of the sex-typed person as someone who has internalized society’s
sex-typed standards of desirable behaviour for men and women...” (Bem, 1974, p.155;
15
Six questions of the survey were in one condition asked after the student’s description but before the rape
scenario or, in the other condition, after both the description and rape scenario. These questions mostly
concerned the student’s character, with “Lisa/Lukas comes across as an intelligent person”, “L[..] seems like
someone who will be successful in life”, “L[..] is essentially a good person”, and “I can identify myself with L[..]”
measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”. Two other
questions were added, namely “I would describe Lisa/Lukas’s character as..” (“very typically masculine” to
“very typically feminine”) and “What is your general impression of L[..]?” (“very negative” to “very positive”).
16
Although masculine and feminine role perceptions may be weakening, in 1998, Holt and Ellis still found
almost all of the BSRI’s adjectives validated.
28
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
emphasis added). All words used in the present survey are named in the BSRI and found to be
perceived as significantly more feminine than masculine or the other way around. Besides a
gendered distribution of adjectives, masculine characters were said to study business
economics, enjoy sports and have a part-time job in a computer shop. Feminine characters
were said to study pedagogy, enjoy cooking and work part-time in a nursing home. These
choices mapped on to what are generally considered (non-) traditional occupations for males
and females (Cross & Bagilhole, 2002). To deal with the concern that either the masculine
student or the feminine one was perceived as more likeable by respondents, descriptions were
used that are generally perceived as positive. Besides this, a sentence was added that assigned
positive gender-neutral traits (also according to the BSRI) to both types, stating that friends
described them as ‘honest’, ‘kind’ and ‘dependable’.
Acquaintance rape scenario. The vignette that followed the description of
Lisa/Lukas described a ‘date rape’. In this scenario, the student goes to party at a bar that has
been hosted by the study association. At this location, the student is introduced to a young
man named Tom because the pre-victim and pre-perpetrator come from the same hometown.
Tom buys L[..] a drink and they have a good time together at the bar. When the night is over,
they bike home together and L[..] invites Tom in for a final drink at her/his student house. At
this point, Tom was described as being under the influence of alcohol and becoming more
aggressive after L[..] rejects his sexual advances. Tom uses threats and physical force to make
L[..] engage in oral sex with him. This was the last sentence of the scenario.
Using the criticism directed towards the majority of vignettes depicting ‘classic rapes’
(Anderson & Beattie, 2001), this scenario was designed to sound as realistic as possible to the
participants. Consideration was given to the fact that respondents were Dutch and a typical
night of going out for a Dutch student would most likely involve going to a bar and biking
home. For Dutch students it is very common to live together with other students in a ‘student
29
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
house’. Therefore, it was mentioned in the scenario that the housemates of Lisa/Lucas were
not at home at the time of the sexual encounter. The sexual encounter itself was described as
being oral in nature for several reasons. First, if the type of sexual intercourse had not been
specified but had instead simply been labelled as ‘sex’, then expectations of the type of
intercourse would have varied for female victims and male victims. As a result, answers
related for example to the severity of the crime would have been influenced not by the gender
or sex of the victim per se, but by the type of sexual act. Rape of male characters then may
have been judged differently from rape of the female characters because anal sex is
sometimes considered more extreme, invasive, unnatural, or more disgusting than vaginal sex,
as well as being more likely to prompt homophobic attitudes (e.g. Davies & McCartney,
2003). Therefore, it was established that the type of intercourse would need to be specified to
make sure that participants understood that all victims suffered from the same act. Second,
oral sex was chosen because it is likely to be perceived as sufficiently intimate to constitute
‘sex’, but not as extreme as anal sex as to wipe out any degree of hesitation in calling the act
rape. A certain level of ambiguity was desired to create the opportunity of more varied
reactions from participants.
Question order and content. Of the initial four conditions (gender x sex), two
versions existed. In the VEB version, the participant read a description of the to-be victim and
then answered a few questions to indicate his/her opinion of the student that was described.
These questions related to the respondent’s opinion of Lukas/Lisa’s character (intelligence,
success, goodness, and general impression), an evaluation of the manipulation of gendered
traits and the degree to which they could identify with the character. After this, the participant
continued to read a scenario in which the described student becomes a victim of acquaintance
rape. More questions followed after the scenario. In the VEA version, the participant read the
description of the student and immediately afterwards progressed to read the rape scenario.
30
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
All questions about the participant’s opinion of the described student followed after the whole
scenario had been read. After this, the other questions followed. These two versions of each
condition were used to examine the possibility of victim blame/derogation after in comparison
to before a sexual assault, as well as the hypothesis that a victim is feminized after a rape.
Following the first section, questions were asked relating to how much the victim
could be behaviourally, characterologically, and globally held responsible for what happened
at the end of the evening. Afterwards, participants were asked to indicate their level of
(dis)agreement with statements concerning the vulnerability and naivety of the victim, the
emotional and physical suffering of the victim, the severity of the crime, and the innocence of
the perpetrator. To check for the possibility that perceived sexual orientation may be
confounded with the femininity/masculinity manipulation, participants were asked to estimate
the likelihood that the victim was attracted to women and the likelihood that the victim was
attracted to men (allowing for hetero- and homosexuality to be measured on a scale and not as
categories). Finally, participants were asked to rate the credibility of the scenario and the
degree of anger, fear and disgust they felt when reading it. It should be stressed that the terms
‘rape’, ‘victim’ or ‘perpetrator’ were never used in the scenario, and the words ‘rape’ and
‘victim’ only appeared once in the questions near the end of the survey in the attempt to
influence participants as little as possible by use of language.
Results
Manipulation check and control variables
Femininity/masculinity manipulation. To test whether the manipulation of gendered
characteristics had the desired effect, participants were asked to judge the characters using a
7-point scale ranging from “very typically masculine” to “very typically feminine”. The
following means were based on observers’ evaluations of the characters pre-victimization (see
Table I). A t-test showed that feminine Lisa (M = 5.67, SD = 0.73) scored significantly higher
31
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
than masculine Lisa (M = 4.22, SD = 0.88; t(37) = 5.610, p < .001), and feminine Lukas (M =
4.67, SD = 0.907) scored higher than masculine Lukas (M = 2.90, SD = 0.77; t(37) = 6.568, p
< .001). So, it may be assumed that the descriptions emphasizing various gendered traits and
stereotypical occupations succeeded in differentiating between perceptions of feminine and
masculine characters. In general, female characters were also judged as more feminine (M =
5.11, SD = 1.04) than male characters were (M = 3.66, SD = 1.07), t(145) = -8.326, p < .001.
Evaluation pre-victimization. Other t-tests conducted in relation to the character
descriptions (pre-victimization) show that ratings of likeability for masculine Lisa (M = 5.81,
SD = 0.68) and feminine Lisa (M = 5.83, SD = 0.62), and masculine Lukas (M = 5.48, SD =
0.75) and feminine Lukas (M = 5.78, SD = 0.65) were all approximately the same, with t(37)
= -0.114 and t(37) = 1.333, p >.1. However, feminine Lukas (M = 6.00, SD = 0.69) was rated
as significantly more “essentially good” than masculine Lukas (M = 4.90, SD = 1.30) before
victimization, with t(37) = 3.208, p = .003. Furthermore, following the descriptions,
masculine characters were evaluated as significantly more ‘competent’17 (Mas_Lisa M = 5.97,
SD = 0.44; Mas_Lukas M = 5.81, SD = 1.15) than the same-sex feminine characters
(Fem_Lisa M = 4.98, SD = 1.29; Fem_Lukas M = 5.06, SD = 0.97); Lisa t(37) = -3.123, p =
.003 and Lukas t(37) = -2.198 , p = .034). Finally, students indicated that they could identify
themselves more with masculine Lisa (M = 4.94, SD = 1.50) than with feminine Lisa (M =
3.95, SD = 1.21; t(37) = -2.247, p = .031). When separating data not only by pre- and postvictimization, but also by sex of observer, it was found that this difference was mostly due to
male respondents, t(10) = -3.065, p = .012, while the difference between female respondents
was left non-significant, t(25) = - 0.781, p = .442. Identification levels for the two gendered
Lukases were similar, t(37) = 0.275, p = .785. No differences were found in perceived
goodness, competency, general impression and identification between male and female
17
(perceived intelligence of character + estimated likelihood of success in life of character)/2.
32
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
characters when gender was not taken into account (e.g. highest mean difference found for
identification,
Table I. Means and Standard Deviations on Dependent Variables Pre- and Post-Victimization
Pre-victimization
Perceived competence
Perceived goodness
General impression
Femininity
Identification
Female victim
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 21)
(n = 18)
4.98 (1.29)
5.97 (0.44)
5.62 (1.47)
5.39 (0.98)
5.81 (0.68)
5.83 (0.62)
5.67 (0.73)
4.22 (0.88)
3.95 (1.50)
4.94 (1.21)
Male victim
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 18)
(n = 21)
5.06 (0.97)
5.81 (1.15)
6.00 (0.69)
4.90 (1.30)
5.78 (0.65)
5.48 (0.75)
4.67 (0.91)
2.90 (0.77)
4.72 (1.23)
4.62 (1.12)
Post-victimization
Perceived competence
Perceived goodness
General impression
Femininity
Identification
Female victim
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 23)
(n = 17)
4.84 (1.47)
6.15 (0.58)
5.39 (1.50)
6.00 (1.00)
5.61 (0.78)
5.65 (0.86)
5.52 (0.73)
4.82 (1.19)
4.13 (1.58)
5.06 (1.39)
Male victim
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 13)
(n = 16)
5.65 (0.80)
5.81 (0.23)
5.85 (0.69)
6.06 (0.68)
5.85 (0.90)
5.50 (1.03)
3.92 (0.86)
3.31 (0.79)
5.38 (1.45)
4.56 (1.59)
Perceived credibility of rape scenarios. To check whether respondents regarded the
rape vignette as realistic enough to become emotionally involved, they were asked to rate the
plausibility of the scenario and state how well they could picture, or associate with, the
scenario. Correlation between these two questions was r = 0.64, p < .001, with Cronbach’s α =
.78. They were therefore combined into one variable called “credibility” ranging from 1 (not
at all) to 6 (completely). A Two-Way ANOVA on credibility (see Fig. I) showed that there
was a main effect for the four different conditions, F(3, 139) = 4.514, p = .005, as well as for
the sex of the observer, F(1, 139) = 4.207, p = 0.029, though no interaction was found, F(3,
139) = 0.644, p > 0.1. Scenarios were thus perceived as somewhat credible, though those
featuring a masculine male victim were seen as less so, especially by male respondents.
33
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Figure I. Means of scenario credibility per condition and sex of observer.
Perceived sexual orientation of victims. Because previous studies have found that
reactions of victim blame and character derogation can vary across victims with different
sexual orientations, it was thought valuable to check whether masculine and feminine victims
were estimated to have different sexual orientations. Feminine males were thought more
likely to be attracted to men (M = 3.06, SD = 0.68) and less to women (M = 3.16, SD = 0.74)
than masculine males (M = 2.46, SD = 0.73 attraction to men; M = 3.73, SD = 0.73 attraction
to women). These differences between masculine and feminine males were significant with
t(66) = -3.184, p = 0.002 for estimated attraction to women, and t(66) = 3.511, p = 0.001 for
estimated attraction to men. The reverse was true for masculine females (attraction to men: M
= 3.49, SD = 0.66; attraction to women: M = 2.60, SD = 0.70) and feminine females
(attraction to men: M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; attraction to women: M = 2.14, SD = 0.82), with
34
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
t(77) = -2.661, p = 0.009 for attraction to women and t = 2.780, p = 0.007 for attraction to
men. Overall, respondents were very careful in their estimations and stuck to the middle point
or one below/above it on a Likert-scale that consisted of 5 answering options.
Sex of observer. Although not the prime interest of the present study, sex of the
observer was found to significantly influence the attribution of victim traits, F(1,145) = 7.610,
p = .007, and characterological blame, F(1,145) = 4.358, p = .039. Observer’s sex was thus
included in the analyses, mainly as a covariate in a multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA). Examining data and plots (e.g. see Fig II), it seems that observer sex has an
especially strong effect in the masculine male victim condition, where male observers engage
in more secondary victimization than female observers18. In the following plot, only three
males were part of the masculine male victim post-victimization condition. Still, a t-test
indicated that the more negative general impression by male respondents of masculine Lukas
after victimization (M = 3.67, SD= 1.16) compared to before victimization (M = 5.33, SD =
0.87) was significant, t(10) = 2.685, p = 0.023.
18
However, care should be warranted when interpreting these results because more than twice as many
women as men participated in this study and in some conditions only a few men filled in the questionnaire.
35
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Figure II. General impression feminine or masculine Lisa/Lukas pre-and post victimization
Main hypotheses
Victim character derogation and feminization. As stated in the introduction, it was
predicted that participants would evaluate all characters more negatively, perhaps instead of
explicitly blaming them, after the rape description than before. Furthermore, they were
expected to distance themselves from the victims and rate the victims as more feminine after
reading about the rape. The definition of derogation necessarily requires a comparison
between the scenarios’ characters before and after victimization. Two-sided independent
samples t – tests were conducted to compare responses to all four types of victim before and
after the rape scenario. In none of the conditions was the victim judged as less competent after
compared to before the rape, nor did the general impression of victims change (see Table I).
According to predictions, however, masculine characters taken as one group (masculine Lisa
+ masculine Lukas) were seen as more feminine after the rape (M = 4.09, SD = 1.26) than
before the rape (M = 3.51, SD = 1.05), t(70) = -2.126, p = .037. Masculine characters were
also judged as more ‘essentially good’ persons after the rape (M = 6.03, SD = 0.85) compared
36
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
to before the rape (M = 5.13, SD = 1.17), with t(70) = -3.677, p < .001. Interestingly, feminine
Lukas was judged as less feminine after the rape (M= 3.92, SD= 0.86) than before
victimization (M =4.67, SD= 0.91), with t(29) = 2.298, p =.029. No results were found when
comparing feminine Lisa before and after the rape.
Though few results were found in relation to the victim’s gender, male and female
respondents showed significantly different patterns of response pre- and post-victimization in
relation to identification. Female respondents could identify more with characters after
victimization and male respondents could identify less with victims of rape. The changes in
ability to identify with Lisa/Lukas from pre- to post-victimization did not change significantly
for both groups of observers but it should be noted that whereas both groups were close to
each other in their ratings before victimization, they differ significantly from each other postvictimization. Supporting previous findings, women seem more able to identify with a (sexual
assault) victim (M = 4.92, SD = 1.52) than men (M = 4.06, SD = 1.51), with t(67), p = 0.041.
Figure III. Identification with Lisa/Lukas pre- and post victimization.
37
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Victim suffering. Masculine males were expected to be judged to suffer more from a
described sexual assault than feminine males and masculine females to be judged to suffer
more than feminine females. In the questionnaire, two types of suffering were distinguished,
namely emotional suffering and physical suffering. No significant differences were found in
perceived physical suffering between the feminine and masculine characters, although
differences between masculine and feminine females approached the expected direction (see
Table II). In fact, when splitting the data by sex of the observer, male respondents rated the
likelihood of physical suffering for the masculine female victim 4.75 (SD= 1.36) and for the
feminine female 3.77 (SD = 1.83). However, this difference of – 0.98, with 95% CI [-2.33,
0.36], was statistically non-significant, t(23) = - 1.510, p = .145.
Further, A MANCOVA was conducted that included results for all dependent
variables of the study (see Table III) as an effect of sex of the victim, gender of the victim, the
interaction between sex and gender, and sex of the observer as a covariate. It showed no main
effects of emotional suffering for sex and gender of the victim, but showed a significant
interaction between the two, F(1, 142) = 7.231, p = 0.008. The mean score for expected
emotional suffering of feminine Lukas was higher (M = 6.45, SD = 0.57) than for masculine
Lukas (M = 5.89, SD = 1.10), with t(66) = 2.559 and p = 0.013. No differences in perceived
emotional or physical suffering or in crime severity were found between male and female
victims, with a greatest mean difference of -0.224 for physical suffering, t(145) = -0.909, p =
0.365.
Table II. Means and Standard Deviations on Dependent Variables Post-Victimization
All respondents
Physical suffering
Emotional suffering
Female victim
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 44)
(n = 35)
4.59 (1.58)
5.06 (1.39)
6.07 (0.82)
6.29 (0.86)
Male victim
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 31)
(n = 37)
4.58 (1.69)
4.57 (1.28)
6.45 (0.57)
5.89 (1.10)
38
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Goodness perpetrator
Punishment perpetrator
Label rape
Victim traits
Behavioral blame
Characterological blame
Global blame
2.86 (1.34)
6.05 (1.12)
5.50 (1.56)
4.67 (1.25)
3.02 (0.95)
3.02 (1.34)
2.73 (1.16)
2.91 (1.46)
6.06 (1.16)
6.23 (1.00)
2.96 (1.20)
2.77 (0.83)
2.11 (1.11)
2.44 (0.99)
2.35 (1.14)
6.45 (0.68)
5.84 (1.64)
3.69 (1.49)
2.31 (1.11)
2.84 (1.32)
2.18 (1.26)
3.38 (1.44)
6.00 (1.00)
5.88 (1.40)
2.96 (1.27)
2.02 (0.94)
2.11 (1.47)
1.80 (0.89)
Female respondents
Physical suffering
Emotional suffering
Goodness perpetrator
Punishment perpetrator
Label rape
Victim traits
Behavioral blame
Characterological blame
Global blame
Female victim
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 31)
(n = 23)
4.94 (1.34)
5.22 (1.41)
6.19 (0.83)
6.26 (0.86)
2.81 (1.42)
3.00 (1.48)
6.06 (1.00)
5.91 (1.35)
5.68 (1.35)
6.13 (1.14)
4.61 (1.28)
2.74 (1.25)
3.10 (0.93)
2.77 (0.86)
3.00 (1.29)
2.00 (1.04)
2.71 (1.18)
2.39 (0.95)
Male victim
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 23)
(n = 25)
4.70 (1.55)
4.52 (1.36)
6.43 (0.59)
5.80 (0.96)
2.26 (1.21)
3.52 (1.42)
6.43 (0.73)
6.00 (0.91)
5.57 (1.81)
5.92 (1.15)
3.43 (1.42)
2.50 (0.97)
2.29 (1.14)
1.84 (0.78)
2.61 (1.23)
1.76 (1.23)
2.13 (1.25)
1.52 (0.62)
Male respondents
Female victim
Male victim
Feminine
Masculine
Feminine
Masculine
(n = 13)
(n = 12)
(n = 8)
(n = 12)
Physical suffering
3.77 (1.83)
4.75 (1.36)
4.25 (2.12)
4.67 (1.16)
Emotional suffering
5.77 (0.73)
6.33 (0.89)
6.50 (0.54)
6.08 (1.38)
Goodness perpetrator
3.00 (1.16)
2.75 (1.49)
2.63 (0.92)
3.08 (1.51)
Punishment perpetrator
6.00 (1.41)
6.33 (0.65)
6.50 (0.54)
6.00 (1.21)
Label rape
5.08 (1.98)
6.42 (0.67)
6.63 (0.52)
6.25 (1.42)
Victim traits
4.81 (1.20)
3.38 (1.03)
4.44 (1.52)
3.92 (1.33)
Behavioral blame
2.85 (1.03)
2.78 (0.81)
2.38 (1.08)
2.39 (1.15)
Characterological blame
3.08 (1.50)
2.33 (1.23)
3.50 (1.50)
2.83 (1.70)
Global blame
2.77 (1.15)
2.54 (1.10)
2.31 (1.39)
2.38 (1.09)
Note. Behavioral blame (average of three factors), global blame (average of two
factors) and victim traits (average of two factors)
Note. All blame attributions were measured on a 6- instead of 7- point Likert scale.
Crime severity. Related to the previous hypothesis on victim suffering, it was
expected that crimes would be judged as worse when masculine characters were involved than
39
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
when feminine characters were involved. Crime severity was measured by level of agreement
with the statements “There should be criminal sanctions for Tom” and “What happened
between Lukas/Lisa and Tom should be called rape”. Cronbach’s alpha was below 0.7 (α =
0.55) so the two questions were not computed into one variable but were kept separate. The
hypothesis was partly supported by the results. A t-test revealed that participants agreed
significantly more that the act between Lisa and Tom should be called rape when Lisa had
been depicted as masculine (M = 6.23, SD = 1.00) rather than feminine (M = 5.50, SD = 1.56)
in the description, t(77) = -2.393, p = .019. No differences were found between masculine and
feminine Lukas, t(66) = -0.540, p = .591. No significant effects on the variable of criminal
sanctions were found.
Table III. MANCOVA: Effects Sex and Gendered Traits Victim on Dependent Variables
df
MS
F
p
Physical
suffering
Sex victim
1
2.52
1.16
.284
Gender victim
1
2.35
1.08
.300
Sex * Gender
1
2.00
0.92
.340
Sex observer
1
8.06
3.70
.056
η2p
0.008
0.008
0.006
0.025
Emotional
suffering
Sex victim
Gender victim
Sex * Gender
Sex observer
1
1
1
1
0.00
1.04
5.46
0.01
0.00
1.38
7.23
0.02
.968
.242
.008
.897
0.000
0.010
0.048
0.000
Goodness
perpetrator
Sex victim
Gender victim
Sex * Gender
Sex observer
1
1
1
1
0.02
10.51
8.58
0.08
0.01
5.66
4.62
0.04
.917
.019
.033
.836
0.000
0.038
0.032
0.000
Punishment
perpetrator
Sex victim
1
1.14
1.08
.300
0.008
40
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Gender victim
Sex * Gender
Sex observer
1
1
1
1.84
1.96
0.31
1.75
1.86
0.30
.188
.174
.587
0.012
0.013
0.002
1
1
1
1
0.20
7.23
2.67
1.05
0.10
3.76
1.39
0.55
.750
.055
.241
.461
0.001
0.026
0.010
0.004
1
1
1
1
7.83
57.94
8.41
18.90
5.03
37.18
5.40
12.13
.027
.000
.022
.001
0.034
0.208
0.037
0.079
Sex victim
Gender victim
Sex * Gender
Sex observer
1
1
1
1
19.24
2.78
0.02
0.24
20.91
3.02
0.02
0.26
.000
.085
.890
.610
0.128
0.021
0.000
0.002
Characterological
blame
Sex victim
Gender victim
Sex * Gender
Sex observer
1
1
1
1
0.23
26.11
0.25
9.66
0.14
15.54
0.15
5.75
.713
.000
.698
.018
0.001
0.099
0.001
0.039
1
1
1
1
12.54
4.42
0.09
3.05
10.85
3.82
0.08
2.64
.001
.053
.777
.106
0.071
0.026
0.001
0.018
Label rape
Sex victim
Gender victim
Sex * Gender
Sex observer
Victim traits
Sex victim
Gender victim
Sex * Gender
Sex observer
Behavioral blame
Global blame
Sex victim
Gender victim
Sex * Gender
Sex observer
Note. Sex of the observer was included as covariate in the analysis.
Note. Bold format indicates significant p-values.
41
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Victim blame. Following previous studies, it was expected that more
characterological blame would be appointed to feminine characters, and more behavioral
blame to masculine characters. The first half of the hypothesis was supported while the
second half was contradicted. For characterological blame, a significant gender effect was
found, F(1, 142) = 15.537, p < .001 with η2p = .099. Observer sex also had an effect, F(1, 142)
= 5.746, p = .018. An independent samples t –test was used to determine whether
characterological blame appointed to the victim differed between a feminine or masculine
description of that victim. The t-test comparing gendered characteristics in female victims
showed t(77) = 3,233, p = .002. The mean characterological blame score for feminine Lisa (M
= 3.02, SD = 1.338) thus differed significantly from the mean score for masculine Lisa (M=
2.11, SD= 1.105). The difference of mean characterological blame score for feminine Lukas
(M =2.81, SD=1.319) was also found to be different from the mean score for masculine Lukas
(M=2.11, SD=1.468) with t(66)= 2.140, p = .036. As can be seen in the plots below, feminine
characters were indeed attributed more characterological blame, as was predicted. No
difference in characterological blame was found between sexes. Again, it should be
emphasized that all average scores lay between 2 and 3 on 7-point Likert scale of agreement,
meaning that most respondents disagreed or disagreed somewhat that the victim’s personal
character led up to the rape.
For behavioral blame (see Fig. IV), a significant main effect for sex of the victim was
found, F(1, 142) = 20.912, p < .001 with a power of .96 and η2p = .128, meaning that nearly
13 percent of group differences in behavioral blame could be explained by victim sex while
controlling for victim gender. As for the contradiction with the hypothesis, masculine
characters were not attributed more behavioral blame. In fact, female victims (M = 2.91, SD =
0.90) were attributed significantly more behavioral blame than male victims (M = 2.15, SD =
42
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
1.02; t(145) = -4.783, p < .001), and feminine characters (M = 2.73, SD = 0.96) more
behavioral blame than masculine characters (M = 2.38, SD = 0.96; t(145) = -2.052, p = .042).
Figure IV. Means of behavioral blame per condition
Figure V. Characterological blame based on victim sex and gendered traits.
43
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Figure VI. Characterological blame per condition and observer sex.
Interestingly, when including observer sex in the analysis, respondents, especially males,
consistently appear to judge members of their own sex more negatively than members of the
opposite sex (see Fig. VII). This pattern was found to be significant in the masculine male
victim condition, where male respondents attributed more characterological blame to
masculine Lukas (M = 2.83, SD = 1.70) than female respondents did (M = 1.76, SD = 1.23),
with t(35) = 2.189, p = .035.
Victim traits. One possible way of derogating someone’s character while at the same
time making the crime against them seem more normative and acceptable, is by ascribing
traits to a person that are likely to make them an ‘easy victim’. Participants were asked about
their level of agreement to the statements “L is probably a naïve person” and “L comes across
as a vulnerable person”. Correlation between these two factors was Pearson’s r = .605, p <
.001, with Cronbach’s α .754, which was high enough to combine both variables into a new
44
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
average of the two called ‘victim traits’. When testing whether one type of victim is more
often ascribed these victim-like traits, main effects showed for both sex of the victim, F(1,
142) = 5.025, p = .027, and gendered characteristics F(1, 142) = 37.180, p < .001, as well as
an interaction effect, F(1, 142) = 5.398, p = .022, and an effect for the covariate observer sex,
F(1, 142) = 12.125, p = .001. Gender accounted for more than 20 percent of the variance
between groups (η2p = .208) over the other predictors. The mean score for feminine males (M=
3.69, SD= 1.49) was higher than for masculine males (M = 2.96, SD= 1.27), t(66) = 2.195, p =
.032 and the mean score for feminine females (M= 4.67, SD=1.25) was higher than for
masculine females (M = 2.96, SD= 1.20), t(77) = 6.172, p < .001. So, next to a sex difference,
victims described as feminine were judged as more vulnerable and more naïve than victims
described as masculine. Notably, victim traits and characterological blame were strongly
correlated, r(145) = .53, p <.001.
Figure VII. Effects of victim sex and gender on perceived victim traits.
45
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Figure VIII. Ascribed victim traits per condition and sex of observer.
Perpetrator excusing. Participants were asked to rate the perpetrator, Tom, on his
‘essential goodness’. The perpetrator was evaluated differently across the four types of victim,
with a significant main effect for gender F(1, 143) = 5.658, p= .019, and a significant
interaction effect between sex and gender, F(1, 143) = 4.641, p = .033, but no significant
effect for sex of the victim, F(1, 143) = 0.011, p = .917. Contrary to expectations, a t-test
revealed that the perpetrator was evaluated as a more ‘essentially good person’ when a
masculine male victim was involved (M = 3.38, SD= 1.441) than when a feminine male
victim was involved (M= 2.35, SD= 1.142), t(66) = 3.201, p = .002. Besides this, male
respondents engaged in more perpetrator excusing (“Tom did not realize that his behavior
could be damaging to Lisa/Lukas”) when male victims were involved (M = 2.85, SD = 1.73)
than when female victims were involved (M = 1.88, SD = 1.30), t(43) = 2.151, p = .037.
46
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Discussion
Main hypotheses
The main presumption at the start of this study was that, considering gender
literature’s phrasing of rape as a gendered and gendering crime, reactions to victims should
differ not just on the basis of their sex but also their stereotypical gendered characteristics.
This expectation has received support by the significant effect of the victim’s gender on
several dependent variables, mainly the attribution of victim-like traits, as based on Christie’s
ideal victim, and characterological blame. The hypotheses and implications of results will be
discussed in more detail below.
Victim suffering and crime severity. In this study, the hypothesis that masculine
types are judged to suffer more from sexual victimization than feminine types (H1b) was not
supported by statistically significant results. Yet looking at the data, it does seem plausible
that an effect may be found when a larger male sample is used. A finding that corresponds
with this prediction is that the victimization of masculine Lisa was more readily labeled ‘rape’
by observers than the victimization of feminine Lisa (H1a). This could be supportive of the
gendered idea that feminine females mostly occupy the submissive role in a (sexual)
relationship. Because this is ‘normal’, and rape is by some viewed as an extension of this
normative relation (e.g. Cahill, 2001)19, the notion may exist that feminine females suffer less
from rape than other victims. Masculine females, on the other hand, are recognized to possess
certain intrinsic qualities that do not fit the standard feminine/submissive ideal. Victimizing
them may thus more readily be perceived as a severe crime and causing more suffering
because the act does not only transgress notions justice and deservingness, but also of
normativity.
19
Although left out of the final analysis in an attempt not to divert from the main findings, some support for
this notion may be found in the result that, only in the feminine Lisa rape scenario, male respondents indicated
significantly lower levels of disgust (M = 3.69, SD = 1.55) than female respondents (M = 4.74, SD = 1.21), t(42)= 2.414, p = .020.
47
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Patterns were reversed for the male victim, whereby feminine Lukas was judged to
(emotionally) suffer more from the sexual assault than masculine Lukas. It seems that the
description of masculinity caused respondents to ascribe lower degrees of emotionality to a
victimized man. This could indicate a denial of emotional response in a masculine male, or a
denial of ‘victim status’ for ‘real men’ in general (e.g. as suggested in reference to the
‘macho’ man by Doherty & Anderson, 2004). A denial of victim status of masculine men may
also shimmer through in answer to the hypothesis on perpetrator blame (H3). Although it was
expected that perpetrator excusing would be greater in scenarios with feminine victims,
actually the perpetrator in the masculine male scenario was rated as significantly more of an
‘essentially good’ person than in the feminine male scenario. While the hypotheses
emphasized the possible detrimental consequences of the feminine stereotype, it seems that
the masculine stereotype in men carries other dangers with it!
No differences in crime severity or perceived suffering were found between male and
female victims (H1c). It seems conceivable then that some of the differences that were found
in previous studies have less to do with biological/sex differences (Graham, 2006) than with
culturally-influenced gender differences.
Victim blame and victim traits. Supporting the hypothesis (H2a), feminine
characters were indeed assigned greater characterological blame than masculine characters.
However, in contrast to predictions, men and/or masculine characters were not assigned more
behavioral blame. Descriptions of the feminine characters made no mention of them being
either vulnerable or naïve; in fact, all descriptions were constructed rather positively and
hinted at the character’s intelligence by stating their role as university student. Yet feminine
male and female victims were consistently judged more naïve and vulnerable (H2b). Clearly,
the results partly supported findings by Howard (1984b) that “subjects attributed blame to
women in terms of characteristics that conform to the female stereotype - the victim’s trusting
48
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
nature, passivity, and carelessness” (p. 279). This statement captures the essential point that
many characteristics that allegedly make up an ‘ideal victim’ simultaneously conform to the
female stereotype (femininity). Furthermore, the strong correlation between these victim traits
and characterological blame suggests that femininity may be viewed by respondents as a
partial cause of victimization. This is especially worrying if the proper or good woman in
today’s society is still described as feminine. As pointed out by Madriz (1997), “[i]mages of
victims contribute to the social definition of “good” and “bad” women. Good women obey the
codes of behavior and do not fight. Therefore, they should stay in because they do not know
how to protect themselves” (p. 350). A ‘good’ woman is thus described as vulnerable, but
knowledgeable of her vulnerability to such an extent that she will constrain her freedom of
movement. She can be blamed characterologically and behaviorally if she ‘puts herself’ at
risk.
Yet Howard (1984b) also predicted that men would be behaviorally blamed for not
acting according to the male stereotype, for example, by a “failure to fight back, looking
scared, not trying to escape” (p.274). The fact that no supporting evidence was found in this
study may be explained by the construction of this rape scenario. No references were made to
the victim’s reactions to the sexual assault and the scenario stopped as soon as forced sexual
intercourse was mentioned. Therefore, the behavior that was judged by observers was what
preceded the rape, not what happened during or after the rape. In this light, such actions as
accepting a drink, spending time with a man and inviting him inside will clearly be assigned
different meanings when performed by women or by men.
Victim character derogation and feminization
In relation not just to the gendered aspect of rape, but specifically to the gendering
hypothesis, several other results prove to be of interest. Though the hypotheses predicting
character derogation (H4a) and feminization (H4c) after the rape were not fully supported,
49
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
results provided an intriguing insight into respondents’ reactions. First, masculine Lisa and
Lukas were judged to be slightly more feminine after the rape, while feminine Lukas was
judged slightly more masculine after the rape. Furthermore, masculine Lisa and masculine
Lukas were judged as more ‘essentially good’ after victimization compared to before
victimization. The prediction relating to feminization only seemed to apply when victims
were initially, pre-victimization, judged to be relatively masculine. Perhaps victims of sexual
assault are indeed perceived as more feminine than non-victims or victims of other crimes.
This conclusion may receive support in the finding that women generally identify themselves
more with victims than men do (H4b). Another possibility is that feminization may work as
an additional coping mechanism to the ones proposed by Lerner (as discussed by Hafer &
Bègue, 2005). As soon as a masculine victim is feminized after sexual assault, the
transgression of the situation and resulting discomfort in the observer is decreased, making
the event more acceptable and more easily placed in one’s just, or normative, world. This
possible coping mechanism should be regarded with wary attitude because “cultural
stigmatization and marginalization also enhance the risks of criminal victimization by
designating certain groups as ‘fair game’ or as culturally legitimate victims” (Fattah, 2000, p.
32). Possibly, femininity is essential in the formula that describes this culturally legitimate
victim. However, the feminine male victim was judged to be more masculine after the rape. It
would be interesting to see if any similar studies in the future result in a related finding.
As indicated by the results, none of the victims were rated as less competent after
victimization than before. So, although feminine victims were assigned more victim-like traits
and viewed as somewhat possessing character traits that led up to victimization, they, as
victims, were still judged rather positively. Similarly, the increased perceived ‘goodness’ of
the masculine victims after the rape may not reflect feminization so much but again a different
type of coping employed by the observer, existing of moral, though symbolic, support given
50
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
to the victim. Results indicate a complex mix of feminizing the masculine female victim and
masculinizing the feminine male victim, re-normalizing gender relations as if to restore
balance to their known (if not just) world. At the same time, participants seem to hold certain
people somewhat responsible for their victimization but still express relatively positive views
and support towards those victims. In their article, Kay, Jost and Young (2005) explain how
observers may derogate victims on attributes that they perceive as causally related to the
victimization, while at the same time evaluating the victim more positively on non-relevant
characteristics. They term the latter “victim enhancement” and consider it compatible with the
first, in line with the maxim “no one has it all” (p. 245). Factors leading to victim
enhancement and consequences of this so far neglected coping mechanism could be explored
in further studies relating to the Just World and sexual assault20.
Sex of observer
A very interesting finding that was not clearly defined by any of the hypotheses was
that although women sometimes judge female victims slightly more negatively than male
victims, men consistently judge masculine male victims more negatively than any of the other
characters. Several studies have reported finding that males blame male victims more than
female victims (Davies & Rogers, 2006; Burt & DeMello, 2003; White & Kupius, 2002) but
this apparently again has as much to do with cultural notions of gender as with biological sex.
As emphasized in the limitations section, a small male participant sample makes it difficult to
come to concrete conclusions but a pattern of harsh judgment towards the masculine male in
particular seems to be in place. Male observers both indicate having a lower general
impression of masculine Lukas post-victimization and being able to identify themselves
20
An interesting fictional example of victim enhancement in relation to sexual assault occurs in the British TVseries ‘Downton Abbey’ (season 4, episode 5, 2014) when one of the male servants finds out his wife was
raped. When she finally admits what happened and shares her fear that she is no longer good enough for him
because she is ‘spoilt’, he answers: “You are not spoilt. You are made higher to me and holier because of the
suffering you’ve been put through”.
51
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
poorly with him. The Defensive Attribution Theory (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970) may play
an important role in explaining these findings. It can be assumed that male law students
generally consider themselves more like masculine Lukas than feminine Lukas previctimization. Thus, the resemblance to this character makes the situation in which masculine
Lukas is raped most threatening to them. More just world coping mechanisms are needed to
restore a sense of justice, or at least of order and normativity. This may also explain why
masculine Lukas is derogated and taken distance from, yet at the same time not blamed, and
in fact found to be more essentially good post-victimization. Observers dissociate themselves
from the victim while at the same time enhancing certain qualities as if to compensate the
victim. A plurality of employed coping mechanisms was also found by Shaver (1970), who
described this as “attempting to hedge against every conceivable danger [..]” (p. 111).
Possibly, female and male observers are both harsher on their own sex in relation to
victimization because these victimizations are perceived as more personally relevant and thus
more threatening (Walster, 1966). Another possibility is that male respondents generally
score higher on homophobic tendencies (Burt & DeMello, 2003) and are thus more disgusted,
and inclined to blame the victim, when male rape victims are involved.
Implications
A victimizing paradox
This study suggests that findings of victim blame and character derogation towards
male and female victims frequently have as much, if not more, to do with cultural notions of
gender as with biological sex. Not only are victim-like traits expected of a person who is
described as feminine, these traits are also seen as part of the cause of consequent
victimization. In the introduction, it was stated that the ideal victim is the one most deserving
of our sympathy and compensation (Christie, 1986; Smolej, 2010) because this person is the
personification of innocence and in no way caused his or her own victimization. However,
52
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
this makes the ideal victim a “symbolic and unreal construct” (Gotell, 2002, p.276) never
realizable in the actual world, or only in relation to specific purpose, such as serving as “the
measure of any real complainant’s credibility” (ibid, p. 276). What we want to see in a victim
post-victimization is something we find cause for to blame when it is displayed prior to
victimization. For example, passivity and a forgiving attitude (victim as victima, van Dijk,
200921) may be valued in the victim post-victimization because these qualities promote the
process of restorative justice, but passivity, or non-resistance, in the victim pre-victimization
is also precisely what is used by the defense to hold the victim responsible for what the victim
terms rape. Unfortunately, passivity and compliance are still applauded as desirable (ideal)
feminine qualities. So, answering to a stereotypical feminine description leads to the
immediate assumption of vulnerability (also found by Carpenter, 2003; in the context of
conflict and humanitarian evacuation) and victim-like disposition, leading to characterological
blame when victimization has effectually happened.
The paradox of the relationship between the “ideal victim” and blame(lessness) may
be explained by the Just World Theory. If BJW leads one to derogate or blame the innocent,
suffering victim, it seems that that the notion of ‘ideal victim’ and JWT are inherently
incompatible (also noted by Pemberton, 2011). The effect of employing coping mechanisms
to restore one’s just world is namely that the victim becomes less ideal, while the idea of an
‘ideal victim’ is only accessed after victimization has happened. So, the victim postvictimization will (because of just world beliefs) by then already have been derogated, and
subsequently compared to the perfect non-blamable victim. A similar thing can be said of the
ideal woman/femininity: “clearly, the construct of the rape victim valourised (…) invokes a
particular ideal of woman: chaste, sensible, responsible, cautious, dependent” (Larcombe,
21
In “Free the victim”, van Dijk (2009) uses Christianity to explain the origin and morality of the term ‘victim’.
As he states “it appears a stroke of linguistic genius that by calling those affected by crimes victims, society can
acknowledge their deep and innocent suffering and at the same time express its firm expectation that they will
sacrifice their right of revenge” (p. 7).
53
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
2002, p. 133). The ideal woman is pure and innocent, but being sexually assaulted takes this
away from her, thus always making her more deserving of blame post-victimization than previctimization. Ironically, the possibility of being an ideal victim (completely undeserving of
victimization) disappears as soon as victimization has occurred. Society’s just world beliefs
are what sever the concept of ‘ideal’ and ‘victim’22. Both genders (and sexes) suffer from this
paradoxical view of the ideal victim. Feminine women do so because being
characterologically similar to a victim, their victimization may be accepted as ‘nothing out of
the ordinary’. ‘Real men’ on the other hand, cannot possibly be victims because “the idealised
heterosexual male is constructed as potent and non-permeable [..]” (Doherty & Anderson,
2004, p.90); their victimization may thus either be denied or the victim himself feminized.
Who is the ideal victim?
One of the purposes of this study has been to re-examine the concept of ‘ideal victim’
and note how its definition depends on the context in which is placed. One may wonder after
closely examining these results whether the ‘ideal victim’ is in fact the least stereotypical
victim. In this study, both feminine females and masculine males were generally judged more
negatively than the other two variants. As stated before, feminine female may run the risk of
being perceived as so stereotypically victim-like that little discomfort is experienced by third
parties when hearing of such a victimization, or at least that this discomfort is more easily
dealt with. Their victimization is easily interpreted as a consequence of their being and though
a sense of justice may be threatened, a sense of ‘what is to be expected’ is not. On the other
hand, masculine males or “real men” are per definition non-victims and will suffer a lack of
acknowledgment when finding themselves in such a position. Lens, Doorn, Pemberton and
Bogaerts have noted that “a ‘mismatch’ between the observers’ expectations and a victim’s
22
The ‘ideal victim’ post-victimization remains a feasible concept, referring to how a victim responds to his/her
victimization and consequently, how the environment responds to the victim. A woman then becomes an ideal
victim again because her victimization poses no threat to the (gendered) order of society.
54
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
emotional demeanor negatively influences the observers’ attitude toward the victim” (2014, p.
335; also Ellison & Munro, 2008). This emotional demeanor that is expected from the victim
is almost certainly influenced by perceptions of gender-appropriate conduct, at least when
people are primed to think in gender stereotypes. However, feminine men and masculine
women may, though sometimes ridiculed, be least vulnerable to stereotypical expectations
because they do not fit the gendered stereotype. In consequence, observers are forced to view
them as individuals instead of stereotypes, and this may call for a more personal and less
heuristically inclined manner of responding to the victim.
What is a Just world?
We may conclude that trying to predict results using the just world theory, especially
in cases of male and female sexual victimization is impossible to do without a further
exploration of the concepts of ‘innocence’, ‘blamelessness’ and even ‘justice’. Normativity
must be connected to the notion of what is just in our world, and thus the concept of gender
must be included in a ‘just world’ exploration of victimization. As stated by Maes (1994),
BJW may be particularly “concerned with finding meaning in the event” (p.87), but meaning
may be found in cultural dictations as that which is familiar to us, and not necessarily in
‘objective’ justice. We frequently look at justice in terms of ‘deservingness’ and as excusable
when it happens to ‘a bad person’ or someone who behaved badly. But, we ought to wonder if
bad is only thought to equal ‘evil’ or if it just as much describes the deviant, someone who
transgresses cultural norms and causes unease and disorder in society, such as the masculine
male who is sexually assaulted. Also, although a need to believe in a just world may always
create a motivation to believe that a victim merited his fate (Lerner, 1980), certain situations
may provide more means for the blame outlet than others. For example, where a feminine
female may be blamed for her character and her behavior, because she is perceived as a sexual
target and a submissive one at that, a masculine woman may at least in terms of her character
55
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
be blamed less easily. In this case, a different cause of victimization may be sought and other
more rational and thought-through coping mechanisms used.
Limitations and Future Research
A main methodological consideration in this study has to do with the independent
variable of the victim’s gender and the possibility of confounding variables. One reason to be
careful when drawing conclusions is that hitherto no manipulations of gender have been made
by describing someone as typically feminine or typically masculine in experimental study
vignettes. Although the manipulation of this study was empirically founded and seemed
successful, it is only a certain image of masculinity and femininity that is portrayed and only a
certain stereotype that is answered to. For example, an image was painted of an ambitious
masculine male with an interest in economics and technical knowledge, but no reference was
made to a stereotypical male student who is, for example, part of a fraternity and is more
socially focused. Reactions to different (stereotypical) portrayals of femininity and
masculinity may elicit different reactions.
Also, the manipulation confounded with several variables such as perceived goodness
and competence, although not with likeability. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and indeed
a very interesting finding, but does hint at the possibility that other variables were confounded
with the gender manipulation that were not examined. It also makes it hard to say whether
observer responses such as victim blame are a direct effect of gendered identity or moderated
by such variables as perceived intelligence, goodness of character and identification. It is also
unclear whether these differences should be attributed to the masculinity/femininity
manipulation or more specifically to the type of studies appointed to both of them. Although
both were stated to attend university (leading to expected high ratings of intelligence), (law)
students may believe that business economics ranks above pedagogics in some ways. Or, as
supported by another question in the first section of the survey, law students may identify
56
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
more with business economics students than pedagogic students. To get a clearer idea of the
validity of this latter assumption, it would have been interesting to imperceptibly measure
how respondents ranked themselves on masculinity and femininity.
The most prominent statistical limitations had to do with the different sample sizes and
the large difference between quantities of male and female respondents. Results revealed that
male and female observers may indeed consistently respond differently to certain questions,
and a suspicion emerged that possibly more variability may exist in male responses. A bigger
sample of men is needed to discover whether some effects are more likely to be found in male
participants than in female participants or the other way around. Besides sample-related
issues, external validity may have been increased if more questions were used to map onto a
single dependent variable. Furthermore, in some cases, alternative measures to Likert scales
may be appropriate in the future. The study related to a sensitive topic to which most
respondents were (fortunately) inclined to respond disapprovingly. The descriptive scenario
may also have been too unambiguously identifiable as rape, partly because it included some
force and a verbalized ‘no’ (Durán & Moya, 2011). This caused data to be severely skewed
and may have given rise to ceiling effects, blurring possible variances between conditions.
The possibility should also be considered that a certain percentage of participants have
experienced situations similar to those described in the scenario.
Although the decision was consciously made, this study did not include any
measurements of observers’ just world beliefs or their level of rape myth acceptance. In
effect, an acknowledgment of every participant’s individuality was lost to a certain extent and
this study can make no claims as to whether the just world theory is causally linked to any of
the found results. It is interesting, however, that the integration of gender studies may lead
future researchers to find more coping mechanisms that are irrational but also embedded in a
societal context. For example, in this study it was unclear whether measures of the
57
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
‘credibility’ of the scenarios partially caused certain responses because a low credibility
evaluation may lead a participant to answer less seriously to questions, or whether they could
in contrast be seen as a coping mechanism in itself – a distancing not just from the victim but
from the seriousness of the whole situation.
The results of this study provide support for the assumption that concepts such as the
‘just world’ and the ‘ideal victim’ strongly depend on context, in particular the norms and
values that are in place in a society. In relation to rape, femininity may not be ‘ideal’ at all
when people have the strong tendency to associate this gendered identity with sexuality and
vulnerability. Smolej (2010) already declared that “the definition of ideal victims varies
among people, societies and times” (p.82); I would add that the typical/ideal victim is also
dependent on the type of crime. While this study focused solely on date rape, it would be
interesting to note in future studies how other crimes shape notions of who the ideal victim is
and whether victimization of one victim may be seen as less or more just than victimization of
the other.
Conclusion
In this thesis, I have attempted to integrate gender perspectives within a victimological
framework in relation to acquaintance rape. I started by describing how several theories
within victimology are used to explain the phenomenon of victim blame. Although their
predictions make for a useful starting point when examining blame attributions, their
inadequacies were found to be in their relative negligence of context. Howard (1984a) has
concluded “that attribution researchers make a serious error in failing to attend to societal
factors” (p. 504) and I wholeheartedly agree. Societal norms give birth to skewed notions of
deservingness and victim-related expectancies, both closely intertwined with gendered
stereotypes. Although these stereotypes will not be easily changed, awareness of their
influence is certainly a step in the right direction.
58
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Reference List
Anderson, I. (1999). Characterological and behavioral blame in conversations about female
and male rape. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(4), 377-394.
Anderson, I. & Beattie, G. (2001). Depicted rapes: How similar are vignette and newspaper
accounts of rape? Semiotica, 137(1), 1-21.
Anderson, I., Beattie, G., & Spencer, C. (2001). Can blaming victims of rape be logical?
Attribution theory and discourse analytic perspectives. Human Relations, 54(4), 445467.
Anderson, I., & Swainson, V. (2001). Perceived motivation for rape: Gender differences in
beliefs about female and male rape. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(8), 107123.
Anderson, I. (2007). What is typical rape? Effects of victim participant gender in female and
male rape perception. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 225-245.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162.
Best, J. (1997). Victimization and the victim industry. Society, 9-17.
Bieneck, S. & Krahé, B. (2011). Blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator in cases
of rape and robbery: Is there a double standard? Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
26(9), 1785-1797.
Bonthuys, E. (2008). Putting gender into the definition of rape or taking it out? Masiya v
Director of public prosecutions (Pretoria) and others. Feminist Legal Studies, 16, 249260.
Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C., Karuza, J. jr., Coates, D., Cohn, E., & Kidder, L. (1982).
Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist, 37(4), 368-384.
59
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Bridges, J.S. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex role
expectations and rape-supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24(5/6), 291- 307.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38(2), 217-230.
Burt, D. L. & DeMello, L. R. (2003). Attribution of rape blame as a function of victim gender
and sexuality, and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2),
39-57.
Cahill, A. J. (2001). Rethinking rape. New York, America: Cornell University Press.
Campbell, K. (2004). The trauma of justice: Sexual violence, crimes against humanity and the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Social & Legal Studies,
13(3), 329 – 350.
Carpenter, R. C. (2003). ‘Women and children first’: Gender, norms, and humanitarian
evacuation in the Balkans 1991-95. International Organization, 57(4), 661-694.
Connell, R. W. (1993). The big picture: Masculinities in recent world history. Theory and
Society, 22(5), 597- 623.
Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aguiar, P. (2001). The effects of belief in a just world and victim’s
innocence on secondary victimization, judgements of justice and deservingness. Social
Justice Research, 14(3), 327- 342.
Correia, I., & Vala, J. (2003). When will a victim be secondarily victimized? The effect of
observer’s belief in a just world, victim’s innocence and persistence of suffering.
Social Justice Research, 16(4), 379- 400.
Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aguiar, P. (2007). Victim’s innocence, social categorization, and the
threat to the belief in a just world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 3138.
60
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Crome, S. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Adult rape scripting within a victimological
perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 395-413.
Cross, S., & Bagilhole, B. (2002). Girls’ jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and nontraditional occupations. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(2), 204-226.
Davies, M. & McCartney, S. (2003). Effects of gender and sexuality on judgements of victim
blame and rape myth acceptance in a depicted male rape. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 13, 391- 398.
Davies, M. & Rogers, P. (2006). Perceptions of male victims in depicted sexual assaults: A
review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 367-377.
Doherty, K., & Anderson, I. (2004). Making sense of male rape: Constructions of gender,
sexuality and experience of rape victims. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 14(2), 85-103.
Donnelly, D. A., & Kenyon, S. (1996). “Honey, we don’t do men”: Gender stereotypes and
the provision of services to sexually assaulted males. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 11, 441- 448.
Durán, M., & Moya, M. (2011). It’s his right, it’s her duty: Benevolent sexism and the
justification of traditional sexual roles. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 470- 478.
Easteal, P., & Judd, K. (2008). ‘She said, he said’: Credibility and sexual harassment cases in
Australia. Women’s Studies International Forum, 31, 336-344.
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2008). Reacting to rape: Exploring mock juror’s assessments of
complainant credibility. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 202-219.
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Of ‘normal sex’ and ‘real rape’: Exploring the use of
socio-sexual scripts in (mock) jury deliberation. Social & Legal Studies, 18(3), 291312.
Fattah, E. A. (2000). Victimology: Past, present and future. Criminologie, 33(1), 17-46.
61
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on
judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 1(30), 288-299.
Foley, L. A., & Pigott, M. A. (2000). Belief in a just world and jury decisions in a civil rape
trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 935-951.
Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade.
Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795-817.
Gear, S. & Ngubeni, K. (2002). Daai Ding: Sex, sexual violence and coercion in men’s
prisons. Braamfontein, SA: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.
Gotell, L. (2002). The ideal victim, the hysterical complainant, and the disclosure of
confidential records: The implications of the charter for sexual assault law. Osgoode
Hall Law Journal, 40(3/4), 251-295.
Graham, R. (2006). Male rape and the careful construction of the male victim. Social & Legal
Studies, 15(2), 187- 208.
Gray, N. B., Palileo, G. J., & David Johnson, G. (1993). Explaining rape victim blame: A test
of attribution theory. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association,
13(4), 377-392.
Grubb, A. & Harrower, J. (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.
Hafer, C. L. (2000). Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a
modified Stroop Task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 165- 173.
62
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems,
developments and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128-167.
Hammond, E. M., Berry, M. A., & Rodriquez, D. N. (2011). The influence of rape myth
acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility
in a date rape scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 242- 252.
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the
Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7(11), 1097- 1108.
Hollander, J. A. (2001). Vulnerability and dangerousness: The construction of gender through
conversation about violence. Gender & Society, 15(1), 83-109.
Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role
Inventory. Sex Roles, 39(11/12), 929-941.
Howard, J. A. (1984a). Societal influences on attribution: Blaming some victims more than
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(3), 494-505.
Howard, J. A. (1984b). The “normal” victim: The effects of gender stereotypes on reactions to
victims. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 270-281.
Hunnicutt, G. (2009). Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: Resurrecting
“patriarchy” as a theoretical tool. Violence Against Women, 15, 553- 574.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into
depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 17981809.
Janoff-Bulman, R., Timko, C., & Carli, L. L. (1985). Cognitive biases in blaming the victim.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 161-177.
Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., & Young, S. (2005). Victim derogation and victim enhancement as
alternate routes to system justification. Psychological Science, 16(3), 240-246.
63
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Kleinke, C. L., & Meyer, C. (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.
Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational
characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193- 212.
Larcombe, W. (2002). The ‘ideal’ victim v successful rape complainants: Not what you might
expect. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 131-148.
Lens, K. M. E., v. Doorn, J., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2014). You shouldn’t feel that
way! Extending the emotional victim effect through the mediating role of expectancy
violation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(4), 326-338.
Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”:
Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 203210.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. New York: Plenum.
Lerner, M. J. (1998). The two forms of belief in a just world. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner
(Eds.), Responses to victimization and belief in a just world (pp. 247-269). New York:
Plenum.
Luginbuhl, J. & Mullin, C. (1981). Rape and responsibility: How and how much is the victim
blamed? Sex Roles, 7(5), 547-559.
Madriz, E. I. (1997). Images of criminals and victims: A study on women’s fear and social
control. Gender & Society, 11, 342-356.
Maes, J. (1994). Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice? Social Justice
Research, 7(1), 69-90.
Marcus, S. (1992). Fighting bodies, fighting words: A theory and politics of rape prevention.
In J. Butler & J. W. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (pp. 385-403). New
York, United States: Routledge.
64
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Meadow, T. (2010). “A rose is a rose”: On producing legal gender classifications. Gender &
Society, 24(6), 814-837.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
Mitchell, D., Hirschman, R., & Nagayama Hall, G. C. (1999). Attributions of victim
responsibility, pleasure, and trauma in male rape. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(4),
369- 373.
Mulkey, M. (2004). Recreating masculinity: Drama therapy with male survivors of sexual
assault. The Arts in Psychotherapy 31, 19-28.
Norfolk, G.A. (2011). Leda and the swan – And other myths about rape. Journal of Forensic
and Legal Medicine, 18, 225-232.
Pemberton, A. (2011). Just world victimology: Revisiting Lerner in the study of victims of
crime. In H. Morosawa, J. J. P. Dussich & G. F. Kirchhoff (Eds.), Victimology and
human security: New horizons. Wolf Legal Publishers.
Randall, M. (2010). Sexual assault law, credibility, and “ideal victims”: Consent, resistance,
and victim blaming. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 22, 397- 433.
Rickert, V. I., Wiermann, C. M., & Vaughan, R. D. (2005). Disclosure of date/acquaintance
rape: Who reports when. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 18, 17-24.
Rumney, P., & Morgan-Taylor, M. (1997). Recognizing the male victim: Gender neutrality
and the law of rape: Part one. Anglo-American Law Review, 26, 198- 234.
Schneider, L.J., Soh-Chiew Ee, J., & Aronson, H. (1994). Effects of victim gender and
physical vs. psychological trauma/injury on observers’ perceptions of sexual assault
and its aftereffects. Sex Roles, 30(11/12), 793- 808.
65
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
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(2), 101- 113.
Simonson, K., & Subich, L.M. (1999). Rape perceptions as a function of gender-role
traditionality and victim-perpetrator association. Sex Roles, 40(7/8), 617-634.
Sinclair, H. C., & Bourne, L. E. (1998). Cycle of blame of just world: Effects of legal verdicts
on gender patterns in rape-myth acceptance and victim empathy. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 22, 575-588.
Smolej, M. (2010). Constructing ideal victims? Violence narratives in Finnish crime-appeal
programming. Crime, Media, Culture, 6(1), 69-85.
Sleath, E. & Bull, R. (2010). Male rape victim and perpetrator blaming. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 25, 969-989.
Stanko, E. A., & Hobdell, K. (1993). Assault on men: Masculinity and male victimization.
British Journal of Criminology, 33(3), 400- 415.
Stermac, L., del Bove, G., & Addison, M. (2004). Stranger and acquaintance sexual assault of
adult males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(8), 901- 915.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Femininity/masculinity. In E. F. Borgatta & R. J. V.
Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, Revised Edition (pp. 997-1005). New
York, United States: Macmillan.
Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to
rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47(5/6), 289293.
Van Dijk, J. (2009). Free the victim: A critique of the western conception of victimhood.
International Review of Victimology, 16, 1-33.
66
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Wakelin, A., & Long, K. M. (2003). Effects of victim gender and sexuality on attributions of
blame to rape victims. Sex Roles, 49(9/10), 477- 487.
Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 3(1), 73-79.
Whatley, M. A. (1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape
victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(2), 81-95.
White, B. H., & Kurpius, S. E. R. (2002). Effects of victim sex and sexual orientation on
perceptions of rape. Sex Roles, 46(5/6), 191-200.
White, S., & Yamawaki, N. (2009). The moderating influence of homophobia and gender-role
traditionality on perceptions of male rape victims. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 39(5), 1116-1136.
67
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Appendix A: Questionnaire English version
Transgressive sexual behavior during nightlife
For the purpose of this study, we are interested in what students see as transgressive sexual
behavior in the context of nightlife. We request 5-10 minutes of your time to complete the
following questionnaire and greatly appreciate your cooperation. Your answers will be
processed anonymously to give you the opportunity to give your honest opinion. This topic
could be confronting and you are free to stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable. Thank you
in advance!
--- Page break --What is your gender?
Male
Female
What is your age?
At what faculty do you study?
--- Page break --After this a description of a student will follow. Please read the text attentively to be able to
answer the accompanying questions. The questions will be about your perception of the
student.
--- Page break --(Feminine Lisa)
Lisa is a 21-year old woman who is in her second year of pedagogic studies at the university.
She enjoys this study and it has by many of her friends and family been described as ‘perfect
for her’. She likes children and learning about their development and is known as a warm and
compassionate person. Her side job, working at an elderly home, requires her to be caring,
gentle and patient and this comes naturally to her. Her hobbies include cooking, going to the
movies and hanging out with friends. Lisa is a very good listener and sensitive to other
68
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
people’s feelings. Her friends describe her as a kind and honest person, someone you can
depend upon.
(Feminine Lukas)
Lukas is a 21-year old man who is in his second year of pedagogic studies at the university.
He enjoys this study and it has by many of his friends and family been described as ‘perfect
for him. He likes children and learning about their development and is known as a warm and
compassionate person. His side job, working at an elderly home, requires him to be caring,
gentle and patient and this comes naturally to him. His hobbies include cooking, going to the
movies and hanging out with friends. Lukas is a very good listener and sensitive to other
people’s feelings. His friends describe him as a kind and honest person, someone you can
depend upon.
(Masculine Lisa)
Lisa is a 21-year old woman who is in her second year of business economics at the
university. She enjoys this study and it has by many of her friends and family been described
as ‘perfect for her’. She likes statistics and learning about profit-making strategies, and is
known as an independent and ambitious person. Her side job, working at a store that sells
computers, requires her to be good with technology, assertive and persuasive and this comes
naturally to her. Her hobbies include sports, going to the movies and hanging out with friends.
Lisa is decisive and has strong analytical abilities. Her friends describe her as a kind and
honest person, someone to depend upon.
(Masculine Lukas)
Lukas is a 21-year old man who is in his second year of business economics at the university.
He enjoys this study and it has by many of his friends and family been described as ‘perfect
for him’. He likes statistics and learning about profit-making strategies, and is known as an
independent and ambitious person. His side job, working at a store that sells computers,
requires him to be good with technology, assertive and persuasive and this comes naturally to
him. His hobbies include sports, going to the movies and hanging out with friends. Lukas is
decisive and has strong analytical abilities. His friends describe him as a kind and honest
person, someone to depend upon.
--- Page break ---
69
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
A few questions will now follow about your view of Lisa.
Neither
disagree
Completely
Somewhat
nor
Somewhat
disagree Disagree disagree
agree
agree
Agree
Completely
agree
Lisa
comes
across as
an
intelligent
person
Lisa
seems like
someone
who will
be
successful
in life
Lisa is
essentially
a good
person
I can
identify
myself
with Lisa
I would describe Lisa’s character as:
Very
typically
masculine
Typically
masculine
Not typically
Somewhat masculine Somewhat
typically nor typically typically
masculine
feminine
feminine
What is your general impression of Lisa?
Typically
feminine
Very
typically
feminine
70
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Very
negative
Negative
Somewhat
negative
Not negative
and not
Somewhat
positive
positive
Positive
Very
positive
--- Page break --The next scenario features a situation that is unfortunately more common than may be
generally expected, and that remains difficult to discuss. I would like to ask you to read the
text carefully. Afterwards, fill in the questionnaire by checking the answer option that best
describes your opinion.
--- Page break --(Scenario Lisa)
One Thursday night, Lisa and some of her friends go to a bar where a student association has
hosted an evening of drinks. This means that there are quite some people she knows at the
party. Her friends have exams the next day and leave early but Lisa is enjoying herself and
stays longer. The alcohol is flowing and there is a good atmosphere. One of her acquaintances
introduces her to Tom because he happens to be from the same hometown as Lisa is. Tom
offers to buy her another beer and she accepts. They start a conversation and find that they get
along well together. They joke around and spend most of the evening with each other.
At the end of the night, they both have to go in the same direction and bike home together.
Reaching Lisa’s place first, their conversation has not yet ended and neither of them want to
already make an end to a nice evening. Lisa knows that her housemates are not at home so
will not be bothered by their talking, and she invites Tom in for a final drink. Once inside,
Tom appears more drunk than Lisa initially thought and starts making sexual suggestions.
Lisa declares that she is not interested in Tom that way. Still Tom pins Lisa down on the
couch and starts touching her, ignoring her clearly outspoken ‘no!’ and attempts to escape.
Drunk, aroused, and clearly physically stronger than Lisa, Tom starts to become more
aggressive and shouts he will teach her a lesson. He grabs Lisa by her hair and threatens with
violence if she does not obey. Then he forces her to perform oral sex.
(Scenario Lukas)
One Thursday night, Lukas and some of his friends go to a bar where a student association
has hosted an evening of drinks. This means that there are quite some people he knows at the
party. His friends have exams the next day and leave early but Lukas is enjoying himself and
stays longer. The alcohol is flowing and there is a good atmosphere. One of his acquaintances
introduces him to Tom because he happens to be from the same hometown as Lukas is. Tom
offers to buy him another beer and he accepts. They start a conversation and find that they get
along well together. They joke around and spend most of the evening with each other.
71
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
At the end of the night, they both have to go in the same direction and bike home together.
Reaching Lukas’ place first, their conversation has not yet ended and neither of them want to
already make an end to a nice evening. Lukas knows that his housemates are not at home so
will not be bothered by their talking, and he invites Tom in for a final drink. Once inside, Tom
appears more drunk than Lukas initially thought and starts making sexual suggestions. Lukas
declares that he is not interested in Tom that way. Still Tom pins Lukas down on the couch
and starts touching him, ignoring his clearly outspoken ‘no!’ and attempts to escape. Drunk,
aroused, and clearly physically stronger than Lukas, Tom starts to become more aggressive
and shouts he will teach him a lesson. He grabs Lukas by his hair and threatens with violence
if he does not obey. Then he forces him to perform oral sex.
--- Page break --You have just read a scenario that was based on several studies revolving around the topic of
transgressive sexual behavior. I would like you to try to relate to this situation as much as
possible and answer the following questions. Your honest opinion is much appreciated; there
are no right or wrong answers!
Read the questions and choose the answer that fits your opinion the best. Most of the
questions are about the end of the evening, namely what happens between Tom and Lisa at
Lisa’s place.
Not at all
1
To what extent did
Lisa behave
recklessly?
To what extent
could Lisa’s
behavior be
interpreted as sexual
interest in Tom?
To what extent did
Lisa’s behavior lead
to the end of the
evening?
To what extent did
Lisa’s characteristics
increase the chance
of this ending?
How responsible
was Lisa for the end
of the evening?
2
3
4
5
Completely
6
72
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
Completely
6
To what extent
could Lisa have seen
this event coming?
How responsible
was Tom for the end
of the evening?
--- Page break --To what extent do you (dis)agree with the next statements?
Neither
disagree
Completely
Somewhat
nor
Somewhat
Completely
disagree Disagree disagree
agree
agree
Agree
agree
Lisa is
probably a
naive person
Lisa comes
across as a
vulnerable
person
Lisa has
suffered
emotional
damage due
to what
happened
with Tom
Lisa has
probably
sustained
physical
injury due to
what
happened
with Tom
Tom did not
realize his
behavior
could cause
harm to Lisa
73
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Neither
disagree
Completely
Somewhat
nor
Somewhat
Completely
disagree Disagree disagree
agree
agree
Agree
agree
Tom is
essentially a
good person
There should
be legal
consequences
for Tom
What
happened
between Lisa
and Tom
should be
called rape
Lisa was
likely to
become a
victim
--- Page break --If you had to guess, what is the chance that Lisa is attracted to women?
Very small 1
Small 2
Average 3
Big 4
Very big 5
If you had to guess, what is the chance that Lisa is attracted to men?
Very small 1
Small 2
Average 3
Big 4
Very big 5
Thank you for answering these final questions.
Not at all
1
After reading this
scenario I experienced
anger
2
3
4
5
Completely
6
74
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
Completely
6
After reading this
scenario I experienced
disgust
After reading this
scenario I experienced
fear
I thought this scenario
sounded plausible
I could relate to the
situation
(A message from Qualtrics follows in which the respondent is thanked for participating)
75
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Appendix B: Questionnaire Dutch version
Grensoverschrijdend seksueel gedrag in het uitgaansleven
Voor dit scriptieonderzoek zijn we geïnteresseerd in wat studenten zien als grensoverschrijdend
seksueel gedrag in de context van het uitgaansleven. We vragen 5-10 minuten van je tijd om de
volgende vragenlijst in te vullen en stellen je medewerking zeer op prijs. Je antwoorden worden
anoniem verwerkt zodat je eerlijk je mening kan geven. Het onderwerp kan confronterend zijn
en je kunt op elk moment stoppen als het te onprettig voor je is. Bij voorbaat dank!
--- Page break --Wat is je geslacht?
Man
Vrouw
Wat is je leeftijd?
Aan welke faculteit studeer je?
--- Page break --Hierna volgt een beschrijving van een student. Lees deze tekst aandachtig zodat je daarna de
bijbehorende vragen kan beantwoorden. De vragen zullen gaan over jouw beeld van de
student.
--- Page break --(Vrouwelijke Lisa)
Lisa is een 21-jarige vrouw en studeert voor het tweede jaar pedagogische wetenschappen aan
de universiteit. Ze is blij met deze keuze en haar vrienden en familie vinden de studie
uitstekend bij haar passen. Ze houdt van kinderen en kennis opdoen over hun ontwikkeling en
staat bekend als een warm en meelevend persoon. Voor haar bijbaan in een bejaardentehuis is
het nodig om zorgzaam, zachtaardig en geduldig te zijn. Deze eigenschappen van Lisa worden
dan ook erg gewaardeerd op haar werk. Haar hobby's zijn onder andere koken, naar de film
gaan en leuke dingen doen met vrienden. Lisa staat bekend als iemand die goed kan luisteren
76
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
en rekening houdt met de gevoelens van anderen. Haar vrienden beschrijven haar als een
vriendelijk en eerlijk mens, iemand op wie je kan bouwen.
(Vrouwelijke Lukas)
Lukas is een 21-jarige man en studeert voor het tweede jaar pedagogische wetenschappen aan
de universiteit. Hij is blij met deze keuze en zijn vrienden en familie vinden de studie
uitstekend bij hem passen. Hij houdt van kinderen en kennis opdoen over hun ontwikkeling en
staat bekend als een warm en meelevend persoon. Voor zijn bijbaan in een bejaardentehuis is
het nodig om zorgzaam, zachtaardig en geduldig te zijn. Deze eigenschappen van Lukas
worden dan ook erg gewaardeerd op zijn werk. Zijn hobby's zijn onder andere koken, naar de
film gaan en leuke dingen doen met vrienden. Lukas staat bekend als iemand die goed kan
luisteren en rekening houdt met de gevoelens van anderen. Zijn vrienden beschrijven haar als
een vriendelijk en eerlijk mens, iemand op wie je kan bouwen.
(Mannelijke Lisa)
Lisa is een 21-jarige vrouw en studeert voor het tweede jaar bedrijfseconomie aan de
universiteit. Ze is blij met deze keuze en haar vrienden en familie vinden de studie uitstekend
bij haar passen. Ze houdt van statistiek en kennis opdoen over winstmakende strategieën en
staat bekend als een onafhankelijk en ambitieus persoon. Voor haar bijbaan in een
computerzaak is het nodig om technisch, assertief en overtuigend te zijn. Deze eigenschappen
van Lisa worden dan ook erg gewaardeerd op haar werk. Haar hobby's zijn onder andere
sporten, naar de film gaan en leuke dingen doen met vrienden. Lisa staat bekend als iemand
die snel beslissingen weet te maken en een sterk analytisch vermogen heeft. Haar vrienden
beschrijven haar als een vriendelijk en eerlijk mens, iemand op wie je kan bouwen.
(Mannelijke Lukas)
Lukas is een 21-jarige man en studeert voor het tweede jaar bedrijfseconomie aan de
universiteit. Hij is blij met deze keuze en zijn vrienden en familie vinden de studie uitstekend
bij hem passen. Hij houdt van statistiek en kennis opdoen over winstmakende strategieën en
staat bekend als een onafhankelijk en ambitieus persoon. Voor zijn bijbaan in een
computerzaak is het nodig om technisch, assertief en overtuigend te zijn. Deze eigenschappen
van Lukas worden dan ook erg gewaardeerd op zijn werk. Zijn hobby's zijn onder andere
sporten, naar de film gaan en leuke dingen doen met vrienden. Lukas staat bekend als iemand
die snel beslissingen weet te maken en een sterk analytisch vermogen heeft. Zijn vrienden
beschrijven hem als een vriendelijk en eerlijk mens, iemand op wie je kan bouwen.
--- Page break ---
77
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Hier volgen een paar vragen over hoe je Lisa als persoon beschouwt.
Helemaal
mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Beetje
mee
oneens
Niet mee
oneens en
niet mee
Beetje
Helemaal
eens
mee eens Mee eens mee eens
Lisa komt
over als een
intelligent
persoon
Lisa lijkt
iemand die
succesvol
zal zijn in
het leven
Lisa is in
wezen een
goed
persoon
Ik kan me
met Lisa
identificeren
Het karakter van Lisa zou ik beschrijven als:
Heel typisch Typisch
mannelijk mannelijk
Niet typisch
Beetje
mannelijk en
Beetje
typisch
niet typisch
typisch
mannelijk vrouwelijk vrouwelijk
Typisch Heel typisch
vrouwelijk vrouwelijk
Wat is je algemene indruk van Lisa?
Heel negatief
Negatief
Beetje
negatief
Niet negatief
en niet
positief
--- Page break ---
Beetje
positief
Positief
Heel positief
78
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Het volgende scenario beschrijft een situatie die helaas vaker voorkomt dan over het
algemeen wordt verwacht en moeilijk bespreekbaar blijft. Ik zou je willen vragen deze tekst
aandachtig te lezen. Vul vervolgens de vragenlijst in door de antwoordmogelijkheden aan te
vinken die het best jouw mening omschrijven.
--- Page break --(Scenario Lisa)
Op een donderdagavond gaat Lisa met een paar van haar vrienden naar een kroeg waar de
studievereniging een borrel heeft georganiseerd. Er zijn veel mensen die ze kent op het feest.
Haar vrienden hebben de volgende dag tentamens en vertrekken eerder op de avond. Lisa
heeft net naar haar zin en blijft langer. Drank vloeit rijkelijk en er hangt een gezellige sfeer.
Eén van haar bekenden stelt haar voor aan Tom omdat hij in dezelfde stad is opgegroeid als
Lisa. Tom biedt aan haar op nog een biertje te trakteren en ze stemt toe. Ze raken in gesprek
en komen er snel achter dat ze het goed met elkaar kunnen vinden. Ze vermaken zich met slap
geouwehoer en brengen het grootste deel van de avond samen door.
Aan het eind van de avond moeten ze allebei dezelfde kant op en fietsen daarom samen naar
huis. Lisa blijkt degene te zijn die dichterbij woont. Wanneer ze daar aankomen is het gesprek
nog niet af en hebben ze beiden weinig zin al een eind te maken aan een gezellige avond. Lisa
weet dat haar huisgenoten niet thuis zijn en dus geen last van hun gepraat zullen hebben en
nodigt Tom uit voor een laatste drankje. Eenmaal boven lijkt Tom meer aangeschoten te zijn
dan Lisa had gedacht en hij begint seksuele toespelingen te maken. Lisa maakt duidelijk dat
ze niet op die manier in Tom geïnteresseerd is. Toch drukt Tom haar op de bank en begint
haar te betasten; haar uitdrukkelijk uitgesproken 'nee!' en pogingen om weg te komen negeert
hij. Tom is dronken, opgewonden en duidelijk fysiek sterker dan Lisa en hij begint zich
alsmaar agressiever te gedragen. Hij scheldt Lisa uit en schreeuwt dat hij haar een lesje zal
leren. Hij grijpt Lisa bij haar haar en dreigt met geweld als ze hem niet gehoorzaamt. Daarna
dwingt hij haar tot orale seks.
(Scenario Lukas)
Op een donderdagavond gaat Lukas met een paar van zijn vrienden naar een kroeg waar de
studievereniging een borrel heeft georganiseerd. Er zijn veel mensen die hij kent op het feest.
Zijn vrienden hebben de volgende dag tentamens en vertrekken eerder op de avond. Lukas
heeft het naar zijn zin en blijft langer. Drank vloeit rijkelijk en er hangt een gezellige sfeer.
Eén van zijn bekenden stelt hem voor aan Tom omdat hij in dezelfde stad is opgegroeid als
Lukas. Tom biedt aan hem op nog een biertje te trakteren en hij stemt toe. Ze raken in gesprek
en komen er snel achter dat ze het goed met elkaar kunnen vinden. Ze vermaken zich met slap
geouwehoer en brengen het grootste deel van de avond samen door.
Aan het eind van de avond moeten ze allebei dezelfde kant op en fietsen daarom samen naar
huis. Lukas blijkt degene te zijn die dichterbij woont. Wanneer ze daar aankomen is het
gesprek nog niet af en hebben ze weinig zin al een eind te maken aan een gezellige avond.
Lukas weet dat zijn huisgenoten niet thuis zijn en dus geen last van hun gepraat zullen
79
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
hebben. Hij nodigt Tom uit voor een laatste drankje. Eenmaal boven lijkt Tom meer
aangeschoten te zijn dan Lukas had gedacht en hij begint seksuele toespelingen te maken.
Lukas maakt duidelijk dat hij niet op die manier in Tom geïnteresseerd is. Toch drukt Tom
hem op de bank en begint hem te betasten; zijn uitdrukkelijk uitgesproken 'nee!' en pogingen
om weg te komen negeert hij. Tom is dronken, opgewonden en duidelijk fysiek sterker dan
Lukas en hij begint zich alsmaar agressiever te gedragen. Hij scheldt Lukas uit en schreeuwt
dat hij hem wel een lesje zal leren. Hij grijpt Lukas bij zijn haar en dreigt met geweld als hij
hem niet gehoorzaamt. Daarna dwingt hij hem tot orale seks.
--- Page break --Zo net heb je een scenario gelezen dat gebaseerd is op verschillende onderzoeken omtrent het
onderwerp van grensoverschrijdend seksueel gedrag. Ik wil je vragen je zo goed mogelijk in
het scenario in te leven en de volgende vragen te beantwoorden. Je eerlijke mening wordt zeer
gewaardeerd; er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden!
Lees de vragen en kies het antwoord dat het best bij jouw mening past. De meeste vragen
gaan over de afloop van de avond, namelijk wat er tussen Tom en Lisa gebeurde in de woning
van Lisa.
Helemaal
niet 1
In hoeverre gedroeg
Lisa zich
onnadenkend?
In hoeverre was het
gedrag van Lisa te
interpreteren als
seksuele interesse in
Tom?
In hoeverre heeft het
gedrag van Lisa geleid
tot de afloop van de
avond?
In hoeverre
verhoogden de
karaktertrekken van
Lisa de kans op deze
afloop?
Hoe verantwoordelijk
was Lisa voor de
afloop van de avond?
In hoeverre had Lisa
deze afloop kunnen
zien aankomen?
2
3
4
5
Helemaal
wel 6
80
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
Helemaal
niet 1
2
3
4
5
Helemaal
wel 6
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Hoe verantwoordelijk
was Tom voor de
afloop van de avond?
--- Page break --In hoeverre ben je het met de volgende stellingen (on)eens?
Niet
mee
oneens
Helemaal
Beetje en niet Beetje
mee
Mee
mee
mee
mee
oneens oneens oneens eens
eens
Lisa is waarschijnlijk
een naïef persoon
Lisa komt over als een
kwetsbaar persoon
Lisa heeft emotionele
schade opgelopen door
het voorval met Tom
Lisa heeft waarschijnlijk
lichamelijk letsel
opgelopen door het
voorval met Tom
Tom had niet door dat
zijn gedrag schadelijk
kon zijn voor Lisa
Tom is in wezen een
goed persoon
Er zouden
strafrechtelijke gevolgen
voor Tom moeten zijn
Wat er tussen Lisa en
Tom voorviel moet
verkrachting genoemd
worden
De kans dat Lisa een
slachtoffer zou worden
was groot.
81
RAPE AND THE GENDERED VICTIM
--- Page break --Hoe groot acht je de kans dat Lisa op vrouwen valt?
Zeer klein 1
Klein 2
Gemiddeld 3
Groot 4
Zeer groot
Groot 4
Zeer groot 5
Hoe groot acht je de kans dat Lisa op mannen valt?
Zeer klein 1
Klein 2
Gemiddeld 3
Bedankt voor het antwoorden van deze laatste vragen.
Helemaal
niet 1
2
3
4
5
Na het lezen van dit
scenario voelde ik
boosheid
Na het lezen van dit
scenario voelde ik
walging
Na het lezen van dit
scenario voelde ik
angst
Ik vond dit scenario
geloofwaardig
Ik kon me inleven in
de situatie
(Bericht van Qualtrics volgt waarin respondent bedankt wordt voor de deelname)
Helemaal
wel 6