There Are No “Innocent Victims”

Vonderhaar, Rebecca L.; Carmody, Dianne Cyr

doi:10.1177/0886260514549196

Cited by 72 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Items from the RMA scale have been adapted by a range of researchers, and subsequently summed or averaged to produce a single composite score for RMA (e.g., Fox & Potocki, 2016;Hammond et al, 2011;Vonderhaar & Carmody, 2015). Bumby's (1996) RAPE scale is a 36-item questionnaire (e.g., "If a woman gets drunk at a party, it is really her own fault if someone takes advantage of her sexually"), which has been used to measure rape-supportive cognition in convicted samples of rapists and nonconvicted community samples.…”

Section: Excusing and Justifying Rape Cognitions In Judgements Of Sexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Excusing and Justifying Rape Cognitions in Judgments of Sexually Coercive Dating Scenarios

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to recent analyses, Bumby’s RAPE scale of rape-supportive cognitions about women and sexual assault comprises two factors. Excusing rape serves to reduce abusers’ culpability for their offending, and ascribing blame to victims, while justifying rape is associated with a sense of sexual entitlement. The distinct effects of these factors on rape judgments have not yet been investigated. We examined whether these belief clusters differentially explained judgments of perpetrator innocence after priming cues related to each of them. We used a cross-sectional design ( N = 217) to test our hypotheses. As predicted, we found that excusing rape cognitions contributed to exaggerated innocence judgments when the victim paid the bill on a first date (potentially indicative of romantic or sexual interest). However, contrary to expectations, there was no evidence that participants justified rape when the perpetrator paid the bill. Implications for conceptualizing the functions of rape-supportive cognitions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Excusing and Justifying Rape Cognitions In Judgements Of Sexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Excusing and Justifying Rape Cognitions in Judgments of Sexually Coercive Dating Scenarios

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…31,[71][72][73] The close relationship between sexual violence and masculinity implies "rape myths" 74 based on beliefs of denial of sexual offenses and men's dominance. [75][76][77][78] Besides, most survivors or victims do not report their experiences due to the stigma associated with sexual violence in the DRC based on cultural perceptions. They fear being abandoned by husbands, primarily if (gang) rape resulted in pregnancy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Among Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Post-Conflict Scenario</p>

Lugova¹,

Samad²,

Haque³

2020

RMHP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, due to the sample size, it was not possible to examine gender differences between the respondents, although all the statistical analyses included controlling for the respondent's gender. Various studies indicate gender differences with regard to judgment in situations involving sexual offenses (see, for example, Shaver, 1970;Grubb and Harrower, 2009;Vonderhaar and Carmody, 2015;Adolfsson and Strömwall, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is It Harassment? Perceptions of Sexual Harassment Among Lawyers and Undergraduate Students

Shechory-Bitton

Zvi

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined differences between lawyers (n = 91) and undergraduate students (n = 120) regarding their evaluation of behavior as sexual harassment (SH) and blame attributions toward offender and victim. The current study used a cross-sectional, comparative, independent measures design. Also examined was the correlation between these perceptions and belief in a just world (BJW) hypothesis. The respondents were presented with case descriptions of SH that were identical in all aspects but the perpetrator and victim's gender (alternately depicted as male/female and female/male). Results showed that both lawyers and students agreed that the described event comprised SH, yet gender bias was evident. Both lawyers and students were more inclined to regard the behavior as SH when the vignette description depicted the perpetrator as a man (i.e., female victim) than as a woman (male victim). Gender bias was also evident in the examination of blame attributions, which were higher toward a male (vs. female) harasser. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that lawyers were less biased than students, manifested in less victim-blame and higher perpetrator blame attributions. No correlation between BJW and perceiving the vignette as SH and blame attribution was found. The findings indicate discriminatory judgments of SH based on gender. Gender-related stereotypes and sociocultural explanations are discussed.

show abstract

There Are No “Innocent Victims”

Cited by 72 publications

References 38 publications

Excusing and Justifying Rape Cognitions in Judgments of Sexually Coercive Dating Scenarios

Excusing and Justifying Rape Cognitions in Judgments of Sexually Coercive Dating Scenarios

<p>Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Among Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Post-Conflict Scenario</p>

Is It Harassment? Perceptions of Sexual Harassment Among Lawyers and Undergraduate Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About