scholarly journals Attributions of Blame in a Hypothetical Child Sexual Abuse Case: Roles of Behavior Problems and Frequency of Abuse

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 2142-2163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Theimer ◽  
David J. Hansen

Youth who are blamed for their sexual abuse may experience increased negative outcomes, such as amplified self-blame. Similarly, blaming nonoffending parents can impede their ability to support their child following disclosure. Understanding the factors that influence how people perceive victim, caregiver, and perpetrator responsibility is imperative for the protection and treatment of families who have experienced sexual abuse. Little research has explored victim and abuse characteristics that influence the perception of sexual abuse. As such, the purpose of this study was to examine the roles of behavior problems and frequency of abuse in the attribution of blame in a hypothetical sexual abuse case. In addition, the relationship between several respondent characteristics and assignment of responsibility were explored as secondary aims. The study used a two (behavior problems: three suspensions in one school semester vs. no mention of behavior problems) by two (one abuse occurrence vs. five abuse occurrences) between-subjects design. Seven hundred forty-two participants read one of the four child sexual abuse (CSA) vignettes and completed measures related to responsibility. ANOVAs revealed those who read a vignette where the youth experienced multiple abuse incidents rated the victim as more responsible regardless of whether or not the youth was described as having behavior problems. Results indicate that respondents may have attributed more blame to the victim due to the belief that she could have done something to stop the abuse after the first incident. The abuse frequency manipulation when combined with the behavior manipulation appeared to relate to how respondents perceived the victim’s parents. Males and younger respondents attributed more blame to the victim; however, sexual abuse or assault history did not associate with victim responsibility ratings. Clinical and research implications were discussed.

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Rogers ◽  
Michelle Lowe ◽  
Matthew Boardman

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact victim symptomology, victim resistance and respondent gender have on attributions of blame, credibility and perceived assault severity in a hypothetical child sexual abuse case. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 356 respondents read a hypothetical child sexual abuse scenario in which victim symptomology (negative vs none vs positive) and victim resistance (resistant vs non-resistant) were manipulated before completing six childhood sexual abuse (CSA) attribution items. The impact these manipulations plus respondent gender differences had on attributions ratings was explored via a series of AN(C)OVA. Findings – Overall, respondents judged the victim more truthful if she displayed negative – as opposed to either no or positive (i.e. life affirming) – symptomology and a resistant victim to be more truthful than one who offered no resistance. Finally, men deemed a 14-year-old female victim of sexual assault less reliable and more culpable for her own abuse than women. Men were particularly mistrustful of the girl if she was non-resistant and later failed to display negative, post-abuse symptomology. Practical implications – Findings highlight the need for greater awareness of the fact that not all CSA survivors display stereotypically negative post-abuse symptoms. The current study also extends knowledge of the role victim resistant and respondent gender play in this growing research field. Originality/value – The current study is the first to explore attributions of CSA blame and credibility across negative (i.e. typical) verses no or positive/life affirming (i.e. atypical) post-abuse symptomology.


2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (3) ◽  
pp. 210-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Sauerland ◽  
Henry Otgaar ◽  
Enide Maegherman ◽  
Anna Sagana

Abstract. Are expert witnesses biased by the side (defense vs. prosecution) that hires them? We examined this issue by having students act as expert witnesses in evaluating interviews in a child sexual abuse case (Experiment 1, N = 143) and tested the value of an instruction to counteract such allegiance effects. The intervention concerned an instruction to consider arguments both for and against the given hypothesis (i.e., two-sided instructions; Experiment 2, N = 139). In Experiment 3 ( N = 123), we additionally provided participants with three different scenarios. Participants received a case file regarding a case of alleged sexual abuse. With the file, participants received an appointment letter emphasizing elements of the file that questioned (defense) or supported (prosecution) the veracity of the accusation. Participants displayed allegiance bias (Experiments 1–3), but two-sided instructions were not successful in eliminating allegiance bias (Experiments 2 and 3). The findings underscore the importance of legal safeguards in expert witness work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document