www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Victim responsibility, credibility, and verdict in asimulated rape case: Application of Weinersattribution model

Kathryn Sperry1 and Jason T. Siegel21Castleton State College, Vermont, USA2Claremont Graduate University, California, USA

Purpose. Victims of rape are often attributed a certain amount of responsibility,which is often translated into reduced victim credibility and fewer convictions in thecourtroom. The purpose of the present study was to apply Weiners attribution modelto the literature on rape blame to understand why victim blame impacts credibility andverdict. Weiners model posits that perceptions of a targets responsibility will lead toless sympathy and therefore reduced willingness to help the target. In line with thismodel, it was hypothesized that sympathy for a rape victim mediates the relationshipbetween victim responsibility and: (a) willingness to help the victim, (b) credibility, and(c) verdict.

Methods. Participants read a 1,000-word transcript of a rape trial and madejudgements regarding the victims responsibility for the rape, sympathy for the victim,willingness to help the victim, perceived witness credibility, and verdict. The victimsresponsibility for the rape was manipulated between subjects.

Results. The hypotheses were supported: sympathy mediated the relationshipsbetween perceived victim responsibility and: (a) willingness to help the victim,(b) credibility, and (c) verdict. Using EQS, two models are presented (one hypothesizedand one modified) that further delineate these relationships.

Conclusions. The present study applied a well-established theory in social psychologyto further understand the relationship between victim blame, willingness to help,victim credibility, and verdict. In line with Weiners attribution model, sympathy forthe victim played a key role in those relationships. Implications of these findings for legalprofessionals are discussed.

The BBC recently reported an incident in which a rape victims compensation awardedby the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was cut by 25% because she had beendrinking at the time of the incident (BBC, 2008). According to the BBC, the Authoritytold the rape victim that . . . the evidence shows that your excessive consumption of

Correspondence should be addressed to Kathryn Sperry, Castleton State College, Castleton, VT 05735, USA (e-mail:Kathryn.Sperry@castleton.edu).

Legal and Criminological Psychology (2013), 18, 1629

201 The British Psychological Society

DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02022.x

16

1

alcohol was a contributing factor in the incident. Unfortunately, this is not an isolatedincident. In that same year, 14 other victims also had their compensation cut due tothe fact that they had been drinking at the time of the assault. It is not surprising thatone of the reasons rape victims often fail to report a rape is the fear that they will beblamed, especially if they had been involved in high risk behaviours prior to the assault(Du Mont, Miller, & Myhr, 2003).

Research indicates that perhaps this fear is not entirely unwarranted. Victims of rapeare blamed for intentional drug use prior to a rape (e.g., Angelone, Mitchell, & Pilafova,2007; Girard & Senn, 2008) and dressing promiscuously (e.g., Whatley, 2005). Victimsof intimate partner violence are blamed for acting verbally aggressive prior to an assault(e.g., Witte, Schroeder, & Lohr, 2006), and even in the sexual abuse context, Rogers,Josey, and Davies (2007) reported that a 15-year-old child was blamed more for sexualabuse than a 10-year-old child. One theory that has been proposed for why victims aresometimes blamed is belief in a just world (BJW; Lerner, 1980). BJW is the view manypeople have that the world is a fair place; it is the belief that good things happen to goodpeople and bad things happen to bad people. It is comforting to feel that bad thingshappen to people who bring them on themselves. This theory has often been applied torape because this crime often challenges this view of the world, and people will oftenblame victims in order to restore their BJW (e.g., Kleinke & Meyer, 1990).

Importantly for the present study, research also demonstrates that the perceptionof a victims responsibility reduces a victims credibility in the courtroom (McKenzie &Calder, 1993; Wenger & Bornstein, 2006) and the likelihood of conviction (Angeloneet al., 2006; Fischer, 1995; Rye, Greatrix, & Enright, 2006; Wenger & Bornstein, 2006).Given the serious implications of the relationship between victim responsibility andjuror decision making, it is important to understand why perceived victim responsibilityreduces credibility and defendant guilt. Knowing the underlying mechanism for thisrelationshipwould allow researchers and legal professionals tomake stronger predictionsregarding when and why jurors will be influenced by tactics meant to degrade a victim.One theory that may shed light on this relationship is Weiners attribution model.

Weiners attribution modelWeiner (1980a, 1985) proposed a model of how causal attributions influence attitudesand behaviours (or behavioural intentions).1 According to Weiner, attributing a targetssituation to a controllable cause will reduce sympathy and increase anger towards thetarget, and therefore decrease intentions to act on his or her behalf. That is, Weinersattribution model suggests that sympathy and anger mediate the relationship betweencontrollability and helping (Figure 1).

One of the earliest studies to test Weiners model examined students willingness tolend a fellow student their class notes. When the cause of the need was perceived ascontrollable (i.e., the student missed class to go to the beach), negative affect resultedand participants were less willing to lend their notes (Weiner, 1980b). However, anuncontrollable cause (such as a medical problem) elicited positive emotions and awillingness to help the student. In other words, willingness to help someone in needdepended on the attributions made about why the help was needed. These attributions

1Although this theory will be referred to as Weiners attribution model throughout this paper, it should be noted that Meyerand Mulherin (1980) simultaneously hypothesized the mediating role of emotion in the relationship between attributions andhelping behaviour.

Blame, credibility, and verdict 17

Attribution ofcontrollability

Sympathy or angerfor the target

Willingness tohelp

Figure 1. Pictorial representation of Weiners attribution model. The dashed line indicates that whensympathy is added to the model, the relationship between the attribution and helping behaviour isreduced.

elicit emotional reactions and therefore willingness to help. These findings have beenreplicated using a variety of scenarios, including a stumbling drunk in need of aid (Weiner,1980a) and willingness to help individuals with a stigmatized illness (Dijker & Koomen,2003; Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988).

Applying Weiners model to the courtroomWeiners attribution model consistently shows that emotion mediates the relationshipbetween attributions of controllability2 and social behaviour. Weiners model could beused to help understand the relationships between victim responsibility, credibility, andverdict. The model would predict that sympathy for the victim mediates the relationshipbetween victim responsibility and verdict, as well as the relationship between victimresponsibility and credibility. Weiners model has never been applied to this specificcontext. However, previous research in the courtroom has looked at various pieces ofthe model, providing further support of its applicability.

Victim responsibility and verdictThe attribution literature clearly demonstrates a relationship between responsibility andhelping. Similarly, in the courtroom literature, a number of studies have demonstrateda relationship between a victims responsibility and verdict. For example, Wenger andBornstein (2006) found that a sober date rape victim was perceived as more credibleand convictions were more likely relative to a victim who had been drinking illegally(underage) or had taken illegal drugs prior to the rape. Similarly, Angelone et al. (2007)reported that when a rape victim took a substance voluntarily (whether it was alcoholor the common date rape drug, GHB), she was attributed more responsibility and a

2The term responsibility is often used synonymously with the term blame. In the courtroom domain, the term blame isoften used. However, since the researchers aim to apply Weiners attribution model to this context, the term responsibilitywill be used throughout the manuscript to remain consistent with terminology in the attribution literature.

18 Kathryn Sperry and Jason T. Siegel

conviction was less likely relative to a scenario in which she was drugged or slippedalcohol without her knowledge. These studies offer strong support for the idea thatattributing responsibility to a victim leads to changes in the verdict.

Emotion and verdictIn the attribution literature, Weiner largely focuses on the emotions of sympathy andanger. Both of these emotions have been examined in the courtroom literature as well.In the courtroom, empathy (which is similar to sympathy) has repeatedly been foundto influence jurors perceptions. Researchers who developed the Rape Empathy Scalefound scores on the scale were predictive of verdict, sentencing, and responsibility forthe rape itself (Deitz, Blackwell, Daley, & Bentley, 1982). Experimental research alsodemonstrates the link between emotions and verdict. Inducing jurors to feel empathy(Johnson et al., 2002) as well as anger (Bright & Goodman-Delahunty, 2006) have beenfound to influence jurors decisions.

There is compelling evidence that perceptions of a victims responsibility influencecredibility and verdict (Angelone et al., 2007; Fischer, 1995; Rye et al., 2006; Wenger& Bornstein, 2006). However, there is also evidence from the attribution literaturethat this may not be a direct relationship. According Weiners attribution model,sympathy for a target mediates the relationship between perceived responsibility andbehaviour.

The present studyThe aim of the present study was to bridge Weiners attribution model with the victimblame literature to explain the relationship between victim blame and jurors perceptionsand decisions. If the attribution literature can be applied to the victim blame literature,then sympathy will mediate the relationship between perceived responsibility and:(a) willingness to help, (b) credibility, and (c) verdict (Figure 2).

There were three goals of the present study: (a) manipulate victim responsibilityto increase the variability in this variable, (b) apply Weiners attribution model to thecontext of victim responsibility, and (c) use structural equation modelling to model therelationships between victim responsibility, sympathy, helping, credibility, and verdict.

Perceived VictimResponsibility

Sympathy for thevictim

1) Helping2) Credibility

3) Verdict

Figure 2. Pictorial representation of the mediation model proposed in the present research.

Blame, credibility, and verdict 19

There were two hypotheses. First, it was hypothesized that when the victim wasportrayed as responsible for the rape, participants would be less likely to help her,perceive her as less credible, feel less sympathy for her, and be less likely to convict thedefendant, relative to a scenario in which the victim was not responsible for the rape.The second hypothesis was that collapsing across these conditions, sympathy wouldmediate the relationship between responsibility and (a) helping, (b) credibility, and(c) verdict.

MethodParticipants and designParticipants included 132 students from California State University Fullerton, CaliforniaState University San Bernardino, and Santiago Canyon College. To serve on a jury inCalifornia, one must: (a) be a citizen of the United States, (b) be at least 18 years of age,(c) understand the English language, (d) be a resident of California, and (e) not have beenconvicted of a felony. We included only the 123 participants who indicated that theywere jury eligible (eliminating nine participants from all analyses). The sample included76 females and 47 males, with a mean age of 21.47 (ranging from 18 to 44 years old).The ethnicity distribution was as follows: 37.4% Caucasian, 30.1% Hispanic, 8.1% Asian,6.5% African American, 2.4% Pacific Islander, and 14.6% other. This was a two-groupdesign with victim responsibility manipulated between subjects (high responsibility vs.low responsibility).

Procedure and materialsParticipants were given ten minutes to read a 1,000-word transcript and were subse-quently asked to fill out questionnaires regarding their perceptions of the case and thevictim.

TranscriptThe transcript described a scenario in which Angela and Brett were at Angelas parentsholiday party. Angela and Brett knew each other from classes but were not friends.During the course of this holiday party, Brett and Angela went upstairs to Angelasroom. Two days after the party Angela came forward and claimed that Brett had rapedher when they were upstairs. The disagreement in this case was whether the sex wasconsensual.

The victims responsibility in the crime was manipulated between subjects. Themanipulation centered on the intentionality of substance use. This idea was based onpast research in which the intentionality of drug use has been found to lead to blamingvictims of rape, where victims who use substances intentionally are blamed more thanvictims who are given a substance without their knowledge (Angelone et al., 2007;Girard & Senn, 2008). The club drug Ecstasy was used in the scenario due to its explicitassociation with sexual activity, and nicknames such as the love drug, the hug drug,and speed for lovers (Castello, Coomer, Stillwell, & Cate, 2006).

In the high responsibility condition, participants read that Angela suggested goingupstairs, andwhen they were in her bedroom Angela brought out the club drug Ecstasyand encouraged Brett to take a tablet, even though he initially indicated he did notwant it. In the low responsibility condition, Brett suggested going upstairs to her

20 Kathryn Sperry and Jason T. Siegel

bedroom, and when they were in her bedroom Brett brought out the club drug Ecstasyand offered it to Angela. When Angela said she did not want any, Brett slipped a tabletinto her food that she had brought up from the party.

ResponsibilityResponsibility was assessed with six questions that asked participants to indicate theextent of agreement with the following statements (using a 7-point scale): Angela couldhave prevented this situation, Angela was responsible for what happened to her thatnight, Angela should have known better, Angela was responsible for her situation,Angela should have been able to foresee what was going to happen to her that night,and This situation was Angelas fault. Scores for these six questions were combinedinto a composite variable called responsibility ( = .90).

Willingness to helpEight questions tapped into willingness to help the victim, each on a 7-point scale. Thefirst question asked, Suppose you knew there was some way for you to help Angela, towhat extent do you think you would you do so? The following question asked: Supposeyou were the head of an organization that helps victims of rape. To what extent do youthink you would allocate your organizations resources to this victim? The followingsix questions broke it down into the specific ways in which their organization couldhelp the victim: emotional support, help with legal forms, transportation to and fromcourt, money for legal fees, rape counselor, and money for a vacation to get away.These eight questions of willingness to help the victim had high reliability (= .91), andwere subsequently combined to form the helping variable.

Witness credibilityTo assess witness credibility, participants were asked to rate Angela on a list of nineattributes: confident, consistent, unbiased, accurate, credible, honest, trustworthy,likeable, and believable.3 Factor analysis and reliability analysis indicated a singlecredibility scale ( = .91).

VerdictVerdict was assessed as a dichotomous variable (guilty or not guilty).

SympathySympathy for Angela was assessed with a list of five emotions: sympathy, pity,compassion, kindness, and understanding. These five emotions had high reliabilityfor sympathy towards Angela ( = .86).4

3Items on the credibility scale came from research in communication defining credibility as expertise, trustworthiness, andlikeability (Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Kelman & Hovland, 1953; Pornpitakpan, 2004). In the courtroom literature, accuracy,consistency, and confidence have been found to be important in mock jurors perceptions of witness credibility (Berman &Cutler, 1996; Brewer & Burke, 2002; Tenney, MacCoun, Spellman, & Hastie, 2007; Wells, Ferguson, & Lindsay, 1981).Objectivity has been found to be important in credibility judgments of newspapers (Meyer, 1988), which is similar to theunbiased item on the scale in the present study.

4Anger towards Angela and Brett were also assessed with the following five emotions: anger, annoyance, bothered, irritation,and aggravation. These five anger emotions had high reliability for both Angela ( = .89) and Brett ( = .95). However,anger was not found to be a significant mediator for any of the models tested.

Blame, credibility, and verdict 21

Rape myth acceptanceRape myth acceptance (RMA; Burt, 1980) assesses the extent to which participantsendorse rape myths. For example, some of the items on the scale include: In themajority of rapes, the victim is promiscuous or has a bad reputation, Any healthywoman can successfully resist a rape if she really wants to, and Women who get rapedwhile hitchhiking get what they deserve. This scale had moderate reliability (11 items, = .70).

ResultsManipulation checkTwo sets of questions served as manipulation checks. First, participants were asked toindicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements:Angela wanted to take Ecstasy, Brett wanted to take Ecstasy, and Brett slipped Ecstasyto Angela without her knowledge. Participants in the low responsibility condition hadlower agreement with the statement that Angela wanted to take Ecstasy (M = 1.38)than participants in the high responsibility condition (M = 6.80), t(121) = 38.30, p