Attributions of Blame and Credibility in a Hypothetical Child Sexual Abuse Case: Roles of victim disability, victim resistance and respondent gender

Abstract

This study examines the effects victim disability (physical vs. intellectual vs. none), victim resistance (physical vs. verbal vs. none) and respondent gender (male vs. female) have on attributions of blame and credibility in a hypothetical case of child sexual abuse. Three hundred and thirty‐five respondents read a fictional police statement regarding the sexual assault of a 12‐year‐old girl by a 23‐year‐old man before completing 28 attribution items. Principal axis factoring revealed six reliable factors. Subsequent multivariate analysis of covariance—controlling for respondents’ general attitude towards disability—revealed that males deemed the victim more culpable for her own abuse than did females. Further, perpetrators were deemed more culpable when the victim physically (vs. verbally) resisted. Finally, a significant three‐way interaction suggests victim resistance influences attributions of perpetrator blame given a victim’s disability status, at least amongst male observers. Implications and proposals for future research are discussed.