Blame Attribution in Court: Conceptualization and Measurement of Perpetrator Blame

This investigation explored patterns of blame attributions in 128 youth, primarily (87%) female, with maltreatment histories. Second, the study also evaluated the relative variance in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, emotional distress, and interpersonal functioning outcomes, accounted for by age, abuse characteristics, and blame attribution patterns. Cluster analyses revealed distinctive blame profiles: high perpetrator blame, moderate perpetrator blame, high self-blame, high perpetrator/high self-blame, and low perpetrator/low self-blame. Regression analyses yielded significant models, accounting for 15% to 34% of the variance of outcomes. Most notably, youth endorsing a high perpetrator/high self-blame (i.e., compounded blame) attribution pattern reported poorer outcomes as compared to youth presenting with other blame profiles. Maltreatment type and age differences were not demonstrated across clusters. Implications and limitations are discussed.

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.

Both clinical and empirical work suggest that attributions of responsibility and blame for child sexual abuse may be important determinants of subsequent adjustment. Measurement of the attributions has been problematic, however, and has hindered the conclusions that can be drawn. In this study, measures were developed that assess three types of attributions—self-blame, family blame, and perpetrator blame. The examination of the relationships between attributions and adjustment in a study of 154 adult women sexually abused as children found that both self-blame and family blame were related to some indicators of poor adjustment. In addition, there was a threeway interaction among blame types and one indicator of adjustment. These results suggest that the relationships between attributions and adjustment may be more complex than previously indicated.

The present study investigated the attribution of responsibility to victims and perpetrators in rape compared to robbery cases in Turkey. Each participant read three short case scenarios (vignettes) and completed items pertaining to the female victim and male perpetrator. The vignettes were systematically varied with regard to the type of crime that was committed (rape or robbery), the perpetrator’s coercive strategy (physical force or exploiting the victim’s alcohol-induced defenselessness), and the victim-perpetrator relationship prior to the incident (stranger, acquaintance, or ex-partner). Furthermore, participant gender and acceptance of rape myths (beliefs that justify or trivialize sexual violence) were taken into account. One half of the participants completed the rape myth acceptance (RMA) scales first and then received the vignettes, while the other half were given the vignettes first and then completed the RMA scales. As expected, more blame was attributed to victims of rape than to victims of robbery. Conversely, perpetrators of rape were blamed less than perpetrators of robbery. The more participants endorsed rape myths, the more blame was attributed to the victim and the less blame was attributed to the perpetrators. Increasing levels of RMA were associated with an increase in victim blame (VB) in both rape and robbery cases, but the increase in rape VB was significantly more pronounced than in robbery VB. Increasing RMA was associated with an attenuation of perpetrator blame (PB) that was more pronounced for rape than for robbery cases, but the difference was not significant. As expected, victims of rape were blamed more when the perpetrator exploited their defenselessness due to alcohol intoxication than when they were overpowered by physical force. Contrary to the hypothesis, this was also true for robbery victims. Rape victims who knew their attacker (ex-partner or acquaintance) were blamed more than victims who were assaulted by strangers. Contrary to the hypothesis, robbery victims who were assaulted by an ex-partner were blamed more than acquaintance or stranger robbery victims. As predicted, the closer the relationship between victim and perpetrator, the less blame was attributed to perpetrators of rape while this factor had no effect on PB in robbery cases. Men compared to women attributed more blame to the victims and less blame to the perpetrators. As expected, these gender differences in blame attributions were partially mediated by gender differences in RMA: After RMA was taken into account, the gender differences disappeared nearly completely for VB and were significantly reduced in PB. The order of presentation of the vignettes and the RMA measures was systematically varied to test the causal influence of RMA on rape blame attributions. The hypothesis that RMA causes VB and PB in rape cases (as opposed to the other way around or both are caused by a third variable) was not supported. Possible reasons for this failed manipulation and its implications for the mediation model are discussed. With regard to blame attribution in rape cases, the present results match what was expected from previous studies which were mainly conducted in “Western” countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, or Germany. The present results support the notion that the victim-perpetrator relationship and the victim’s alcohol consumption are cross-culturally stable factors for blame attribution in rape cases. It was expected that blame attribution in robbery cases would be unaffected by the perpetrator’s coercive strategy and the victim-perpetrator relationship, but the results were inconsistent. One unexpected effect is particularly noteworthy: When the perpetrator used physical force, more blame was attributed to rape than to robbery victims, but intoxicated victims were blamed more and almost equally so for both types of crime. Perpetrators who exploited drunk victims were blamed less in both rape and robbery cases. These results contradict German results collected with the German version of the same instruments (Bieneck & Krahe, 2011). Turkey is a Muslim country and alcohol is surrounded by a certain taboo. Possibly, the results reflect a cultural difference in that intoxicated victims are generally blamed more for their victimization and this factor is not limited to rape cases.

Blame attribution is a valuable mechanism explaining decision making. However, present literature mainly employs blame attribution as a dependent variable. The shortcoming of this fact is that blame attribution offers a potentially valuable explanatory mechanism for decision making. The authors designed two studies to investigate blame attribution as a moderator of sentencing decisions in sexual orientation-based hate crimes. Study 1 showed that mock jurors punished perpetrators of hate crimes more severely than a control condition. Also, degree of victim blame influenced punitive decision making. In Study 2, mock jurors extended findings that perpetrators of hate crimes are more harshly punished than those of other types of crimes. Victim and perpetrator blame failed to moderate decision making in this more complex scenario. Results are discussed in relation to hate crimes definitions and attribution theory.

Against a background of often acrimonious debate among researchers, and contradictory research evidence, the most influential perspective in deciding criminal justice policy and the organisation of services across North America and Western Europe for those involved in intimate partner violence continues to be the gender paradigm. Approaches to practice based on the view that women are always victims and men perpetrate violence against them to maintain patriarchy have been criticised as reductionist and prescriptive. However, calls by researchers to bring more psychological theory and relational awareness to understandings of domestic violence and its practices have tended to be ignored. In the UK, services are predominantly offered to either ‘survivors/victims’ or ‘perpetrators’, and many co-ordinated community responses take a gender perspective. Using a thematic analysis, this study aimed to deconstruct the understandings and approach to practice of 20 UK practitioners, who primarily offered services to either ‘perpetrators’ or ‘survivors/victims’. Practices were found to be mainly informed by the gender paradigm, reflecting assumptions that men’s abusive behaviour was instrumental and chosen, whilst women behaved aggressively in retaliation or defence. However, some participants integrated a relational perspective, deliberately moving away from either/or approaches that allocated blame, and endorsing practices that held both partners responsible for their choices and facilitated understanding of their motivation. Whilst not eschewing the advances that feminist theory has brought to this field, the author concludes that segregating services contributes to the re-production of gendered assumptions that downplay the impact of the relational context and individual motivation. Evidence-based approaches are needed that engage more effectively with clients’ attributions of blame, recognise the potential for reciprocal abuse, and move away from understandings and practices premised on the now out-dated assumption that intimate violence and abuse is only a gender issue.

Three studies were conducted to examine the role of order effects in attributions of blame in cases of acquaintance rape. Participants were presented with a vignette describing an acquaintance rape and were then asked to respond to a victim blame scale and a perpetrator blame scale, the presentation order of which was manipulated. The results of Study 1 (n = 129) indicated that the participants who first responded to the perpetrator blame scale blamed the perpetrator less than the participants who first responded to the victim blame scale. This effect was replicated in Study 2 (n = 120) and Study 3 (n = 70), which was run 18 months after Study 2 and used a modified vignette. These findings suggest that order effects should be a methodological consideration in future studies on blame attribution.

Previous research has consistently shown that rape victims may be blamed for the assault but little is known about victim blaming in other sexual crimes. In the present experiment, we examined blame attributions for sexual assault and online sexual harassment. The study also investigated the effects of victim behavior, participants' belief in a just world, and participant gender on attributions of both victim and perpetrator blame. A vignette methodology was employed and a community sample (N = 200) answered questions of victim and perpetrator blame after reading one of four different scenarios (which manipulated crime type and victim behavior). Crime type and victim behavior affected participants blame attributions: the participants attributed least blame to the non-flirtatious sexual assault victim and most blame was attributed to the flirtatious sexual harassment victim. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Perpetrator characteristics and blame attributions in a stranger rape situation

A mock juror investigation of blame attribution in the punishment of hate crime perpetrators

This study investigates the influence of social status on attributions of blame in specific instances of hate crime. Two theoretical explanations for the impact of offender's and victim's social status characteristics on evaluations of hate crimes are examined. The stigma perspective suggests that the public will deride minority-status individuals, whereas the sympathy perspective implies that the public will be sympathetic to members of minorities. Results from a factorial survey reveal mixed support for both perspectives, depending on the victim's status (race, gender, or sexual orientation). Respondents appear especially sensitive to racial status asymmetry, blaming white offenders more than black offenders and black victims less than white victims, but sympathy is not evident for gay and lesbian victims. Results also suggest that gay and lesbian victims are held more accountable for their actions than heterosexual victims and that respondent's attitudes shape attributions of blame.

Background: The attribution of blame for criminal act has an impact, both on the way the offender must come to terms with the offence and on the risk of recidivism. Blame attribution has been found to be related to the type of crime and personality. Aims: This study examined the relationship of blame attribution and feelings of guilt in violent female offenders, according to factors related to crime, background and personality. Methods: The Gudjonsson Blame Attribution Inventory (BAI) and the Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ) were administered to 58 violent female offenders. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Structured Clinical Interview II for DSM-IV (SCID II) and clinical interviews were used for assessment. Results: Lower scores of guilt feelings were found in women than has been reported for men. The feelings of guilt were higher in homicide than in other violent crimes, but lower in the cases where women had committed prior violent crimes. No differences were found between psychiatric patients and prisoners. The duration of hospitalisation and incarceration did not result in differences in blame attribution and guilt, but when the victims survived, guilt feelings seemed to increase with the passing of the time. External attribution was related to motives of crime, but traumatic experiences did not have a crucial impact upon blame attribution. The attribution of blame and the amount of guilt feelings were found to be related to personality. Women scoring high on psychopathy reported less guilt than women with low scores. The corresponding result was not obtained in the group of women with antisocial personality disorder, who, however, showed an unexpectedly low use of external attribution. Conclusion: The results suggest that it might be difficult for women to cope with the violent offence and that the characteristics of psychopathy seems to have a crucial impact on the guilt feelings and consequently on coping with the crime in female offenders.

Little research has examined the factors that help to explain or predict different attributions of blame that rape survivors assign to their assault experiences. The current study sought to examine (a) rape survivors' attributions of blame to themselves and to external sources, specifically the perpetrator, the circumstances surrounding the assault (i.e., the situation), and society; (b) whether or not rape survivors attribute more blame to certain sources than others; and (c) which individual and situational factors that have been discussed in the sexual assault research literature help to explain self-blame, perpetrator blame, situational blame, and societal blame within a college sample ( N = 129). Results indicated that rape survivors attributed the most blame to themselves and to society, some blame to the situation, and the least blame to the male involved. Multiple regression analyses revealed that, for the most part, variables specific to the rape survivor (e.g., history of childhood sexual abuse, clarity of refusing sex, and perceived level of intoxication) significantly related to self-blame, whereas variables specific to assault severity significantly related to perpetrator blame (e.g., level of physical harm, type of rape, and recency of the assault), although in some unexpected ways. Age and recency of the assault were significantly related to situational blame. Clarity of refusing sex was the only variable that was significantly related to societal blame. Implications are discussed for prevention, education, and practice.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an extensive public health concern, largely affecting women aged 20 to 24 years. Research suggests that bisexual women are more likely than heterosexual and homosexual women to be victims of IPV. Bisexual women are also more likely to be blamed for their abuse experiences after disclosing, a phenomenon known as victim blame attribution (VBA). However, very little VBA research recognizes bisexuality as a separate category. Therefore, the main aim of this quasi-experimental study was to investigate the role of female victim sexuality (bisexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality) and observer sex in the attribution of blame to the victim and perpetrator of IPV. Participants (N = 232; aged 18-24 years, M = 21.05, SD = 1.73) were randomly assigned into one of four conditions (heterosexual victim, bisexual victim with same-sex partner, bisexual victim with different-sex partner, homosexual victim), each containing a vignette portraying IPV within a relationship. Randomization checks were performed to ensure that participants in the four conditions did not differ significantly on underlying attitudes (institutional heterosexism (IH), aversive heterosexism (AH), heterosexual privilege (HP), sexist attitudes, just world beliefs) that may have affected their responses on outcome measures. Main analyses demonstrated that bisexual victims with a same-sex partner received the highest attribution of blame, whereas perpetrators in this condition received the lowest blame attribution. Male participants attributed significantly higher blame to victims than did female participants, regardless of victim sexuality. These findings substantiate the role of victim sexuality and observer sex in IPV blame attribution patterns. This research aimed to promote equality and rightful treatment to all victims of IPV regardless of their sexuality.

Attribution of blame was examined in three samples differing in education and experience (38 undergraduates, 31 graduate students, 37 MA clinicians). 106 subjects completed the Jackson Incest Blame Scale, which yields four blame factors, situation, victim, society, and offender. The four factor scores were analyzed using 2 (sex) X 3 (education) analysis of variance. Attribution of blame decreased as a function of more education. The blame scores of men were significantly higher than those of women on all factors except offender. The percentage of graduate students and clinicians indicating a history of sexual abuse fell in the upper range of estimates of incidence. Individuals with histories of abuse differed only on their attribution of blame to situational factors.