Blaming the Victim, the Bystander, the Perpetrator, or the Institution: Student Allocation of Responsibility for Sexual Assault when Programming Hypothetically Varies

Abstract

ABSTRACT Guided by theories of socialization and just policy theory, we explore how students allocate blame when sexual assault prevention programming hypothetically varies, net of the effects of evaluators’ traits. Using a survey instrument containing a series of vignettes, we ask whether university students’ (N = 254) perceptions of responsibility attributed to victims, perpetrators, bystanders, and university administrators varies by hypothetical program trainee and also by the hypothetical implementation of any program versus no program. Findings indicate that students allocate more blame to bystanders and perpetrators when hypothetical programming includes bystander training but that programs that train victims are not associated with increased victim blaming. Administrators are blamed less when bystander intervention is included in programming. However, compared to when no training is hypothetically implemented, students allocate more blame to victims and bystanders when any programming is present and less to administrators. Among respondent-level controls, victim blaming is consistently predicted by evaluators’ rape myth acceptance. Implications for future work, theoretical development, and policy are discussed.