Causal Attributions in Sexual Assault Trial Judgments

Abstract

This research examined naturally occurring causal attributions in sexual assault trial judgments and their consequence (i.e., sentence). Causal attributions were reliably identified and analyzed for how they functioned in the narrative of the judgment. Whether the attributions discursively placed the cause within (internalizing attribution) or separate from the offender (externalizing attribution), described the cause as enduring and pervasive (saturating attribution) or as occurring within a particular context (situating attribution), and described the cause as owing to something violent (eg., a decision to be violent) or nonviolent (eg., being drunk). Results indicated that judges frequently made causal attributions, and the function of the attribution was significantly correlated with sentence (e.g., violent attributions were associated with higher sentence).