Retaliation Against Sexual Assault: Self-Defense or Public Duty?

Abstract

The present study explored the notion that females would react more positively toward retaliation against sexual assault than males. In a 2 × 2 design, female and male undergraduates read a vignette in which either a rape victim or her fiance retaliated against the rapist by shooting him (nonfatally). Results indicated that females regarded the retaliatory act as more morally justified than did males and were consistently more lenient in their legal judgments of the retaliator. Correlational analyses indicated that attributing retaliation to the motives of self-defense (for the victim) and “public duty” (for the fiance) may have mediated these judgments. Implications of these findings for the psychology of moral judgment and the legal system are discussed.