Blame Avoidance and Transgender Individuals’ Attributions About Rape: Unpacking Gendered Assumptions in Defensive Attribution Research

Abstract

This research examines how binary gender (male or female) interacts with trans status (cis or trans) to determine rape myth acceptance (RMA), perceived similarity, victim empathy, and victim blaming. Utilizing vignette methodology with an acquaintance rape scenario with a heterosexual female victim, we analyze these variables using multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) and ordered logit regression. We find support for the argument that both harm avoidance and blame avoidance are operating to predict similarity, empathy, and victim blaming experienced by cisgender and transgender individuals. We argue that this is based on in-group identification from both gender identity and perceived likelihood of future victimization. Specifically, we find that cisgender men have the lowest rates of perceived similarity. Transgender women have the highest rates of empathy whereas cisgender women and trans men have lower rates of victim blaming than cisgender men. Results suggest that the interaction between binary gender and trans status influence perceptions of rape myths and victimization.

Keywords

GLBT sexual assault GLBT violence against sexual assault adult victims

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

K. B.

Cooper

Okamura

(1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295-315.

Ansara

Y. G.

Hegarty

(2014). Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Feminism & Psychology, 24, 259-270.

Barnett

M. A.

Tetreault

P. A.

Masbad

(1987). Empathy with a rape victim: The role of similarity of experience. Violence and Victims, 2, 255-262.

Basow

Minieri

(2011). “You owe me”: Effects of date cost, who pays, participant gender, and rape myth beliefs on perceptions of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 479-497.

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.

Breiding

M. J.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(8), 1-18.

Bridges

J.S.

(1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex role expectations and rape-supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24, 291-307.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

10.

Carlson

(2013). Abnormal sexual assault situations and its influence on rape myth acceptance (Honors thesis). University of New Hampshire, Durham.

11.

Check

J. V.

Malamuth

N. M.

(1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 344-356.

12.

Cohn

E. S.

Dupuis

E. C.

Brown

T. M.

(2009). In the eye of the beholder: Do behavior and character affect victim and perpetrator responsibility for acquaintance rape? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1513-1535.

13.

Deitz

Blackwell

Daley

Bentley

(1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372-384.

14.

Diamond-Welch

Mann

Bass

M.B.

Tollini

2021. The interaction between observer sex and sexual identity on attributions of blame with a heterosexual female victim. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), NP527-NP554.

15.

Du Mont

Miller

Myhr

T. L

. (2003). The role of “real rape” and “real victim” stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 9, 466-486.

16.

Feldman

P. J.

Ullman

J. B.

Dunkel-Schetter

(1998). Women’s reactions to rape victims: Motivational processes associated with blame and social support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 469-503.

17.

Field

(2000). Introducing Statistical Methods Series. Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: Advanced techniques for beginners. London, UK: Sage.

18.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage.

19.

Finkelhor

(2008). Childhood victimization: Violence, crime, and abuse in the lives of young people. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20.

Gerber

G. L.

Cronin

J. M.

Steigman

H. J.

(2004). Attributions of blame in sexual assault to perpetrators and victims of both genders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2149-2165.

21.

Goodman

J. K.

Cryder

C. E.

Cheema

(2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213-224.

22.

Gravetter

F. J.

Wallnau

L. B.

(2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

23.

Grubb

A. R.

Harrower

(2009). Understanding attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 63-81.

24.

Grubb

A. R.

Turner

(2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impacts of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity, and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 443-452.

25.

Haegerich

T. M.

Bottoms

B. L.

(2000). Empathy and jurors’ decisions in patricide trials involving child sexual assault allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 421-448.

26.

Hammond

E. M.

Berry

M. A.

Rodriguez

D. N.

(2011). The influence of rape myth acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 242-252.

27.

Hauser

Schwarz

(2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400-407.

28.

Jimenez

J. A.

Abreu

J. M.

(2003). Race and sex effects on attitudinal perceptions of acquaintance rape. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 252-256.

29.

Johnson

B. E.

Kuck

D. L.

Schander

P. R.

(1997). Rape myth acceptance and sociodemographic characteristics: A multidimensional analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 693-707.

30.

Johnson

L. G.

Beech

(2017). Rape myth acceptance in convicted rapists: A systematic review of the literature. Aggression and Violence Behavior, 34, 20-34.

31.

Kahn

A. S.

Rodgers

K. A.

Martin

Malick

Claytor

Gandolfo

. . . Webne

(2011). Gender versus gender role in attributions of blame for a sexual assault. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 239-251.

32.

Kuper

L. E.

Nussbaum

Mustanski

(2012). Exploring the diversity of gender and sexual orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 244-254.

33.

Langenderfer-Magruder

Whitfield

D. L.

Walls

N. E.

Kattari

S. K.

Ramos

(2016). Experiences of intimate partner violence and subsequent police reporting among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer adults in Colorado: Comparing rates of cisgender and transgender victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 855-871.

34.

Long

J. S.

Freese

(2014). Regression models for categorical variables using Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

35.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164.

36.

Miller

A. K.

Amacker

A. M.

King

A. R.

(2011). Sexual victimization history and perceived similarity to a sexual assault victim: A path model of perceiver variables predicting victim culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 64, 372-381.

37.

Nagel

Matsuo

McIntyre

K. P.

Morrison

(2005). Attitudes toward victims of rape effects of gender, race, religion, and social class. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 725-737.

38.

Nagoshi

J. L.

Brzuzy

S. I.

Nagoshi

C. T.

(2014). Gender and sexual identity. Springer Science.

39.

Nagoshi

J. L.

Brzuzy

S. I.

Terrell

H. K.

(2012). Deconstructing the complex perceptions of gender roles, gender identity, and sexual orientation among transgender individuals. Feminism & Psychology, 22, 405-422.

40.

Nario-Redmond

M. R.

Biernat

Eidelman

Palenske

D. J.

(2004). The social and personal identities scale: A measure of the differential importance ascribed to social and personal self-categorizations. Self and Identity, 2, 143-175.

41.

Osman

S. L.

(2011). Predicting rape empathy based on victim, perpetrator, and participant gender, and history of sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 64, 506-515.

42.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

P. G.

(2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.

43.

Pollard

(1992). Judgements about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307-326.

44.

Roen

(2002). “Either/or” and” both/neither”: Discursive tensions in transgender politics. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 27, 501-522.

45.

Rosser

B. S.

Oakes

J. M.

Bockting

W. O.

Miner

(2007). Capturing the social demographics of hidden sexual minorities: An internet study of the transgender population in the United States. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 4(2), 50-64.

46.

Russell

K. J.

Hand

C. J.

(2017). Rape myth acceptance, victim blame attribution and Just World Beliefs: A rapid evidence assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 153-160.

47.

Schilt

Westbrook

(2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,” transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23, 440-464.

48.

Shaver

K. G.

(1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.

49.

Shulze

Koon-Magnin

(2017). Gender, sexual orientation, and rape myth acceptance: Preliminary findings from a sample of primarily LGBQ-identified survey respondents. Violence & Victims, 32, 159-180.

50.

Smith

N. A.

Sabat

I. E.

Martinez

L. R.

Weaver

(2015). A convenient solution: Using MTurk to sample from hard-to-reach populations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 220-228.

51.

Stotzer

R. L.

(2009). Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 170-179.

52.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010-2035.

53.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.

54.

Testa

R. J.

Sciacca

L. M.

Wang

Hendricks

M. L.

Goldblum

Bradford

Bongar

(2012). Effects of violence on transgender people. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43, 452-459.

55.

Trochim

W. M.

Donnelly

J. P.

(2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.

56.

van der Bruggen

Grubb

. (2014). A review of the literature relating to rape victim blaming: An analysis of the impact of observer and victim characteristics on attribution of blame in rape cases. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 523-531.

57.

Venema

R. M.

(2019). Making judgments: How blame mediates the influences of rape myth acceptance in police response to sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(13), 2697-2722.

58.

Walster

(1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 73-79.

59.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.