General belief in a just world (GBJW) is typically believed to exacerbate observers’ rape victim blame. However, research on the psychological processes underlying this relationship is limited. In this study, we aimed to examine the relationship between GBJW and rape victim blame in a Chinese community sample, investigating whether gender-specific system justification (GSSJ) and hostile sexism (HS) mediate this relationship and whether these mediating effects show gender differences. We proposed and tested a conditional process model. A sample of 249 participants were asked to read a vignette describing a male-on-female rape, after which they completed measures of rape victim blame, GBJW, GSSJ, HS, and social desirability. The results indicated that GBJW positively predicted rape victim blame overall, with GSSJ mediating this relationship. GBJW promoted rape victim blame by increasing GSSJ, and the underlying mechanism showed a stronger effect among women than men. In addition, the relationship between GBJW and rape victim blame was suppressed by HS only among men, with higher levels of GBJW associated with lower levels of HS, thereby reducing male observers’ rape victim blame. These findings suggest that the psychological mechanisms underlying the effect of GBJW on rape victim blame differ based on gender, highlighting the importance of considering the gender of observers when examining this relationship.
AbramsD.VikiG. T.MasserB.BohnerG. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111–125.
2.
BernardP.LoughnanS.MarchalC.GodartA.KleinO. (2015). The exonerating effect of sexual objectification: Sexual objectification decreases rapist blame in a stranger rape context. Sex Roles, 72(11–12), 499–508.
3.
BoltonK. H.FischerA. R.DaoodC. J. (2018). The role of men’s beliefs in shaping their response to a sexual violence prevention program. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 19(2), 308–313.
4.
BongiornoR.LangbroekC.BainP. G.TingM.RyanM. K. (2020). Why women are blamed for being sexually harassed: The effects of empathy for female victims and male perpetrators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(1), 11–27.
5.
BrownmillerS. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. Simon & Schuster.
6.
ChapleauK. M.OswaldD. L. (2014). A system justification view of sexual violence: Legitimizing gender inequality and reduced moral outrage are connected to greater rape myth acceptance. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 15(2), 204–218.
7.
CherniawskyS.MorrisonM. (2022). “You should have known better”: The social ramifications of victimization-focused sexual assault prevention tips. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), NP125–NP146.
8.
CorreiaI.AlvesH.MoraisR.RamosM. (2015). The legitimation of wife abuse among women: The impact of belief in a just world and gender identification. Personality and Individual Differences, 76(5), 7–12.
9.
DalbertC. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the Personal Belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79–98.
10.
DalbertC.MontadaL.SchmittM. (1987). Glaube an eine gerechte welt als motiv: Validierungskorrelate zweier skalen. [belief in a just world: Validation correlates of two scales.]. Psychologische Beitrage, 29(4), 596-615.
11.
Diener O’LearyJ.MyersE. M.LozanoN. M. (2021). Predictors of college women’s rape myth acceptance and bystander attitudes: Informing prevention. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 59(3), 281–294.
12.
FurnhamA. (1993). Just world beliefs in twelve societies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(3), 317–329.
13.
FurnhamA. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 795–817.
14.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.
15.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.
16.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.AdetounB.OsagieJ. E.AkandeA.AlaoA.BrunnerA.WillemsenT. M.ChipetaK.DardenneB.DijksterhuisA.WigboldusD.EckesT.Six-MaternaI.ExpósitoF.MoyaM.… LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775.
17.
GlickP.LameirasM.CastroY. R. (2002). Education and catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47(9–10), 433–441.
18.
GravelinC. R.BiernatM.BucherC. E. (2019). Blaming the victim of acquaintance rape: Individual, situational, and sociocultural factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2422.
19.
GrubbA.HarrowerJ. (2008). Attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(5), 396–405.
20.
GrubbA.TurnerE. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 443–452.
21.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2010). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. Routledge.
22.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
23.
Hetzel-RigginM. D.JamesS.RobyR.BuczekT. J. (2022). Gender, myths, and assumptions: Correlates of risk perception in sexual assault scenarios. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19–20), NP18085–NP18103.
24.
HillS.MarshallT. C. (2018). Beliefs about sexual assault in India and Britain are explained by attitudes toward women and hostile sexism. Sex Roles, 79(7–8), 421–430.
25.
HuR.XueJ.LinK.SunI. Y.WangX. (2021). Bidirectional intimate partner violence among Chinese women: Patterns and risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP12252–NP12278.
26.
JohnsonJ.SattlerD. N.RobertsG.DierckxK. (2024). Sexual assault of a Rohingya woman: Anti-Rohingya statements embolden those high in sexism to report anti-victim and pro-perpetrator reactions. Sex Roles, 90(4), 527–538.
27.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.
28.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509.
29.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.Ni SullivanB. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 13–36.
30.
KassingL. R.BeesleyD.FreyL. L. (2005). Gender role conflict, homophobia, age, and education as predictors of male rape myth acceptance. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27(4), 311–328.
31.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823–837.
32.
KleinkeC. L.MeyerC. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14(3), 343–353.
33.
KunstJ. R.BaileyA.PrendergastC.GundersenA. (2019). Sexism, rape myths and feminist identification explain gender differences in attitudes toward the #MeToo social media campaign in two countries. Media Psychology, 22(5), 818–843.
34.
KwonM.SuY. (2024). Relatively unworthy victims? Middle-aged women as rape survivors. Violence Against Women, 30(8), 1804–1824.
35.
LambertA. J.RaichleK. (2000). The role of political ideology in mediating judgments of blame in rape victims and their assailants: A test of the just world, personal responsibility, and legitimization hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(7), 853–863.
36.
LandströmS.StrömwallL. A.AlfredssonH. (2016). Blame attributions in sexual crimes: Effects of belief in a just world and victim behavior. Nordic Psychology, 68(1), 2–11.
37.
LathanE. C.Koon-MagninS.SelwynC. N.IsaakH.Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ. (2022). Rape myth acceptance and other barriers to formally reporting sexual assault among college students with and without sexual assault histories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(9–10), 6773–6797.
38.
Law Yearbook of China. (2018–2022). The Press of China Law Yearbook.
39.
LernerM. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 355–360.
40.
LernerM. J.MillerD. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051.
41.
LiZ.ZhengY. (2022). Blame of rape victims and perpetrators in China: The role of gender, rape myth acceptance, and situational factors. Sex Roles, 87(3–4), 167–184.
42.
LonswayK. A.FitzgeraldL. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 704–711.
43.
LukeK. P. (2009). Sexual violence prevention and technologies of gender among heavy-drinking college women. Social Service Review, 83(1), 79–109.
44.
LuoT.-Y. (2000). “Marrying my rapist?!”: The cultural trauma among Chinese rape survivors. Gender & Society, 14(4), 581–597.
45.
LuoX. (2021). The consent in criminal law [In Chinese]. Yunnan People’s Publishing House.
46.
ŁyśA. E.StudzińskaA.Bargiel-MatusiewiczK. (2021). Beliefs on sexual violence in the context of system justification theory: The role of hostile sexism and beliefs in biological origins of gender differences. Social Justice Research, 34(3), 235–254.
47.
LyuJ.ShenX.HeskethT. (2020). Sexual knowledge, attitudes and behaviours among undergraduate students in China—implications for sex education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6716.
48.
MartiniM.De PiccoliN. (2020). Predicting bystander intention to intervene: The role of gender-specific system justification and rape myth acceptance for men and women. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 326.
49.
MasserB.LeeK.McKimmieB. M. (2010). Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim blame. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 494–504.
50.
OsborneD.SenguptaN. K.SibleyC. G. (2019). System justification theory at 25: Evaluating a paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 340–361.
51.
PandeyM. (2023). Exploring rape as a gender-based crime. In AliP.RogersM. M. (Eds.), Gender-based violence: A comprehensive guide (pp. 181–194). Springer International Publishing.
52.
PappL. J.ErchullM. J. (2017). Objectification and system justification impact rape avoidance behaviors. Sex Roles, 76(1–2), 110–120.
53.
PedersenS. H.StrömwallL. A. (2013). Victim blame, sexism and just-world beliefs: A cross-cultural comparison. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(6), 932–941.
54.
PerssonS.DhingraK. (2020). Attributions of blame in stranger and acquaintance rape: A multilevel meta-analysis and systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(3), 795–809.
55.
PerssonS.DhingraK.GroganS. (2018). Attributions of victim blame in stranger and acquaintance rape: A quantitative study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(13–14), 2640–2649.
56.
PinciottiC. M.OrcuttH. K. (2021). Understanding gender differences in rape victim blaming: The power of social influence and just world beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 255–275.
57.
PowersR. A.JenniferL.BrettH.CohnA. (2015). The impact of college education on rape myth acceptance, alcohol expectancies, and bystander attitudes. Deviant Behavior, 36(12), 956–973.
58.
ReynoldsW. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the marlowe-crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125.
59.
RussellB.OswaldD.CotterM. (2024). What makes a liberal feminist? Identifying predictors of heterosexual women and men’s liberal feminist ideology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 24(1), 241–260.
60.
Sakallı-UğurluN.YalçınZ. S.GlickP. (2007). Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empathy as predictors of Turkish students’ attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 57(11–12), 889–895.
61.
SaundersB. A.ScaturroC.GuarinoC.KellyE. (2017). Contending with catcalling: The role of system-justifying beliefs and ambivalent sexism in predicting women’s coping experiences with (and men’s attributions for) stranger harassment. Current Psychology, 36(2), 324–338.
62.
SchmaderT.MajorB.EcclestonC. P.McCoyS. K. (2001). Devaluing domains in response to threatening intergroup comparisons: Perceived legitimacy and the status value asymmetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 782–796.
63.
ShiX.ZhengY. (2021). Feminist active commitment and sexual harassment perception among Chinese women: The moderating roles of targets’ gender stereotypicality and type of harassment. Sex Roles, 84(7–8), 477–490.
64.
ShiX.ZhengY. (2022). Hostile and benevolent sexism and attitudes toward establishing consent among Chinese men: The detrimental role of token resistance beliefs and binge drinking. Sex Roles, 87(1–2), 1–16.
65.
ShroutP. E. (2011). Commentary: Mediation analysis, causal process, and cross-sectional data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 852–860.
66.
SmithK. B.GreenD. N. (1984). Individual correlates of the belief in a just world. Psychological Reports, 54(2), 435–438.
67.
StåhlT.EekD.KazemiA. (2010). Rape victim blaming as system justification: The role of gender and activation of complementary stereotypes. Social Justice Research, 23(4), 239–258
68.
StrömwallL. A.AlfredssonH.LandströmS. (2013). Blame attributions and rape: Effects of belief in a just world and relationship level. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 254–261.
69.
SuZ.ZhangD.WangX. (2012). Revising of belief in a just world scale and its reliability and validity in college students. Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science, 21(6), 561–563.
70.
SunI. Y.WuY.WangX.XueJ. (2020). Officer and organizational correlates with police interventions in domestic violence in China. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(11–12), NP8325–NP8349.
71.
TaylorS. C.GassnerL. (2010). Stemming the flow: Challenges for policing adult sexual assault with regard to attrition rates and under-porting of sexual offences. Police Practice and Research, 11(3), 240–255.
72.
UllmanS. E. (1996). Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(4), 505–526.
73.
ValentineG.JacksonL.MayblinL. (2014). Ways of seeing: Sexism the forgotten prejudice?Gender, Place & Culture, 21(4), 401–414.
74.
Valor-SeguraI.ExpósitoF.MoyaM. (2011). Victim blaming and exoneration of the perpetrator in domestic violence: The role of beliefs in a just world and ambivalent sexism. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 195–206.
75.
Valor-SeguraI.ExpósitoF.MoyaM.LópezK. (2014). Violence against women in Spain and Cuba: The same reality, two different visions / Violencia hacia la mujer en España y Cuba: una misma realidad, dos visiones diferentes. International Journal of Social Psychology, 29(1), 150–179.
76.
van den BosK.MaasM. (2009). On the psychology of the belief in a just world: Exploring experiential and rationalistic paths to victim blaming. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(12), 1567–1578.
77.
van der ToornJ.JostJ. T. (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on “Ideology and system justification processes.”Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 413–419.
78.
VonderhaarR. L.CarmodyD. C. (2014). There are no “innocent victims”: The influence of just world beliefs and prior victimization on rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(10), 1615–1632.
79.
XueJ.FangG.HuangH.CuiN.RhodesK. V.GellesR. (2019). Rape myths and the cross-cultural adaptation of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale in China. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(7), 1428–1460.
80.
YamawakiN. (2007). Rape perception and the function of ambivalent sexism and gender-role traditionality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(4), 406–423.
81.
YamawakiN. (2009). The role of rape myth acceptance and belief in a just world on victim blame attribution: A study in Japan. Psychologia, 52(3), 163–174.
82.
YanY. (2009). The individualization of Chinese society. Berg Publishers.
83.
YeQ. (2012). Introduction to the issue of rape in China as a developing country. In WestmarlandN.GangoliG. (Eds.), International approaches to rape (pp. 57–78). Policy Press.
84.
ZhangM.ZhaoP.TongX. (2022). Constructing women’s immobility: Fear of violence and women’s constricted nocturnal travel behaviour. Travel Behaviour and Society, 26, 178–192.
85.
ZhouC.GuoY. (2013). Belief in a just world: A double-edged sword for justice restoration. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(1), 144–154.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
