Religion and Victim Blame in Sexual Assault Cases: Evidence of the Black Sheep Effect

Abstract

The black sheep effect (BSE) occurs when “deviant” ingroup members are judged more negatively compared to deviant outgroup members. We tested the BSE in the context of perceptions of rape victims. In a 4 (participant religion) × 3 (victim religion) × 2 (gender) between-subjects design (N = 760), Latter-Day Saints (LDS) (Mormon) participants blamed the LDS victim more than the Catholic victim. Utah LDS participants had higher negative affect toward the LDS victim compared to the Catholic victim. Catholic participants did not show this pattern, suggesting a need to examine additional contextual factors, including religious salience and cultural tightness. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

religion rape victim blame black sheep effect sexual assault

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrams

Viki

G. T.

Masser

Bohner

(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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111

Altemeyer

Hunsberger

(2004). A revised religious fundamentalism scale: The short and sweet of it. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_4

Angelone

D. J.

Mitchell

Pilafova

(2007). Club drug use and intentionality in perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles, 57(3), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9262-9

Barnett

M. D.

Sligar

K. B.

Wang

C. D. C.

(2018). Religious affiliation, religiosity, gender, and rape myth acceptance: Feminist theory and rape culture. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(8), 1219–1235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516665110

Bartkowski

J. P.

Read

J. G.

(2003). Veiled submission: Gender, power, and identity among evangelical and Muslim women in the United States. Qualitative Sociology, 26(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021456004419

Begue

(2001). Social judgment of abortion: A black-sheep effect in a Catholic Sheepfold. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 640–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600577

Burn

S. M.

Busso

(2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 412–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217

Crocker

Schwartz

(1985). Prejudice and ingroup favoritism in a minimal intergroup situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285114004

10.

Davies

Gilston

Rogers

(2012). Examining the relationship between male rape myth acceptance, female rape myth acceptance, victim blame, homophobia, gender roles, and ambivalent sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(14), 2807–2823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512438281

11.

Edwards

K. M.

Turchik

J. A.

Dardis

C. M.

Reynolds

Gidycz

C. A.

(2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65(11), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2

12.

Ensz

Jankowski

P. J.

(2020). Religiousness and rape myth acceptance: Risk and protective effects. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(7–8), 1671–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517698281

13.

Franiuk

Shain

(2011). Beyond Christianity: The status of women and rape myths. Sex Roles, 65(11-12), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9974-8

14.

Fraser

B. M.

Pica

Pozzulo

J. D.

(2022). The effect of delayed reporting on mock-juror decision-making in the era of #MeToo. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), NP11791 –NNP11810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521997464

15.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

16.

Grubb

Harrower

(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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006

17.

Grubb

Turner

(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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002

18.

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(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600802641649

19.

Harrington

J. R.

Gelfand

M. J.

(2014). Tightness–looseness across the 50 United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(22), 7990–7995. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317937111

20.

Harrison

L. A.

Howerton

D. M.

Secarea

A. M.

Nguyen

C. Q.

(2008). Effects of ingroup bias and gender role violations on acquaintance rape attributions. Sex Roles, 59(9–10), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9472-9

21.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

22.

Healy

(2016, April 26). At Brigham Young, a cost in reporting rape. The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/us/rape-victims-brigham-young-university-honor-code-suspensions.html

23.

Heath

E. G.

Sperry

(2021). A religious paradox: Can priming ideas of God reduce rape victim blame? Sex Roles, 84(3-4), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01163-9

24.

Insight Staff. (2021). Liberty University threatened to punish students who reported Title IX violations, investigation reveals. Insight Into Diversity. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/new-investigation-reveals-liberty-university-threatened-to-punish-students-who-reported-title-ix-violations/

25.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justifying and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

26.

Koenig

H. G.

Büssing

(2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078

27.

Lerner

M. J.

(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press.

28.

Lewis

A. C.

Sherman

S. J.

(2003). Hiring you makes me look bad: Social-identity based reversals of the ingroup favoritism effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(2), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00538-1

29.

Lewis

A. C.

Sherman

S. J.

(2010). Perceived entitativity and the black-sheep effect: When will we denigrate negative ingroup members? The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366388

30.

Lipkus

(1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(11), 1171–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L

31.

Lucarini

Suitner

Brown

Craig

M. A.

Knowles

E. D.

Salvador Casara

B. G.

(2020). The #MeTooLate effect: Victim blame and trust denial for sexual harassment not immediately reported. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110240

32.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180308

33.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Leyens

(1988). The ‘black sheep effect’: Extremity of judgments of ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

34.

McMahon

Farmer

G. L.

(2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.71

35.

Mikołajczak

Pietrzak

(2014). Ambivalent sexism and religion: Connected through values. Sex Roles, 70(9–10), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0379-3

36.

Norman

(2018). The religious regions of the U.S. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/232223/religious-regions.aspx

37.

Ong

A. S. J.

Ward

C. A.

(1999). The effects of sex and power schemas, attitudes toward women, and victim resistance on rape attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01391.x

38.

Oulali

Bos

van den Akker

Fukkink

R. G.

Merry

M. S.

Overbeek

(2017). Development and validation of the religious collective self-esteem scale for children. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(3), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000145

39.

Payne

D. L.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois rape myth acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 27–68 https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238

40.

Pew Research Center. (2025a). Religious landscape study. People in Utah. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/state/utah/

41.

Pew Research Center. (2025b). Religious landscape study. People in the South. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/region/south/

42.

Pew Research Center. (2025c). Global Religious Diversity. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/04/04/global-religious-diversity/

43.

RAINN. (2025). Campus sexual violence: Statistics. https://rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence

44.

Rakimzhanova

S. K.

Rakymzhanov

B. K.

(2019). Comparative analysis of the role of religious traditions in the moral self-determination of believers of the Abrahamic religions using the example of Islam and Orthodox Christianity. European Journal of Science and Theology, 15(2), 19–30.

45.

Rivera

L. M.

H. A.

Backstrom

V. L.

(2024). Self-esteem, ingroup favoritism, and outgroup evaluations: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(7), 1569–1588. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231210496

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.008

47.

Senay

(2025). Religions grow in tighter (vs. Looser) cultures: Two studies of inter & intra-country data. Psihologija, 58(2), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.2298/psi230330007s

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(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028777

49.

Sperry

Siegel

J. T.

(2013). Victim responsibility, credibility, and verdict in a simulated rape case: Application of Weiner’s attribution model. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02022.x

50.

Strömwall

L. A.

Alfredsson

Landström

(2012). Rape victim and perpetrator blame and the just world hypothesis: The influence of victim gender and age. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2012.683455

51.

Chen

Huang

Chen

(2023). In-group favoritism or black sheep effect? The moderating role of norm strength on destination residents’ responses towards deviant behaviors. Tourism Management, 98, 104773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104773

52.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

53.

Tang

Shepherd

Kay

A. C.

(2023). Morality’s role in the black sheep effect: When and why ingroup members are judged more harshly than outgroup members for the same transgression. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(7), 1605–1622. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3001

54.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (n.d.). Word of Wisdom. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

55.

(2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114563611

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(5), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.008

57.

Viki

G. T.

Abrams

(2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47(5/6), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021342912248

58.

Whatley

M. A.

(2005). The effect of participant sex, victim dress, and traditional attitudes on causal judgments for marital rape victims. Journal of Family Violence, 20(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3655-8