Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, I.
Right arrow Articles by Spencer, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Can Blaming Victims of Rape be Logical? Attribution Theory and Discourse Analytic Perspectives

Irina Anderson

Department of Psychology, University of East London, UK, I.Anderson{at}uel.ac.uk

Geoffrey Beattie

University of Manchester, UK

Christopher Spencer

University of Sheffield, UK

While it is frequently assumed that blaming the victims rather than the perpetrators of rape is the result of biases in causal reasoning, one rape perception study (Calhoun et al., 1976) suggests that blame attributions directed at the victim can occur as a result of logical attributional processes through the systematic and rational application of the covariational rules of inductive reasoning. The aim of the present study was to investigate this assertion. The study is unique in two ways. First, participants were asked to discuss a rape incident rather than evaluate it using questionnaire methods. Second, the study focused on the rape of males as well as the rape of females. Two analyses were performed on the conversational data - a content analysis yielding quantitative data and a qualitative discourse analysis. The main findings were that, contrary to predictions, participants did not use the covariation information to blame the victim of rape `logically'. Instead, the most frequently utilized category was `meta-commentary' which showed that the participants were extremely sensitive to the inferences implied by the covariation information and the task in general. The findings are discussed in relation to attribution theory and rape perception.

Key Words: blame • discourse • rape • social cognition

Human Relations, Vol. 54, No. 4, 445-467 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0018726701544003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Social Legal StudiesHome page
L. Ellison and V. E. Munro
Of 'Normal Sex' and 'Real Rape': Exploring The Use of Socio-Sexual Scripts in (Mock) Jury Deliberation
Social Legal Studies, September 1, 2009; 18(3): 291 - 312.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Social Legal StudiesHome page
E. Finch and V. E. Munro
The Demon Drink and the Demonized Woman: Socio-Sexual Stereotypes and Responsibility Attribution in Rape Trials Involving Intoxicants
Social Legal Studies, December 1, 2007; 16(4): 591 - 614.
[Abstract] [PDF]