1. THE IMPACT OF VICTIM ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND PERPETRATOR USE OF FORCE ON PERCEPTIONS OF AN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE VIGNETTE Jada Horton, Ariel Guillory, Lauren Held, Tracy Protti, Amy Brown PhD University of Louisiana at Lafayette

2. Introduction ◦ Steubenville Rape Case: August 2012

3. Introduction ◦ Sexual violence is unfortunately a major issue in our society. Sexual assault is not always reported, and even when it is, justice is rarely served, and society often places blame on the victim. Victims face blame for many different reasons. ◦ Alcohol consumption has been shown to be a factor that can increase victim blame; several studies have shown that participants blamed victims who consumed alcohol more than those who did not consume alcohol (Sims et al, 2007). ◦ Incapacitated rape is a form of sexual assault in which the victim is intoxicated by the use of drugs or alcohol to the extent he or she is unable to consent to or resist sexual activity.

4. Introduction ◦ Previous research has also shown that when presented with an incapacitated rape scenario, participants blamed victims who consumed alcohol more than those who did not consume alcohol (Scronce & Corcoran, 1995). ◦ Previous research has also shown that victims who are incapacitated are blamed more for the assault, than victims of assault whose perpetrator used physical force. (Krahe et al, 2007). ◦ It is unclear whether victim blame in cases of incapacitated rape stems from the victim’s voluntary consumption of alcohol, or from the lack of force used in the assault. The present study tests alcohol consumption and use of force to see how they impact victim blame, perpetrator blame, and positive perceptions of the victim.

5. Methods  123 students (101 females and 22 males; M age=19.5) from the Psychology Department ◦ subject pool at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette participated in this study by ◦ reading and filling out given study materials.  Study materials contained one of four vignettes in which the victim, who was attending a ◦ party and was raped, was either incapacitated or sober, and the perpetrator either used ◦ force or did not use force. o Alcohol and Force (victim consumed alcohol, and perpetrator used force) o Alcohol and No Force (victim consumed alcohol, and perpetrator did not use force) o No Alcohol and Force ( victim did not consume alcohol, and perpetrator used force) o No Alcohol and No Force (victim did not consume alcohol, and perpetrator did not use force)

6. Methods  Participants were presented with questions that assessed perceptions of the victim and the perpetrator.  Participants responded to each item on a 1-9 Scale. Higher numbers indicated endorsement of the item in question.  There were 3 victim blame questions, α=.94. o e.g. “To what extent do you think Jessica is responsible for what happened to her?”  There were 2 positive perceptions of the victim questions, α=.68 o e.g. “To what extent do you believe that Jessica is a good person?”  There were 3 perpetrator blame questions, α=.72 o e.g. “To what extent do you believe that Kevin committed a crime against Jessica?”

7. Results Alcohol and Force on Victim Blame  Victim Blame o Main Effect for Alcohol, F(1, 116) = 7.74, p <.01. o Victim blame was higher when the victim was drinking alcohol (M=4.55, SE=.35) than when the victim was sober (M=3.18, SE =.35). o Main Effect for Force, F(1, 116) = 9.35, p <.01. o Victim blame was higher when the perpetrator did not use force (M=4.64, SE=.40) than when the perpetrator used force (M=3.09, SE=.32). o Figure 1 shows individual cell means for all force and alcohol conditions. Figure 1. Victim Blame

8. Results Force and Gender on Victim Blame Main Effect for Gender, F(1, 116) = 6.50, p = 0.01. o The victim was blamed more by men (M=4.51, SE=.46) than women (M=3.22, SE=.21). o Force by Gender interaction (marginally significant), F(1, 116) = 3.88, p =.055. o See Figure 2 for means. Figure 2. Victim Blame

9. Results Force and Gender on Perpetrator Blame Main Effect for Force Condition, F(1, 116) = 13.26, p <.001. o The perpetrator was blamed more when described as using force (M=8.76, SE=.11), then when described as not using force (M=8.10, SE=.14). o Interaction for Gender and Force, F(1, 116) = 4.52, p <.05. o See Figure 3 for means. Figure 3. Perpetrator Blame

10. Discussion ◦ Intoxicated victims and victims of perpetrators who use no force are more likely to be blamed than victims who are not intoxicated and victims of perpetrators who use higher levels of force. ◦ Although victim blame differed between the conditions, it was usually below the scale midpoint, except in the incapacitated rape condition (in the intoxication and no force condition, see Figure 1). In other words, the victim was not always assigned a large amount of blame, whereas the perpetrator usually was. ◦ It is encouraging that the perpetrator was blamed much more than the victim, but troubling that the victim was often seen as somewhat responsible.

11. Discussion ◦ While previous research such as Sims et al. (2007) simply presented a scene in which the victim did not offer much resistance to their perpetrator, the present study presented intoxication/no force condition that specifically described an incapacitated rape scenario. The ability to assess victim blame in response to incapacitated rape in particular is a strength of the current study. ◦ Because there was no interaction between the force and alcohol conditions, we can conclude that it is not incapacitated rape itself that is unique, but the fact that it involves alcohol consumption and no force, both of which tend to result in higher levels of victim blame.

12. References Krahé, B., Temkin, J., & Bieneck, S. (2007). Schema-driven information processing in judgments about rape. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 601-619. Scronce, C. A., & Corcoran, K. J. (1995). The influence of the victim's consumption of alcohol on perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape. Violence Against Women, 1(241), 241-253. Sims, C. M., Noel, N. E., & Maisto, S. A. (2007). Rape blame as a function of alcohol presence and resistance type. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2766-2775.