Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of rape type and information admissibility on perceptions of rape victims

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to assess whether the judgmental effects of inadmissible evidence would vary as a function of type of rape. Subjects (predominantly Caucasian) read rape scenarios that depicted either an acquaintance rape or a stranger rape, which contained information implying that the victim had a promiscuous sexual history. In one condition, subjects were instructed to disregard this information (inadmissible condition), while in the other condition, subjects received no such instructions (admissible condition). The results indicated that (1) males perceived that there was a higher probability of victim enjoyment than females, (2) perceptions of those in the admissible condition were less favorable than those in the inadmissible condition, and (3) perceptions of those in the acquaintance rape conditions were less favorable than those in the stranger rape condition. The results also indicated that perceptions of the probability of victim enjoyment did not vary as a function of type of rape when the information was admissible. On the other hand, when the information was inadmissible, perceptions of the probability of victim enjoyment in the acquaintance rape conditions were higher than those in the stranger rape condition. The possible basis of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blumberg, M., & Lester, D. (1991). High school and college students' attitudes towards rape.Adolescence, 26 727–729.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, E., Chrisler, J., Holsdale, D., & Osowiecki, D. (1991). Date Rape: Expectations, avoidance strategy and attitudes towards the victim.Journal of Social Psychology, 131 417–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, J. (1991). Perceptions of data and stranger rape: A difference in sex role expectation and rape supportive beliefs.Sex Roles, 24 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Check, J., & Malamuth, D. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 344–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. & Lewis, D. (1977).The Price of coercive Sexuality. Toronto: The Women's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, K. & Shaver, N. (1971). Michigan Criminal Assault Law. In D. Chappel, R. Geis, & G. Geis (Eds.),Forcible Rape: The crime, the victim, & the offender. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, B. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup bias: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping blacks.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 590–598.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, E., & Russel, W. (1988). Pretrial publicity and juror decision making.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V., & Vidmar, N. (1986).Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harney, P., & Muehllehard, C. (1990). Rape. In E. Graverholz & M. Kurlewski (Eds.),Sexual coersion. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Penrod, S. P., & Pennington, N. (1983).Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., Jackson, L. A., & Smith, G. (1989). The role of Ambiguity and Gender in Mediating the Effects of Salient Cognitions.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15 52–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., & Russ, I. (1989). Effects of salience of consciousness raising information on the perception of acquaintance versus stranger rape.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19 182–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneker, S., Shaherwalla, P., & Franco, B. (1991). The acquaintance predicament of a rape victim.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 1524–1544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates.Journal of Social Issues, 48 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafree, G. (1980). Variables affecting guilty pleas and convictions in rape cases.Social Forces, 58 833–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafree, G., Reskin, B., & Visher, C. (1985). Juror responses to victim behavior and legal issues in sexual assault trials.Social Problems, 32 398–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lottes, I. (1991). Belief systems: Sexuality and rape.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 4 37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R., & Kerr, N. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors bias for leniency.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 21–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malamuth, J. & Check, N. (1980) Sexual arousal to rape and consenting depictions: The importance of the woman's arousal.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 10 528–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malamuth, J., Haber, S. & Feshback, S. (1980). Testing hypothesis regarding rape: Exposure to sexual violence, sex differences, and the “normality” of rapists.Journal of Research in Personality, 14 121–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malamuth, J., Heim, M. & Feshbach, S. (1980). Sexual Responsiveness of college students to rape depictions: Inhibitory and disinhibitory effects.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 399–408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., & Cutler, B. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 345–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newsweek (1991). Case no. 91-5482 comes to court.118 p. 25.

  • Pfeifer, J., & Ogloff, J. (1991). Ambiguity and guilt determinations: A modern racism perspective.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 1713–1725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (1980).Rape and woman's identity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schult, D., & Schneider, L. (1991). The role of sexual provocationness, rape history and observer gender in perception of blame in sexual assault.Journal of Interpersonality Violence, 6 94–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sue, S., Smith R., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissable evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3 345–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Time (1991).The case that was not heard. 138, p. 38.

  • Thompson, W., Fong, G., & Rosenhan, D. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40 453–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ugwegbu, D. C., (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warshaw, R. (1988).I never called it rape. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R., Habert, K., Shhkudriani, G., & Staebler, C. (1991). The social psychology of jury nullification: Predictions when jurors disobey the law.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 1379–1401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, D., & Montgomery, D. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and judicial Admonishment.Journl of Applied Social Psychology, 53 14–29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina, Wilmington, USA

    James D. Johnson

Authors
  1. James D. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, J.D. The effect of rape type and information admissibility on perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles 30, 781–792 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544231

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544231

Keywords

Search

Navigation