The roles of victim symptomology, victim resistance and respondent gender on perceptions of a hypothetical child sexual abuse case

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact victim symptomology, victim resistance and respondent gender have on attributions of blame, credibility and perceived assault severity in a hypothetical child sexual abuse case.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 356 respondents read a hypothetical child sexual abuse scenario in which victim symptomology (negative vs none vs positive) and victim resistance (resistant vs non-resistant) were manipulated before completing six childhood sexual abuse (CSA) attribution items. The impact these manipulations plus respondent gender differences had on attributions ratings was explored via a series of AN(C)OVA.

Findings

Overall, respondents judged the victim more truthful if she displayed negative – as opposed to either no or positive (i.e. life affirming) – symptomology and a resistant victim to be more truthful than one who offered no resistance. Finally, men deemed a 14-year-old female victim of sexual assault less reliable and more culpable for her own abuse than women. Men were particularly mistrustful of the girl if she was non-resistant and later failed to display negative, post-abuse symptomology.

Practical implications

Findings highlight the need for greater awareness of the fact that not all CSA survivors display stereotypically negative post-abuse symptoms. The current study also extends knowledge of the role victim resistant and respondent gender play in this growing research field.

Originality/value

The current study is the first to explore attributions of CSA blame and credibility across negative (i.e. typical) verses no or positive/life affirming (i.e. atypical) post-abuse symptomology.

Citation

Rogers, P., Lowe, M. and Boardman, M. (2014), "The roles of victim symptomology, victim resistance and respondent gender on perceptions of a hypothetical child sexual abuse case", The Journal of Forensic Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-08-2012-0004