You are on page 1of 17

Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18:78–92, 2009

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC


ISSN: 1053-8712 print/1547-0679 online
DOI: 10.1080/10538710802584668

Perceptions of Blame and Credibility Toward


1547-0679
1053-8712
WCSA
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,
Abuse Vol. 18, No. 1, December 2008: pp. 1–23

Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Differences


Across Victim Age, Victim-Perpetrator
Relationship, and Respondent Gender
in a Depicted Case

MICHELLE DAVIES and PAUL ROGERS


Perceptions
M. of Child
Davies and Sexual Abuse
P. Rogers

University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom

This study investigated victim culpability, credibility, and assault


severity in a hypothetical sexual abuse case. A 2 (respondent gen-
der) × 3 (victim age) × 3 (perpetrator type) between-subjects design
was employed. Members (391) of the U.K. general public read the
depiction of a female child assaulted by an adult male perpetrator.
Respondents then completed an attributions questionnaire. Findings
showed that male respondents were less positive toward victims
and considered the victim less credible than female respondents.
Younger victims (aged five years) were considered more credible
than older children (aged 15 years). Victims of strangers were
considered more positively and more credible than victims of
someone known to them (their father or a family friend). Sugges-
tions for future work are proposed.

KEYWORDS child sexual abuse, victim credibility, blame

INTRODUCTION

The issue of child sexual abuse (CSA) has generated much public and
media interest in recent years. The extent of the problem is a matter of
concern both for the public and for professionals working with children
(Eisenberg, Owens, & Dewey, 1987; Ferguson & Mullin, 1999). Despite this

Received 10 November 2006; revised 1 October 2007; accepted 4 October 2007.


Address correspondence to Michelle Davies, Department of Psychology, University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE, United Kingdom. E-mail: mdavies3@uclan.ac.uk

78
Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse 79

interest, relatively little research has been conducted to assess the percep-
tions that people have about child victims. This is surprising given the
comparative wealth of literature available on perceptions toward adult
victims of sexual assault (e.g., Pollard, 1992). The present paper examined
three factors that might affect perceptions of how credible a witness the
victim is and attributions of both responsibility and blame toward the victim
and perpetrator in a hypothetical CSA case, namely respondent gender,
victim age, and type of perpetrator. The literature regarding each of these
three factors is first reviewed, and then the rationale and aims of the current
study are introduced.

Respondent Gender
Gender differences have been shown in attributions toward child victims of
sexual assault. Men tend to make more negative attributions toward child
victims than women (Back & Lips, 1998; Broussard & Wagner, 1988; Davies &
Rogers, 2004; Eisenberg et al., 1987; Maynard & Weiderman, 1997; Reynolds
& Birkimer, 2002; Rogers & Davies, 2007). In Broussard and Wagner’s
(1988) study, men considered male victims particularly responsible when
the victim’s behavior was encouraging. It seems that male respondents
appear to confuse encouraging behavior with consent, which a 15-year-old
is not legally able to give. Furthermore, men have been shown to make
more negative causal attributions toward child victims aged 6 years (Back &
Lips, 1998), 10 years (Rogers & Davies, 2004), 13 years (Back & Lips, 1998),
and 15 years (Davies & Rogers, 2004; Maynard & Weiderman, 1997). Addi-
tional findings suggest that men also tend to consider child victims less
credible than women, regardless of the victim’s age (Bottoms & Goodman,
1994; McCauley & Parker, 2001; Reynolds & Birkimer, 2002).

Victim Age
Miller and Burgoon (1982) proposed that two constructs underlie victim
credibility: competence and trustworthiness. Generally, younger children
are deemed to be lacking the competence to give accurate statements about
and are considered less likely to have accurate memories of a given event
than are older children. However, because younger children are generally
considered to be sexually naive and hence incapable of lying about sexual
events, their accounts of sexual assaults on them are also deemed more
trustworthy. Trustworthiness may be the primary factor influencing perceptions
of credibility in cases of CSA (McCauley & Parker, 2001), with young chil-
dren’s statements about sexual events usually considered more credible. In
line with this view, Bottoms and Goodman (1994) found that a 6-year-old
child was judged more credible as a witness to sexual assault than both a
14-year-old child and a 22-year-old adult. However, not all studies have
80 M. Davies and P. Rogers

found (victim) age differences in perceived victim credibility. McCauley and


Parker (2001), for example, found no differences in credibility or percep-
tions of victim honesty when the victim was either portrayed as a 6- or a
13-year-old girl. The inability of some studies to detect age differences may
reflect their use of a global credibility measure rather than items that assess
the individual components of credibility (i.e., competence at making accu-
rate statements and trustworthiness).
Aside from issues of trustworthiness and competence, the age of child
sexual assault victims may also impact perceptions of victim responsibility.
Specifically, as the child’s age increases and sexual naiveté decreases, he or
she may even be seen as partly responsible for a sexual interaction occur-
ring. There is strong evidence to suggest that sexual assault victims are
sometimes held responsible or to blame for their assault (e.g., Pollard,
1992). For an observer to attribute responsibility to a victim there has to be
a degree of perceived intentionality. Adult rape victims who do not fight
back or who are seen as having acted carelessly prior to their being
assaulted provide sufficient grounds for attributions of responsibility to be
made (Shaver, 1985). Burt and Estep (1981) suggested that child victims are
not considered mature enough to be attributed responsibility for sexual
assault, as their actions would not be considered intentional. Although
sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, blame is conceptually
different from responsibility (Shaver, 1985). While blame attributions are
made when the victim can be seen as morally reprehensible, responsibility
is not a moral judgment. It is reasonable to suggest that negative, moral
judgments relating to victim blame would not be salient in cases where the
victim is a child.
Previous research suggests that a child approaching adulthood is attrib-
uted some responsibility for their own sexual assault (Back & Lips, 1998;
Bottoms & Goodman, 1994; Davies & Rogers, 2004). Furthermore, child
victims are attributed some responsibility where, for instance, the abuse is
seen as nondetrimental or even seen as a positive experience for the victim
(Broussard & Wagner, 1988). Finally, in some cases, children are perceived
as being able to resist in similar ways to adult victims (Waterman &
Foss-Goodman, 1984). Thus, it seems that being able to resist an attempted
assault results in the victim being seen as partly responsible for the
outcome, with some element of intentionality subsequently attributed to the
victim (Shaver, 1985). Furthermore, being able to resist but not doing so
portrays the victim in a morally objectionable light, which then contributes
to the endorsement of blame attributions.

Victim-Perpetrator Relationship
Studies on adult rape have shown that the victim-perpetrator relationship
affects judgments toward the victim. For example, female victims are
Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse 81

blamed less when portrayed as being raped by a stranger than by a date


(see Pollard [1992] for a detailed review). If negative attributions can be
made regarding the victim’s perceived role in the assault, pertaining to, for
example, how they might have provoked the assault or did not do enough
to prevent it, observers then tend to see the victim as more responsible for it
(Pollard, 1992).
Little research has investigated perceptions toward child victims when
the victim-perpetrator relationship is varied. It seems reasonable to suggest
that perceptions of CSA victims under the age of puberty would remain
unaffected by the victim-perpetrator relationship. Younger children would
be seen as too sexually naive to “lead the perpetrator on.” Even in situations
where the victim knew the perpetrator very well, total responsibility would
probably be assigned to the perpetrator. However, as children approaching
adulthood are assigned the same level of responsibility as adult victims, we
would expect perpetrator type to impact judgments toward them. This argu-
ment was supported by the findings of Reynolds and Birkimer (2002), who
showed that a very young child (aged 8 years) was judged very abused,
regardless of whether her abuser was her stepfather or a neighbor, even if
she was seen as encouraging sexual activity. However, when the victim was
aged 15 years, the encouraging victim was considered less abused when the
perpetrator was a neighbor rather than a stepfather.
Although two studies have assessed perceptions of credibility when
perpetrator type was varied, neither found significant perpetrator-type
differences. Duggan and colleagues (1989) showed that CSA victims were
seen as equally credible when describing their own abuse experiences
regardless of their age or whether the perpetrator was their stepfather or a
neighbor. Likewise, McCauley and Parker (2001) found no differences in
credibility when the perpetrator was a stranger or a man known to the
child, again, regardless of the victim’s age.

Rationale and Aims of the Current Study


The aim of present study was to investigate the roles of respondent gender,
victim age, and the victim-perpetrator relationship on attributions toward
the victim and perpetrator in a hypothetical CSA case. The victim was
depicted as a 5-, 10-, or 15-year-old female who was assaulted by either her
father, a male family friend, or a male stranger.1 Family friend and stranger
perpetrator were examined as they represent the most common types of
CSA perpetrator (cf. Ferguson & Mullen, 1999). The situation was one of
nonconsensual touching of the victim, which is a common form of sexual
abuse affecting children of all ages (Ferguson & Mullen, 1999). The victim
did not offer any form of encouragement to the perpetrator and actively
resisted the perpetrator’s actions by telling him to stop. Because active resis-
tance was offered, respondents should view the victim as not responsible
82 M. Davies and P. Rogers

(Broussard & Wagner, 1988). However, as the situation was one of noncon-
sensual touching rather than sexual intercourse, respondents may also
perceive the situation to be less serious and less detrimental to the victim
(Eisenberg et al., 1987).
Several predictions were made. First, that men would consider the victim
less credible, less honest, more responsible, and consider the assault less
serious than women, and furthermore, that men would be more supportive
toward the perpetrator than would women. Second, it was predicted that
younger victims would be seen as more honest but less credible witnesses
when providing testimony of their abuse. In addition, respondents were
expected to be more supportive toward a 5- or 10-year-old than they would a
15-year-old CSA victim. Third, as previous studies have shown no differences
in credibility according to the type of perpetrator, we did not predict any differ-
ences in credibility according to perpetrator type. Finally, it was predicted that
5- and 10-year-old victims would be more positively supported regardless of
perpetrator type, while for the 15-year-old victim the stranger condition would
be more positively supported than the father or family friend conditions.

METHOD
Design
This study employed a 2 (respondent gender) × 3 (victim age) × 3 (perpetra-
tor type) between-subjects design. The items used addressed victim blame
and responsibility, perpetrator blame and responsibility, sympathy toward
the victim, perceived severity of the assault, perceptions of impact and
trauma on the victim, perpetrator guilt, and five victim credibility items,
including both competence and trustworthiness of the child in the scenario
as well as of a typical child of the victim’s age. Conditions were randomly
distributed across respondents. The scenario was presented before the
items, and items were presented in the same order across all conditions.

Respondents
Respondents comprised a convenience sample of the British general public,
recruited from parks, beaches, and public areas in London and the southeast
of England. Most studies in this area have utilized student samples, which
although useful, are problematic in terms of generalizing results to the
general, jury-eligible public. Utilizing a general public sample therefore
makes this study particularly valid in terms of assessing a broader spectrum
of opinions. A total of 432 questionnaires (48 of each condition) were
distributed. Of these, 391 useable questionnaires were returned, a response
rate of 90.5%. Respondents comprised 139 males and 239 females (13 missing
gender data2) and were aged 16–83 years (M = 38.6 years; SD = 15.2 years).
Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse 83

The vast majority of the sample was Caucasian (93.8%), with the remainder
either of Asian (Pakistani or Indian, 2.3%), Afro-Caribbean (3.4%), or
Chinese (1.1%) ethnicity. Finally, just under two-thirds (64.1%) of the
sample were in full-time employment (from a wide range of occupations)
with a sizable number of homemakers (14.1%), retirees (14.1%), students
(5.7%), and unemployed (1.0%) also present.

Materials
A questionnaire booklet was designed for use in the present study. The
booklet contained standardized instructions for completion, one of the nine
(3 victim age × 3 victim-perpetrator relationship) scenarios, the 14 CSA
attribution items, and several demographic items. Each scenario was
approximately 350 words long and detailed a hypothetical CSA case in
which a female victim was sexually assaulted through genital fondling while
staying overnight at her father’s house (see Appendix A). This was followed
by 14 CSA attribution items. Of these, nine items assessed participant’s
perceptions of victim and perpetrator blame/responsibility plus subjective
measures of assault severity and sympathy for the victim. These were
adapted from other work by the current authors (e.g., Davies & Rogers,
2004; Rogers & Davies, 2007). The remaining five items assessed partici-
pants’ view of credibility, specifically competence and trustworthiness (cf.
Bottoms and Goodman, 1994), in relation to both the specific child (victim)
in the scenario and to the typical child of that age. All items were rated on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (anti-victim) to 7 (pro-victim). The
precise wording of the end point of each item scale corresponded to the
wording of that particular item (e.g., from “not at all to blame” to “totally to
blame”; see Appendix B). Data were subsequently (re)coded so that a high
score represented a pro-victim/anti-perpetrator stance.
Finally, a briefs demographics questionnaire assessed respondents’
gender, age, ethnicity, occupational status, whether they had a past history
of CSA of any form (yes/no), number of children they had, and whether, to
their knowledge, any of their own children had suffered CSA of any form
(yes/no). A detachable debrief sheet, which included the researchers’ details
plus telephone help-line numbers for CSA and rape welfare agencies, was
also provided. This questionnaire booklet was approved by the Ethical Stan-
dards Committee of the University of Central Lancashire, UK. An addressed
envelope was also provided for the anonymous return of questionnaires.

Procedure
Members of the UK public were recruited by the second author (PR) from
parks and beaches in London and the southeast of England via opportunity
sampling. Those who agreed to take part in a study of “attitudes toward
84 M. Davies and P. Rogers

crime” were given a questionnaire booklet and asked to read instructions


carefully. They were then asked to read the given scenario and answer the
related questions in their own time, honestly and without conferring.
Instructions on how to return the completed questionnaire (to the second
author personally or via the addressed envelope) were also given. Approxi-
mately 30 minutes was given before the completed questionnaires were
collected in person by PR.

RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Chi-square analyses confirmed that approximately equal numbers of ques-
tionnaires were returned from all conditions with no significant differences
across respondent age. Box plot analysis of the 14 attribution items revealed
12 outliers, which were duly removed from the data set, leaving a final
sample of 379 respondents.
Frequency data showed that just under one-tenth (9.5%) of the sample
claimed to have experienced some form of sexual abuse as a child. Consis-
tent with previous research (e.g., Davies & Rogers, 2004; Rogers & Davies,
2007), independent samples t-tests revealed no significant differences across
CSA victims versus nonvictims in any of the dependent measures examined.
As such, all respondents’ are treated as a homogenous group regardless of their
own victim status. Just over half (57.4%) of the sample were parents, of which
two-thirds (67.7%) had either one or two children (range 1–6; median = 2). No
significant differences were revealed between parents and nonparents along
any of the 14 dependent measures. This is consistent with McCauley and
Parker (2001), who found no differences in respondents’ perceptions of
victim credibility regardless of their experience with children. Finally, just
four parents (1.9%) reported being aware that their own children were
victims of CSA. Because numbers are so low numbers, no further analyses
were performed on these data.

Principle Components Analysis


A principle components analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted on
the 14 items. Five factors were extracted, explaining 69.0% of the total
variance. Details of eigenvalues, variance explained, factor loadings, and
alpha coefficients for all factors are given in Table 1.
As Table 1 illustrates, three items (perpetrator responsibility, perpetrator
blame, and perpetrator guilt) loaded >.30 onto Factor 1, which had high
internal reliability (α = .81) and was interpreted as “perpetrator culpability.”
Two items (negative impact and trauma) loaded onto Factor 2, which also
had high internal reliability (α = .80) and was interpreted as “assault severity.”
Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse 85

TABLE 1 Results of the Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the Child Sexual Abuse
Questionnaire (N = 372 to 378)

Item Factor Loading

Factors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Perpetrator Culpability
Eigenvalue: 4.65
Variance Explained: 33.20%
14. Perpetrator Responsibility .85
13. Perpetrator Blame .80
12. Perpetrator Guilt .78
Assault Seriousness
Eigenvalue: 1.53
Variance Explained: 10.94%
03. Victim Traumatized .88
02. Negative Impact .86
Victim Honesty
Eigenvalue: 1.26
Variance Explained: 8.98%
07. Truth .87
09. Victim Naivety .73
08. Trust Age .59
Victim Credibility
Eigenvalue: 1.15
Variance Explained: 8.21
10. Competence .86
11. Accuracy .82
Victim Culpability
Eigenvalue: 1.07
Variance Explained: 7.66%
05. Victim Blame .73
04. Victim Responsibility .72
06. Sympathy for Victim .56
01. Assault Seriousness .42

Furthermore, three items (truth, victim naivety, and trustworthiness loaded


onto Factor 3, which had moderate internal reliability (α = .69) and was
interpreted as “victim honesty.” Two items (competence and accuracy)
loaded onto Factor 4, which also had high internal reliability (α = .78) and
was interpreted as “victim credibility.” Finally, four items (victim blame,
victim responsibility, sympathy for the victim, and assault seriousness)
loaded onto Factor 5, which had moderate internal reliability (α = .57) and
was interpreted as “victim culpability.”

Multivariate Analysis of Variance


A 2 (respondent gender) × 3 (victim age) × 3 (perpetrator type) between-
subjects Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed across
the five factors. Mean and standard deviation scores are given in Table 2.
TABLE 2 Mean Factor Ratings Across Perpetrator Type, Victim Age, and Respondent Gender

Father Friend Stranger All

Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All
Respondent Respondent Respondents Respondent Respondent Respondents Respondent Respondent Respondents Respondent Respondent Respondents
Victm
Age M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Sig.

Perp 5 yrs 6.08 (1.01) 6.74 ( .72) 6.40 ( .93) 6.21 ( .97) 6.59 ( .77) 6.44 ( .87) 6.61 ( .66) 6.53 ( .84) 6.55 ( .79) 6.25 ( .93) 6.61 ( .78) 6.46 ( .86)
Culp 10 yrs 6.07 (1.25) 6.29 ( .96) 6.23 (1.03) 6.18 (1.04) 6.30 ( .93) 6.26 ( .96) 6.85 ( .31) 6.48 ( .90) 6.58 ( .80) 6.35 ( .99) 6.36 ( .92) 6.35 ( .94) P**
15 yrs 5.73 (1.45) 5.91 ( .96) 5.84 (1.15) 5.91 (1.28) 6.72 ( .72) 6.41 (1.04) 6.27 (1.11) 6.65 ( .55) 6.49 ( .84) 5.97 (1.28) 6.43 ( .85) 6.25 (1.06)
All 5.96 (1.20) 6.27 ( .95) 6.16 (1.06) 6.09 (1.10) 6.53 ( .83) 6.37 ( .96) 6.54 ( .83) 6.54 ( .79) 6.54 ( .80) 6.17 (1.09) 6.46 ( .86) 6.35 ( .96)
Assault 5 yrs 6.10 ( .75) 6.53 ( .70) 6.31 ( .75) 5.66 (1.17) 5.76 (1.31) 5.72 (1.24) 6.09 ( .94) 6.21 (1.11) 6.18 (1.05) 5.95 ( .96) 6.15 (1.12) 6.07 (1.06)
Severity 10 yrs 6.10 ( .61) 6.29 ( .75) 6.24 ( .72) 5.60 ( .89) 6.00 (1.06) 5.86 (1.01) 5.82 ( .90) 6.20 ( .90) 6.10 ( .90) 5.81 ( .83) 6.16 ( .91) 6.06 ( .90)
15 yrs 5.73 (1.07) 6.06 ( .86) 5.94 ( .94) 5.75 ( .88) 6.03 (1.03) 5.93 ( .98) 6.13 ( .67) 6.12 ( .97) 6.13 ( .85) 5.86 ( .89) 6.07 ( .95) 5.99 ( .93)
All 5.98 ( .85) 6.27 ( .79) 6.16 ( .82) 5.67 ( .97) 5.94 (1.12) 5.84 (1.07) 6.03 ( .82) 6.18 ( .98) 6.13 ( .93) 5.88 ( .89) 6.13 ( .99) 6.04 ( .96)

86
Victim 5 yrs 5.50 (1.00) 5.84 (1.09) 5.67 (1.05) 5.94 ( .85) 6.06 ( .82) 6.01 ( .82) 6.52 ( .82) 6.24 ( .80) 6.32 ( .80) 5.89 ( .98) 6.08 ( .89) 6.00 ( .93) P**
Honesty 10 yrs 5.13 (1.26) 5.47 (1.13) 5.38 (1.15) 5.02 (1.06) 5.69 (1.01) 5.46 (1.06) 5.58 (1.17) 5.90 ( .81) 5.81 ( .92) 5.22 (1.14) 5.69 ( .99) 5.55 (1.05) A***
15 yrs 4.42 (1.25) 4.53 (1.22) 4.49 (1.22) 4.41 (1.08) 4.93 ( .85) 4.73 ( .97) 4.67 ( .98) 5.02 ( .97) 4.87 ( .97) 4.49 (1.09) 4.82 (1.03) 4.69 (1.06)
All 5.06 (1.22) 5.25 (1.26) 5.18 (1.24) 5.10 (1.17) 5.52 (1.01) 5.36 (1.09) 5.49 (1.24) 5.79 ( .97) 5.70 (1.07) 5.19 (1.21) 5.53 (1.10) 5.41 (1.15)
Victim 5 yrs 5.00 ( .96) 6.05 ( .97) 5.51 (1.09) 5.53 ( .90) 5.52 (1.15) 5.53 (1.04) 5.82 (1.38) 5.69 ( .92) 5.73 (1.05) 5.37 (1.09) 5.73 (1.02) 5.59 (1.06) R**
Cred 10 yrs 5.50 (1.11) 5.72 ( .88) 5.67 ( .93) 5.53 ( .69) 5.69 ( .90) 5.64 ( .83) 5.68 (1.19) 5.75 ( .83) 5.73 ( .92) 5.57 ( .96) 5.72 ( .86) 5.68 ( .89)
15 yrs 5.13 (1.13) 5.58 (1.04) 5.41 (1.08) 5.97 ( .76) 6.31 ( .75) 6.18 ( .76) 5.33 (1.41) 5.98 ( .93) 5.71 (1.18) 5.51 (1.15) 5.97 ( .94) 5.79 (1.05)
All 5.16 (1.04) 5.76 ( .97) 5.53 (1.03) 5.69 ( .80) 5.86 ( .98) 5.80 ( .92) 5.58 (1.32) 5.79 ( .89) 5.72 (1.04) 5.48 (1.07) 5.81 ( .94) 5.69 (1.00)
Victim 5 yrs 6.54 ( .72) 6.88 ( .41) 6.71 ( .61) 6.73 ( .55) 6.72 ( .48) 6.72 ( .51) 7.00 ( .00) 6.79 ( .54) 6.85 ( .47) 6.71 ( .59) 6.79 ( .49) 6.76 ( .53) P*
Culp 10 yrs 6.61 ( .63) 6.71 ( .56) 6.68 ( .57) 6.60 ( .57) 6.63 ( .74) 6.62 ( .68) 6.93 ( .12) 6.80 ( .46) 6.84 ( .40) 6.70 ( .51) 6.71 ( .59) 6.71 ( .57)
15 yrs 6.50 ( .64) 6.53 ( .65) 6.52 ( .64) 6.67 ( .62) 6.84 ( .40) 6.77 ( .50) 6.57 ( .56) 6.83 ( .44) 6.72 ( .50) 6.58 ( .60) 6.73 ( .52) 6.67 ( .56)
All 6.54 ( .66) 6.69 ( .57) 6.63 ( .61) 6.67 ( .57) 6.73 ( .56) 6.71 ( .57) 6.80 ( .41) 6.81 ( .48) 6.81 ( .46) 6.66 ( .57) 6.74 ( .54) 6.71 ( .55)

Range: 1 (not at all) to 7 (very / totally). Except 1 (totally) to 7 (not at all).
Significant Perpetrator Type (P), Victim Age (A), Respondent Gender (R), and subsequent interaction effects found at the: *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001 levels (two-tailed).
Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse 87

Analyses revealed significant multivariate main effects for respondent


gender (Wilks Lambda = .96; F[5, 343] = 2.67, p = .022; eta2 = .04), victim
age (Wilks Lambda = .70; F[10, 686] = 13.24, p < .001; eta2 = .16), and perpe-
trator type (Wilks Lambda = .91; F[10, 686] = 3.36, p < .001; eta2 = .05). No
significant multivariate interaction effects were found.
Post hoc univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for each of the five
individual dependent variables (with alpha adjusted to .01 on all analyses)
revealed a significant main effect for respondent gender in victim credibility
ratings (F[1, 347] = 8.17, p = .005; eta2 = .02), with males rating the victim
less credible than females. Analyses also revealed gender differences on
perpetrator culpability, assault severity, and victim honesty that approached
significance (after adjustment). Specifically, males rated the perpetrator less
culpable (F[1, 347] = 5.30, p = .014; eta2 = .02), considered the assault
less severe (F[1, 347] = 4.90, p = .021; eta2 = .02), and considered the victim
less honest (F[1, 347] = 6.20, p = .013; eta2 = .02) than women.
Univariate analysis also revealed a significant main effect for victim age
on victim honesty ratings, F(2, 347) = 51.95, p < .001; eta2 = .23. Post hoc
comparisons confirmed (a) that the 5-year-old victim was deemed more
honest than both the 10-year-old victim (p = .002) and the 15-year-old
victim (p < .001) and (b) that the 10-year-old was in turn deemed more
honest (p < .001) than the 15-year-old victim.
Finally, univariate analyses revealed a significant main effect for perpe-
trator type in two factors, namely perpetrator culpability (F[2, 347] = 5.39,
p = .005; eta2 = .03) and victim honesty (F[2, 347] = 6.53, p = .002; eta2 = .04).
Post hoc comparisons (again, with alpha adjusted to .01) confirmed (a) that
the abusive father was deemed less culpable (p = .005) than the abusive
stranger and (b) that victims of father-perpetrated CSA were deemed less
honest (p < .001) than victims of stranger-perpetrated CSA. In addition, a
main effect for assault severity approached significance, F(2,347) = 3.82,
p = .016; eta2 = .02. Subsequent post hoc comparisons for severity ratings
also approached significance (p = .027), with CSA by a father deemed more
severe than CSA by a family friend. No other significant univariate effects
were found.

DISCUSSION

Overall results revealed partial support for predictions. As predicted,


younger victims were considered more credible than older victims. This
adds further support to the notion that the more sexually naive a child
seems, the more trustworthy and truthful their disclosure of sexual abuse is
perceived to be (e.g., Bottoms & Goodman, 1994). This is good news for
very young children who actually do disclose their own CSA. No victim age
differences were revealed on any of the other measures according to victim
88 M. Davies and P. Rogers

age; again, positive news for CSA victims. Overall, attributions were gener-
ally supportive of the child and generally damning of the perpetrator,
regardless of the victim’s age. The fact that respondents were largely
pro-victim is consistent with previous work in that studies investigating attri-
butions toward victims—both child and adult—consistently show that most
people are largely pro-victim. Studies of this nature are interested in the
small but significant differences in attributions that occur when specific vari-
able are manipulated (see Pollard [1992] for a thorough discussion on this
issue).
Unfortunately, case study reports suggest that many CSA victims, partic-
ularly those assaulted during early childhood, do not disclose their abusive
experiences until many years later (Fergusson & Mullen, 1999). Findings
from the present study thus support the view that very young children
should be forewarned about the dangers of CSA and that (potential) victims
ought to be encouraged to disclose their CSA experiences at the earliest
possible juncture.
Despite the pro-victim nature of the study, several interesting and
significant differences were found across the three victim-perpetrator rela-
tionships, which demonstrated where respondents tended to be the least
pro-victim. First, CSA perpetrated by a father was seen as a more severe
crime than CSA perpetrated by a family friend. Yet despite this, a father who
sexually abuses his own child was seen as less culpable than a stranger who
sexually abuses someone else’s child. Furthermore, a victim sexually abused
by her own father was deemed less honest than one sexually abused by a
stranger. At first glance these data appear difficult to interpret. On one
hand, the greater severity of father-perpetrated CSA suggests that incest
victims are seen as being more emotionally and mentally violated by virtue
of the lost trust and protection naturally afforded by one’s father. On the
other hand, the finding that a sexually abusive father was somehow less cul-
pable contradicts this view. If a primary role of fathers is to protect their off-
spring, perpetrating fathers ought to be judged more culpable. One
possibility is that the abusive father was seen as more likely to engage in
spontaneous as opposed to premeditated CSA, possibly by virtue of his
greater physical and/or emotional closeness to the victim (i.e., his daughter).
The implication here is that a component of perpetrator culpability is
“assault planning.” In the present study, all perpetrators were described as
entering the child’s bedroom before engaging in genital fondling, irrespective
of their relationship to the victim. Thus, while some degree of planning was
implicated, there is no reason to believe father-perpetrator CSA was any less
planned than stranger-perpetrated CSA. Future studies should examine the
importance of planning in attributions of perpetrator blame and responsibility
(cf. Shaver, 1985).
The key to this apparent paradox is the finding that CSA victims were
seen as being less honest if they disclose sexual abuse by their father as
Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse 89

opposed to a stranger. This is particularly surprising when one considers


that early CSA myths erroneously assumed most CSA reflected father-daughter
incest (see Fergusson & Mullin, 1999). Moreover, the lack of victim credibil-
ity differences across the three relationship types suggests respondents
generally saw victims as being capable of giving accurate and competent
CSA testimonies regardless of their relationship to the abuser. Taken
together, these findings suggest that victims of father-perpetrated CSA are
seen as deliberately lying about their abuse, possibly as an act of revenge
for an earlier domestic punishment. This is especially worrying given that a
sizeable proportion (approximately 7%) of CSA is perpetrated by either
natural or stepfathers (Fergusson & Mullin, 1999) and implies that incest is
still too much of a taboo for people to accept at face value. More research is
needed to further examine intrafamilial versus extrafamilial differences in
attributions of blame and responsibility in cases of CSA.
Finally, as hypothesized, female respondents judged the victim more
honest and more credible, the perpetrator more culpable, and the assault to
be more severe than did males. In contrast, no gender differences were
found in attributions of victim culpability. These findings are consistent with
previous findings that women deem child victims of all ages to be more
credible witnesses (to sexual events) than do men. Current findings also
support the claim that men are generally more supportive toward CSA
perpetrators and situations involving both young children and adolescent
victims of sexual abuse (Back & Lips, 1998; Davies & Rogers, 2004; Maynard
& Weiderman, 1997; Reynolds & Birkimer, 2002; Rogers & Davies, 2007).
Furthermore, although some studies have shown gender differences in judg-
ments of blame and responsibility toward female rape victims (see Pollard,
1992), others have failed to reproduce these gender effects given either
adult (e.g., Davies, Pollard, & Archer, 2001) or child (e.g., Davies & Rogers,
2004) victims. It should be noted that even though males were less supportive
of victims than women in the current study, these are only small (albeit
significant) relative differences. In absolute terms, respondents of both
sexes were generally supportive of the victim and generally hostile toward
the perpetrator of CSA.

Methodological Issues, Implications, and Conclusions


Most studies that investigate attributions toward sexual assault use samples
drawn from University campuses in the United States. By investigating peo-
ple from a wider range of occupations and ethnic background, the present
study offers a more representative view of how the British public views CSA
victims and CSA perpetrators. While they were generally supportive of the
victim, several differences across victim age, victim-perpetrator relationship,
and respondent gender manipulations imply further education is needed to
dispel CSA myths in the general population.
90 M. Davies and P. Rogers

One limitation of the present study is that it considered only female


victims. It is important that further research is conducted to investigate
perceptions toward male victims using both victim age and victim-
perpetrator relationship as independent variables. Although Bottoms and
Goodman (1994) found no differences in credibility ratings across victim
gender, they did not investigate the subcomponents of credibility (i.e.,
competence and trustworthiness) highlighted here. Similar claims can also
be made in relation to differences in perpetrator gender. Studies have
shown that 15-year-old males who are sexually assaulted by an adult
woman are deemed more blameworthy than those sexually assaulted by
an adult man (e.g., Davies & Rogers, 2004). Worryingly, even boys as
young as 10 years old are viewed more negatively when assaulted by a
female as opposed to a male CSA perpetrator (Rogers & Davies, 2007). It
is therefore important to consider how credible a child as young as
5 years old is deemed to be when sexually assaulted by a female CSA
perpetrator.

NOTES

1. While women account for around 15% of perpetrators in child sexual abuse against boys (see
Fergusson & Mullen, 1999), the present study included only a male perpetrator, as female perpetrators
only rarely abuse girls.
2. The data that did not specify respondents’ gender was included in all analysis except gender
differences.

REFERENCES

Back, S., & Lips, H. M. (1998). Child sexual abuse: Victim age, victim gender, and
observer gender as factors contributing to attributions of responsibility. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 22, 1239–1252.
Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children’s credibility in
sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702–732.
Broussard, S. D., & Wagner, W. G. (1988). Child sexual abuse: Who is to blame?
Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 563–569.
Burt, M. B., & Estep, R. E. (1981). Who is the victim? Definitional problems in sex-
ual victimisation. Victimology, 6, 15–28.
Davies, M., Pollard, P., & Archer, J. (2001). The influence of victim gender and sex-
ual orientation on judgments of the victim in a depicted stranger rape. Violence
and Victims, 16, 607–619.
Davies, M., & Rogers, P. (2004). Attributions towards the victim and perpetrator in a
child sexual abuse case: Roles of participant, perpetrator and victim gender.
Forensic Update, 79, 17–24.
Duggan, L. M. III, Aubrey, M., Doherty, E., Isquith, P., Levine, M., & Scheiner, J.
(1989). The credibility of children as witnesses in a simulated child sex abuse
Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse 91

trial. In S. Ceci, D. Ross, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Perspectives on children’s testimony


(pp. 71–99). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eisenberg, N., Owens, R. G., & Dewey, M. E. (1987). Attitudes of health profession-
als to child sexual abuse and incest. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 109–116.
Ferguson, D. M., & Mullin, P. E. (1999). Childhood sexual abuse: An evidence-based
perspective. London: Sage.
Maynard, C., & Wiederman, M. (1997). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of
child sexual abuse: Effects of age, sex, and gender role attitudes. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 21, 833–844.
McCauley, M. R., & Parker, J. F. (2001). When will a child be believed? The impact
of the victim’s age and juror’s gender on children’s credibility and verdict in a
sexual-abuse case. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 523–539.
Miller, G. R., & Burgoon, J. K. (1982). Factors affecting assessments of witness cred-
ibility. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom
(pp. 169–196). New York: Academic Press.
Pollard, P. (1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A
review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 309–326.
Reynolds, L. L., & Birkimer, J. C. (2002). Perceptions of child sexual abuse: Victim
and perpetrator characteristics, treatment efficacy, and lay vs. legal opinions of
abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 11, 53–74.
Rogers, P., & Davies, M. (2007). Perceptions of victims and perpetrators in a depicted
child sexual abuse case. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 566–584.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blame-
worthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Waterman, C. K., & Foss-Goodman, D. (1984). Child molesting: Variables relating to
attributions of fault to victims, offenders and non-participating parents. Journal
of Sex Research, 20, 329–349.

AUTHOR NOTE

Michelle Davies, PhD, is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of


Central Lancashire, United Kingdom. Her research interests include attitudes
toward male rape and childhood sexual abuse, sexuality issues, and fear of
crime.
Paul Rogers, PhD, is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of
Central Lancashire, United Kingdom. His research interests include attitudes
toward childhood sexual abuse, paranormal psychology, and social cognition.

APPENDIX A
Scenario: 15-Year-Old, Father, Condition
Karen is a 15-year-old schoolgirl. Karen’s mother and father are divorced,
and they live apart. Karen lives with her mother, but visits her father, James,
92 M. Davies and P. Rogers

on weekends, and usually stays overnight at his house on Friday and Satur-
day nights. She is a carefree, outgoing girl who has many friends. She is
intelligent and is enjoying school.
One particular Saturday night, James spent time watching television
and playing video games while Karen was in bed. On returning home from
her father’s house on Sunday afternoon, Karen was very quiet and subdued.
When her mother questioned her to find out if anything was wrong, Karen
began to cry and said that James had come into her room when she was in
bed and touched her genitals in a sexual way. When her mother questioned
her further, Karen said that James had woken her by putting his hands
under the covers and touching her genitals over her pajama bottoms. Karen
also said that James had made her touch his penis with her hand.
Karen’s mother was shocked and rang the police straight away.
Specially trained officers interviewed Karen, and the police are now holding
James for questioning.

APPENDIX B
Questionnaire Items

1. How seriously do you think the police should take the event? (seriousness)
2. How much do you think Karen’s life will be negatively affected by the
event? (negative impact)
3. How much do you think Karen will be traumatized after what hap-
pened? (trauma)
4. Karen was not responsible for what happened. How much do you
agree? (victim responsibility)
5. To what extent should Karen be blamed for what happened? (victim blame)
6. How much sympathy do you have with Karen in this situation? (sympathy)
7. To what extent do you believe that Karen is telling the truth about this
event? (truth)
8. To what extent would you trust a typical child of Karen’s age to be tell-
ing the truth? (trust age)
9. Children of Karen’s age do not lie about events of this kind because
they do not know enough about sex to make up such stories. How
much do you agree? (naivety)
10. How competent do you think the average child of Karen’s age is at
giving accurate information about this kind of event? (competence)
11. How much do you believe that Karen will be able to give an accurate
description of what happened to the police? (accuracy)
12. How guilty do you think James is for this event? (perpetrator guilt)
13. How much is James to blame for what happened? (perpetrator blame)
14. How responsible is James for this event? (perpetrator responsibility)

You might also like