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

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.