Factors Influencing Engagement with a Multiple Perpetrator Rape

: A Mixed Methods Investigation

Abstract

Multiple perpetrator rape (MPR) is any sex offence committed by two or more perpetrators. The offence’s complexity is amplified with additional individuals involved and cases exist where one or more individuals disengage or engage partially but do not rape the victim(s). This novel inquiry focused on these persons who did not rape the victim(s) in an MPR – i.e., the interest group. Their decision-making process has not been previously investigated, which leaves a substantial gap in our theoretical understanding and ability to design effective prevention programmes. The aims were to understand what alternative actions they engage in and why, alongside exploring the MPRs they were part of. A mixed methods approach involving three interconnected studies of semi-structured interviews and an online survey was used. The first study gathered the opinions of ten international experts. The second and third studies involved the interest group recruited from UK-based community samples of adults: 439 participants completed a survey about the MPR, themselves, and their actions; 17 were interviewed about their engagement. Quantitative analyses included cluster analyses and ordinal logistic regressions; the qualitative data were analysed using deductive thematic analysis. Overall, the rapes took place in social contexts in inside locations. They mostly involved homogeneous groups of two/three young adult perpetrators (men and women) known to one another against two/three known victims. The interest individuals a) engaged non-sexually and sexually without raping the victim; or b) remained present but passive. Within these actions, a three-level taxonomy of increased engagement was found, with highest engagement involving both positive (victim-helping) and negative (rape-supportive) actions. Most survey participants engaged in rape supportive actions; interview participants mainly engaged in victim-helping actions. Degree and type of participation, including mobility between indirect/ direct actions and positive/negative behaviours, depended on dynamic and interrelated individual-, group-, and environmental-level factors. Passive and active engagement were influenced by perceptions of consent, relationship with the victim and the group, number of victims and locations, MPR’s context, and one’s levels of moral engagement and MPR proclivity. Differences in the decision-making process of behaviours during and after the MPR were noted in the qualitative data. Of interest were individual cognitive distortions and moral judgements in deciding to help. Assessments of safety moderated bystander interventions, but increased compassion for the victim bypassed prior considerations and prompted immediate, direct action. Results are multifaceted and the decision-making process is complex. Findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical and practical implications for MPR theory and understanding of MPR engagement, for policy, policing, and prevention.

Date of Award	Sept 2024
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	University of Brighton
Supervisor	Dr Miranda Horvath (Supervisor) & Jeffrey DeMarco (Supervisor)