This article was downloaded by: [Wayne State University]

On: 25 November 2014, At: 16:42

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Disability,

Development and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Attributions of Blame and Credibility

in a Hypothetical Child Sexual Abuse
Case: Roles of victim disability, victim
resistance and respondent gender
a a a
Paul Rogers , Leigh Titterington & Michelle Davies
a
School of Psychology , University of Central Lancashire , Marsh
Lane, Preston, UK
Published online: 12 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Paul Rogers , Leigh Titterington & Michelle Davies (2009) Attributions of
Blame and Credibility in a Hypothetical Child Sexual Abuse Case: Roles of victim disability, victim
resistance and respondent gender, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
56:3, 205-228, DOI: 10.1080/10349120903102189

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10349120903102189

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014
 International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
Vol. 56, No. 3, September 2009, 205228

Attributions of Blame and Credibility in a Hypothetical Child Sexual

Abuse Case: Roles of victim disability, victim resistance and
respondent gender
Paul Rogers*, Leigh Titterington and Michelle Davies

School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Marsh Lane, Preston, UK

This study examines the effects victim disability (physical vs. intellectual vs. none),
International
10.1080/10349120903102189
CIJD_A_410391.sgm
1034-912X
Original
Taylor
302009
56
Dr
progers@uclan.ac.uk
00000September
PaulRogers
and
&Article
Francis
Francis
(print)/1465-346X
Journal
2009
of Disability,
(online)
Development and Education
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

victim resistance (physical vs. verbal vs. none) and respondent gender (male vs. female)
have on attributions of blame and credibility in a hypothetical case of child sexual
abuse. Three hundred and thirty-five respondents read a fictional police statement
regarding the sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl by a 23-year-old man before
completing 28 attribution items. Principal axis factoring revealed six reliable factors.
Subsequent multivariate analysis of covariancecontrolling for respondents general
attitude towards disabilityrevealed that males deemed the victim more culpable for
her own abuse than did females. Further, perpetrators were deemed more culpable when
the victim physically (vs. verbally) resisted. Finally, a significant three-way interaction
suggests victim resistance influences attributions of perpetrator blame given a victims
disability status, at least amongst male observers. Implications and proposals for future
research are discussed.
Keywords: blame; child sexual abuse; credibility; disability; resistance

Introduction
Since the 1980s, studies have highlighted both the prevalence of child sexual abuse (CSA)
(e.g., Baker, 2002; Bolen, Russell, & Scannapieco, 2000) and its long-term psychological
effects on survivors (e.g., Fergusson & Mullen, 1999; Tyler, 2002). Whilst girls aged eight
to 12 years are most at risk, other factors, including personal and family-related, are signif-
icant predictors of CSA vulnerability (e.g., Elliot, Browne, & Kilcoyne, 1995; Putnam,
2003). One pertinent risk factor is whether or not the child has a disability (e.g., Goldman,
1994; Mansell, Sobsey, & Moskal, 1998).
In cultures where more value is placed on physical attractiveness and good health, one
common misperception is that children with disabilities do not make desirable targets for
sexual abuse (Doyle, 1994). However, evidence suggests children with disabilities are
especially vulnerable to CSA (Crosse, Kaye, & Ratnofsky, 1993; Horton & Kochurka,
1995). For example, Britains largest charity for those with intellectual disability claims
that around 1400 new cases of CSA against children with intellectual disabilities are
reported in the United Kingdom each year (Mencap, 2001).
There are several reasons why children with disabilities might be at high risk of CSA,
including being less able to protect themselves from sexual assault, or having poor social
networks outside the home and therefore relying on caregivers (for a detailed explanation
see, e.g., Barriere, 2007; Elliot et al., 1995). Further, many children with disabilities will be

*Corresponding author. Email: progers@uclan.ac.uk

ISSN 1034-912X print/ISSN 1465-346X online

2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/10349120903102189
http://www.informaworld.com
 206 P. Rogers et al.

unable to disclose their CSA either because physical impairments make self-expression
difficult (as with cerebral palsy) or because intellectual limitations render them incapable
of differentiating between appropriate versus inappropriate behaviour (OCallaghan &
Murphy, 2007). Finally, people with disability are often subjected to negative stereotypes
and social stigma (Rao, 2004; Taub, McLogg, & Fanflik, 2004), with those who have
experienced CSA being seen as less credible witnesses compared with their non-disabled
counterparts (e.g., Ericson, Perlman, & Isaacs, 1994).
Similar prejudice may arise in the extent to which survivors who have a disability are
blamed for their own CSA. As any form of attributed blame will have serious implications
for later psychological well-being (e.g., Coffey, Leitenberg, Henning, Tonia, & Bennett,
1996; McMillen & Zuravin, 1997), it is important to understand whether victims of CSA who
have a disability are blamed more than their non-disabled counterparts. This is especially
important if the childs ability to resist (or disclose) CSA is limited by the nature of her or
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

his impairment. These factors have yet to be examined within the context of CSA blame.

Attributions of Credibility and Blame in Hypothetical CSA Scenarios

Given various myths about CSA (Collings, 1997), recent years have seen a growth of inter-
est in factors influencing attributions of both credibility and blame in (hypothetical) cases
of CSA. Typically, these studies employ a vignette methodology in which a child under the
age of 16 years is sexually abused by an adult male, in a variety of settings, and with a variety
of disclosure techniques. Some studies have given no disclosure details (e.g., Davies,
Rogers, & Hood, in press), while others have either stated (Back & Lips, 1998) or implied
that the child told no-one about the assault (e.g., Waterman & Foss-Goodman, 1984). When
disclosure details are given, the victims non-offending parents are usually described as
believing and/or supporting the child (although see Graham, Rogers, & Davies, 2007).
As with adult victims (see Davies & Rogers, 2006; Pollard, 1992), child victims of
sexual assault are often deemed partly to blame for their own victimisation, with CSA
perpetrators absolved of complete responsibility (e.g., Back & Lips, 1998; Bottoms &
Goodman, 1994; Broussard & Wagner, 1988; Davies & Rogers, 2009). Because such atti-
tudes might damage a childs long-term psychological health (e.g., Barker-Collo, 2001;
Quas, Goodman, & Jones, 2003), studies of CSA blame have important theoretical and
treatment implications.
Previous findings suggest that numerous factorsincluding the victims gender and age
(e.g., Back & Lips, 1998; Rogers & Davies, 2007), physical attractiveness (Rogers, Josey,
& Davies, 2007), behaviour both during (e.g., Broussard & Wagner, 1988; Waterman &
Foss-Goodman, 1984) and after (Rubin & Thelen, 1996) the assault, previous abuse history
(Rogers et al., 2007) as well as the victimperpetrator relationship (Bornstein, Kaplan, &
Perry, 2007; Davies & Rogers, 2009) and type of abuse perpetrated (Bornstein et al., 2007;
Graham et al., 2007)all influence attributions of victim, perpetrator and (sometimes)
parental blame, as well as perception of both victim credibility and perceived assault severity.
The present study extends this line of research by exploring the extent to which respon-
dent gender, victim disability and victim resistance type impact on blame attributions. The
literature relating to each of these factors is now discussed.

Respondent Gender
A robust finding is that men tend to attribute more blame towards victims and less blame
towards perpetrators of CSA than do females (Back & Lips, 1998; Davies & Rogers, 2009;
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 207

Graham et al., 2007; Rogers & Davies, 2007; Rogers et al., 2007). Other findings suggest
men also tend to view CSA as less serious, the non-offending parents as more culpable
(e.g., Graham et al., 2007) and victims as less credible (e.g., Cromer & Freyd, 2007; Rubin
& Thelen, 1996) than do women.
One explanation for these gender differences is that women are simply more empathetic
than men (Bottoms, 1993). Another theory is that people generally, and men in particular,
maintain a just world view in which nature is seen as inherently fair with no victim ever
totally innocent. Accordingly, individuals with stronger just world beliefs attribute more
blame to victims who, it is believed, must have done something to deserve their victimisation
(Broussard & Wagner, 1988; Kleinke & Meyer, 1990).
A third explanation relates to Shavers (1985) Defensive Attribution Hypothesis.
According to Shaver, people engage in separate strategies to cognitively defend against the
possibility of oneself being victimised (harm avoidance) and/or to protect their own self-
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

esteem should a similar fate one day befall them (blame avoidance). With regard to the
latter, victims deemed characteristically similar to oneself are defensively attributed less
blame because, in the minds of observers, neither would have been careless enough to risk
being harmed. Blaming such comparable individuals would effectively be an attribution of
self-blame and, hence, would represent a direct attack on ones own ego and self-esteem.
In contrast, victims seen as characteristically dissimilar are blamed more because their
perceived behavioural and/or dispositional flaws render them particularly vulnerable.
Within the context of CSA, men, who are more able to identify with predominantly male
abusers (Fergusson & Mullen, 1999), will defensively attribute blame away from a perpe-
trator and on to the victim. Women, who will identify more with predominantly female
victims, will do the opposite (Davies & Rogers, 2009; Rogers & Davies, 2007).

Victim Disability
Given the heightened vulnerability of children with disabilities, it is perhaps surprising no
studies have examined the role that victim disability plays in attributions of CSA blame.
However, a small number of studies have examined the perceived credibility of eyewitnesses
who have intellectual disability.
In one study, Bromberg (1999) compared mock jurors perceptions of a nine-year-old
girl with intellectual disability versus one for whom no information about intellectual
status was given (control). Surprisingly, the victim with intellectual disability was deemed
to have a better memory for her alleged assault and a more accurate understanding of the
perpetrators actionstogether implying greater victim credibilitythan the non-disabled
(control) victim.
In another study, Peled, Iarocci, and Connolly (2004) examined both general percep-
tions and, having read a mock court transcript, case-specific perceptions of eyewitnesses
who had an intellectual disability. Peled and colleagues found that respondents general
attitudes towards a witness with intellectually disability were, as expected, largely negative.
First, respondents deemed a 15-year-old with intellectual disability and a mental age of 10
years (CA 15; MA 10) to be less credible than a typically developed, chronologically
matched witness (CA 15; MA 15) and as well as the typically developed child of 10 years
matched for mental age (CA 10; MA 10). Thus, despite knowing that the witnesses with
and without intellectual disability had identical mental ages of 10 years, respondents still
judged the child with intellectual disability to be a less credible witness. In contrast, no
differences in attributions of credibility were found for the case-specific transcripts,
suggesting that whilst negative stereotypes about people with intellectual disabilities exist
 208 P. Rogers et al.

a priori, (mock) jurors may be more objective when evaluating the actual testimony of
witnesses versus those without intellectual disability. Finally, Brown and Lewis (2006)
conducted a similar mock jury study to compare perceptions of younger witnessesspecif-
ically a seven-year-old child with intellectual disability (and a mental age of five years)
versus typically developed children chronologically (hence mentally) aged either five or
seven years. Brown and Lewis found the child with a disability was deemed less intellec-
tually competent and less trustworthyalthough no less crediblethan a non-disabled
child of either identical chronological or identical mental age.
With these mixed findings in mind, further examination of disability status as a factor
in attributions of victim credibility in cases of CSA is warranted. Likewise, in the absence
of previous research, exploration of blame attributions towards CSA victims who have a
disability seems justified. The present study extends previous work by examining the extent
to which pro-victim attributions of victim credibility and/or culpability are lower for a
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

physically or intellectually disabled versus a non-disabled victim of CSA. Attributions of

perpetrator and non-offending family culpability, typical child credibility and perceived
assault severity (see below) are also explored within this context.

Victim Resistance
As already noted, one reason why children with disabilities are more at risk of CSA is
because their impairments often limit their ability to resist their attacker (Davis, 2005).
Studies of adult rape suggest both forceful physical resistance (e.g., fighting back) and
verbal resistance (e.g., shouting, screaming) can reduce the severity of sexual assault and,
ultimately, prevent rape completion, although this is not always the case (Ullman &
Knight, 1993; Zoucha-Jensen, & Coyne, 1993). Many child victims of sexual assault
especially those with physical or intellectual impairmentsare less likely to resist an
adult perpetrator; however according to some writers, tonic immobilityan involuntary,
reflexive response to fear-inducing stimulimay explain the apparent paralysis or freez-
ing experienced by adult, and presumably also child, victims of sexual assault (Galliano,
Noble, Travis, & Puechi, 1993). Such traumatisation may be one reason why several chil-
dren delay disclosing their CSA for many years (for a review see London, Bruck, Ceci, &
Shuman, 2007).
In general, adult rape victims who fail to resist their assailant are deemed more respon-
sible for their own sexual assault than those who offer some resistance, with men more
likely to confuse victim passivity for sexual consent than women (Davies & Rogers, 2006;
Davies, Rogers, & Bates, 2008; Johnson, Owens, Dewey, & Eisenberg, 1990; Pollard,
1992). To date, relatively few studies have explored the role of victim resistance within the
context of CSA, possibly because it is assumed all children are incapable of resisting an
adults sexual advances. In one study, Waterman and Foss-Goodman (1984) found that
around one-third of those sampled attributed some degree of blame towards the victim of
CSA, with many respondents citing the victims lack of resistance as the main reason for
their blaming.
In another study, Broussard and Wagner (1988) found that a 15-year-old child who
seemingly encouraged sexual activity with a 35-year-old adult (e.g., by smiling at, embrac-
ing and fondling the assailant) was attributed more blame for their own CSA than one who
responded passively (i.e., who complied and did nothing to stop the assault), who, in turn,
was deemed more blameworthy than a child who actively resisted (i.e., by trying to escape).
Interestingly, no differences in perpetrator blame were found across the passive versus
resistant victim conditions. Broussard and Wagner also found males tended to endorse more
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 209

rigid gender stereotypes, believing that adolescent boys should (be able to) fight back even
when sexually assaulted by an adult. These data imply there is a common misperception
especially amongst menthat a child who does not resist an adults sexual advances is, in
effect, consenting to sexual activity.
The present study extends this line of research to examine whether children who find it
more difficult to resist because of a physical or intellectual disability are blamed more than
children with just the typical, age-related limitations to resisting CSA.

Study Aims and Hypotheses

The current study examines the extent to which victim disability, victim resistance and
respondent gender impact on attributions of blame and victim credibility in a hypothetical
CSA case. Several hypotheses are proposed. First, male respondents are expected to make
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

fewer pro-victim/anti-perpetrator/anti-family attributions than female respondents. Second,

respondents generally are expected to make fewer pro-victim/anti-perpetrator/anti-family
attributions given a victim with, as opposed to without disability, with fewest pro-victim
attributions made towards a victim with intellectual disability. Further, this trend should be
more pronounced amongst men. Third, all respondents are expected to make more
pro-victim/anti-perpetrator/anti-family attributions when the victim offers either physical
or verbal, as opposed to no, resistance. Again, these differences should also be more
pronounced amongst men. Fewest pro-victim/anti-perpetrator/anti-family attributions were
expected to occur in mens judgements of a disabled child who fails to offer any resistance
to CSA.

Method
Design
The present study employed a three victim disability (physical vs. intellectual vs. no disabil-
ity) x three-victim resistance (physical vs. verbal vs. no resistance) x two-respondent gender
(male vs. female) between-subjects design. Dependent variables were six attribution
subscales relating to victim, perpetrator and family culpability, victim and typical child cred-
ibility and assault seriousness derived from principal axis factoring (PAF) of an attribution
measure described below. Respondents were randomly allocated to conditions.

Respondents
Three hundred and thirty-five respondents were included in the study. These comprised
67.0% of the 500 individuals who were sent questionnaires in two cities in the North of
England. Just over one-half (58.3%) of the sample were female, with respondent age rang-
ing from 16 to 79 years (median = 25.0 years; mean [M] = 33.4 years; standard deviation
[SD] = 16.6 years). The vast majority of respondents were Caucasian (87.4%), with a size-
able number of Asian (9.9%) ethnicity. Twenty-nine respondents (nine males, 20 females)
claimed they had been sexually abused as a child (8.7%) before the age of 16 years, with
93 respondents (28.2%) claiming they knew someone (other then themselves) who had
suffered CSA at some point in their lives. No other demographic details were taken.

Materials
A questionnaire pack containing a detailed brief sheet (i.e., standardised instructions, broad
details of subject matter, anonymity, confidentiality and withdrawal procedures), one of the
 210 P. Rogers et al.

nine CSA scenario vignettes, 28 attribution items, a revised version of Siller and Chipmans
(1964) Attitudes Towards Persons with Disabilities Scale (ATPDS-R) (see below), a demo-
graphics questionnaire and a full debrief sheet was created for use in this study. Each
component is now described.

CSA Scenarios
Nine vignettes were used to describe the three (disability type) x three (resistance type)
manipulations. Each scenario was approximately 450 words in length and outlined a hypo-
thetical CSA case in which a 12-year-old girl named Caroline was sexually assaulted
through genital fondling (cf. Davies & Rogers, 2007) by a 23-year-old male perpetrator
named Jack. In the present study, the perpetrator was a neighbours son who was known to
Carolines family but relatively unknown to the child. To increase ecological validity,
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

details of the assault were presented in the form of the girls own statement to the police.
Each vignette included a short description of the girls basic character and interests, and
was modified according to the three disability types. In the physical disability condition
the victim was described as being born with a spinal problem that inhibited her growth and
confined her to a wheelchair. In the intellectual disability condition she was described as
being born with intellectual disabilities that inhibited her brain development and meant she
had delayed intellectual ability (with a mental age equal to that of a typical eight-year-old)
and suffered from attention-deficit disorder. In the non-disabled condition, the victim
was described as having normal physical and intellectual development for her age. To
reinforce these distinctions, the victim was also described as attending a youth drama group
that specifically catered for her type of disability.
Vignettes were also modified according to the three resistance types, with each type
highlighted on three separate occasions. In the physical resistance condition, the victim
fought back by pulling away from the perpetrator, pushing his arm away and scratching his
face. In the verbal resistance condition, she told the perpetrator to go away, shouted no
and finally tried to scream whilst begging him to stop. Finally, in the no resistance condi-
tion, the victim closed her eyes, cried and stayed motionless in the hope that her abuser
would get bored and leave. Each of the nine vignettes depicted just one type of disability
and one type of resistance, with all other texts remaining the same (see Appendix 1).

Attribution Measures
The 28 attribution items were adapted from previous studies (e.g., Davies & Rogers, 2009;
Rogers & Davies, 2007). This measure assesses the extent to which respondents believe the
victim, the perpetrator and the victims non-abusive parents are to blame for the girls abuse.
Items also assess perceptions of victim credibility, the credibility of a typical child of iden-
tical age to the depicted victim, and assault severity (see Appendix 2). All items are rated
on a seven-point Likert scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).

Attitudes towards Persons with Disabilities Scale

To control for the possible influence of negative disability stereotypes, participants also
completed a revised version of the ATPDS (Siller & Chipman, 1964). The ATPDS is a
30-item measure of the perceived social, emotional, dispositional, occupational, economic
and domestic lives of people with disabilities. Eight of the original ATPDS items relate
specifically to employment and family issues that were deemed irrelevant to the present
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 211

study and so dropped from the scale. Five new items that assessed attitudes towards
disabled persons vulnerability, trustworthiness, blameworthiness, perceived indepen-
dence and ability to defend themselves were added in line with the focus of the present
study. Finally, the phrasing of certain ATPDS items was changed so that any reference to
specific disabilities was replaced with the more generic term disabled (e.g., Q03
disabled persons can have a normal social life). Thus, the revised ATPDS (hereafter the
ATPDS-R) contains 27 items assessing perceived characteristics of people with non-
specified disabilities. All ATPDS-R items were initially rated along a seven-point Likert
scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). These were later
(re)coded so that higher scores reflected a more negative view of individuals with a
disability, before mean ATPDS-R values were calculated. Analysis confirmed that the
final 27-item ATPDS-R had good internal reliability (= 0.83).
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Demographics
Respondents were asked to indicate their age, gender and ethnic origin, whether they had
ever been a victim of CSA (of any kind and, if so, at what age) and whether they knew
anyone who had been a victim of CSA. A detachable debrief sheet containing contact
details for the second author, together with several welfare helpline numbers was also
included. All components of the experiment were passed by the School of Psychology
Ethics Committee at the authors university.

Procedure
Potential respondents were initially approached via cold calling randomly selected busi-
nesses and residential areas within two cities (Preston and Leeds) in the North of England.
Individuals who agreed to take part in the study were given a verbal introduction to the
studys CSA-related content followed by a questionnaire pack (described above) to
complete in their own time. Respondents were asked to answer all items as honestly as
possible and to return completed questionnaires to the address provided (67.0% of the ques-
tionnaires were returned completed). Respondents were encouraged to keep the detachable
debrief and were thanked for their time. No form of payment was made.

Results
Preliminary Results
Respondents Experiences of CSA
Respondents gender, age, and ethnicity were all unrelated to the three CSA experience
measures. Respondents were therefore treated as a homogeneous group with respect to
these variables.

Respondents Attitude towards People with Disabilities

Mean ATPDS-R scores were normally distributed, with respondents having a moderately
positive attitudes towards people with non-specified disabilities (M = 3.44; SD = 0.71).
Subsequent analysis revealed males (M = 3.71; SD = 0.71) had more negative attitudes
towards those with a disability (t(331) = 6.34; p < 0.001; d = 0.70) than females (M = 3.24;
SD = 0.64). In addition, Pearsons correlation analysis revealed that both younger males (r
= 0.22; p < 0.01; n = 138) and younger females (r = 0.22; p < 0.001; n = 194) were more
 212 P. Rogers et al.

negative towards people with disabilities than their older counterparts. Whilst no ethnicity
differences were found in ATPDS-R scores for men, Caucasian women (M = 3.19; SD =
0.62) were less negative towards those with a disability (t(290) = 3.71; p < 0.001; d = 0.93)
than non-Caucasian women (M = 3.80; SD = 0.69). No relationship was found between
ATPDS-R scores and any CSA experience items for either gender.

Factor Analysis
In line with previous research (e.g., Graham et al., 2007) all attribution items were
(re)coded so that higher scores reflected a more pro-victim/anti-perpetrator/anti-family/
pro-typical child stance. The 28 recoded items were then subjected to a principal axis
factoring analysis using oblique (Promax) rotation with Kaisers criteria used to limit the
number of factors to those with an eigenvalue >1. Factor loadings <0.30 were suppressed.
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Ultimately, six factors explaining 58.2% of the total variance in attribution scores were
extracted. A full breakdown of principal axis factoring data is presented in Table 1.
As Table 1 shows, five items relating to the accuracy, truthfulness, dependability and
credibility of the depicted victim loaded onto Factor 1. This Factor explained 27.6% of the
variance in attribution ratings and was interpreted as victim credibility. Five items, this
time relating to perpetrator blame, guilt, responsibility and abuse of the carers role, loaded
onto Factor 2. This factor explained 13.7% of the variance and was interpreted as perpe-
trator culpability. Five items associated with victim blame, resistance and avoidance
loaded onto Factor 3, explained 8.5% of item variance and were interpreted as victim
culpability. A further five items reflecting the seriousness, negative and traumatising
impact of the assault loaded onto Factor 4. This factor explained 7.6% of total variance and
was named assault seriousness. Three items relating to parental blame, foresight and
protectiveness loaded onto Factor 5, explained 5.6% of total variance and were named
family culpability. Finally, two items relating to the reliability of typical children of
identical age to the depicted victim loaded onto Factor 6. This factor explained 3.8% of the
variance in attribution items and was interpreted as typical child credibility. All six
factors had acceptable levels of internal reliability (see Table 1). Mean factor scores were
computed with all factors retained for further analysis.
Boxplot analysis was performed to examine the number of outliers and extremities for
each of the six factors (see Figure 1). As CSA blame attributions were expected to demon-
strate bias and to retain consistency with previous data (e.g., Davies & Rogers, 2007;
Graham et al., 2007; Rogers et al., 2007; see also Pollard, 1992), no scores were removed
from the data-set. Thus, the final sample remained 335 respondents.
Figure
Note: 1.denotes
Boxplots
outlier; denotes
for each factor.extremity.

Factor Correlations
Pearsons (r) correlations were computed between mean ATPDS-R scores and the six
factors for all respondents combined (n = 335), as well as for male (n = 139) and female (n
= 194) respondents separately (see Table 2).
For the combined group, ATPDS-R scores correlated negatively with four factors
(victim credibility, perpetrator culpability, victim culpability and assault seriousness).
Those with a more negative attitude towards individuals with a disability made fewer pro-
victim ratings than those with a more positive view. Significant correlations with four of
the six factors meant controlling for mean ATPDS-R ratings as a potential covariate was
necessary. An identical pattern of ATPDS-R/factor correlations was found for male respon-
dents. Amongst female respondents, ATPDS-R scores correlated negatively with two
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 213

Table 1. Factor loadings, eigenvalues, percentage variance and internal reliability coefficients for
each factor of the attribution measure.

Factor loading

Factors and items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

1. Victim Credibility
Eigenvalue = 7.69
Variance explained = 27.47%
Internal reliability: = 0.93
23. Victim remember 1.00
22. Victim accuracy 0.88
24. Victim truth 0.78
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

28. Victim credible 0.76

27. Victim dependable 0.73
2. Perpetrator Culpability
Eigenvalue = 3.82
Variance explained = 13.65%
Internal reliability: = 0.93
09. Perpetrator abuse 0.94
11. Perpetrator blame 0.92
08. Perpetrator advantage 0.90
10. Perpetrator guilt 0.88
07. Perpetrator responsibility 0.66
3. Victim Culpability
Eigenvalue = 2.39
Variance explained = 8.53%
Internal reliability: = 0.84
04. Victim avoid 0.76
01. Victim blame no resist 0.74
06. Victim resist 0.74
03. Victim more resist 0.72
05. Victim some blame 0.70
4. Assault Seriousness
Eigenvalue = 2.13
Variance explained = 7.61%
Internal reliability: = 0.85
21. Upset 0.85
20. Sympathy for victim 0.80
17. Police serious 0.66
19. Trauma 0.63
18. Negative impact 0.61
5. Family Culpability
Eigenvalue = 1.58
Variance explained = 5.63%
Internal reliability: = 0.67
15. Parent blame 0.80
 214 P. Rogers et al.

Table 1. (Continued).

Factor loading

Factors and items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

16. Parent foresee 0.69

13. Parent more to protect 0.50
12. Right to leave with minder 0.42
14. Right to leave with stranger 0.32
6. Typical Child Credibility
Eigenvalue = 1.05
Variance explained = 3.76%
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Internal reliability: = 0.75

26. Typical child truthful 0.71
25. Typical child accurate 0.69

Note: n = 335. Values to two decimal places.

Figure 1. Boxplots for each factor

Note: denotes outlier; denotes extremity.
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 215

Table 2. Attitudes towards disability and factor correlations (r) for all, male and female
respondents.

ATPDS-R Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

All (n = 335)
Factor 1 0.28***
Factor 2 0.22*** 0.23***
Factor 3 0.38*** 0.18** 0.36***
Factor 4 0.15** 0.55*** 0.35*** 0.18**
Factor 5 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.08
Factor 6 0.05 0.57*** 0.13* 0.04 0.38*** 0.01
Males (n = 139)
0.33***
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Factor 1
Factor 2 0.29*** 0.44***
Factor 3 0.36*** 0.27*** 0.55***
Factor 4 0.23** 0.54*** 0.53*** 0.34***
Factor 5 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.00
Factor 6 0.04 0.53*** 0.25** 0.12 0.39*** 0.10
Females (n = 194)
Factor 1 0.20**
Factor 2 0.11 0.09
Factor 3 0.28*** 0.04 0.14
Factor 4 0.03 0.55*** 0.19** 0.06
Factor 5 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.15*
Factor 6 0.02 0.59*** 0.08 0.07 0.37*** 0.05

Note: Factor 1 = Victim Credibility; Factor 2 = Perpetrator Culpability; Factor 3 = Victim Culpability; Factor 4 =
Assault Seriousness; Factor 5 = Family Culpability; Factor 6 = Typical Child Credibility. Significance at levels *p
< 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed).

factors (victim credibility and victim culpability). Women with more negative attitudes
toward people with a disability were less pro-victimjudging the depicted victim to be less
credible and more blameworthythan women with a less negative view. No other signifi-
cant correlations with mean ATPDS-R ratings were found.

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance

To test for potential multicollinearity, factor inter-correlations (r) were also computed, first
for the combined group and then separately across the two gender groups (see Table 2). For
the combined group, correlations ranged from 0.38 to 0.57. For male respondents alone, r
ranged from 0.10 to 0.55; whereas for females alone, r ranged from 0.06 to 0.59. Overall,
the pattern of significant correlations was virtually identical for the combined and male-
only groups, with fewer significant inter-correlations between factors found for females
alone. Positive correlations were found between assault seriousness and three other factors
(victim credibility, perpetrator culpability and typical child credibility), as well as between
victim credibility and typical child credibility, for all three respondent (sub)groups. In addi-
tion, positive correlations were also found between victim credibility and both perpetrator
culpability and victim culpability for the combined group and for male respondents alone.
 216 P. Rogers et al.

However, all factor inter-correlations were well below the 0.80 cut-off point suggestive of
multicollinearity (Field, 2005). All six factors were therefore retained.
A three (physical disability vs. intellectual disability vs. no disability) x three (physical
resistance vs. verbal resistance vs. no resistance) x two (male respondents vs. female
respondents) between-subjects multivariate analysis of covariancecontrolling for
respondents mean ATPDS-R scoreswas performed on the six attribution sub-scales
(factors). Mean and standard deviation scores are presented in Table 3.
Multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that, overall, respondents attitude towards
disability (ATPDS-R) scores were a significant multivariate covariate of the six factors
combined (Wilks Lambda = 0.83; F(6,308) = 10.38; p < 0.001, partial 2 = 0.17). No other
significant multivariate effects were found.
Post-hoc, univariate analysis of covariance confirmed ATPDS-R scores to be significant
covariates of four attribution factors; namely, victim credibility, F(1,313) = 25.73; p < 0.001;
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

partial 2 = 0.08; perpetrator culpability, F(1,313) = 8.49; p < 0.01; partial 2 = 0.03; victim
culpability, F(1,313) = 32.73; p < 0.001; partial 2 = 0.10; and assault seriousness, F(1,313)
= 4.29; p < 0.05; partial 2 = 0.01. Thus, as predicted by previous correlations in Table 2,
respondents with a more negative view of disability rated the victim as being less credible and
more culpable, the perpetrator as less culpable and the assault less serious than those with less
negative views of disability. No main effects were found for victim disability on any factor.
In contrast, a significant main effect for victim resistance was found for perpetrator culpa-
bility, F(2,313) = 4.93; p < 0.01; partial 2 = 0.03. Inspection of Table 3 shows perpetrator
culpability scores were lower when the victim was verbally resistant versus when she was
either physically resistant or non-resistant. Post-hoc comparisons via Bonferroni t-tests
confirmed perpetrator culpability was higher when the victim verbally rather than physically
resisted (p < 0.01; d = 0.35). No other post-hoc test reached the adjusted significance level.
Analysis of covariance also revealed a significant respondent gender effect for victim
culpability, F(1, 313) = 7.42; p < 0.01; partial 2 = 0.02, with men rating the victim more
culpable than women. Third, a near-significant disability x resistance interaction was found
for victim credibility, F(4,313) = 2.33; p = 0.056; partial 2 = 0.03. Subsequent post-hoc
simple effects (with adjusted to 0.017) failed to confirm differences in victim credibility
ratings (all p > 0.026; not significant).
Finally, a significant three-way disability type x resistance type x respondent gender
interaction was found for perpetrator culpability, F(4,313) = 2.96; p < 0.05; partial 2 =
0.04. Post-hoc t-tests (again, with adjusted to 0.017) confirmed that men judged the
perpetrator less culpable for sexually assaulting both a physically disabled, physically resis-
tant victim (t(15.1) = 2.85; p = 0.012; d = 1.15) and a non-disabled, non-resistant victim
(t(20.4) = 2.62; p = 0.016; d = 0.96) than did women. In addition, men also judged the
perpetrator less culpable for CSA on a non-resistant victim who was non-disabled, as
opposed to physically disabled (t(21.0) = 2.71; p = 0.013 d = 0.99). No other significant
differences were found (see Figure 2).
FigureControlling
Note: 2. Mean perpetrator
for ATPDS-R
culpability
scores with
ratings
95%across
confidence
victim intervals.
disability Resps,
x respondent
respondents.
gender x victim resistance type interactions.

Additional Findings
For the most part, factor scores did not differ across respondents who were (versus were
not) CSA survivors. However, respondent survivors (M = 4.59; SD = 1.03; mean rank =
164.8) did rate the depicted non-offending parents to be more culpable for their own daugh-
ters CSA (t(290) = 2.49; p < 0.005; d = 0.56) than respondents who had not experienced
CSA (M = 3.99; SD = 1.13; mean rank = 166.8). Factor scores were unaffected by whether
or not respondents knew another person who had been sexually abused as a child.
 Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Table 3. Mean factor scores across victim disability, victim resistance and respondent gender (controlling for mean ATPDS-R ratings).

Physically disabled Intellectually disabled Non-disabled All

Resistance Significant
Factor type Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All effectsa

Victim Credibility None 5.57 5.45 5.51 5.11 5.12 5.12 4.75 5.59 5.19 5.16 5.37 5.28 D Ra
(0.88) (1.33) (1.12) (0.87) (1.42) (1.22) (1.62) (0.99) (1.37) (1.21) (1.26) (1.24)
Physical 5.33 5.42 5.38 5.18 5.71 5.43 5.50 5.63 5.58 5.31 5.57 5.46
(0.90) (1.40) (1.23) (1.35) (0.90) (1.17) (0.68) (1.04) (0.93) (1.07) (1.14) (1.11)
Verbal 4.71 5.41 5.17 5.57 5.75 5.68 5.43 6.01 5.72 5.26 5.68 5.51
(1.10) (1.33) (1.28) (1.03) (0.93) (0.96) (1.57) (0.78) (1.25) (1.29) (1.08) (1.18)
All 5.24 5.42 5.35 5.28 5.53 5.42 5.19 5.71 5.49 5.24 5.55 5.42
(1.00) (1.33) (1.21) (1.13) (1.13) (1.13) (1.42) (0.96) (1.20) (1.19) (1.16) (1.18)
Perpetrator Culpability None 6.81 6.62 6.71 6.57 6.87 6.76 6.11 6.79 6.47 6.50 6.77 6.65 R**
(0.41) (1.09) (0.83) (0.46) (0.33) (0.41) (1.00) (0.41) (0.81) (0.73) (0.68) (0.71)
Physical 6.43 6.92 6.74 6.61 6.82 6.71 6.73 6.80 6.78 6.59 6.85 6.74 D R G*
(0.62) (0.23) (0.47) (1.00) (0.35) (0.76) (0.53) (0.39) (0.43) (0.79) (0.33) (0.58)
Verbal 6.00 6.69 6.45 6.59 6.70 6.66 6.28 5.75 6.01 6.30 6.48 6.41
(1.86) (0.45) (1.17) (0.70) (1.17) (1.02) (0.71) (2.25) (1.66) (1.17) (1.36) (1.29)
All 6.46 6.75 6.63 6.59 6.79 6.71 6.34 6.52 6.44 6.47 6.70 6.60
(1.11) (0.65) (0.87) (0.78) (0.77) (0.78) (0.82) (1.25) (1.09) (0.91) (0.91) (0.92)
Victim Culpability None 6.13 6.04 6.09 5.79 6.17 6.02 4.98 5.97 5.50 5.63 6.07 5.87 G**
(1.45) (1.12) (1.27) (1.53) (0.82) (1.15) (1.65) (1.12) (1.46) (1.59) (1.01) (1.31)
Physical 5.31 6.68 6.18 5.58 6.54 6.04 5.77 5.99 5.92 5.55 6.39 6.05
(1.46) (0.49) (1.16) (1.58) (0.71) (1.32) (1.28) (1.42) (1.36) (1.45) (1.01) (1.28)
Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse
217
 Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Table 3. (Continued).
218

Physically disabled Intellectually disabled Non-disabled All

Resistance Significant
Factor type Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All effectsa
Verbal 5.35 5.97 5.76 6.20 6.61 6.46 5.41 6.39 5.90 5.67 6.32 6.06
(1.74) (1.29) (1.47) (1.08) (0.68) (0.86) (1.52) (0.78) (1.29) (1.48) (1.00) (1.25)
P. Rogers et al.

All 5.65 6.24 6.01 5.82 6.44 6.18 5.34 6.09 5.76 5.62 6.27 5.99
(1.56) (1.06) (1.31) (1.43) (0.75) (1.13) (1.51) (1.18) (1.38) (1.50) (1.01) (1.28)
Assault Seriousness None 6.10 5.93 6.01 6.31 6.34 6.33 5.56 6.34 5.97 5.98 6.21 6.10
(1.12) (1.25) (1.18) (0.49) (1.07) (0.88) (1.50) (0.66) (1.18) (1.17) (1.03) (1.09)
Physical 6.30 6.22 6.25 6.16 6.37 6.26 6.03 6.32 6.22 6.17 6.30 6.24
(0.77) (1.27) (1.10) (0.96) (0.58) (0.80) (0.79) (0.67) (0.72) (0.86) (0.90) (0.88)
Verbal 5.75 6.27 6.09 6.35 6.33 6.33 5.93 6.37 6.15 6.02 6.32 6.20
(1.45) (1.12) (1.25) (0.68) (0.90) (0.82) (1.03) (0.78) (0.92) (1.08) (0.95) (1.01)
All 6.06 6.16 6.12 6.26 6.34 6.31 5.82 6.34 6.11 6.06 6.28 6.18
(1.13) (1.20) (1.17) (0.76) (0.87) (0.83) (1.18) (0.69) (0.96) (1.04) (0.96) (1.00)
Family Culpability None 3.93 4.32 4.13 4.20 3.92 4.03 3.74 3.59 3.66 3.94 3.94 3.94
(1.14) (1.20) (1.17) (1.11) (1.27) (1.20) (0.77) (1.27) (1.05) (1.02) (1.26) (1.15)
Physical 4.16 3.78 3.92 4.26 4.17 4.22 3.97 4.34 4.22 4.15 4.09 4.12
(1.00) (1.21) (1.14) (1.32) (1.11) (1.21) (0.91) (0.99) (0.97) (1.12) (1.12) (1.11)
Verbal 4.14 4.06 4.08 3.92 4.22 4.11 4.21 3.84 4.03 4.09 4.07 4.08
(1.18) (1.26) (1.22) (1.04) (1.23) (1.16) (1.00) (0.90) (0.96) (1.05) (1.17) (1.12)
All 4.06 4.03 4.04 4.14 4.11 4.12 3.96 3.97 3.96 4.06 4.04 4.05
(1.09) (1.23) (1.17) (1.17) (1.20) (1.18) (0.90) (1.10) (1.01) (1.06) (1.18) (1.13)
Typical Child None 4.61 5.18 4.91 5.00 4.80 4.88 4.44 4.89 4.68 4.66 4.95 4.82
Credibility (1.22) (1.20) (1.23) (1.13) (1.11) (1.10) (1.14) (1.45) (1.32) (1.17) (1.24) (1.21)
 Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Table 3. (Continued).

Physically disabled Intellectually disabled Non-disabled All

Resistance Significant
Factor type Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All effectsa

Physical 5.32 4.83 5.01 4.50 4.87 4.68 4.88 5.13 5.04 4.84 4.95 4.90
(0.95) (1.53) (1.35) (1.42) (1.49) (1.45) (1.21) (1.23) (1.21) (1.27) (1.40) (1.34)
Verbal 4.23 4.78 4.59 5.17 5.04 5.09 5.03 5.07 5.05 4.84 4.95 4.90
(0.99) (1.56) (1.40) (1.28) (0.99) (1.09) (1.34) (0.84) (1.10) (1.26) (1.20) (1.22)
All 4.72 4.91 4.84 4.84 4.91 4.88 4.76 5.03 4.92 4.78 4.95 4.88
(1.14) (1.45) (1.33) (1.31) (1.17) (1.23) (1.23) (1.21) (1.22) (1.23) (1.28) (1.26)

Note: Data presented as mean (standard deviation), n = 332. Significant victim disability (D), victim resistance (R), respondent gender (G). Main effects, and subsequent interaction
effects, at the levels * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01. aApproaches significance (two-tailed); range: one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree); higher factor scores reflect a more
pro-victim/anti-perpetrator/anti-family/pro-typical child stance.
Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse
219
 220 P. Rogers et al.

Figure 2. Mean perpetrator culpability ratings across victim disability x respondent gender x victim
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

resistance type interactions.

Note: Controlling for ATPDS-R scores with 95% confidence intervals. Resps = respondents.

Discussion
Attitudes towards People with Disability
In line with hypotheses, ATPDS-R scores co-varied significantly with several factors. Over-
all, respondents who endorsed more negative attitudes towards people with non-specified
disabilities made fewer pro-victim attributionsjudging the depicted victim to be less cred-
ible and more culpable, irrespective of disability status, than those with more positive atti-
tudes to disability. The former also made fewer anti-perpetrator attributionsdeeming him
less culpable for the assaultthan did the latter. In addition, male respondents with more
negative attitudes towards individuals with a disability perceived the assault to be less seri-
ous than males with a more positive view of disability. It is possible the former maintain a
harsher just world view, in which all forms of disability are seen as being somehow
deserved, than do the latter (Furnham, 1995; Kleinke & Meyer, 1990). Either way, the use
of mean ATPDS-R scores as a covariate in the present study means that respondents a
priori attitudes towards people with non-specified disabilities were controlled for.

CSA Blame Attributions

Principal axis factoring of the 28 attribution items produced six useable factorsvictim
credibility, perpetrator culpability, assault seriousness, victim culpability, family culpabil-
ity and typical child credibilityroughly consistent with previous research (e.g., Graham
et al., 2007). Moreover, with disability perceptions controlled for, respondents made gener-
ally pro-victim/anti-perpetrator attributions, and moderately anti-family attributions,
regardless of the three independent variable manipulations; trends that are also comparable
with previous studies (Graham et al., 2007; Rogers & Davies, 2007; Rogers et al., 2007).
Partial support for the hypotheses emerged, with significant differences found across both
respondent gender and victim resistance, although not victim disability. These differences
are now discussed.

Respondent Gender
As predicted, males made fewer pro-victim attributions, judging the victim more culpable
for her abuse, than did females. There was also some evidence that men were less blaming
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 221

of a CSA perpetrator than women, although in the present study this only applied to CSA
against a non-disabled, non-resistant or physically disabled, physically resistant child (see
below for further discussion). These findings offer further support for the robustness of
gender differences in CSA attributions directed towards CSA victims and their perpetrators
(e.g., Back & Lips, 1998; Davies & Rogers, 2009; Graham et al., 2007; Rogers & Davies
2007). They also support the view that men base their CSA attributions either on a harsher
just world view (Klienke & Meyer, 1980; Lerner, 1980) or on a greater identification
with, and subsequent use of defensive attributions in favour of, male perpetrators (Shaver,
1985). In contrast, males deemed the victims non-offending parents just as culpable, the
assault just as serious, and viewed both the victim and the typical child of identical age to
the victim just as credible as did their female counterparts. Current findings, therefore, cast
doubt on the extent to which gender differences apply to respondent perceptions of parental
blame, assault severity and child credibility in cases of CSA (cf. Cromer & Freyd, 2007;
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Davies & Rogers, 2009; Graham, et al., 2007; Rogers et al., 2007; Rubin & Thelen, 1996).

Victim Disability
With general prejudices against people with non-specified disabilities controlled for, CSA
victims, perpetrators and non-offending parents were deemed just as culpable, and the
assault just as serious, regardless of whether the victim had a physical disability, an intel-
lectual disability or no disability. This is consistent with previous findings (Bromberg,
1999) and suggests the notion that children with disabilities are attributed more blame for
their own abusepossibly as the result of certain just world philosophies (cf. Furnham,
1995)is not supported. Contrary to expectations, this was the case for both men and
women.
Similarly, there was little evidence to suggest that CSA victims with either a physical
or an intellectual disability, or indeed typically developing children of identical chronolog-
ical age, are deemed any less credible than their non-disabled counterparts. At first glance
these data seem to contradict Peled et al.s (2004) finding that children with intellectual
disability are perceived to be less credible than those with normal intellectual development.
If true, this might reflect respondents knowledge of the qualitative differences between
intellectual disability depicted by Peled and colleagues (i.e., CA 15, MA 10) versus the kind
described here (i.e., CA 12, MA 08). However, the current study was not assessing respon-
dents a priori beliefs towards specific disability types, but instead examined the impact
disability type had on attributions of victim credibility following CSA disclosure. In this
sense, current findings are more akin to Peled et al.s (2004) second claim that a childs
disability status has little impact on the perceived credibility of his or her actual testimony.
Further, this lack of difference extends beyond adolescents with an intellectual disability
(Peled et al., 2004) to pre-adolescent youngsters around the age of puberty. Finally, it seems
attributions of victim credibility were unaffected by the type of disabilityphysical versus
intellectualexperienced by the child. This may, in turn, reflect lay peoples recognition
that many children with intellectual disabilities are capable of distinguishing between
appropriate versus sexually abusive acts (cf. Barriere, 2007; Doyle, 1994). In sum, disabil-
ity status seems to have little direct impact on lay perceptions of victim credibility, as least
when that victim is a 12-year-old girl.
Third, victim disability alone had little impact on general ratings of perpetrator culpa-
bility, with offenders deemed equally blameworthy regardless of whether their victim had
a physical or intellectual disability or was typically developing (although see below). With
similar non-significant differences found for assault seriousness ratings, the implication
 222 P. Rogers et al.

here is that child sexual abusers are deemed just as responsible, and thus should be treated
just as harshly, regardless of how vulnerable their victim(s) might appear (cf. Doyle,
1994).
Finally, the non-offending parents of a CSA victim with a physical or intellectual
disability were deemed just as culpable for their own childs CSA as those of a typically
developing victim. Thus it seems parents are presumed to be equally responsible for
protecting their childs safety and psychological welfare (cf. Berkowitz, 1997; Gough &
Stanley, 2004) regardless of her or his disability status. Because the present study assessed
only parental culpability, future studies should assess perceptions of non-offending mother
versus non-offending father blame (cf. Back & Lips, 1998) in this context.

Victim Resistance
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Victim resistance had a significant main effect on one factor, namely perpetrator culpabil-
ity, with the perpetrator deemed more blameworthy for sexually assaulting a child who
physically resisted than on one who verbally resisted during his or her ordeal. Contrary to
expectations, the perpetrator was deemed just as blameworthy for CSA against a child who
offered no resistance than for CSA against a child who was either physically or verbally
resistant. Thus, whilst a victims response to being sexually assaulted seems to play some
role in the level of blame attributed to her or his attacker, the prediction that a CSA perpe-
trator would be deemed more blameworthy for sexually abusing a child who resisted was
only partially supported.
Finally, the significant three-way interaction on perpetrator culpability ratings suggest
victim resistance and victims disability status may be of particular relevance to the CSA
blame attributions of male observers. Compared with women, men were less blaming
towards a perpetrator for sexually abusing both a typically developing child who failed to
resist her assailant and a physically disabled child who physically resists. These trends are
consistent with the gender differences in CSA attributions discussed earlier. However, as
men were just as blaming as women of a perpetrator who sexually assaulted a child with
intellectual disability and/or one who verbally resisted, the suggestion is that such gender
differences may be case specific. Compared with women, men were less blaming of the
perpetrator for CSA against a non-resistant child who was typically developing as opposed
to one who had physical disability. Thus, men alone believed the reprehensibility of CSA
was dependent on the childs (physical) disability status. Taken together, these data have
several implications.
First, the finding that respondents attributed at least some blame to the perpetrator
suggests they did not perceive the victims passive non-resistance to be indicative of her
consenting to sexual activity (Broussard & Wagner, 1988; Johnson et al., 1990). Presum-
ably respondents assumed the victims passivity was a sign that she had either frozen in
fear (Galliano et al., 1993; Rogers et al., 2007) or adopted non-resistance as a deliberate
method of protecting herself from further injury (Doyle, 1994).
Second, current findings fail to support previous claims (Broussard & Wagner, 1988;
Johnson et al., 1990; Waterman & Foss-Goodman, 1984) that CSA victims who fail to
actively resist are deemed more to blame for their own victimisation than those who offer
some form of opposition. One possibility is that respondents believed any form of active
resistance would have resulted in further physical injury, and possibly even death, for the
child (cf. Ullman & Knight, 1993)although in this case, one would also expect CSA on
a physically or verbally resistant victim to have been judged a more serious assault. This
was not found. A more plausible interpretation is that victim non-resistance was interpreted
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 223

by respondents as reflecting the girls terror and inabilityrather than unwillingnessto

move during her ordeal.
Third, it seems respondents saw physical and verbal resistance as being qualitatively
different from each other, although only in relation to impact on perpetrator blaming.
Again, it may be that respondents (mis)perceived the non-resistant victim as being passive
through fear and thus incapacitated (cf. Galliano et al., 1993). Future studies need to
investigate such ambiguities.
Fourth, moderately high attributions of family blame were found across all conditions.
These trends are consistent with previous research (e.g., Back & Lips, 1998; Graham et al.,
2007) and suggest non-offending parents are never truly exonerated for allowing their
child to be a victim of sexual abuse. The lack of significant victim resistance type differ-
ences suggests all parents were blamed to the same extent regardless of how their child
responded during their CSA episode.
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Finally, the lack of attributional differences across respondents who were versus were
not CSA survivors, or across those who knew versus did not know anyone who had been
sexually abused as a child, is consistent with other research (e.g., Rogers et al., 2007). It
seems respondents own prior experience and/or knowledge of CSA has no impact on their
blame attribution regarding other (hypothetical) CSA cases.

Methodological Issues and Future Research

The present study contains several methodological limitations. By focusing on the abuse of
a 12-year-old girl, results cannot be generalised to boys and/or CSA victims of other age
groups or when the perpetrator is female. Likewise, with only genital fondling examined,
findings may not be generalisable to other acts of sexual abuse. Finally, the present study
describes CSA within the family home by a family friend who agrees to baby-sit the child,
with the child subsequently disclosing her ordeal in a formal police report. These contextual
factors may be of relevance to CSA attributions, particularly when comparing across victim
disability and/or resistance type(s).
All information about the alleged CSA was presented as a (mock) police statement
given by the victim. Other studies have included less formal mechanisms of disclosure,
such as the child telling his/her parents, and it is possible the victim was deemed more cred-
ible simply by virtue of disclosing to the police. Future research ought to examine this
possibility.
A further limitation is that no details of respondents education or occupational status
were collected and there may be important attributional differences across, say, student
versus non-student cohorts. Future research should account for these possibilities. Simi-
larly, the present study did not examine the respondents own disability status. Attribution
towards people with disabilities may differ if one is physically or intellectually impaired,
and these too, ought to be considered in future research (see Bromberg, 1999)
All victims, regardless of their disability type, were portrayed as giving the same coher-
ent statement to police when disclosing their abuse. Whilst this removed potential
confounds, the similarity of reports for a 12-year-old child with no versus physical versus
intellectual disabilities may have also reduced the ecological validity of the current study.
For example, a child with severe intellectual or communication difficulties is unlikely to be
as articulate as one who has severe physical impairments or who is not disabled in any way.
Future studies should present statements more appropriately so as to maintain realism.
Finally, the current response rate of 67.0% was acceptable (cf. Rogers et al., 2007),
although noticeably lower than figures in comparable studies (approximately 85%; e.g.,
 224 P. Rogers et al.

Davies et al., in press ; Graham et al., 2007; Rogers & Davies, 2007). Lower response rates
may be an artefact of the cold calling technique of date sampling used here. It is possible
that many people feel uncomfortable completing CSA questionnaires at home and/or work
because they fear their views are too controversial for others to accept (despite anonymity
and confidentiality being assured). For whatever reason, lower response rates may skew
data towards fewer anti-victim/pro-perpetrator CSA attributions being made.

General Conclusions
Overall findings suggest that respondent gender and victim resistance type are important
factors in relation to CSA blame and credibility attributions. Having controlled for general
disability prejudices, males were found to attribute more blame to a sexually victimised 12-
year-old girl than did females, with perpetrators generally deemed more blameworthy for
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

CSA when their victim verbally (rather than physically) resisted her attacker. Respondents
were generally consistent in their attributions across types of victim disability although our
significant three-way interaction suggests this had some impact on attributions of
perpetrator blame. Taken together, these findings have important theoretical implications
for dispelling certain myths about individuals (with a disability) who experience, and
survive, child sexual abuse.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Ms Deborah Oakes for her help with data input. There was
no research funding for this study, and no restrictions have been imposed on free access to,
or publication of, the research data.

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 & Neglect, 22, 12391252.
Baker, C. D. (2002). Female survivors of sexual abuse: An integrated guide to treatment. Hove, East
Sussex: Brunner-Routledge.
Barker-Collo, S. L. (2001). Adult reports of child and adult attributions of blame for childhood
sexual abuse: Predicting adult adjustment and suicidal behaviours in females. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 25, 13291341.
Barriere, D. (2007). Child abuse statistics. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www.child-
abuse-effects.com/child-abuse-statistics.html
Berkowitz, C. D. (1997). Failure to protect: A spectrum of culpability: A commentary. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 6, 8184.
Bolen, R. M., Russell, D. E. H., & Scannapieco, M. (2000). Child sexual abuse prevalence: A
review and reanalysis of relevant studies. In C. Itzin (Ed.) Home truths about child sexual
abuse: Influencing policy and practice: A reader (pp. 169196). London: Routledge.
Bornstein, B. H., Kaplan, D. L., & Perry, A. R. (2007). Child abuse in the eyes of the beholder: Lay
perceptions of child sexual and physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 375391.
Bottoms, B. L. (1993). Individual differences in perceptions of child sexual assault victims. In G. S.
Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims and child witnesses: Understanding and
improving testimony (pp. 229261). London: Guilford Press.
Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of childrens credibility in sexual assault
cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702732.
Bromberg, D. S. (1999). Mock jurors perceptions of typical and learning disabled victims of
child sexual abuse. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineer-
ing, 59(8-B), 4497.
Broussard, S. D., & Wagner, W. G. (1988). Child sexual abuse: Who is to blame? Child Abuse &
Neglect, 12, 563569.
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 225

Brown, D., & Lewis, C. (2006). Not all witnesses are created equal: Jurors perceptions of child
and learning disabled witnesses. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Lancaster, UK.
Coffey, P., Leitenberg, H., Henning, K., Tonia, T., & Bennett, R. T. (1996). Mediators of the long-
term impact of child sexual abuse: Perceived stigma, betrayal, powerlessness, and self-blame.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 447455.
Collings, S. J. (1997). Development, reliability, and validity of the Child Sexual Abuse Myth Scale.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 665674.
Cromer, L. D., & Freyd, J. J. (2007). What influences believing child sexual abuse disclosures? The
role of depicted memory persistence, participant gender, trauma history and sexism. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 31, 1322.
Crosse, S. B., Kaye, E., & Ratnofsky, A. C. (1993). A report on the maltreatment of children with
disabilities. Washington, DC: National Centre on Child Abuse & Neglect.
Davies, M., & Rogers, P. (2006). Perceptions of male victims in depicted sexual assault: A review of
the literature. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 11, 367377.
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Davies, M., & Rogers, P. (2009). Perceptions of blame and credibility toward victims of childhood
sexual abuse: Differences across victim age, victimperpetrator relationship and respondent
gender in a depicted case. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 7892.
Davies, M., Rogers, P., & Bates, J. A. (2008). Blame towards male rape victims in a hypothetical
sexual assault as a function of victim sexuality and degree of resistance. Journal of
Homosexuality, 55(3), 533544.
Davies, M., Rogers, P., & Hood, P. (in press). Perceptions of child sexual abuse in a hypothetical
cybersexploitation case. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse.
Davis, L. A. (2005). People with intellectual disabilities and sexual violence. The Arc. Retrieved
June 1, 2008 from http://www.thearc.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?&id=155
Doyle, C. (1994). Child sexual abuse: A guide for health professionals. London: Chapman &
Hall.
Elliot, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 19, 579594.
Ericson, K. I., Perlman, N. B., & Isaacs, B. J. (1994). Witness competency, communication issues
and people with developmental disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 22, 101109.
Fergusson, D. M. & Mullen, P. E. (1999). Childhood sexual abuse: An evidence based perspective.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage:
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Furnham, A. (1995). The just world. Charitable giving and attitudes towards disability. Personality
& Individual Differences, 19, 577583.
Galliano, G., Noble, L. M., Travis, L. A., & Puechi, C. (1993). Victim reactions during rape/sexual
assault: A preliminary study of the immobility response and its correlates, Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 8, 109114.
Goldman, R. (1994). Children and youth with intellectual disabilities: Targets for sexual abuse.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 41, 89102.
Gough, D., & Stanley, N. (2004). Parenting capacity. Child Abuse Review, 13, 14.
Graham, L., Rogers, P., & Davies, M. (2007). Attributions in a hypothetical child sexual abuse case:
Roles of abuse type, family response and respondent gender. Journal of Family Violence, 22,
733745.
Horton, C. B., & Kochurka, K. A. (1995). The assessment of children with disabilities who report
sexual abuse: A special look at those most vulnerable. In T. Ney (Ed.), True and false allega-
tions of child sexual abuse: Assessment and case management (pp. 275289). Philadelphia,
PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Johnson, P. A., Owens, R. G., Dewey, M. E., & Eisenberg, N. E. (1990). Professionals attributions
of censure in father daughter incest. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 419428.
Kleinke, C. L., & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluation of rape victims by men and women with high and
low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 343353.
Lerner, M. (1980). The belief in a just world: The fundamental delusion. London: Plenum Press.
London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2007). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: A
review of the contemporary empirical literature. In M-E. Piper, M.E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A-C.
Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial (pp. 1139). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 226 P. Rogers et al.

Mansell, S., Sobsey, D., & Moskal, R. (1998). Clinical findings among sexually abused children
with and without developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation, 36, 1222.
McMillen, C., & Zuravin, S. (1997). Attributions of blame and responsibility for child sexual abuse
and adult adjustment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 3048.
Mencap (2001). Behind closed doors. Retrieved August 6, 2007 from http://www.voiceuk.org.uk/
docs/Behind_close_doors.pdf
OCallaghan, A. C., & Murphy, G. H. (2007). Sexual relationships in adults with intellectual disabil-
ities: Understanding the law. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 197206.
Peled, M., Iarocci, G., & Connolly, D. A. (2004). Eyewitness testimony and perceived credibility of
youth with mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48, 699703.
Pollard, P. (1992). Judgements about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 309326.
Putnam, M. D. (2003). Ten-year research update: Child sexual abuse. Research Update Review,
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3), 269278.
Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., & Jones, D. P. H. (2003). Predictors of attributions of self-blame and
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

internalizing behavior problems in sexually abused children. Journal of Child Psychology &
Psychiatry, 44, 723736.
Rao, S. (2004). Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A literature
review. College Student Journal, 38, 191198.
Rogers, P. & Davies, M. (2007). Perceptions of credibility and attributions of blame towards victim
in a childhood sexual abuse case: Gender and age factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22,
566584.
Rogers, P., Josey, N., & Davies, M. (2007). The contributions of victim age, victim attractiveness,
abuse frequency and respondent gender on attributions of blame in a hypothetical child sexual
abuse case. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13, 121137.
Rubin, M. L., & Thelen, M. H. (1996). Factors influencing believing and blaming in reports of child
sexual abuse: Survey of a community sample. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5, 81100.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Siller, J. & Chipman, A. (1964). Factorial structure and correlates of the Attitudes Toward Disabled
Persons Scale. Education & Psychological Measurement, 25, 831840.
Taub, D. E., McLogg, P. A., & Fanflik, P. L. (2004). Stigma management strategies among women
with physical disabilities: Contrasting approaches of downplaying or claiming a disability
status. Deviant Behavior, 25, 169190.
Tyler, K. A. (2002). Social and emotional outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: A review of recent
research. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 7, 567589.
Ullman, S. E., & Knight, R. A. (1993). The efficacy of womens resistance strategies in rape
situations, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 2338.
Waterman, C. K., & Foss-Goodman, D. (1984). Child molesting: Variables relating to attribution
of fault to victims, offenders, and non-participating parents. The Journal of Sex Research, 20,
329349.
Zoucha-Jensen, J. M., & Coyne, A. (1993). The effects of resistance strategies on rape. American
Journal of Public Health, 83(11), 16331634.
 Attributions of Blame and Credibility in Child Sexual Abuse 227

Appendix 1. Hypothetical Child Sexual Abuse Vignette

Physical Disability x Physical Resistance Condition (alternative versions in square

brackets)
Caroline is a 12-year-old girl with an extremely lively and happy character. She is very
friendly and her forthcoming personality means she has a large social group. Caroline espe-
cially likes acting and singing. Outside of school she spends many of her evenings at a local
dramatics youth group which caters for the physically disabled. Caroline was born with a
spinal problem inhibiting her growth and confining her to a wheelchair. [Caters for children
with learning disabilities.1 Caroline was born with learning disabilities, inhibiting her brain
development and activity. Her mental age has been assessed as that of an eight year old and
she suffers from a very short attention span.] [Caters for the children in her local area.
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

Caroline has normal physical and cognitive development for her age.]
On October 31, 2006 Caroline was accompanied by her mother and father to the local
police station to report a sexual assault against Caroline by their next door neighbour, Jack.
Due to her age Carolines case was assigned to police specialising in child sexual abuse
cases. Below is the report made by the police based on Carolines own statement.
My mum and dad were going out for the night and they asked Jack from next door to come
round and look after me. Jacks a lot older than me, twenty-three, I think. I dont really know
him. My mum knows his parents so I thought Id be ok. We watched videos and Jack made
popcorn for us; he even brought some board games with him to play. It was fun and he let me
stay up really late.
In the middle of the night I woke up and could see someone stood at the end of my bed and
then felt them sit down next to me. I knew it was Jack but he was acting weird. He started strok-
ing my hair and face and I tried to pull away [I told him to go away] [my body just froze]. He
told me everything was ok and he was just checking I was asleep.
When I tried to move away from him [I asked him to stop touching me] [I closed my eyes and
hoped he would go away], he just carried on. He leaned over me and I could feel his breath.
He put his hand under my quilt and into my underwear. I felt him touch me here (Caroline
points to her vagina). Then he started to fondle my private parts. I started to cry and tried to
push his arm away [I shouted no] [stayed really still]. I was so scared. I tried to fight him off,
I even tried to scratch his face [I tried to scream out for help, I even tried to beg him to stop] [I
thought if I didnt move he would get bored] but it didnt work. After a long time he got up
and left.
After the incident occurred Caroline became uncharacteristically subdued and
depressed. Her parents noticed the change in their daughter and sat her down to talk about
what was bothering her. Caroline got very distressed and eventually broke down, telling her
parents everything that had happened. They immediately drove to the police station to
report the crime. Jack is currently being held for questioning in police custody.

Note
1. The term learning disabilities was included in the original vignette. In line with International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education usage, the term intellectual disabilities is
used elsewhere in this manuscript.
 228 P. Rogers et al.

Appendix 2. Attribution Items

01. Caroline should be blamed for the incident because she did not try hard enough to
resist [Q01 victim blame no resist]
02. Caroline should take no blame for her part in the incident [Q02 victim no blame]
03. Caroline ought to have resisted Jacks advances more [Q03 victim more resist]
04. Caroline could have avoided the situation [Q04 victim avoid]
05. Caroline should take some blame for the incident [Q05 victim some blame]
06. Caroline could have resisted Jacks approaches more [Q06 victim resist]
07. Jack was responsible for the situation inflicted on Caroline [Q07 perpetrator respon-
sibility]
08. Jack took advantage of Caroline [Q08 perpetrator advantage]
09. Jack abused his role as Carolines carer [Q09 perpetrator abuse]
Downloaded by [Wayne State University] at 16:42 25 November 2014

10. Jack is guilty following his actions [Q10 perpetrator guilt]

11. Jack should be blamed for the incident [Q11 perpetrator blame]
12. Carolines parents were right to leave their daughter with a minder [Q12 right to leave
with minder]
13. Carolines parents could have done more to protect their child from the incident [Q13
parent more to protect]
14. Carolines parents were right to leave her alone with someone she did not know very
well [Q14 right to leave with stranger]
15. Carolines parents are to blame for the incident [Q15 parent blame]
16. Carolines parents should have foreseen the incident arising [Q16 parent foresee]
17. The incident in Carolines bedroom should be taken seriously by the police [Q17
police serious]
18. The incident will have a negative impact on Carolines life [Q18 negative impact]
19. The incident will leave Caroline traumatised [Q19 trauma]
20. Sympathy should be felt for Caroline [Q20 sympathy for victim]
21. Caroline would be very upset by this experience [Q21 upset]
22. Caroline was accurate at giving evidence of the incident [Q22 victim accuracy]
23. Caroline remembers the events of the incident clearly [Q23 victim remember]
24. Caroline is telling the truth about what happened [Q24 victim truth]
25. The accounts of other children of a similar age to Caroline would be accurate [Q25
typical child accurate]
26. Other children would tell the truth about what happened [Q26 typical child truthful]
27. Caroline is a dependable witness [Q27 victim dependable]
28. Carolines statement to the police is credible [Q28 victim credible]