A Socioecological Model of Rape Survivors' Decisions to Aid in Case Prosecution
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to identify factors underlying rape survivors' post-assault prosecution decisions by testing a decision model that included the complex relations between the multiple social ecological systems within which rape survivors are embedded. We coded 440 police rape cases for characteristics of the assault and characteristics of the rape survivor congruent with rape mythology. In addition, support from friends/family members, social service providers, and police were assessed. Path analysis, using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) that included a bias-corrected bootstrap resampling procedure, supported our model. As hypothesized, rape survivors' final decisions to aid in case prosecution were predicted by support from the three social ecologies: family/friends, social service providers, and police. Social service provider support, in turn, was predicted by assault characteristics congruent with rape mythology, whereas family/friend and police support were significantly predicted by the interaction between assault and survivor characteristics congruent with rape mythology. Our results show the value of applying a socioecological framework to help understand factors that influence rape survivors' prosecution decisions. Moreover, our results highlight the need to challenge commonly held views of “typical” rape survivors and the “typical” circumstances surrounding their assault.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Ahrens C. E., Cabral G., Abeling S. (2009). Healing or hurtful: Sexual assault survivors' interpretations of social reactions from support providers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 81–94.
Ahrens C. E., Campbell R., Ternier-Thames N. K., Wasco S. M., Sefl T. (2007). Deciding whom to tell: Expectations and outcomes of rape survivors' first disclosures. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 38–49.
Aiken L. S., West S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anders M. C. (2007). Seeking justice: A socioecological model of rape survivors' prosecution decisions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Anderson K. B., Cooper H., Okamura L. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295–315.
Bachman R. (1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8–29.
Bollen K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bronfenbrenner U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Bronfenbrenner U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brownmiller S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Bantam Books.
Burt M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.
Burt M. R. (1998). Rape myths. In Clay-Warner J., Odem M. (Eds.), Confronting rape and sexual assault (pp. 129–145). Wilmington, DE: SR Books/Scholarly Resources Inc.
Campbell R. (1998). The community response to rape: Victims' experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 355–379.
Campbell R. (2006). Rape survivors' experiences with the legal and medical systems: Do rape victim advocates make a difference?. Violence Against Women, 12, 30–45.
Chan W., Chan D. W. (2004). Bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the correlation corrected for range restriction: A simulation study. Psychological Methods, 9, 369–385.
Dalla R. (2001). Et tú brutè? A qualitative analysis of streetwalking prostitutes' interpersonal support networks. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 1066–1085.
Damrosch S. P. (1985). How perceived carelessness and time of attack affect nursing students' attributions about rape victims. Psychological Reports, 56, 531–536.
Du Mont J., Forte K., Cohen M. M., Hyman I., Romans S. (2005). Changing help-seeking rates for intimate partner violence in Canada. Women and Health, 41, 1–19.
Du Mont J., Miller K., Myhr T. L. (2003). The role of “real rape” and “real victim” stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 9, 466–486.
Du Mont J., Myhr T. L. (2000). So few convictions: The role of client-related characteristics in the legal processing of sexual assaults. Violence Against Women, 6, 1109–1136.
Du Mont J., Parnis D. (1999). Judging women: The pernicious effects of rape mythology. Canadian Woman Studies, 19, 102–109.
Dye E., Roth S. (1990). Psychotherapists' knowledge about and attitudes toward sexual assault victim clients. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 191–212.
Emerson R. M., Paley B. (1992). Organizational horizons and complaint filing. In Hawkins K. (Ed.), The uses of discretion (pp. 231–248). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Feldman-Summers S., Ashworth C. D. (1981). Factors related to intentions to report a rape. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 53–70.
Feldman-Summers S., Norris J. (1984). Differences between rape victims who report and those who do not report to a public agency. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 562–573.
Feldman-Summers S., Palmer G. C. (1980). Rape as viewed by judges, prosecutors, and police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 19–40.
Filipas H. H., Ullman S. E. (2001). Social reactions to sexual assault victims from various support sources. Violence and Victims, 16, 673–692.
Fisher B. S., Daigle L. E., Cullen F. T., Turner M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6–38.
Flowe H. D., Ebbesen E. B., Putcha-Bhagavatula A. (2007). Rape shield laws and sexual behavior evidence: Effects of consent level and women’s sexual history on rape allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 159–175.
Frazier P., Haney G. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system. Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607–628.
Frohmann L. (1991). Discrediting victims' allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections. Social Problems, 38, 213–226.
Frohmann L. (1997). Convictablity and discordant locales: Reproducing, race, class and gender ideologies in prosecutorial decision-making. Law and Society Review, 31, 531–555.
Golding J. M., Siegel J. M., Sorenson S. B., Burnam M. A., Stein J. A. (1989). Social support sources following sexual assault. Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 92–107.
Grauerholz L. (2000). An ecological approach to understanding sexual revictimization: Linking personal, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors and processes. Child Maltreatment, 5, 5–17.
Greenberg M. S., Ruback R. B. (1992). After the crime: Victim decision making. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Heise L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4, 262–290.
Hu L., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jones J. S., Alexander C., Wynn B. M., Rossman L., Dunnuck C. (2009). Why women don’t report sexual assault to the police: The influence of psychosocial variables and traumatic injury. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 36, 417–424.
Jordan J. (2001). Worlds apart: Women, rape, and the police reporting process. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 679–706.
Joreskog K. G., Yang F. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with interaction effects. In Marcoulides G. A., Schumacker R. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Karuza J., Carey T. O. (1984). Relative preference and adaptiveness of behavioral blame for observers of rape victims. Journal of Personality, 52, 249–260.
Kelly L., Lovett J., Regan L. (2005). A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases. In Home Office Research Study 293. London, England: Home Office.
Kerstetter W. A., Van Winkle B. (1990). Who decides: A study of the complainant’s decision to prosecute in rape cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 268–283.
Kline R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Koss M. P., Cleveland H. H. (1997). Stepping on toes: Social roots of date rape lead to intractability and politicization. In Schwartz M. D. (Ed.), Researching sexual violence against women: Methodological and personal perspectives (pp. 4–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Koss M. P., Harvey M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Langley T., Yost E. A., O’Neal E. C., Taylor S. L., Frankel P. I., Craig K. M. (1991). Models of rape judgment: Attributions concerning event, perpetrator, and victim. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17, 43–54.
Lonsway K. A., Fitzgerald L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.
Lonsway K. A., Fitzgerald L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711.
Lonsway K. A., Welch S., Fitzgerald L. F. (2001). Police training in sexual assault response: Process, outcomes, and elements of change. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 695–730.
MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., Williams J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
Maier S. L. (2008). “I have heard horrible stories …”: Rape victim advocates' perceptions of the revictimization of rape victims by the police and medical system. Violence Against Women, 14, 786–808.
Martin P. Y., Powell R. M. (1994). Accounting for the “Second Assault”: Legal organizations' framing of rape victims. Law & Social Inquiry, 19, 853–890.
Muthén L. K., Muthén B. O. (1998–2006). Mplus user’s guide. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Neville H. A., Pugh A. O. (1997). General and culture specific factors influencing African American women’s reporting patterns and perceived social support following sexual assault: An exploratory investigation. Violence Against Women, 3, 361–381.
Page A. D. (2008). Judging women and defining crime: Police officers’ attitudes toward women and rape. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 389–411.
Payne D. L., Lonsway K. A., Fitzgerald L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68.
Pino N. W., Meier R. F. (1999). Gender differences in rape reporting. Sex Roles, 40, 979–990.
Polk K. (1985). A comparative analysis of attrition of rape cases. British Journal of Criminology, 25, 280–284.
Reich J. W., Zautra A. J., Davis M. (2003). Dimensions of affect relationships: Models and their integrative implications. Review of General Psychology, 7, 66–83.
Richardson D., Campbell J. L. (1982). Alcohol and rape: The effect of alcohol on attributions of blame for rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 468–476.
Rozee P. D., Koss M. P. (2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 295–311.
Schermelleh-Engel K., Klein A., Moosbrugger H. (1998). Estimating nonlinear effects using a latent moderated structural equations approach. In Schumaker R. E., Marcoulides G. A. (Eds.), Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling (pp. 203–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spohn C., Beichner D., Davis-Frenzel E. (2001). Prosecutorial justification for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the gateway to justice. Social Problems, 48, 206–235.
Temkin J. (1999). Reporting rape in London: A qualitative study. The Howard Journal, 38, 17–41.
Thompson L. (1992). Feminist methodology for family studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 3–18.
Thorne B. (1982). Feminist rethinking of the family: An overview. In Thorne B., Yalom M. (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminists questions (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Longman.
Ullman S. E. (1996). Do social reactions to sexual assault victims vary by support provider?. Violence and Victims, 11, 143–157.
Ullman S. E. (2000). Psychometric characteristics of the Social Reactions Questionnaire: A measure of reactions to sexual assault victims. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 257–271.
Ullman S. E., Townsend S. M., Filipas H. H., Starzynski L. L. (2007). Structural models of the relations of assault severity, social support, avoidance coping, self blame, and PTSD among sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 23–37.
Ward C. (1995). Attitudes toward rape: Feminist and legal perspectives. London, England: Sage.
Whately M. A. (1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 81–91.
White Stewart M., Dobbin S. A., Gatowski S. I. (1996). Real rapes and real victims: The shared reliance on common cultural definitions of rape. Feminist Legal Studies, 4, 159–177.
Williams L. S. (1984). The classic rape: When do victims report?. Social Problems, 31, 459–467.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: March 2, 2011
Issue published: March 2011
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Psychology of Women Quarterly.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 734
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 24 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 22
-
“That is Not Behavior Consistent With a Rape Victim”: The Effects of O...
-
Care or Justice: Care Ethics and the Restricted Reporting Sexual Assau...
-
Investigation of the effect of COVID-19 on attitudes of university stu...
-
Study of informal reasoning in judicial agents in sexual aggression ca...
-
An Exploratory Analysis of Harassment in Adult Sexual Assault Cases
-
The Role of Military Law and Systemic Issues in the Military's Handlin...
-
“Where Was I Supposed to Go?”
-
Trauma-Informed Police Responses to Rape Victims
-
Liberating Discretion: The Effect of Rape Myth Factors on Prosecutors’...
-
Rape Crimes: Are Victims’ Acute Psychological Distress and Perceived S...
-
“You Blame Me, Therefore I Blame Me”: The Importance of First Disclosu...
-
Sexual Scripts and Criminal Statutes: Gender Restrictions, Spousal All...
-
The Selective Use of Rape-Victim Stereotypes to Protect Culturally Sim...
-
Societal Responses to Sexual Violence Against Women: Rape Myths and th...
-
Introducing the Date and Acquaintance Rape Avoidance Scale
-
Sexual Assault Victim Participation in Police Investigations and Prose...
-
Police Reporting Practices for Sexual Assault Cases in Which “The Vict...
-
The Influence of Anogenital Injury on Women’s Willingness to Engage Wi...
-
Attitudes Toward Women, Rape Myths, and Rape Perceptions Among Male Po...
-
Silent Survivors...
-
Rape Survivors’ Agency Within the Legal and Medical Systems
-
Hidden, Unacknowledged, Acquaintance, and Date Rape...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
SPW members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
SPW members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
