Situational variables or beliefs? A multifaceted approach to understanding blame attributions
Abstract
Are victim and perpetrator blame attributions affected more by situational-specific variables or observers’ basic motives and personal beliefs? In three experiments, varying the scenario setting, the effects of victim and participant age, participant gender, sympathy for the victim, trust in the justice system, belief in a just world and acceptance of rape myths were investigated. In total, 877 Swedish adolescents and adults read scenarios reflecting common acquaintance rape situations. Victim age (18 or 31) was manipulated, but did not affect attributed blame. Effects of participant age and gender varied markedly across the three experiments. Sympathy for the victim and acceptance of rape myths were stronger predictors than belief in a just world. Consistently, blame attributions were found to be more affected by personal beliefs than situational-specific variables.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Attributions of personal responsibility for misfortune predict less willingness to help those in need.
“Many studies have documented that belief in a just world is associated with the attribution that victims are personally responsible for the good and bad things that have happened to them, including in ambiguous and complex circumstances like poverty, illness, or sexual assault, and these attributions of personal responsibility predict less willingness to help those in need (Adolfsson & Strömwall,”
From Victim blaming and belief in karma (2024) · cites this paper as Adolfsson & Strömwall, 2017
Belief in a just world is associated with the attribution that victims are personally responsible for the good and bad things that have happened to them, including in ambiguous and complex circumstances like poverty, illness, or sexual assault.
“Many studies have documented that belief in a just world is associated with the attribution that victims are personally responsible for the good and bad things that have happened to them, including in ambiguous and complex circumstances like poverty, illness, or sexual assault, and these attributions of personal responsibility predict less willingness to help those in need (Adolfsson & Strömwall,”
From Victim blaming and belief in karma (2024) · cites this paper as Adolfsson & Strömwall, 2017
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 55 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Adolfsson, K., & Strömwall, L. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Adolfsson, Kerstin
- Venue
- Psychology, Crime & Law
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-02-17
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 527-552
- ISSN
- 1068-316X (ISSN-L)
- 1477-2744
- OpenAlex
- W2584001065
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 6.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology Crime and Law (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- the Swedish Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority (02836/2015)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- blame attribution, acquaintance rape, victim blaming, perpetrator blaming, belief in a just world, rape myths, participant age, situational variables, personal beliefs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
