Cited by 62Sexual Assault and Victimization StudiesDeception detection and forensic psychologyJury Decision Making Processes

Expectancy violation and perceptions of rape victim credibility

Hackett, Louisa, Day, Andrew, Mohr, Philip·2008·Legal and Criminological Psychology

Abstract

Purpose. Rape victims have been found to have a heightened risk of secondary victimization in the legal system through biased perceptions of their credibility. In this study, participants observed a video of a rape victim reporting the crime and evaluated her credibility, to establish the influence of victim emotional expressiveness on evaluations of victim credibility. Methods. The nonverbal (eye‐contact, crying) and paralinguistic (tone of voice) behaviour of the rape victim was manipulated such that the emotional presentation viewed by observers was either expressive, or not expressive. One hundred and thirty seven participants were randomly allocated to observe a videotape of either an expressive or a non‐expressive victim. Participants’ specific expectations about the emotional expressiveness of rape victims in general were also measured. Results. Results revealed no significant main effect of emotional expressiveness on perceptions of credibility. However, among participants with a strong expectation of emotional expressiveness, a rape victim who was emotionally expressive was perceived to be significantly more credible than a victim who was not emotionally expressive. Conclusions. It appears to be expectancy violation rather than emotional expressiveness per se that biases observers’ perceptions of rape victim credibility.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/135532507x228458

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Victim withdrawal may be attributable to secondary victimization, as rape victims are at increased risk through negative beliefs surrounding their credibility.

    “Victim withdrawal may be attributable to secondary victimization, as rape victims are at an increased risk through negative beliefs surrounding their credibility (Hackett, Day, & Mohr, 2008).”

    From From 'real rape' to real justice: A systematic review of police officers' rape myth beliefs (2017) · cites this paper as Hackett, Day, & Mohr, 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hackett, L., Day, A., & Mohr, P.
Affiliations
University of South Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Hackett, Louisa
Venue
Legal and Criminological Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-09
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
323-334
ISSN
  • 1355-3259 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8333
OpenAlex
W2071165341
Cited by
62
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Legal and Criminological Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
Keywords
rape victims, victim credibility, secondary victimization, expectancy violation, emotional expressiveness, nonverbal behavior, eye contact, crying, paralinguistic cues, tone of voice, viewer perception

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