Expectancy violation and perceptions of rape victim credibility
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
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?
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
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From 'real rape' to real justice: A systematic review of police officers' rape myth beliefs
Parratt, K. A., & Pina, A. (2017) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.005 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Murphy, A., Hine, B., Yesberg, J. A., Wunsch, D., & Charleton, B. (2022) · Psychology, Crime & Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2021.1880584 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hackett, L., Day, A., & Mohr, P.
- Affiliations
- University of South Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Hackett, Louisa
- ORCID
- Day, Andrew
- 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