“Why Did She Talk to Him Again?” The Effects of the Justice Motive, Relationship Type, and Degree of Postassault Contact on Perceptions of Sexual Assault
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Victim blaming attitudes are prevalent within the criminal justice system where survivor behavior before, during, and following an assault is heavily scrutinized. Although dispositional characteristics (e.g., strength of one’s justice motive) and characteristics of the assault (e.g., the type of relationship between a survivor and an offender) have been found to predict the degree of victim blaming, the effects of these variables on sexual assault myth endorsement are unclear. In addition, a variable that has not been examined in past literature is the degree of contact maintained between a survivor and offender after the assault. The purpose of the current study was to examine the extent to which the justice motive (strong vs. weak), the relationship between a fictional survivor and an offender (strangers vs. intimate partners), and contact between a survivor and offender postassault (contact vs. no contact) influenced endorsement of sexual assault myths. Undergraduate students read a vignette depicting a fictional sexual assault that varied with respect to the relationship and the amount of postassault contact between the survivor and offender and completed measures of the strength of their justice motive and their endorsement of sexual assault myths. Results indicated that participants ( N = 419) who held a strong justice motive showed higher endorsement of sexual assault myths. Participants were also more likely to endorse sexual assault myths when there was postoffense contact between the survivor and offender. The implications of these findings and their relevance to the criminal justice system are discussed, including the need for further research into the creation of survivor-oriented education and training capable of counteracting bias toward survivors of sexual violence and producing sustained attitudinal changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".