Fundamental Attribution Error in Rape Culture: Responsibility and Blame of Victims

Abstract

This paper reviews the work of two studies on the responsibility and blame of victims. Cohn, Dupuis, & Brown (2009) prepared two studies to investigate responsibility based on resistance and reputation. While Untied, Orchowski, Mastroleo, & Gidycz (2012) created a study to measure responsibility responses towards victims and perpetrators. The intent is to recognize how the fundamental attribution error extends blame toward certain victims. Additionally, Biblical principles were examined in hopes to combat judgment in situational circumstances.

Keywords: Fundamental attribution error, rape culture, biblical

Fundamental Attribution Error in Rape Culture

[bookmark: _Hlk17748038]Fundamental attribution error poses problems when the need arises to understand an individual’s behavior. “Fundamental attribution error is the tendency to explain our own and other people’s behavior entirely in terms of personality traits and to underestimate the power of social influence and the immediate situation” (Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. ,2019). This concept is significant because it gives individuals insight into how their thinking can be flawed. Observing behaviors is difficult and it is imperative that individuals remember social aspects of the situation. Relying solely on personalities will end in misinterpretations. However, it is important to look at all sides of the situation. “Personality differences do exist and frequently are of great importance, but social and environmental situations are so powerful that they have dramatic effects on almost everyone (Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. ,2019). Understanding that both personality and social circumstances play a part in the situation. Examining all sides will assist in curbing the fundamental attribution error.

Fundamental attribution error can happen everywhere. For instance, there are two coworkers, Jenna and Kristy, working the same catering shift. Jenna is trying to prepare all the food while Kristy is moving slow and sitting down a lot. As the shift continues, Jenna’s anger towards Kristy increases. She knows that Kristy had issues in that past and almost got fired but turned it around. She starts to think that Kristy is lazy, and a bad coworker based on previous situations. All she sees is the external circumstances of the situation. What she does not know is that Kristy was up all night with her child. Kristy wants to do a good job but does not have any motivation left. Jenna’s anger stemmed from Kristy’s previous issues and did not think that there might be another external issue. Individuals tend to judge situations based on what they think about people verses the situation going on around them. Several studies have shown that people tend to explain situations based on personality and not situations.

Article I

Hypotheses

Cohn, Dupuis, & Brown (2009) prepared two studies to investigate responsibility based on resistance and reputation. Several hypotheses were investigated throughout the study. First, that men will hold the victim responsible, no resistance from victim will show responsibility, and perpetrator will be responsible when victim resists (Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M., 2009). Furthermore, good of bad reputations will lead to responsibility. Finally, “Participants who score higher in rape myth acceptance, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism will hold the victim as more responsible and the perpetrator as less responsible than those scoring lower on these individual difference measures” (Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M., 2009).

Methods

[bookmark: _Hlk20912103]Witness Response. The study included 250 students, men and women, from introductory psychology classes. Many students were in their first year of college and 18 years old. Part one of the study intended to show the students response to the victim and perpetrator. “Students were asked to watch one of the seven videos and to answer a questionnaire composed of demographic and open‐ended questions, as well as a series of responsibility and attitude scales” (Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M., 2009). The variables in the videos had victim resistance, low reaction of perpetrator, and no reaction from either party.

Prior Reputation. The study included 274 students, men and women, from introductory psychology classes at U of NH. Half of the students were in their first year of college and the mean age was 19.4 years old. The second part of the study intended to show how reputations of the victims and perpetrators affected blame. Each participant was given one sheet describing a reputation manipulation, good and bad, a packet about demographics, and responsibility scales (Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M., 2009).

Fundamental Attribution Error

Results from the study showed fundamental attribution error tendencies. “Fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency to overestimate personal influences and to underestimate situational or environmental influences” (Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M., 2009). It was found that participants saw the victim responsible if they had a bad reputation and scored higher on the rape myth acceptance (IRMS) (Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M., 2009). Additionally, men held women victims more accountable for the rape. The participants tended to place blame when reputations and personalities were discussed beforehand. Likewise, participants held the attacker accountable when no background information was given.

Article II

Hypotheses

Untied, Orchowski, Mastroleo, & Gidycz (2012) created a study to measure responsibility responses towards victims and perpetrators. “The purpose of this study is to extend previous research examining observer judgments of a hypothetical sexual assault scenario involving a male perpetrator and a female victim by examining how alcohol use by the victim and/or the perpetrator influences the likelihood of providing a positive and a negative social reaction to the victim” (Untied, Orchowski, Mastroleo, & Gidycz, 2012). The proposed theories were that sober women are less responsible, sober attackers are more responsible, men tend to blame the victim, and that women will place blame when the victim is in a negative social situation (Untied, Orchowski, Mastroleo, & Gidycz, 2012). The goal was to measure and record the differences between social drinking and sexual assault responsibility.

Methods

The participants in the study included 295 students, men and women, from introductory psychology classes at Midwestern University. Many students were in their first or second year of college and 18-19 years old. Over the course of two weeks, the participants completed two sessions. “Session 1 had participants completed a series of measures assessing personal characteristics and session 2 randomly assigned them to receive one of four possible sexual assault scenarios” (Untied, Orchowski, Mastroleo, & Gidycz, 2012). The variables included past intimacy, friendship, and different alcohol use situations.

Fundamental Attribution Error

[bookmark: _Hlk21002223]Fundamental attribution error is a factor in this study. This error inclines that people’s behaviors are based on internal factors instead of the situation (Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. ,2019). The participants showed a tendency to hold individuals accountable when character issues occurred. It was found that most students agreed that when drinking, the perpetrator or victim was accountable to the sexual assault. Likewise, men were more like to indicate women responsibility in similar situations. This study clarifies how victims of sexual assault can be blames because of prior character issues.

Biblical Integration

The Bible talks about not judging others and the implications when Christians do. There are several principles that believers need to remember when trying to judge others. Many passages talk about not judging and looking at oneself. The Word explains that in doing those two things, Christians will be on the right path. When believers rely on God’s teachings, they can stop the fundamental attribution error.

The idea of no judgment is one of the principles taught in the Bible. The idea is brought up many times throughout it. Foremost, God teaches Christians to not judge in Mathew. “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged” (Mathew 7:1-2 NLT). That passage pinpoints how believers need to stop judging others. It is a core idea that needs to be remembered when look at the fundamental attribution error. Being nonjudgmental will assist individuals as they look to the situational sides of social issues and stay in line with God’s teachings.

Additionally, John communicates the story of a women caught in adultery and how Jesus responds without judgment (John 8:1-11, NLT). There was a woman brought to a crowd to determine a sentence. While the Pharisees wanted to stone her based on the old laws, Jesus had a different way. He said, “Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone” (John 8:7). Essentially, the Pharisees could cast judgment if there was nothing within themselves. When the option to judge arises, it is imperative to take in everything. Before casting judgment looking at personalities, situational factors, and what the individual judging would do in the same situation is important. That way the fundamental attribution error can be stopped. The only way to do that is to remember biblical principles.

Conclusion

Fundamental attribution error can cause problems when trying to understand an individual’s behavior. Studying the topic has helped researchers understand how people react and think about rape culture. It has been shown to affect how individuals see the victim and place blame. Furthermore, the study by Cohn, Dupuis, & Brown showed that the fundamental attribution error can have negative impacts on victims. The study showed how witness took personalities in to factor instead of the situation. Furthermore, Untied, Orchowski, Mastroleo, & Gidycz (2012) studies witnesses respond to victim responsibility. They also found that responsibility came to the victim when drinking was involved. Both studies showed the flaws of the fundamental attribution error and how many individuals rely on it. Judging others on personality and past issues is not a biblical principle. The Bible teaches love, forgiveness, and no judgment. It is imperative that believers look at research and God’s word to combat the fundamental attribution error. That way witnesses to situations can remember to look at all the information. When that happens, the tendency to have the fundamental attribution error will reduce.

References

1. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. (2019). Social psychology. New York, NY: Pearson.
2. Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M. (2009). In the Eye of the Beholder: Do Behavior and Character Affect Victim and Perpetrator Responsibility for Acquaintance Rape? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(7), 1513–1535. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00493.x
3. Untied, A. S., M.A., Orchowski, L. M., PhD., Mastroleo, N., PhD., & Gidycz, C. A., PhD. (2012). College students’ social reactions to the victim in a hypothetical sexual assault scenario: The role of victim and perpetrator alcohol use. Violence and Victims, 27(6), 957-72. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1891/0886-6708.27.6.957