A survey was carried out by 60 participants to happen out whether the ascription of incrimination is more towards the culprit or the victim of colza when the effects of gender and intoxicant are considered. The participants were asked to take portion in make fulling out one questionnaire, which was indiscriminately chosen from four questionnaires that included a sketch of a colza instance. The participants were non given a clip bound and all of the consequences were collected and analysed. The consequences showed that the ascription of incrimination was more towards the drunken victim than the culprit and more incrimination was attributed towards the male victim than the female victim when the victim was raped.
The purpose of the survey was to analyze the ascription of incrimination towards the culprit and victim of colza when the effects of gender and intoxicant are considered. The term colza means that when the assault has taken topographic point and no consent ( individual does non hold by pick to travel along with the sex ) was given by the victim to hold sex, where the culprit could be known by the victim or a complete alien. This can be an act of force and a manner of ruling an person and the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 was set up to beef up the jurisprudence for these instances and to forestall them.
It was found that in most surveies, people attribute more duty to the culprit alternatively of the victim, where the ascriptions are low. Studies were carried out to see whether in any circumstance the ascription of incrimination would be shifted from the culprit to the victim and some of these surveies have been talked about below.
Amir, 1971 ; Shupe, 1954, cited in Richardson, 1982 found that intoxicant ingestion was an of import factor when look intoing colza instances but is difficult to grok the influences of this factor, in footings of perceptual experience on the victim and culprit. Lerner ( 1970 ) , cited in Richardson, 1982 established that when the victim was drunk, there would be more duty by the perceiver put onto the victim alternatively of the culprit. This is compared to when the wrongdoer is intoxicated, the duty is shifted to the victim as it is said that it is difficult to separate between what is right from what is incorrect when intoxicated ( Amir, 1971 ) . Peoples may believe that an drunk culprit will hold less duty than a sober culprit because the poisoning is an external factor for control instead than internal factors, such as hostile aggression.
By and large, Davies P, Pollard P and Archer J ( 2006 ) looked at female colza victims, non male colza victims, as most male colza victims do non describe these assaults because they are in fright of having homophobic reactions ( Mezey & A ; King, 1989, cited in Davies, 2006 ) . Hodge and Cantor ( 1989 ) , cited in Davies 2006 found that the males who reported these sexual assaults said they were heterosexual even if they were non because they thought this would do the people believe they were guiltless. This is because the male victims believed that if they said they were homosexual the percipient would automatically believe they enjoyed the experience. Another survey by Davies et Al. ( 2001 ) , found that males react negatively towards gay male colza victims because it is perceived that cheery male victims are seen to hold enjoyed the colza compared to heterosexual male victims, so cheery male colzas are seen as less serious. In another recent survey ( Burczyk & A ; Standing, 1989 cited in Davies, 2006 ) , it was by and large considered that there was less sympathy for male colza victims than for female colza victims and the work forces were more likely to fault male victims than female victims.
A survey was carried out by Struckman-Johnson ( 1988 ) , cited in Davies 2006, to see the per centum of male and females who admitted they were sexually assaulted by another female, as it is difficult to come to footings with a female coercing a male down to hold sex with them, as they are non strong plenty. It was concluded that 16 % of work forces had experienced this and 22 % of adult females had experienced this excessively. Another survey ( Smith, Pine, & A ; Hawley, 1988, cited in Davies, 2006 ) , showed that males said that male colza victims who were assaulted by a adult female, would happen the assault enjoyable ( 47 % ) , compared with the female per centum of 9 % . This is because work forces ‘s positions of female sexual assaults on males are positive as work forces should be ready to hold sex at any clip, when a adult female is willing to.
It was found ( L’Armand & A ; Pepitone, 1982 cited in Pollard, 1992 ) that more ascription was directed at the victim more than the culprit when the sexual assault was a date-rape ( the victim knew the culprit ) than when the culprit was a alien. This is because the experience would be less traumatic to the victim if it was a date-rape compared to a alien colza.
Based on past research it was predicted that males who are victims of colza would hold more incrimination attributed to them than female victims. The 2nd hypothesis was that there would be more blasted attributed to the drunken victim than the sober victim, when they were raped. The 3rd hypothesis was that there would be no gender differences for the victim when imputing incrimination towards the culprit. The Forth and concluding hypothesis was when the culprit is sober, there would be more blasted attributed to them than when they are intoxicated.
The type of design method that took topographic point within the experiment was one which involved four questionnaires that had four different sketchs ( scenarios ) ( refer to appendix 2-5 ) . These four questionnaires measured four different conditions, which consisted of two independent variables and two dependent variables. The first independent variable that was manipulated was gender ( male or female ) and the second was intoxicant, which was manipulated at two degrees ; sober or imbibe. The two dependent variables that were measured were victim incrimination and culprit incrimination.
Sixty participants took portion in this survey, who were Psychology Undergraduates from the University of Central Lancashire. The undergraduates were selected by utilizing the chance sampling technique, intending the participants who were taken were at that place and ready at the clip of the survey. There was note of the participant ‘s gender and age split at the clip of the survey.
There were four questionnaires used within the survey, which had four different sketchs ( fictional scenarios ) . The first sketch consisted of a male victim being rummy and acquiring attacked and the 2nd sketch was the opposite where the male victim was wholly sober and got attacked. The 3rd sketch was a female being rummy and acquiring attacked and the Forth and concluding 1 was the female being sober and acquiring attacked. All four were to mensurate ascriptions of victim and culprit incrimination. The inquiries consisted of two victim inquiries and two culprit inquiries and was measured on a 7 point Likert graduated table, where by 1=not justified/no penalty and 7=justified/punishment. A contrary hiting system was used whereby the figure 1 was reversed to be a 7, the figure 2 was a 6, the figure 3 was a 5 etc.
All of the 60 Psychology Undergraduate pupils from the University of Central Lancashire were given a questionnaire, which was indiscriminately chosen from four of the questionnaires. For all of the four questionnaires, there were 15s of each, whereby 15 participants filled in one questionnaire, another 15 filled in another one and the other 30 participants filled in the other questionnaires, which were divided every bit. The participants were non given a clip bound on this and the consequences from each questionnaire were calculated and analysed.
The natural information consists of the 60 participant ‘s tonss for the four inquiries ( two victim and two culprit ) within the questionnaires. The average victim incrimination tonss were calculated along with the average culprit incrimination tonss ( mention to appendix 1 ) . A between 2×2 factorial ANOVA was besides run to see if there was any important consequences between the culprits, victims, gender and intoxicant ( refer to appendix 6for full descriptive statistics ) . A tabular array of consequences has been produced below to demo the agencies and standard divergences for the ascription of incrimination towards the victim for both male and female, when sober and rummy:
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for the ascription of incrimination towards the victim for both male and female under each status ; sober and imbibe
The tabular array shows that the agencies for the female victim when sober compared to the male victim when sober was somewhat higher, intending that more incrimination was attributed to females than males. This was compared to when the victims were drunk ; the male victim had a higher mean score than the female victim, demoing that male victims received more blasted than female victims when rummy. The sums mean for females were besides higher compared to the male victims, therefore the female victims got more blasted overall. The ANOVA for gender was non important ( F ( 1, 56 ) = 0.04, p=0.43 ) , this shows there was no relationship between females and males. The sums mean when the victims were sober was lower than when the victim was intoxicated, intending more incrimination was attributed when a individual was intoxicated compared with when the persons were sober. The ANOVA for intoxicant was important ( F ( 1, 56 ) =3.83, p=.03 ) , which indicates there was a relationship between the single being sober or rummy. The interaction between both of them though was non important ( F ( 1,56 ) =0.29, p=0.59 ) , hence there was no relationship between gender and intoxicant.
A tabular array of consequences has been produced to demo the agencies and standard divergences for the ascription of incrimination towards the culprit for both male and female, when sober and rummy:
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for the ascription of incrimination towards the culprit for both male and female under each status ; sober and imbibe
The tabular array above shows that when the culprit was a male, the mean mark was higher when sober than that of a female culprit when sober, which means the male received more incriminations for the colza. The mean for the female culprit when rummy was lower than the male culprit when rummy, proposing there was more blasted attributed towards the male than the female. The entire agency shows that more incrimination was attributed towards the sober culprit than when the culprit was intoxicated and more incrimination was attributed to the male culprits overall compared to the female culprits. The ANOVA for gender was important ( F ( 1,56 ) =2.68, p=0.05 ) , which shows there was a relationship between the male and female victim when acquiring raped by the culprit. The ANOVA for intoxicant was non important ( F ( 1, 56 ) =0.02, p=0.45 ) , which means whether the culprit was sober or imbibe there was no relationship between these two. The interaction between gender and intoxicant is non important ( F ( 1,56 ) =0.10, p=0.75 ) , intending overall there was no relationship between gender and intoxicant.
The present survey has revealed that there were two important consequences and one of these was when the victim was sober or drunk when having incrimination for the colza. This indicates that there was a relationship between when the victim was sober or rummy and acquiring raped. The relationship was, when looking at the consequences it showed that more incrimination was attributed to the victim when the person was drunk than when the person was sober. This is because the person would set themselves at more hazard when rummy as they would non cognize precisely what they were making intending the person would be more vulnerable to the culprit. This supports the hypothesis besides every bit stated in the debut where by more incrimination would be attributed towards the victim when rummy compared to being sober. The 2nd important consequence was when the victim was either male or female and got attacked by the culprit, whereby the consequences show that when the victim was a male, more incrimination was attributed to that person than when the person was a female. This may be because males are able to support themselves more than females. This consequence is non supported by the hypothesis because it was predicted that there would be no difference in gender of the victim for acquiring the incrimination but there was ; the male victim got more of the incrimination. When mentioning to postpone one for victim incrimination, the overall gender consequence showed that the female victims received more blasted compared to their male victim opposite numbers but this consequence was non important. This supports the hypothesis that more incrimination was attributed to female victims than male victims. This was the same when mentioning to postpone two for culprit incrimination, the overall intoxicant consequences showed that sober culprits received more incriminations but it was besides non important. This besides supported the hypothesis that more incrimination would be attributed to the sober culprit than when the culprit is intoxicated.
The first important consequence where the victim would acquire more incrimination for the colza when the victim was drunk compared to when they were sober is supported by the surveies stated in the debut. The survey which supports this consequence is Lerner ( 1970 ) , cited in Richardson, 1982 whereby the research worker found that the perceiver would set more duty onto the victim when rummy alternatively of sober. This is because the victim is more hazard worthy, as the victim is more vulnerable to rapers. This is the victims ain mistake, as they have got intoxicated themselves, so the perceiver ‘s incrimination is shifted from the culprit to the victim. The 2nd important consequence was the gender of the victim when the culprit is ravishing them, which was non supported by the hypothesis but in one recent survey ( Burczyk & A ; Standing, 1989 cited in Davies, 2006 ) it was. In this survey they found that male colza victims received less sympathy than female colza victims, hence more incrimination was attributed to them. This may be because males are capable of supporting themselves and strong plenty to force the culprit off them. As stated in the debut ( Mezey & A ; King, 1989, cited in Davies, 2006 ) , if the male reported this assault so the male would be seen to be homophobic and more incriminations would be attributed towards them because it was seen that the male would bask it if they were homophobic.
There were many restrictions for this survey, one being that the survey was questionnaire based and a questionnaire is non a good method to utilize. This is because the persons who fill them, out may non understand the inquiry and take any of the replies, this may be why some of the consequences did non turn out to be important. Another ground is that the scenario ‘s that were written were excessively complicated for the reader to understand, so the reader one time once more take any reply, doing the consequences bad. Another restriction could be that all of the participants within the survey were pupils ; hence no pupil would desire to acquire blamed for the colza so would ever set no duty towards the victim. One more restriction was the fact that no gender for the culprit was analysed to see whether this would consequence the consequences or non because if the culprit was a female alternatively of a male, would the perceiver still put more blasted onto the male culprit or non. This may be because it would be difficult for the female culprit to force the male down as Smith, Pine, & A ; Hawley, 1988, cited in Davies, 2006 said that males are stereotypically seen as willing to hold sex with a female when the female wants it at any point.
Future research could be carried out to better on this survey ; one that looks into the attraction of the victim, as the culprits perceptual experience of the victim could increase when the culprit is intoxicated, but besides when sober, which could better the consequences dramatically. One survey ( Landy & A ; Aronson, 1969 ; Sigall & A ; Ostrove, 1975, cited in Richardson, 1982 ) showed that persons with negative features, such as hapless attraction are treated more harshly by the perceiver than if the person had positive features. Some research workers ( Seligman, Brickman & A ; Koulack, 1977 and Tieger, 1981, cited in Pollard, 1992 ) have besides revealed that culprits are more willing to assail attractive females and unattractive females are seen as improbable marks. This implies that the aggressor would have less penalty for this assault as the unattractive victim is more likely to hold provoked the assault. Another type of research that could be looked into is what the victim was have oning because if the female victim was covered up and non demoing any flesh, it is improbable that the male will assail them more than if the female victim was have oning trunkss and a low cut top, which shows more flesh. The concluding type of research that could be looked into to better the consequences is whether the victim resisted or non when the culprit raped the victim. A recent survey ( Wyer, Bodenhausen & A ; Gorman, 1985, cited in Pollard, 1992 ) has suggested that victims who did non defy received more blasted for this than if they did non defy. Another survey ( Krulewitz & A ; Nash, 1979, cited in Pollard, 1992 ) revealed that females attributed more mistake to the victim who had resisted, whereas males attributed less mistake.
In decision, the consequences have shown that it was important between whether the victim was rummy or sober and showed that the drunken victim received more incriminations for the colza than the sober victim. This is because the bibulous victim is more vulnerable to the culprit and is at more hazard of acquiring attacked, as when the victim is intoxicated it is more likely that they do non cognize what they are making. The other consequence showed that there was a significance between the male and female victim when the culprit attacked the victim. This meant that more incrimination was attributed towards the male victim than the female victim when the culprit attacked them.