0+=,9:#6*0(3#*0,5*,96;85(30+=,9:#6*0(3#*0,5*,96;85(3
&63;4, 99;, 8:0*3,
,96:(659:,8047(:/?(5+#,>;(399(;3:,96:(659:,8047(:/?(5+#,>;(399(;3:
/809:(),3"6.(305
!;8+;,%50<,890:?68:/=,9:
*86.(30575=,+;
#(0.,++0965
%50<,890:?6-6=(
9(0.,(++0965;06=(,+;
6336=:/09(5+(++0:065(3=6829(:/::799*/63(8<(376,+;4991
!(8:6-:/,!9?*/636.?644659(5+:/,#6*0636.?644659
",*644,5+,+0:(:065",*644,5+,+0:(:065
"6.(305/809:(),3(5+++0965#(0.,,96:(659:,8047(:/?(5+#,>;(399(;3:
0+=,9:#6*0(3#*0,5*,96;85(3
&63998:0*3,
/::79+6068.
<(03()3,(:/::799*/63(8<(376,+;4991<63099
$/098:0*3,09)86;./::6?6;-68-8,,(5+67,5(**,99)?&(376#*/63(8:/(9),,5(**,7:,+-6805*3;906505
0+=,9:#6*0(3#*0,5*,96;85(3)?(5(;:/680@,+(+40509:8(:686-&(376#*/63(868468,05-684(:06573,(9,
*65:(*:(&(376#*/63(89:(--4,4),8(:9*/63(8<(376,+;
,96:(659:,8047(:/?(5+#,>;(399(;3:,96:(659:,8047(:/?(5+#,>;(399(;3:
6<,8!(.,66:56:,6<,8!(.,66:56:,
',=6;3+302,:6:/(52:/,,7(8:4,5:6-,/(<068(3#*0,5*,9(5+:/,633,.,6-;4(50:0,9+;*(:065
(5+#6*0(3#*0,5*,9(:!;8+;,68:/=,9:-68A5(5*0(39;7768:6-:/09!861,*:
$/09(8:0*3,09(<(03()3,050+=,9:#6*0(3#*0,5*,96;85(3/::799*/63(8<(376,+;4991<63099
68
“He Is Not a Monster”: Himpathy and Sexual Assault
*
CHRISTABEL ROGALIN
Purdue University Northwest
SAIGE ADDISON
University of Iowa
ABSTRACT
Himpathy occurs when privileged men accused of sexual assault or
harassment receive extra attention and sympathy (Manne 2018, 2020).
While himpathy is closely associated with the #MeToo movement, little
research has explicitly explored the concept. In this review, we integrate
himpathy with the literatures on rape myths, victim blaming, and
attributions, detailing the empirical work that provides support for the
theoretical claims of himpathy. By connecting himpathy to the existing
empirical evidence, we illustrate that himpathy provides a conceptual
framework for understanding how male perpetrators deny allegations of
sexual assault perpetration, shift blame to the victims, and reframe the
situation to exonerate themselves. Because of the prevalence of sexual
violence and the victim blaming associated with these crimes, it is important
to develop a clear understanding of how the numerous (male) perpetrators
of these crimes are able to reframe the allegations against them.
KEY WORDS Himpathy; Sexual Assault; Victim Blaming; Rape Myths; Attributions
I’ll put this on TV because I’m so persuasive and I’m so smart, and I’m such a
wonderful guy. . . . I will charm the pants off of America at the trial
—Johnny Depp (Saha 2022)
Depp’s confident sentiment mirrors the denials of many privileged men accused of sexual
assault
1
and/or domestic violence. Men accused of rape and sexual assault often express
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christabel Rogalin, 1401 S. U.S.
Highway 421, Westville, IN, 46391; crog[email protected]; (219) 785-5222.
The authors would like to thank Hubert Izienicki and the anonymous reviewers for their
comments on previous drafts. Thanks also go to the Department of Behavioral Sciences and the
College of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences at Purdue University Northwest for the
financial support of this project.
1
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
Rogalin and Addison Himpathy and Sexual Assault 69
similar ideas—that they are the good guys, definitely not criminals or rapists. Increasing
numbers of men may make similar claims as the popularity of the #MeToo movement
continues to empower victims/survivors
2
to speak about their experiences and identify
perpetrators. This has simultaneously prompted a backlash among the accused men, with
denials of culpability and claims of wrongful accusations. In this way, the narrative of a
wrongfully accused man emerges, developing into repeated claims that he is a good guy,
whose reputation could be ruined by the allegations.
Especially for those accused of sexual assault who hold a privileged status (White,
middle- to upper-class, cisgender, heterosexual), men encounter a disproportionate amount
of sympathy, or himpathy, compared to victims/survivors. As introduced by Manne (2018,
2020), himpathy occurs when privileged men accused of sexual assault or harassment
receive extra attention and sympathy. This excess of sympathy toward male perpetrators
serves as a reminder that sexual assault is a unique crime that frequently exonerates (male)
perpetrators and subsequently or simultaneously blames the victims/survivors for any harm
that occurs. In this paper, we review existing empirical work that provides support for
himpathy (Manne 2018, 2020). Although there are vast literatures on blame-shifting and
rape myths, which implicitly support the theoretical validity of himpathy, these literatures
have not been aggregated to discuss how they underlie himpathy.
Scholars are starting to explicitly acknowledge himpathy’s existence (c.f., Banet-
Weiser 2021; Barber, Bridges, and Nelson 2019; Boyle 2019; Sweeny 2020), incorporating
it into empirical work (c.f., Andreasen 2021; Bedera 2023; Boyle and Rathnayake 2020;
Dodson et al. 2023; Miller 2019; Miller et al. 2022; Pals 2021). Thus, although there is
only emerging research specifically utilizing himpathy, there is a vast literature within
psychology and sociology that supports the tenets of himpathy. In this paper, we focus
specifically on the literatures on rape myths, victim blaming, and attributions, outlining
empirical work that provides support for the theoretical claims of himpathy.
3
In doing so,
we are drawing attention to the pervasiveness of himpathy and the negative societal and
organizational implications of himpathy. Societally, himpathy upholds gendered norms
and inhibits social progress toward a more equitable society. Male perpetrators continue to
receive disproportionately lenient consequences—in terms of social sanctions, media
portrayals, and formal punishments. In this way, men benefit from their privileged
positions while marginalized groups observe another instance of structural inequity, and
victims/survivors may become more reluctant to report after observing how their credibility
could be questioned and undermined. Organizationally, himpathy allows a culture of
impunity to persist, promoting institutional betrayal (Bedera 2023), failing to disrupt power
and violence in institutions and workplaces. Taken together, these societal and
organizational effects illustrate how himpathy is a social problem, composed of several
processes. These processes shift blame and alleviate responsibility for the perpetrator and
paint a problematic picture of what happens when victims/survivors report.
Furthermore, the prevalence and impact of sexual assault makes himpathy a topic
worthy of further investigation. Indeed, one in four women experiences attempted or
completed rape in her lifetime, and an even higher percentage—nearly 44% of women—
experience sexual violence in their lives (Smith et al. 2018). These figures highlight that
sexual violence is a widespread problem, and as such, it is important to understand that
2
Midwest Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], Iss. 1, Art. 7
https://scholar.valpo.edu/mssj/vol26/iss1/7
DOI: 10.22543/2766-0796.1115
70 Midwest Social Sciences Journal Vol. 26 (2023)
himpathy may underlie how the numerous (male) perpetrators of these crimes are able to
reframe the allegations against them.
HIMPATHY
Himpathy occurs when privileged men accused of sexual assault or harassment receive
extra attention and sympathy (Manne 2018, 2020). Manne argues that when himpathy takes
place, there is a “flow of sympathy away from female victims toward their male
victimizers” (2018:23). This notion of himpathy is similar to Kimmel’s (2008, Kimmel and
Davis 2011) culture of protection. The culture of protection represents how the larger
society sides with male perpetrators, not the female victims/survivors. The larger society
forms a “protective bubble of community support” (Kimmel 2008:63) for male
perpetrators, by looking the other way, trivializing the behavior, and blaming the
victim/survivor. To be sure, this protective bubble does not extend to all men, just those
who are entitled and privileged within society (e.g., White, middle- to upper-class,
cisgender, heterosexual).
Himpathy employs exonerating narratives, which explain away the perpetrator’s
actions, while simultaneously erasing the true victim/survivor of the crime. The privileged
man’s story is rewritten in a way that simultaneously benefits him and disadvantages his
victim/survivor. Although all men can be included in the process of himpathy, only highly
privileged (White, middle- to upper-class, cisgender, heterosexual) men benefit from
himpathy. For highly privileged men to be perceived as the “golden boys” and “good
boys,” less-privileged men must be seen as the “true villains of the story” (Manne
2018:179). Pepin’s (2016) study of media portrayals of intimate partner violence
corroborates this point by showing that Black men are more likely to be framed as criminals
compared to White men. In addition, articles about White men were more likely to include
excuses and justifications for their actions, compared to articles about Black men. This
“reinforces negative tropes about Black men, privileges White men, and ultimately
disadvantages women” (p. 133). In this way, White men are, again, framed as the “good
boys” while less-privileged men are villainized (and women are victimized), meaning that
himpathy contributes not only to gender-based violence but also to racial inequalities in
the media. This is a serious and significant inequity for perpetrators and for
victims/survivors seeking justice, and as observed in the Depp–Heard trial, the media can
have a substantial impact on the outcome of a case.
Manne (2018) argues that there is a “strenuous collective effort” (p. 178) within
society to uphold men’s innocence or give them the benefit of the doubt. As a society, we
cast exonerating narratives, in which we doubt the stories of victims/survivors and err on
the side of the perpetrators, which leads to testimonial injustice. Testimonial injustice
occurs when those who are less privileged are perceived as less credible—when the stories
of men are believed over the stories of women. This includes the tendency to assume that
women are lying or hysterical, instead of questioning whether men are trustworthy and
honest. Following Fricker (2007), Manne (2018) argues that simply being a member of a
less privileged group (i.e., woman, non-White) is enough for a person to experience
testimonial injustice. Again, this is inequitable and problematic, and it raises questions
3
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
Rogalin and Addison Himpathy and Sexual Assault 71
about the viability of legal recourse for victims/survivors when they are not believed as
often as (privileged) men are.
Lastly, himpathy exists, in part, because of our cultural stereotypes about who
rapists are and who they are not (Manne 2018). “Golden boys,” or privileged men more
generally, are thought not to be rapists. When men use the excessive sympathy that they
automatically receive to cast themselves as the victims of sexual assault cases in which
they are really the perpetrators, they perversely turn the assault victims/survivors into the
villains of the narrative. This creates exonerating narratives for perpetrators of sexual
assault (who fall into the “golden boy” category) and allows for victim blaming, since the
real victim is framed as the villain bringing hardship against the new victim (who is really
the perpetrator!). Himpathy lends itself to “herasure,” in which women’s stories are not
truly heard. In this way, a privileged man is able to both blame the victim as well as
“excus[e] oneself from responsibility by proclaiming to be a good person” (Johnson 2006
as cited by Pepin 2016:126).
“HE IS NOT A RAPIST”
The case of Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexual assault in 2016, made international
headlines when he received merely six months in county jail, with three years of probation.
Judge Aaron Persky drew upon character letters in making his sentencing decisions. In his
character letter, Turner’s father argued that “these verdicts have broken and shattered him
and our family in so many ways. His life will never be the one that he dreamed about and
worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his
20 plus years of life” (Sweeny 2020:126). Turner’s childhood friend argued within her
character letter that “Brock is not a monster. He is the furthest thing from anything like
that, and I have known him much longer than the people involved in this case. I don’t think
it’s fair to base the fate of the next ten + years of his life on the decision of a girl who
doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank to press charges against him”
(Sweeny 2020:148).
In her analysis of character letters, Sweeny (2020) highlights how rape myths are
embedded and, additionally, how himpathy is also woven within these letters. The purpose
of character letters is for family and friends of the offender to persuade the judge, prior to
sentencing, to issue the lightest sentence possible. Within these letters, the offender’s good
character and bright future are highlighted. Character letters, by definition, focus on how
the offender is suffering, rather than the victim. As Sweeny (2020) points out, character
letters in and of themselves are not problematic, but it is how they influence judges and
their decisions that is problematic. Himpathetic statements embedded within the character
letters shift the victim/survivor of the crime to the offender. Himpathetic statements can
also be found within rape myths. Rape myths are “prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs
about rape, rape victims and rapists” (Burt 1980:217). While specific myths vary, as a
group, they “blame the victim for their rape, express a disbelief in claims of rape, exonerate
the perpetrator and allude that only certain types of women are raped” (Grubb and Turner
2012:455). Rape myths are “attitudes and beliefs that are generally false but are widely and
persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women”
4
Midwest Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], Iss. 1, Art. 7
https://scholar.valpo.edu/mssj/vol26/iss1/7
DOI: 10.22543/2766-0796.1115
72 Midwest Social Sciences Journal Vol. 26 (2023)
(Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1994:134). Rape myths contribute to victim blaming (Ryan 2019)
by amplifying the supposed importance of the “real rape” script (Ryan 2011). A “real rape”
is assumed to involve a (male) stranger hiding in the shadows or in the bushes who attacks
an innocent victim/survivor (woman). The victim/survivor is expected to be physically
injured, to immediately report the incident to the police, and to seek medical help (Franklin
and Garza 2021). Rape myths serve to create an idea of what typically occurs during a rape
and what should (not) count as rape; they (de)legitimize sexual assault situations depending
on the extent to which those situations fully conform to the “real rape” script. Subsequently,
rape myths shift the blame for the incident onto the victim/survivor (Grubb and Turner
2012), a point which we will elaborate upon in the next section.
In addition, the stereotype of who a rapist is and, more importantly, who a rapist is
not, is embedded within rape myths. For example, “men from nice middle-class homes
almost never rape” and “rapists are usually sexually frustrated individuals” are two indices
from the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMAS; Payne, Lonsway, and Fitzgerald
1999:49). These himpathetic statements highlight the notion that (privileged) men are not
rapists. In their examination of rape myths present in local papers, Sacks, Ackerman, and
Shlosberg (2018) found that 4.1% of stories included a reference that “he’s not that kind
of guy.”
In their analysis of rape myths surrounding a Steubenville, Ohio case,
4
Kosloski,
Diamond-Welch, and Mann (2018) included several characteristics of the perpetrator.
Specifically, they included “adolescent males don’t know better,” “good guys who make a
mistake shouldn’t be penalized/penalized heavily,” and “a conviction ruins men’s lives for
an innocent mistake” (p. 169) in their coding scheme. They argue that these specific myths
help to reduce the (perceived) guilt of the perpetrator—that these myths help to shift the
concern from the victim to the perpetrator. This shift of victimhood from the victim to the
perpetrator is an aspect of himpathy, which we discuss later in the paper. Kosloski and
colleagues (2018) found that when these rape myths were present in articles, about half of
them supported these themes and the articles tended to focus on how the incidents ruined
the lives of the perpetrators and/or how the perpetrators were all-star football players.
BLAME-SHIFTING
Himpathy uses blame-shifting (Lanier and Green 2006), or victim blaming, to shift the
blame from the perpetrator to the victim/survivor (Manne 2018, 2020). Although victim
blaming is observed for several types of crimes (Bieneck and Krahé 2011; Felson and
Palmore 2018; Reich, Pegel, and Johnson 2021), the prevalence, negativity, and stigma of
victim blaming are especially pronounced and detrimental in instances of sexual assault
(Bieneck and Krahé 2011; Gravelin, Biernat, and Bucher 2019; Orchowski, Untied, and
Gidycz 2013; Reich et al. 2021). In cases of rape and sexual assault, victim blame not only
shifts responsibility and negative attention toward the victim/survivor but also tends to
displace the blame from the offender.
This blame-shifting can occur because of elements of language or through cognitive
processes regulating the allocation of blame to involved parties. Through language,
increased linguistic focus on the victim/survivor of sexual assault increases victim blame,
5
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
Rogalin and Addison Himpathy and Sexual Assault 73
whereas focusing on the perpetrator reduces it (Niemi and Young 2016); however, even
though focusing on the perpetrator may serve to reduce victim blame, the perpetrator is not
always the focus of rape reporting in media. Northcutt Bohmert, Allison, and Ducate
(2019), using a university newspaper, found that passive voice is frequently used when
discussing rape and sexual assault (75–100%). Using passive voice separates the actor (the
rapist) from the actions (the rape), thereby removing perpetrator responsibility. In addition,
39% of rape articles and 14% of sexual assault articles placed responsibility on
victims/survivors, whereas less responsibility was placed on victims of other crimes.
Combined, the frequent use of passive voice and elevated rape/sexual assault
victim/survivor responsibility illustrates two ways in which victims/survivors of rape are
blamed in writing at a higher level than victims/survivors of other crimes. Victim-blame
attributions are affected by whether the victim/survivor was drinking (Venema 2019),
whether they are perceived to be promiscuous (Donovan 2007; Genna 2017), and whether
the victim/survivor knew the perpetrator (Persson and Dhingra 2021). Rape myths, which
we discussed earlier, tend to underlie the factors that increase victim blame (see Grubb and
Harrower 2008 for a review of this literature).
5
In sexual assault cases, victim blaming may involve statements or nonverbal
indicators that imply that the victim/survivor’s appearance (Deitz, Littman, and Bentley
1984; Genna 2017), alcohol consumption (Venema 2019), or personal (ir)responsibility
contributed to their victimization (Grubb and Harrower 2008, 2009). Manne (2018) argues
that assigning credibility deficits to the victim/survivor and surpluses to the perpetrator
functions such that the victim/survivor’s allegation of sexual assault is not believed. Not
only is credibility disputed for victims/survivors and perpetrators, but
culpability/responsibility also interacts to influence who or, more often, to what extent
perceivers think the victim/survivor is to blame for the assault.
Next, as mentioned previously, rape myth acceptance
6
(RMA) is an underlying
individual attitude that has been widely explored in relation to victim blaming. Rape myths
“create a false narrative about what victims/survivors can or should do during an assault”
(Kosloski et al. 2018:171). The IRMAS is one of several scales that measure rape myths
by having respondents select their level of agreement with statements that reflect rape
myths. Several of the measure’s subscales reflect victim blaming with specific items such
as “A woman who dresses in skimpy clothes should not be surprised if a man tries to force
her to have sex,” “Women tend to exaggerate how much rape affects them,” and “If a
woman doesn’t physically resist sex—even when protesting verbally—it really can’t be
considered rape,” which serve to shift responsibility to the victim/survivor and trivialize or
limit what can be considered rape (Payne et al. 1999). In research on victim blaming, this
scale and others show that higher RMA is related to attributing more responsibility to the
victim/survivor (Mason, Riger, and Foley 2004), increased victim blaming (Newcombe et
al. 2008; Sleath and Bull 2012; Starfelt et al. 2015), and minimization of the severity of the
rape in some situations (Newcombe et al. 2008).
7
Rape myths tend to focus on what the
victim/survivor did (or did not do) that led to the rape; thus, clothing, resistance levels, and
drinking behaviors are rape myths that may have precipitated the person’s victimization
(Payne et al. 1999). These scales focus on rape victims/survivors’ behaviors, illustrating
that rape myths are about victims/survivors’ behavior rather than on the wrongdoings of
6
Midwest Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], Iss. 1, Art. 7
https://scholar.valpo.edu/mssj/vol26/iss1/7
DOI: 10.22543/2766-0796.1115
74 Midwest Social Sciences Journal Vol. 26 (2023)
the perpetrators. Accordingly, it is possible to see how RMA would have a relationship
with a tendency to blame the victim/survivor.
Besides RMA, another individual attitude that is frequently measured alongside
blame attributions is belief in a just world (JWB). In relation to victims/survivors, JWB is
a tendency to believe that good things happen to good people whereas bad things happen
to bad people (Catlin et al. 2021), thus rendering the world just and explaining who
deserves to experience negative events. Within JWB, people have a tendency to view
themselves as good and therefore deserving of good things happening to them. Conversely,
bad things, like rape, happen to bad people, which those bad people deserve (Lerner, Miller,
and Holmes 1976).
Blame attributions are also affected by the relationship between the victim/survivor
and perpetrator. The literature frequently differentiates between stranger rape and
acquaintance rape because they affect victim blame differently. Stranger rape conforms
more with the stereotypical image of a “real rape”; however, this scenario is less common
than acquaintance-rape situations. In some cases, victim/survivors of stranger rape are seen
as significantly less blameworthy for their victimization than are acquaintance-rape
victim/survivors (Sleath and Bull 2010, 2012), yet this is not always observed (Felson and
Palmore 2018; Newcombe et al. 2008). The results are mixed on whether stranger or
acquaintance rape truly elicits more victim-blaming reactions (Grubb and Harrower 2008),
although it is clear in both circumstances that the perpetrator does not receive the entirety
of the blame. Instead, respondents prefer offering at least some leniency to the perpetrator.
Similarly, Johnson, Kuck, and Schander (1997) used a rape myth scale with three
categories: “excusing the man,” “blaming the woman,” and “justifications for acquaintance
rape.” Respondents not only agreed with the “excusing the man” scale—indicating the
presence of rape myths—but also agreed much more with the items that excused the
offender rather than the items that blamed the victim. This suggests that respondents
preferred to “excuse the man” rather than “blame the woman.” Although blaming women
continues, this comparison of subscales reveals an interesting preference to excuse or
exonerate the man instead of a preference for derogating the victim/survivor. Additional
literature suggests that social media posts (Whiting et al. 2021) and even victims/survivors
(Weiss 2009) are prone to providing excuses for perpetrators’ behaviors, which indicates
the pervasiveness of the problem of himpathy.
Across the literature about victim blaming, numerous factors are examined for their
relationship with victim blaming. Most seek to identify what attitudes or elements increase
victim blame (Grubb and Harrower 2008), but it is noteworthy that victim blame is one
way that blame is displaced from the perpetrator and begins to transform the
victim/survivor into a more blameworthy target and in turn activates himpathy in favor of
the perpetrator because of the consequences he could experience, which ultimately leads
to victim shifting.
VICTIM SHIFTING
Christine Blasey Ford is not the victim here—Brett Kavanaugh is.
8
—Cheryl K. Chumley (2018)
7
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
Rogalin and Addison Himpathy and Sexual Assault 75
Himpathy shifts the victim of the assault from the actual victim/survivor to the perpetrator,
victim shifting, or what Flusberg and colleagues (2022) call victim framing. Victim
framing occurs when the perpetrator of the sexual assault is perceived as the real victim.
According to Manne (2018), in order for the perpetrator to become the victim/survivor in
the narrative, either victim blaming or victim erasure happens to the female
victim/survivor. A rape victim/survivor “may be seen as unforgiving, as trying to take
something away from her rapist” (p. 204). This framing is consistent with the trend of
journalists calling victims/survivors accusers rather than victims (Katz 2004, 2015). In
Franiuk, Seefelt, and Vandello’s (2008) content analysis of the rape myths found in the
writings about the Kobe Bryant case, they found that accuser was used significantly more
often in headlines, compared to victim and alleged victim. In their sample, in looking at
headlines that used accuser, alleged victim, or victim, 91% of the headlines used accuser.
Ardovini-Brooker and Caringella-MacDonald (2002) performed a content analysis
of magazine descriptions of 10 rape cases and found that there were more sympathetic
statements toward the offenders than toward the victims/survivors in the write-ups of the
rape cases. When the victim/survivor was White and the perpetrator was not White, then
there was more offender blaming. They also found that there was less offender blame when
the offender was of a higher social class than the victim/survivor. Again, this illustrates
how himpathy acts inequitably to further privilege some men while excluding men with
marginalized identities.
Manne (2018) makes it clear that not all men receive himpathy, only privileged
men. In analyzing the media coverage surrounding Brock Turner and Cory Batey,
9
both
college athletes convicted of sexual assault, Teebagy (2018) argues that whiteness allows
male perpetrators to escape responsibility. The media tended to be more victim-focused in
their coverage of Corey Batey’s case (Black football player) compared to their coverage of
Brock Turner’s case (White swimmer). In addition, the media tended to be more
sympathetic toward Brock Turner than to Corey Batey. Although Black athlete-students
are more privileged than Black nonathlete students, both Teebagy (2018) and Ash and
colleagues (2017) argue that once a student’s athlete status no longer benefits the
institution, the student’s privileged status as an athlete disappears.
Victim blaming can easily lead to victim shifting, which plays a role in himpathy,
because it allows for people to blame someone for the violent act. Within our culture,
existing rape myths make it easier for people to blame the victim/survivor instead of the
perpetrator. If women are responsible for their rape, notions of a just world are reinforced.
As we discussed above, the just world hypothesis, or JWB, argues that people desire to see
the world as a just place—that people get what they deserve (Lerner et al. 1976). If women
are seen as responsible for being raped, then this means that the male offenders are not
responsible. Furthermore, it is not just people in general who perceive women as being
responsible. For example, Donde (2017), investigating the attributions of blame by
victim/survivors of rape, found that 0% of the sample indicated that the male involved was
“totally” to blame and 52% (N = 67) believed that the male involved was “not at all” to
blame. In other words, none of the victims/survivors believed that the perpetrator was
completely at fault for the crime and half of them believed that the male perpetrator had no
responsibility for the crime. Instead, victims/survivors perceived themselves to be the ones
8
Midwest Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], Iss. 1, Art. 7
https://scholar.valpo.edu/mssj/vol26/iss1/7
DOI: 10.22543/2766-0796.1115
76 Midwest Social Sciences Journal Vol. 26 (2023)
most at fault, assigning the least amount of blame to the male perpetrator. While shocking,
this result underscores the insidious nature of himpathy.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In this review, we discuss elements of the sexual assault literature that corroborate the
philosophical concept of himpathy. Himpathy refers to privileged (White, middle- to
upper-class, cisgender, straight) male perpetrators of sexual assault receiving undue
sympathy and exoneration for their offenses by way of discrediting/blaming the
victim/survivor. We explicate how rape myths and blame-shifting are associated with
discrediting or attributing responsibility to victims/survivors. Underlying attitudes (RMA,
JWB) of perceivers and the context/circumstances of the sexual assault are also discussed
in relation to their role in facilitating victim blame. Subsequently, we explain how victim
shifting, particularly in journalism and media, conceptually transition the perpetrator into
the victim of allegations. Simultaneously, we note that victims/survivors are reframed as
irresponsible, as liars, or even as maliciously intending to ruin men’s reputations.
The concept of himpathy is a compelling one, yet little empirical work has been
done to directly test the theoretical claims. Future work should explore the role of himpathy
in why women do not report victimization of sexual assault. Although one out of every five
women has experienced attempted rape in her life (Smith et al. 2018), it remains one of the
most unreported crimes in the United States (Guidry et al. 2021). A growing number of
scholars are turning to social media to investigate the reasons why women do not report
sexual violence (c.f. Guidry et al. 2021; Reich, Anderson, and Maclin 2022). Within this
literature, evidence of himpathetic statements exists. For example, in their analysis of
tweets using the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport, Guidry and colleagues (2021) reported a
tweet that recorded “Because the police told me, ‘Why don’t you wait a few more days and
then decide if you want to ruin this man’s life’ ” (p. 132). Using similar methodology,
Reich and colleagues (2022) in coding tweets with the same hashtag, found that some
victims/survivors of sexual violence did not report because of a lack of faith in the legal
system—they believed that the perpetrators would be protected rather than them. In
addition, who the perpetrator was dissuaded victims/survivors from disclosing—because
of power differences. The negative reactions of others also was given as the reason for not
reporting, including “You know he has a wife and kids, right? You wouldn’t want to ruin
his reputation” (Reich et al. 2022:488). Some victims/survivors expressed a desire to
protect the perpetrators: “Didn’t want to publicly ruin someone’s life, even though they
privately ruined mine” (Reich et al. 2022:489). Whiting and colleagues’ (2021) analysis of
tweets found that others pressured the victim/survivor to protect the perpetrator: “The
police told me [. . .] why damage a young man’s life like that?” (p. 761) and “I was begged
not to ruin his life” (p. 761).
Within social psychology, there are several concepts that future scholars could also
consider in conjunction with himpathy. As pointed out by Sweeny (2020), both the
fundamental attribution error and the halo effect play a role within himpathy. The
fundamental attribution error explains that negative characteristics or actions by strangers
are explained in dispositional terms (e.g., they are a bad person) whereas familiar people’s
9
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
Rogalin and Addison Himpathy and Sexual Assault 77
mistakes are perceived to be situationally influenced (e.g., they are having a bad day). Thus,
a known perpetrator’s actions may be seen as caused by their social environment whereas
an unknown (i.e., stranger) perpetrator may be described as a “bad,” predatory person. The
halo effect is the idea that a person who is good in one domain is assumed to be good in all
domains, such that a positive first impression or a strong ability in one area leads others to
believe that the person is a good person in general (Nisbett and Wilson 1977). Johnny Depp
certainly benefited from the halo effect since early in the trial when he emerged as the fan
favorite because of his performance in other domains; thus, because Depp is a good guy,
benefiting from the halo effect, he becomes a relevant example of an individual who is
being wrongly defamed and therefore deserves himpathy for his emergent reputational
victimization.
Although we have provided a few potential directions for future study, there are
certainly many other directions scholars can take. Regardless of the future direction of this
work, we strongly believe that the study of himpathy is critically important, given that the
focus of much work is on the victims/survivors and not the perpetrators (Thapar-Björkert
and Morgan 2010). Echoing a point made by Seabrook and Ward (2019), by focusing on
the perpetrator, we can “re-center the conversation about sexual assault prevention around
perpetrators” (p. 1483).
ENDNOTES
1. There are several ways to define rape, sexual assault, and sexual coercion. In this
review, we draw upon the Uniform Crime Report, which defines rape as any
penetration or oral penetration of the victim/survivor without their consent (Uniform
Crime Report n.d.). Sexual assault is broadly defined as any nonconsensual sexual act
under the law, including when capacity to consent is absent (U.S. Department of
Justice 2023). Sexual coercion is “unwanted sexual penetration that occurs after a person is
pressured in a nonphysical way” (Smith et al. 2018:1).
These are among the many definitions
for rape, sexual assault, and sexual coercion. Although an individual’s identification
with the term or a researcher’s operationalization of these terms may vary, these
terms provide a background to build upon. The varying definitions are not a focus of
this review, and authors’ descriptions of rape, sexual assault, and sexual coercion will
therefore be accepted as they are.
2. Before we continue, it is important for us to consider the consequences of using the
label of victim versus survivor. Although the normative approach is to use the label of
victim (Hockett and Saucier 2015), following the lead of Boyle and Rogers (2020),
for this review, we use the label of victim/survivor. In their study of college students
who experienced sexual assault, 44% of their respondents self-identified as both
victim and survivor, compared to 25% identifying solely as survivor and 11%
identifying solely as victim. This is also consistent with Thompson’s (2000)
interviews of women who survived rape who use both victim and survivor to describe
themselves and their experiences. The decision about which label to use in describing
women who are raped or experience sexual assault by men is not something to be
10
Midwest Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], Iss. 1, Art. 7
https://scholar.valpo.edu/mssj/vol26/iss1/7
DOI: 10.22543/2766-0796.1115
78 Midwest Social Sciences Journal Vol. 26 (2023)
taken lightly (see Dunn 2005; Hockett and Saucier 2015; Schwark and Bohner 2019;
Williamson and Serna 2018).
3. Though outside the scope of this paper, other existing literatures are connected to
himpathy, including the literature on deserving victims (e.g., Charman 2020;
Charman and Williams 2022) and on missing White woman syndrome (e.g. Hawes,
Slakoff, and Anguelov 2023).
4. In the Steubenville, Ohio, case, two high school football players were accused and
convicted of rape. Part of the controversy of the case arose because the
survivor/victim did not remember the event but videos and social media spread
information about the case and contributed to the legal case (Oppel 2013).
5. For a review of the individual characteristics and attitudes that affect female victim
blame, see Ferrão and Gonçalves (2015). For more general reviews of the literature
on victim blaming, see Gravelin et al. (2019), Grubb and Harrower (2008), and Grubb
and Turner (2012).
6. Many additional individual attitudes and characteristics influence victim and
perpetrator blaming, but that is outside the scope of this paper. Gender (Ferrão and
Gonçalves 2015), prior sexual victimization (Catlin et al. 2021), ambivalent sexism
(Angelone, Mitchell, and Smith 2018; Angelone et al. 2021; Ferrão and Gonçalves
2015) and endorsement of traditional gender role attitudes (Angelone, Mitchell, and
Grossi 2015; Sleath and Bull 2010) influence victim and/or perpetrator blaming.
7. RMA also shows a relationship to perpetrator blame. Perpetrator blame is sometimes
measured alongside victim blame to determine which actor receives more blame.
High RMA is fairly consistently related to victim blaming, but high RMA is
sometimes associated with increased perpetrator blame (Newcombe et al. 2008) or
decreased perpetrator blame (Sleath and Bull 2012; Starfelt et al. 2015). Despite this,
victim blame attributions do show a more consistent relationship to RMA.
8. When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, Christine
Blasey-Ford spoke out publicly about being raped by Kavanaugh. In the midst of his
confirmation to the Supreme Court, the publicity around this case drew national
attention (Stolberg and Fandos 2018).
9. In the Cory Batey case, Cory Batey—a Black male college football player—was
convicted of aggravated rape of a White victim. He received a harsh sentence
compared to another highly publicized rape case at the time. Batey was one of four
men who was heavily prosecuted in order to serve as an example to the campus
community about the university’s stance on campus rapes (Associated Press 2016).
REFERENCES
Andreasen, Maja Brandt. 2021. “ ‘Rapeable’ and ‘Unrapeable’ Women: The Portrayal of
Sexual Violence in Internet Memes about #MeToo.” Journal of Gender Studies
30:102–13. doi:10.1080/09589236.2020.1833185.
Angelone, D. J., Nicole Cantor, Tiffany Marcantonio, and Meredith Joppa. 2021. “Does
Sexism Mediate the Gender and Rape Myth Acceptance Relationship?” Violence
Against Women 27:748–65. doi:10.1177/1077801220913632.
11
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
Rogalin and Addison Himpathy and Sexual Assault 79
Angelone, D. J., Damon Mitchell, and Laura Grossi. 2015. “Men’s Perceptions of an
Acquaintance Rape: The Role of Relationship Length, Victim Resistance, and
Gender Role Attitudes.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30:2278–303.
doi:10.1177/0886260514552448.
Angelone, D. J., Damon Mitchell, and Danielle Smith. 2018. “The Influence of Gender
Ideology, Victim Resistance, and Spiking a Drink on Acquaintance Rape
Attributions.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33:3186–210.
doi:10.1177/0886260516635318.
Ardovini-Brooker, Joanne, and Susan Caringella-MacDonald. 2002. “Media Attributions
of Blame and Sympathy in Ten Rape Cases.” The Justice Professional 15:3–18.
doi:10.1080/08884310212826.
Ash, Erin, Jimmy Sanderson, Chenjerai Kumanyika, and Kelly Gramlich. 2017. “ ‘Just
Goes to Show How These Hoes Try to Tear Men Down’: Investigating Twitter
and Cultural Conversations on Athletic Ability, Race, and Sexual Assault.”
Journal of Sports Media 12:65–87. doi:10.1353/jsm.2017.0003.
Associated Press. 2016. “Cory Batey Sentenced to 15 Years for Dorm Rape.”
ESPN.com, June 15. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/
17083346/former-vanderbilt-commodores-player-cory-batey-sentenced-15-
years-dorm-rape.
Banet-Weiser, Sarah. 2021. “ ‘Ruined’ Lives: Mediated White Male Victimhood.”
European Journal of Cultural Studies 24:60–80. doi:10.1177/1367549420985840.
Barber, Kristen, Tristan Bridges, and Joseph Derrick Nelson. 2019. “Mitigating the
Harms of Masculinity: A Symposium on the APA Guidelines for Psychological
Practice with Boys and Men.” Men and Masculinities 22:905–8.
doi.org:10.1177/1097184X19874855.
Bedera, Nicole. 2023. “I Can Protect His Future, but She Can’t Be Helped: Himpathy and
Hysteria in Administrator Rationalizations of Institutional Betrayal.” The Journal
of Higher Education 94:1–24. doi:10.1080/00221546.2023.2195771.
Bieneck, Steffen, and Barbara Krahé. 2011. “Blaming the Victim and Exonerating the
Perpetrator in Cases of Rape and Robbery: Is There a Double Standard?” Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 26:1785–97. doi:10.1177/0886260510372945.
Boyle, Kaitlin M., and Kimberly B. Rogers. 2020. “Beyond the Rape ‘Victim’-’Survivor’
Binary: How Race, Gender, and Identity Processes Interact to Shape Distress.”
Sociological Forum 35:323–45. doi:10.1111/socf.12584.
Boyle, Karen. 2019. #MeToo, Weinstein and Feminism. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Pivot.
Boyle, Karen, and Chamil Rathnayake. 2020. “#HimToo and the Networking of
Misogyny in the Age of #MeToo.” Feminist Media Studies 20:1259–77.
doi:10.1080/14680777.2019.1661868.
Burt, Martha R. 1980. “Cultural Myths and Supports for Rape.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 38:217–30. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217.
Catlin, Mary, Kyle C. Scherr, Christopher P. Barlett, Erin Jacobs, and Christopher J.
Normile. 2021. “Bounded Blame: The Effects of Victim-Perpetrator Relationship
and Victimization History on Judgments of Sexual Violence.” Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 36:NP8800–23. doi:10.1177/0886260519846863.
12
Midwest Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], Iss. 1, Art. 7
https://scholar.valpo.edu/mssj/vol26/iss1/7
DOI: 10.22543/2766-0796.1115
80 Midwest Social Sciences Journal Vol. 26 (2023)
Charman, Sarah. 2020. “Making Sense of Policing Identities: The ‘Deserving’ and the
‘Undeserving’ in Policing Accounts of Victimisation.” Policing and Society
30:81–97. doi:10.1080/10439463.2019.1601721.
Charman, Sarah, and Emma Williams. 2022. “Accessing Justice: The Impact of
Discretion, ‘Deservedness’ and Equitable Allocation of Policing Resources.”
Criminology & Criminal Justice 22:404–22. doi:10.1177/17488958211013075.
Chumley, Cheryl K. 2018. “Christine Blasey Ford Is Not the Victim Here—Brett
Kavanaugh Is.” Washington Times, September 21. https://www.washingtontimes
.com/news/2018/sep/21/christine-blasey-ford-not-victim-here-brett-kavana/.
Deitz, Sheila R., Madeleine Littman, and Brenda J. Bentley. 1984. “Attribution of
Responsibility for Rape: The Influence of Observer Empathy, Victim Resistance,
and Victim Attractiveness.” Sex Roles 10:261–80. doi:10.1007/BF0028778.
Dodson, Samantha J., Rachael D. Goodwin, Jesse Graham, and Kristina A. Diekmann.
2023. “Moral Foundations, Himpathy, and Punishment Following Organizational
Sexual Misconduct Allegations.” Organization Science 34(5)::1938–64.
doi:10.1287/orsc.2022.1652.
Donde, Sapana D. 2017. “College Women’s Attributions of Blame for Experiences
of Sexual Assault.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 32:3520–38.
doi:10.1177/0886260515599659.
Donovan, Roxanne A. 2007. “To Blame or Not to Blame: Influences of Target Race and
Observer Sex on Rape Blame Attribution.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence
22:722–36. doi:10.1177/0886260507300754.
Dunn, Jennifer L. 2005. “ ‘Victims’ and ‘Survivors’: Emerging Vocabularies of Motive
for ‘Battered Women Who Stay.’ ” Sociological Inquiry 75:1–30.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00110.x.
Felson, Richard B., and Christopher Palmore. 2018. Biases in Blaming Victims of Rape
and Other Crime.” Psychology of Violence 8:390–99. doi:10.1037/vio0000168.
Ferrão, Maria Clara, and Gabriela Gonçalves. 2015. “Rape Crimes Reviewed: The Role
of Observer Variables in Female Victim Blaming.” Psychological Thought 8:47–
67. doi:10.23668/psycharchives.1965.
Flusberg, Stephen J., James van der Vord, Sarah Q. Husney, and Kevin J. Holmes. 2022.
“Who’s the ‘Real’ Victim? How Victim Framing Shapes Attitudes Toward Sexual
Assault.” Psychological Science 33:524–37. doi:10.1177%2F09567976211045935.
Franiuk, Renae, Jennifer L. Seefelt, and Joseph A. Vandello. 2008. “Prevalence of Rape
Myths in Headlines and Their Effects on Attitudes Toward Rape.” Sex Roles
58:790–801. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9372-4.
Franklin, Cortney A., and Alondra D. Garza. 2021. “Sexual Assault Disclosure: The
Effect of Victim Race and Perpetrator Type on Empathy, Culpability, and Service
Referral for Survivors in a Hypothetical Scenario.” Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 36:2327–52. doi:10.1177/0886260518759656.
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice. Oxford University Press.
Genna, Alice. 2017. “Attribution of Blame in Rape: The Role of Race.” Master’s thesis,
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_etds/13.
13
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
Rogalin and Addison Himpathy and Sexual Assault 81
Gravelin, Claire R., Monica Biernat, and Caroline E. Bucher. 2019. “Blaming the Victim
of Acquaintance Rape: Individual, Situational, and Sociocultural Factors.”
Frontiers in Psychology 9:2422. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422.
Grubb, Amy, and Julie Harrower. 2008. “Attribution of Blame in Cases of Rape: An Analysis
of Participant Gender, Type of Rape and Perceived Similarity to the Victim.”
Aggression and Violent Behavior 13:396–405. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006.
Grubb, Amy, and Julie Harrower. 2009. “Understanding Attribution of Blame in Cases of
Rape: An Analysis of Participant Gender, Type of Rape and Perceived Similarity to the
Victim.” Journal of Sexual Aggression 15:63–81. doi:10.1080/13552600802641649.
Grubb, Amy, and Emily Turner. 2012. “Attribution of Blame in Rape Cases: A Review
of the Impact of Rape Myth Acceptance, Gender Role Conformity and Substance
Use on Victim Blaming.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 17:443–52.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002.
Guidry, Jeanine P. D., Ashlee N. Sawyer, Kellie E. Carlyle, and Candace W. Burton.
2021. “#WhyIDidntReport: Women Speak Out about Sexual Assault on Twitter.”
Journal of Forensic Nursing 17:129–39. doi:10.1097/JFN.0000000000000335.
Hawes, Morgan B., Danielle C. Slakoff, and Nikolay Anguelov. 2023.
“Understanding the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Crisis: An
Analysis of the NamUs Database.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 34:184–
207. doi:10.1177/08874034221098909.
Hockett, Jericho M., and Donald A. Saucier. 2015. “A Systematic Literature Review
of ‘Rape Victims’ Versus ‘Rape Survivors’: Implications for Theory,
Research, and Practice.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 25:1–14.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.003.
Johnson, Allan G. 2006. Privilege, Power, and Difference. 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Johnson, Barbara E., Douglas L. Kuck, and Patricia R. Schander. 1997. “Rape Myth
Acceptance and Sociodemographic Characteristics: A Multidimensional
Analysis.” Sex Roles 36:693–707.
Katz, Jackson. 2004. “She’s Kobe Bryant’s Alleged Victim, Not His ‘Accuser.’ ”
www.ncdsv.org/images/SheKobeBryantAllegedVictim.pdf.
Katz, Jackson. 2015. “Let’s Stop Calling Bill Cosby’s Victims ‘Accusers.’ ” Women’s
eNews, January 21. https://womensenews.org/2015/01/lets-stop-calling-bill-
cosbys-victims-accusers/.
Kimmel, Michael S. 2008. Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New
York: HarperCollins.
Kimmel, Michael S., and Tracy Davis. 2011. “Mapping Guyland in College.” Pp. 3–15 in
Masculinities in Higher Education: Theoretical and Practical Considerations,
edited by J. A. Laker and T. Davis. Routledge.
Kosloski, Anna E., Bridget K. Diamond-Welch, and Olivia Mann. 2018. “The Presence
of Rape Myths in the Virtual World: A Qualitative Textual Analysis of the
Steubenville Sexual Assault Case.” Violence and Gender 5:166–73.
http://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0067.
Lanier, Cynthia A., and Bradley A. Green. 2006. “Principal Component Analysis of the
College Date Rape Attitude Survey (CDRAS): An Instrument for the Evaluation
14
Midwest Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], Iss. 1, Art. 7
https://scholar.valpo.edu/mssj/vol26/iss1/7
DOI: 10.22543/2766-0796.1115
82 Midwest Social Sciences Journal Vol. 26 (2023)
of Date Rape Prevention Programs.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma 13:79–93. doi:10.1300/J146v13n02_06.
Lerner, Melvin J., Dale T. Miller, and J. G. Holmes. 1976. “Deserving and the
Emergence of Forms of Justice.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
9:133–62. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60060-X.
Lonsway, Kimberly A., and Louise F. Fitzgerald. 1994. “Rape Myths. In Review.” Psychology
of Women Quarterly 18:133–64. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x.
Manne, Kate. 2018. Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Oxford University Press.
Manne, Kate. 2020. Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women. Crown.
Mason, Gillian E., Stephanie Riger, and Linda A. Foley. 2004. “The Impact of Past
Sexual Experiences on Attributions of Responsibility for Rape.” Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 19:1157–71. doi:10.1177/0886260504269094.
Miller, Audrey. K. 2019. “ ‘Should Have Known Better than to Fraternize with a Black Man’:
Structural Racism Intersects Rape Culture to Intensify Attributions of Acquaintance
Rape Victim Culpability.” Sex Roles 81:428–38. doi:10.1007/s11199-019-1003-3.
Miller, Henry “Cody,” Shelby Boehm, Kathleen Colantonio-Yurko, and Brittany Adams.
2022. “Himpathy, Herasure, and Down Girl Moves: A Critical Content Analysis
of Sexual Assault in Young Adult Literature.” Journal of Literacy Research
54:298–321. doi:10.1177/1086296X221116856.
Newcombe, Peter A., Julie Van Den Eynde, Diane Hafner, and Lesley Jolly. 2008.
“Attributions of Responsibility for Rape: Differences across Familiarity of
Situation, Gender, and Acceptance of Rape Myths.” Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 38:1736–54. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00367.x.
Niemi, Laura, and Liane Young. 2016. “When and Why We See Victims as Responsible:
The Impact of Ideology on Attitudes toward Victims.” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 42:1227–42. doi:10.1177/0146167216653933.
Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy DeCamp Wilson. 1977. “The Halo Effect: Evidence for
Unconscious Alteration of Judgments.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 35:250–56. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250.
Northcutt Bohmert, Miriam, Kayla Allison, and Caitlin Ducate. 2019. “ ‘A Rape was
Reported’: Construction of Crime in a University Newspaper.” Feminist Media
Studies 19:873–89. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1509104.
Oppel, Jr., Richard A. 2013. “Ohio Teenagers Guilty in Rape that Social Media Brought
to Light.” New York Times, March 17. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/
teenagers-found-guilty-in-rape-in-steubenville-ohio.html.
Orchowski, Lindsay M., Amy S. Untied, and Christine A. Gidycz. 2013. “Social
Reactions to Disclosure of Sexual Victimization and Adjustment among
Survivors of Sexual Assault.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28:2005–23.
doi:10.1177/0886260512471085.
Pals, Andrea. 2021. “Himpathy? The Impact of Defendant Social Status on Perceptions
of a Rape Legal Case.” Master’s thesis, Department of Psychology, University of
Kentucky. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/psychology_etds/188.
Payne, Diana L., Kimberly A. Lonsway, and Louise F. Fitzgerald. 1999. “Rape Myth
Acceptance: Exploration of Its Structure and Its Measurement Using the Illinois
15
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
Rogalin and Addison Himpathy and Sexual Assault 83
Rape Myth Acceptance Scale.” Journal of Research in Personality 33: 27–68.
doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238.
Pepin, Joanna Rae. 2016. “Nobody’s Business? White Male Privilege in Media
Coverage of Intimate Partner Violence.” Sociological Spectrum 36:123–41.
doi:10.1080/02732173.2015.1108886.
Persson, Sofia, and Katie Dhingra. 2021. “Moderating Factors in Culpability Ratings and
Rape Proclivity in Stranger and Acquaintance Rape: Validation of Rape Vignettes
in a Community Sample.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37:NP11358–85.
doi:10.1177/0886260521991294.
Reich, Catherine M., Gwendolyn D. Anderson, and Richard Maclin. 2022. “Why I
Didn’t Report: Reasons for Not Reporting Sexual Violence as Stated on
Twitter.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 31:478–96.
doi:10.1080/10926771.2021.1912873.
Reich, Catherine M., Grace A. Pegel, and Alixandra B. Johnson. 2021. “Are Survivors of
Sexual Assault Blamed More than Victims of Other Crimes?” Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 37:NP18394–416. doi:10.1177/08862605211037423.
Ryan, Kathryn M. 2011. “The Relationship between Rape Myths and Sexual Scripts: The
Social Construction of Rape.” Sex Roles 65:774–82. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0033-2.
Ryan, Kathryn M. 2019. “Rape Mythology and Victim Blaming as a Social Construct.” Pp.
151–74 in Handbook of Sexual Assault and Sexual Assault Prevention, edited by
W. T. O’Donohue and P. A. Schewe. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23645-8_9.
Sacks, Meghan, Alissa R. Ackerman, and Amy Shlosberg. 2018. “Rape Myths in the
Media: A Content Analysis of Local Newspaper Reporting in the United States.”
Deviant Behavior 39:1237–46. doi:10.1080/01639625.2017.1410608.
Saha, Joy. 2022. “Howard Stern Accuses Johnny Depp of Being a ‘Narcissist’ and
‘Overacting’ During Testimony.” Salon, April 26. https://www.salon.com/2022/
04/26/johnny-depp-howard-stern-narcissist-overacting-accent/.
Schwark, Sandra, and Gerd Bohner. 2019. “Sexual Violence—’Victim’ or ‘Survivor’:
News Images Affect Explicit and Implicit Judgments of Blame.” Violence Against
Women 25:1491–509. doi:10.1177/1077801218820202.
Seabrook, Rita C., and L. Monique Ward. 2019. “Bros Will Be Bros? The Effect of
Fraternity Membership on Perceived Culpability for Sexual Assault.” Violence
Against Women 25:1471–90. doi:10.1177/1077801218820196.
Sleath, Emma, and Ray Bull. 2010. “Male Rape Victim and Perpetrator Blaming.”
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25:969–88. doi:10.1177/0886260509340534.
Sleath, Emma, and Ray Bull. 2012. “Comparing Rape Victim and Perpetrator
Blaming in a Police Officer Sample: Differences between Police Officers with
and without Special Training.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 39:646–65.
doi:10.1177/0093854811434696.
Smith, Sharon G., Xinjian Zhang, Kathleen C. Basile, Melissa T. Merrick, Jing Wang,
Marcie-Jo Kresnow, and J. Jieru Chen. 2018. The National Intimate Partner
and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief—Updated Release.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
16
Midwest Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], Iss. 1, Art. 7
https://scholar.valpo.edu/mssj/vol26/iss1/7
DOI: 10.22543/2766-0796.1115
84 Midwest Social Sciences Journal Vol. 26 (2023)
Starfelt, Louise C., Ross McD. Young, Katherine M. White, and Gavin R. M. Palk. 2015.
“Explicating the Role of Sexual Coercion and Vulnerability Alcohol Expectancies
in Rape Attributions.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30:1965–81.
doi:10.1177/0886260514549466.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay, and Nicholas Fandos. 2018. “Brett Kavanaugh and Christine
Blasey Ford Duel with Tears and Fury.” New York Times, September 27.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-
hearings.html.
Sweeny, JoAnne. 2020. “ ‘Brock Turner is not a Rapist’: The Danger of Rape Myths in
Character Letters in Sexual Assault Cases.” UMKC Law Review 89:121–60.
Teebagy, Elizabeth. 2018. “White Privilege and Racial Narratives: The Role of Race in
Media Storytelling of Sexual Assaults by College Athletes.” Journal of Gender,
Race, and Justice 21:479–500.
Thapar-Björkert, Suruchi, and Karen J. Morgan. 2010. “ ‘But Sometimes I Think . . . They Put
Themselves in the Situation’: Exploring Blame and Responsibility in Interpersonal
Violence.” Violence Against Women 16:32–59. doi:10.1177/1077801209354374.
Thompson, Monica. 2000. “Life After Rape: A Chance to Speak?” Sexual and
Relationship Therapy 15:325–43. doi:10.1080/713697439.
Uniform Crime Report. n.d. Rape. Crime in the United States 2013. Retrieved May 22,
2023. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-
crime/rape#:~:text=The%20revised%20UCR%20definition%20of,rape%20and%
20incest%20are%20excluded.
U. S. Department of Justice. 2023. Sexual Assault. The United States Department of
Justice, May 8. https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault.
Venema, Rachel M. 2019. “Making Judgments: How Blame Mediates the Influence of
Rape Myth Acceptance in Police Response to Sexual Assault.” Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 34:2697–722. doi:10.1177/0886260516662437.
Weiss, Karen G. 2009. “ ‘Boys Will Be Boys’ and Other Gendered Accounts: An
Exploration of Victims’ Excuses and Justifications for Unwanted Sexual Contact and
Coercion.” Violence Against Women 15:810–34. doi:10.1177/1077801209333611.
Whiting, Jason B., Jaclyn Cravens Pickens, Abby Luthi Sagers, Morgan PettyJohn, and
Brian Davies. 2021. “Trauma, Social Media, and #WhyIDidntReport: An
Analysis of Twitter Posts about Reluctance to Report Sexual Assault.” Journal of
Marriage and Family Therapy 47:749–66. doi:10.1111/jmft.12470.
Williamson, Jessica, and Kelly Serna. 2018. “Reconsidering Forced Labels: Outcomes of
Sexual Assault Survivors versus Victims (and Those Who Choose Neither).”
Violence Against Women 24:668–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217711268.
17
Rogalin and Addison: He is not a Monster
