We examined why persons blame some rape victims more than others. In two experiments, college students read nine rape descriptions and assigned blame for each incident. Students were randomly assigned to read only one version of each description in which we manipulated a variety of variables thought to influence victim blame. In addition, participants rated whether each assault victim might have derived sexual pleasure from the event (both experiments) and whether the victim should have foreseen the event (Experiment 2). Across experiments, variations within several of the rape descriptions (e.g., victim respectability, assault “enjoyment”) produced differences in victim blaming. More importantly, in Experiment 1, judgments of whether the victim experienced sexual pleasure strongly predicted blame attributions. In Experiment 2, regression analyses demonstrated that both perceptions of pleasure and foreseeability predicted victim blaming within and across incidents. On the basis of these data, we propose an explanation of victim blaming for rape that relies on two theoretical variables: intentions and foreseeability. Neither the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis or the Just World Theory accounts for the findings, but the data generally fit Shaver's (1985) theory of the attribution of blame.

Three functional assessment methods were conducted with four adults with severe to profound mental retardation who exhibited stereotypic behavior. We compared the results of an informant assessment using the MAS, an A-B-C direct observation assessment, and a functional analysis in which variables were manipulated in four experimental conditions. The results of the A-B-C observations and the MAS indicated a sensory function of the stereotypic behavior for all subjects. The functional analysis results were more ambiguous, with a different pattern of results for each subject. These results are discussed with regard to the practicality and utility of each functional assessment procedure conducted in an applied setting.

Two peer evaluation measures, the Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI) and positive and negative nominations were compared in a sample of 260 children in grades 1 to 5. Stabilities of the measures were assessed over a 4-month period. In the total sample, PEI factors and negative nominations were more stable than positive nominations, and PEI Aggression and Withdrawal scores were more stable than negative nominations. PEI Aggression and Withdrawal scores were more stable in grades 3 and 5 than in grade 1, and the Likability factor was more stable in grades 2 to 5 than in grade 1. Negative nominations were most strongly correlated with the PEI Aggression factor, and positive nominations were more strongly correlated with Likability than with Aggression. Implications for the use of these nomination measures are discussed.

No abstract