Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Sexting has been linked to a range of sexual behaviors, including sexual assault; however, the mechanism through which sexting increases the risk for sexual assault is unknown. One explanation for the role of sexting in sexual assault could be due to gender differences in sexting and sexual communication. The current study examined men’s and women’s perceptions of sexting as a form of communicating sexual intent and sexual consent, and how sexting influences attributions of responsibility and blame in sexual encounters and alleged sexual assault. Additionally, considering the role of alcohol in sexual assault, the study also examined how both sexting and alcohol influenced individuals’ perceptions of a sexual scenario. Method:Using a factorial vignette design, N = 525 college students (48.6% women; 71% Caucasian) were randomly assigned to one of four vignettes regarding a sexual scenario between a man and woman (John and Jennifer), with sexting and/or alcohol involved. Results: Significant differences in sexting vs. texting conditions were seen for perceptions of sexual intent (F = 147.28, p< .01) and sexual consent (F = 105.86, p< .01). Men were more likely to perceive that sexual consent was exchanged (F = 9.16, p< .01) and to interpret the sext as a consent cue (F = 7.82, p< .01). John was attributed more responsibility/blame across all conditions (F = 154.58, p< .01); however, Jennifer was attributed more blame in the sexting conditions (F = 9.16, p< .01). Conclusion: Results suggest that despite sexting as a signal of sexual interest, there are differences in how men and women perceive sexting as sexual consent, which may influence the risk for sexual assault. Additionally, there are differential effects of sexting for men vs. women, such that women may be judged more harshly for sexting, suggesting evidence of the sexual double standard. Results offer important implications for sexual assault prevention and sexual gender roles.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This research investigated how individual differences impact ratings of blame for sexual harassers and their victims and whether or not any relationships could be explained by defensive attribution theory. This theory claims that blame is a product of the relevance of the situation and the actors within that situation. Participants completed an online questionnaire in which they read hypothetical cases of sexual harassment. They rated the relevance of the situation and the individuals in the scenarios, attributed blame to hypothetical harassers and victims, as well as other information expected to predict ratings of blame. Results suggested that 1) defensive attribution theory explains the effects of sexual harassment proclivity and gender on blame for sexual harassers; 2) defensive attribution theory may require revision to include the impact of situational relevance on personal relevance, and 3) blame for harassers and victims is explained by two different processes. This research has legal and organizational implications.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This paper will introduce the theory of blame and demonstrate how it relates to self-blame. I will begin by first highlighting two competing definitions of blame. The first of these forms, upheld by two prominent philosophers, Thomas Scanlon and Linda Radzik, looks at blame as impairing relationships. Both philosophers study how wrongful actions cause impairments in relationships and argue that blame is utilized to the extent of that impairment. Reactive emotions, according to them, are simply a byproduct of blame and not of quintessential importance to the theory of blame. The second form of blame, presented by Susan Wolf and R. Jay Wallace, refutes the Impaired Relations Theory and, instead, studies the theory of blame in accordance with reactive emotions. These two philosophers contend that blame is the reactive attitudes one has, or should have, towards wrongful actions. These emotions are, therefore, required in order for an agent to be blamed. This paper will first thoroughly outline the differences between these two forms of blame. It will then introduce the notion of self-blame with respect to these four philosophers’ viewpoints and compare them to one another. It will ultimately conclude by revealing how the Reactive Attitudes Theory represents a more accurate account of self-blame.