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 thesis investigates blame avoidance behaviour in a debate between two Swedish parliamentary parties, the Social Democrats and the Moderates. By examining the debate, using R. Kent Weavers (1986) blame avoidance theory, we can better understand how political parties react to blame and what discursive strategies they apply to avoid it. Furthermore, by analyzing how political representatives avoid blame, its arguments and its language, we can gain a better picture of their incentives and what drives them to avoid blame. The thesis concludes that the Social Democrats and the Moderates use a combination of different types of blame avoidance strategies. Above all, they use strategies that Christopher Hood (2011) defines as presentational strategies and agency strategies, but they are also exploiting the 2015 refugee crisis to avoid blame. Boin et al (2009) defines this as 'crisis exploitation' and is used by the parties to shift focus from their own mistakes by framing the crisis as an external cause beyond their control. The thesis also concludes that the increased mediatization of politics has led to greater risks for parties of being exposed to blame. The parties have thus become more sensitive to exposure to blame, which in turn increases their incentives to adopt blame avoidance strategies. Finally, the thesis takes on a critical approach to blame avoidance. The practice of blame avoidance in public debate risks undermining the possibilities for an open, transparent, and genuine discussion about serious problems. Additionally, the rhetoric risks reinforcing an already polarized and antagonistic culture between parties and their voters.