A 10-Year Update of “Review and Critique of Empirical Studies of Rape Avoidance”

• Date: 01 March 2007
• Author: Sarah E. Ullman
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854806297117
• Published date: 01 March 2007
• Subject Matter: Articles

411

LITERATURE REVIEW

A 10-YEAR UPDATE OF “REVIEW AND

CRITIQUE OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF

RAPE AVOIDANCE”

SARAH E. ULLMAN

University of Illinois at Chicago

Ullman’s review of empirical studies of rape avoidance is updated to illuminate what has been learned in the past 10 years

and what is needed to continue to promote this important form of secondary prevention. Following a brief historical review,

empirical studies of resistance strategies to sexual assaults since 1997 are reviewed. Studies of the effects of situational fac-

tors, rapist types, and victim-offender relationships on women’s resistance are included. Selected literature on self-defense

training and rape prevention related specifically to women’s resistance also are reviewed, as these related areas of research

have grown substantially in the past decade and can inform intervention and prevention efforts with women.

Recommendations for future research and practice are offered.

Keywords: rape; resistance strategies; women; secondary prevention; rape avoidance

To understand women’s resistance to rape in contemporary society, it is important to

understand the historical and legal context of the phenomenon of women’s resistance to

rape. Resistance strategies refer to verbal and physical actions that women may engage in

when confronted by potential rapists. Historically, women were held responsible for resist-

ing rape to the utmost according to English common law, which is the basis of contempo-

rary rape laws that have evolved in the United States. Rape has been defined as vaginal

penetration of a female against her will by force or threat of force without her consent. The

FBI continues to define rape in this way, although legal definitions in many states have been

broadened in recent years. The traditional definition emerged from the fact that historically,

women were the legal property of their fathers and husbands, and rape was considered a

crime against a man’s property (i.e., his wife or daughter), which was damaged or spoiled

by the offense. Resistance, especially physical resistance, was considered evidence of non-

consent. Injuries suffered in the struggle were expected to corroborate women’s complaint

that the sexual activity was indeed nonconsensual (i.e., rape). Although rape laws have been

reformed and legal standards expecting victim resistance have been loosened in most states,

victims are often still expected to resist so that others believe that sexual activity was indeed

without their consent. Police and prosecutors still use evidence regarding victim’s use of

resistance as a way to support the credibility of rape claims (Abarbanel, 1986). The expec-

tation that women resist serves to hold women responsible for controlling male sexual

aggression and contributes to victim blaming in cases of rape.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34, No. 3, March 2007 411-429

DOI: 10.1177/0093854806297117

© 2007 American Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Please address correspondence to Sarah E. Ullman, PhD, Department of Criminal

Justice (M/C 141), University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60607-7140;

e-mail: seullman@uic.edu.

412 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

The early study of the causes of crime victimization by victimologist Menachem Amir

(1971) is reflected in his theory of victim precipitation, which states that at least some rapes

are the result of behaviors engaged in by victims that led to or precipitated their attacks.

In the 1970s, second-wave feminists attacked this theory for blaming victims (Russell,

1975) and decried the poor treatment of rape victims by criminal justice and medical sys-

tems (Bevacqua, 2000). Except for cases where women were raped by strangers in cir-

cumstances resulting in excessive injuries (seen as proof that the sexual activity was forced)

with no morally questionable behavior on their part (e.g., being out in public at night, drink-

ing, and so forth), rape victims were considered less than innocent in their own attacks. Few

women (typically less than 10%) reported attacks to police, and this remains true today

(Bachman, 1998; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003). Two thirds of rapes are commit-

ted by men known to their victims, according to large-scale epidemiological studies

(Kilpatrick, Edmunds, & Seymour, 1992; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) that show most rapes

do not fit the stranger stereotype.

Because rape was defined as a crime committed mostly by strangers until the mid-1980s,

most rape prevention efforts were focused on telling women to restrict their behavior (e.g.,

refrain from going out at night, wearing revealing clothing, or drinking). Although this advice

has been criticized for restricting women’s freedom and full participation in society, it is still

recommended in some self-help books and by some police officers. Advice to women to

restrict their behavior is also supported by lifestyle and routine activities theories of victimiza-

tion, which posit that one’s risk of being victimized results from being out at night in places

where situational opportunities, vulnerable targets, and motivated offenders come together

without capable guardians to protect potential victims (see Meier & Miethe, 1993, for a

review). These theories assume that most crime is committed by strangers or people who do

not know each other well, outside, at night, in public places. However, we now know that most

violent crime is committed by people known to each other and very often in the home. This is

especially true of rape and other violence against women (Bachman, 1994). Police tradition-

ally warned women not to fight back if attacked by a rapist. They were instead told to play

along or try to talk their way out of rapes (Storaska, 1975)—strategies that subsequent research

shows to be ineffective (Ullman, 1997).

Despite contemporary awareness of the high prevalence of date rape and acquaintance

rape, first revealed by Mary Koss’s (1985) national survey of college students in the mid-

1980s and followed by other community-wide prevalence surveys showing that most rapes

occur between intimates and acquaintances (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Tjaden &

Thoennes, 2000), victims are still disbelieved, stigmatized, and held responsible for their

attacks (Ullman, 1999a). These negative reactions are harmful to women’s psychological

functioning and may lead to or reinforce their own self-blame for being raped (Ullman,

Townsend, Filipas, & Starzynski, 2007).

In response to this problem, rape prevention programs have been developed, many of

which are in college settings, but they focus mostly on increasing knowledge about rape and

changing attitudes that are believed to contribute to rape, such as rape myths, which are false

beliefs about rape (e.g., women who dress in provocative clothing are asking to be raped).

Although rape-supportive attitudes are held by many in society, there is no evidence that pre-

vention programs can effectively change these attitudes over long periods of time or that

changing these attitudes will necessarily lead to less rape (Anderson & Whiston, 2005;

Brecklin & Forde, 2001; Flores & Hartlaub, 1998; Sochting, Fairbrother, & Koch,2004). On

the other hand, research consistently shows that certain resistance strategies can be used by