http://jiv.sagepub.

com/
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/18/9/1055
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0886260503254513
2003 18: 1055 J Interpers Violence
Nadine Recker Rayburn, Margaret Mendoza and Gerald C. Davidson
Perception Paradigm
Bystanders' Perceptions of Perpetrators and Victims of Hate Crime: An Investigation Using the Person

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

can be found at: Journal of Interpersonal Violence Additional services and information for

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/18/9/1055.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Sep 1, 2003 Version of Record >>

at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
10.1177/0886260503254513 ARTICLE JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003 Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES
Bystanders Perceptions of
Perpetrators and Victims
of Hate Crime
An Investigation Using the
Person Perception Paradigm
NADINE RECKER RAYBURN
MARGARET MENDOZA
GERALD C. DAVISON
University of Southern California
This study used the person perception vignette method to examine whether people
perceive hate crime victims as more culpable than non-hate crime victims. In a
between-participants design, participants were randomly assigned to read a vignette
depicting a nonhate crime or a comparable hate crime motivated by the perpetra-
tors hatred for either the victims race, sexual orientation, or religion. Results
showed that participants assigned more blame to the victim in the non-hate crime
condition compared to the victims in each of the three hate crime conditions. In addi-
tion, they perceived the perpetrators as more guilty in each of the three hate crime
conditions compared to the non-hate crime condition. In addition, people with preju-
diced attitudes perceived both hate crime and non-hate crime victims as more culpa-
ble and both hate crime and non-hate crime perpetrators as less culpable than did
unprejudiced people.
Keywords: hate crimes; victim blame; person perception paradigm
Assault, battery, vandalism, arson of homes and businesses, harassment,
destruction of religious property, cross burnings, graffiti, threats, intimida-
tion, rape, and murderif motivated by hatred against a specific social
groupare hate crimes. A hate crime is a criminal act that is perpetrated
against an individual due to his or her actual or perceived race, ethnicity, reli-
gion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender. The intent of
the act is to express condemnation, hate, disapproval, dislike, or distrust for
that group (Herek, 1989). It has been suggested (Levin & McDevitt, 1993)
that hate crimes are worse than nonhate crimes. Hate crimes purportedly tear
1055
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE, Vol. 18 No. 9, September 2003 1055-1074
DOI: 10.1177/0886260503254513
2003 Sage Publications
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
at the moral fabric of our society and harmtheir victims more than compara-
ble nonbias crimes. In particular, it is often argued that hate crimes result in
more psychological damage for the victims thancomparable nonbias crimes.
There is some empirical evidence that hate crimes are more psychologi-
cally damaging to the victims than nonhate crimes. In a questionnaire-based
survey study about the psychological sequelae of sexual orientationbased
hate crimes, Herek, Gillis, and Cogan (1999) compared gays and lesbians
who had been victimized by hate crimes with those victimized by nonbias
crimes. The study concluded that antigay hate crimes are associated with
greater psychological distress for gay men and lesbians than victimization in
nonbias crimes. Hate crime victims reported more symptoms of depression,
anxiety, traumatic stress, and anger and exhibited more changes in worldview
(e.g., The world is a dangerous place) than non-hate crime victims. How-
ever, this finding was not true for bisexuals in the study. Overall, this study
supports the hypothesis that hate crimes may cause more psychological harm
than nonbias crimes for at least certain classes of people.
An important question centers on the reason hate crimes potentially create
more psychological damage in victims than nonhate crimes. Garnets, Herek,
and Levy (1992) proposed that sexual orientationbased hate crimes may
directly link a victims core identity as a gay man, lesbian, or bisexual person
with a heightened sense of vulnerability, which typically follows victimiza-
tion. Consequently, hate crimes may affect the victimbeyond the trauma rou-
tinely associated with criminal victimization because they challenge the vic-
tims sense of self. The same process may apply to victims of religion, race,
gender, and disability hate crimes.
An additional explanation for the alleged differential impact of hate
crimes involves the publics reaction to hate crime victims. Perhaps, bystand-
ers, who are defined as people within the victims social environment, react
more negatively toward the victims of hate crimes than toward the victims of
nonhate crimes. This, in turn, may lead to more psychological suffering on
the part of the hate crime victim.
The reactions of bystanders represent important factors in terms of the vic-
tims postcrime psychological adjustment. Bard and Sangreys (1979) The
Crime Victims Book, as well as empirical studies on the issue (e.g., Burgess
& Holstrom, 1974; Denkers, 1999), points out that a supportive social cli-
mate in the aftermath of a crime facilitates the victims positive adjustment.
Bystanders of crimes represent a part of the social environment. A particu-
larly crucial element in the recovery process appears to be bystanders
nonjudgmental attitudes that reassure the victims innocence (Frazier, 1990).
In addition, lowlevels of social support have been implicated in the sever-
ity of posttrauma reactions (House, Umberson, &Landis, 1988). Acommon
1056 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
response of bystanders is to see victims as responsible for their misfortune
(Lerner, 1970; Ryan, 1976). Victims are often labeled as losers (Bard &
Sangrey, 1979) or simply ignored (Reiff, 1979). Most people believe in a
just world, where everyone gets what they deserve (Lerner, 1970; Lerner
& Miller, 1978). Hence, they conclude that in order to suffer misfortune, the
victimmust deserve the attack in some way. This leads to secondary victim-
ization (i.e., the escalation in victimization as both social supports and the
larger community further blame the victim) (Symonds, 1980). Victims
already possess a tendency to blame themselves for their misfortunes (e.g.,
Bryant & Cirel, 1977; Burgess & Holstrom, 1974; Madea & Thompson,
1974). Consequently, negative societal feedback further exacerbates anger,
depression, and helplessness in the aftermath of the crime.
Thus, the issue of bystandersreactions to hate crime victims is important.
If hate crimes indeed result in a less favorable impression of the victim by
third parties, this may partially explain why they are more psychologically
damaging to the victim. At this point, however, there is a scarcity of research
that addresses the question of whether observers actually do respond differ-
ently when confronted with a hate crime or a nonhate crime. Surprisingly, the
limited research that does exist actually suggests that people react more posi-
tively to victims of hate crimes. A study by Rayburn and Davison (2002)
investigated peoples thoughts and feelings when confronted with a conspir-
acy to commit an antigay hate crime. It used the articulated thoughts in simu-
lated situations paradigm, a think-aloud cognitive assessment method that
allows for on-line evaluation of participants responses to complex, simu-
lated scenarios. The participants in that study listened to an audiotaped sce-
nario either depicting the planning of an antigay hate crime or depicting the
planning of a nonbias crime and articulated their thoughts and feelings in
response to the scenarios. It was found that compared to the non-hate crime
scenario, the hate crime scenario resulted in more intentions to physically
aggress against the perpetrators and more intentions to protect the victims.
That study provides evidence that hate crimes do affect bystanders in a dis-
tinct way. They actually result in more favorable behavioral intentions toward
the hate crime victimand less favorable ones toward the hate crime perpetra-
tor. Nevertheless, the study did not address the question about peoples
impressions of the victims culpability. As previously mentioned, bystand-
ers impressions about blameworthiness are crucial because they may influ-
ence the victims adjustment in the aftermath.
In sum, preliminary evidence suggests that the perceptions of bystanders
toward hate crime victims are more positive than their perceptions toward the
victims of nonhate crimes. However, it is unclear whether all kinds of hate
crimes result in comparable reactions. For example, it is unknown whether
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1057
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
peoples perceptions of the victimand perpetrator differ between hate crimes
motivated by hatred for the victims sexual orientation and those motivated
by religion or race. The present study examines these issues. It used the per-
son perception method to investigate bystanders immediate impressions of
blame regarding the victims and perpetrators of a nonhate crime and various
hate crimes. College students read one of three hate crime vignettes or a non-
hate crime vignette. The hate crime vignettes described a violent hate crime
against either a Jewish person, a homosexual person, or an African American
person. The nonbias crime vignette did not specify the victims social group
membership but was otherwise identical to the hate crime scenarios. Partici-
pants then rated the victims and perpetrators on adjective scales reflecting
their perceived degree of culpability.
In addition, we were interested in characteristics of bystanders that might
be associated with their perception of the hate crime and non-hate crime vic-
tims and perpetrators. One of these characteristics may be prejudice. Peoples
prejudiced attitudes affect their judgment about members of certain social
groups (Allport, 1958). Hence, bystanderslevel of prejudice may affect their
perception of hate crime victims culpability. Herek (1993) proposed that
heterosexism is rampant in our society and creates a climate of nonaccep-
tance and hostility for victims of sexual orientationbased hate crimes. Con-
sequently, it is conceivable that bystanders prejudicial attitudes influence
their judgment of the hate crime victim and perpetrator.
Bystanders racial/ethnic minority status may be another factor that influ-
ences their perception of hate crime victims. Research has shown that preju-
dice and discrimination are rampant in the lives of many minority groups
(Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Landrine, Klonoff, Gibbs, Manning, & Lund,
1995; Thompson, 1996; Utsey & Ponterotto, 1996). Some authors note that
underneath a facade of equality, American society is as prejudiced as ever
(Levin & McDevitt, 1993). The targets of discrimination are typically aware
of the prejudice they face (Sigelman & Welch, 1991). Particularly, many
African Americans are convinced that prejudice and discrimination continue
to be a significant problem in American society (Krysan, 2000; Schuman,
Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997). Consequently, due to their own experiences
with prejudice, racial/ethnic minority members may feel more empathy for a
crime victim who was targeted solely because of his or her membership in a
stigmatized group.
Craig (1999) provided some evidence for this idea. She examined the
emotional and cognitive reactions of African Americans and Whites to racist
hate crimes by exposing the participants of her study to both hate crimes and
nonhate crimes depicted in videotaped scenarios. The results of that study
showed that when confronted with a racist hate crime, African Americans
1058 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
exhibited more desire for revenge than Whites and regarded the event as more
typical. This indicates that people who can identify with the victim due to a
shared history of prejudice victimization might react to hate crimes in a more
negative way.
Hypotheses
Based on prior research, our hypotheses were as follows:
Hypothesis 1: We hypothesized that participants would blame the victims in the
hate crime scenarios less than the victim in the non-hate crime scenario.
Hypothesis 2: We expected participants to perceive the perpetrators in the hate
crime scenarios as more blameworthy than the perpetrator in the non-hate
crime scenario.
Hypothesis 3: We also expected that participants who were members of a racial or
ethnic minority would view the victims in the hate crime vignettes as less cul-
pable than would White participants.
Hypothesis 4: We hypothesized that people with prejudiced attitudes would per-
ceive the victim of a hate crime as more blameworthy than the victim of a
nonhate crime.
METHOD
Participants
The sample consisted of 403 undergraduate students (102 men and 301
women) and ranged in age from 17 to 57 years old (M = 20.02 years, SD =
3.03). Regarding race/ethnicity, 41.0% were White/Caucasian, 21.3% were
Asian American/Pacific Islander, 13.6% were Latino, 8.4% were African
American, and 3.7% were Middle Eastern. The remaining 10.9% identified
themselves as members of other racial/ethnic groups, most of themreporting
mixed ancestry. Participants were recruited from the University of Southern
California psychology department human participants pool and received
extra course credit for their participation. Alternative ways to obtain extra
credit were provided (e.g., writing a short paper). The participant pool con-
sisted of approximately 500 undergraduate students.
Person Perception Paradigm
Collins and Brief (1995) argued that one of the most effective methods of
capturing immediate impressions of people and behaviors is the person per-
ception method (Hastorf, Schneider, & Polefka, 1970). In the typical person
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1059
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
perception study, participants read a vignette. Then, participants immediate
impressions are assessed by having them rate people in the story on bipolar
adjective scales. For example, participants may rate targets on 7-point scales
in terms of howgood versus bad, responsible versus irresponsible, and attrac-
tive versus unattractive they perceive the targets. Previous research has docu-
mented the validity and utility of the person perception method in capturing
peoples automatic perceptions of behaviors (Asch, 1946; Castaeda & Col-
lins, 1997; Jones, 1979; McKinney, Sprecher, & Orbuch, 1987). The present
study used the person perception vignette method to uncover peoples
impressions about the victims and perpetrators of hate crimes and nonhate
crimes.
The person perception method is familiar to social psychologists but has
not previously been used in the analysis of hate crimes. It may be particularly
useful in the investigation of hate crimes due to the problem of social desir-
ability, which complicates research about sensitive topics, such as hate
crimes. A straightforward inquiry about perceptions concerning hate crimes
may raise a red flag for participants to censor their responding in a socially
desirable way. Therefore, it is necessary to look beyond the participantswill-
ingness to disclose sensitive information and examine their automatic or intu-
itive inference processes. The person perception paradigm provides such an
approach because it does not focus on conscious, deliberative decision mak-
ing (Hastorf et al., 1970).
Experimental Design
This study used a between-participants design. Participants were ran-
domly assigned to read one of four vignettes depicting an assault of a student.
The four vignettes were identical with the exception of a fewwords that iden-
tified the incident as either a racial-, sexual orientation, or religion-based
hate crime or a nonhate crime. We focused on these specific types of hate
crimes because the majority of hate crimes in the United States are commit-
ted on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or religion (U.S. Department of
Justice, 2000). Of course, hate crimes motivated by gender, disability, and
age are significant problems as well. This study excluded these categories
solely for practical reasons (i.e., to maximize the number of participants in
each hate crime category for the purpose of increasing statistical power).
The independent variable manipulated in this study was the perpetrators
motivation for the assault (i.e., race hate crime, religion hate crime, sexual
orientation hate crime, or unknown motivation). The race hate crime vignette
presented the victim as an African American male who was attacked while
returning to his dormfollowing a Black History Month rally. The perpetrator
1060 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
in this vignette was yelling racial epithets. The religion-based hate crime
vignette depicted the victimas a Jewish male who was leaving a Jewish com-
munity center meeting. The perpetrator in this scenario insulted the victim
with anti-Semitic slurs. In the sexual orientationbased hate crime, the victim
was presented as a gay man leaving campus following a gay pride rally. In this
condition, the perpetrator was yelling antigay slurs. The fourth vignette, the
non-hate crime condition, depicted the victimas leaving an ambiguous com-
munity function. The perpetrator in this scenario called the victim a bastard.
The vignette went as follows:
Last night at 10:45PM Jim was heading back to his dorm following a [Black
History Month rally, gay pride rally, Jewish community center meeting, or
rally] on campus when he was attacked after being followed by two males. The
first assailant jumped Jim from behind, and the second assailant ran over from
across the street and joined the attack, kicking and punching Jim. The assail-
ants broke off the attack and fled when cars approached the scene. Witnesses
reported to the police that during the attack, the assailants shouted, You
fucking [nigger, faggot, kike, or bastard], stay out of our neighborhood.
Procedure
The questionnaires and other measures for this study were administered as
part of a larger packet of unrelated questionnaires. All participants read a
vignette, which described the violent assault. Following the vignette, partici-
pants provided their immediate impression of the victims and perpetrators
culpability by rating them on bipolar adjectives.
Measures
Perception of Victim Blame Scale. Participants rated the victims in the
vignettes on a 7-point scale. The scale measured the degree of culpability or
blame participants assigned to the victims. It consisted of 14 bipolar adjective
pairs (e.g., conscientious and careless). After adjustment of reverse-scored
items, high scores reflect a more unfavorable viewof the victim. The internal
consistency of the scale was .90.
Perception of Perpetrator Blame Scale. Participants rated the perpetrators
in the vignettes on a 7-point scale. The scale measured the degree of culpabil-
ity or blame participants assigned to the perpetrators. It consisted of the same
14 bipolar adjective pairs that were used in the Perception of Victim Blame
Scale. After adjustment of reverse-scored items, high scores reflect a more
unfavorable viewof the perpetrator. The internal consistency of the scale was
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1061
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
.85. Both the Perception of Perpetrator Blame and Perception of Victim
Blame scales were developed and tested out during the pilot phase of the
study. Please refer to the appendix for a list of the bipolar adjective pairs.
Demographic questionnaire. Participants provided personal information,
including their sex, age, and race/ethnicity.
Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG). Participants com-
pleted the ATLG (Herek, 1984). The ATLG scale measures the extent to
which people object to homosexuality or consider it morally wrong. The
scale consists of attitude statements concerning gays and lesbians, for exam-
ple, I think male homosexuals are disgusting, which participants rate on a
6-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Numerous
studies with different populations have demonstrated the validity and reli-
ability of the ATLGscale (e.g., Herek, 1989; Herek&Glunt, 1993a, 1993b).
Modern RacismScale (McConahay, 1983). This measure consists of eight
items assessing beliefs about equal employment opportunity legislation and
whether racial discrimination is still a problemfor U.S. society. The reliabil-
ity coefficient of the Modern Racism Scale is .84.
Anti-Semitism Scale (Selznick & Steinberg, 1969). This scale consists of
11 Likert-type statements associated with negative beliefs about Jewish peo-
ple and Jewish culture. The coefficient alpha for this scale is .94.
RESULTS
Two-Way ANOVA Evaluating Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 predicted that participants would perceive the victims in the
hate crime scenarios as less culpable than the victim in the non-hate crime
scenario. The results of this study provided support for this hypothesis. A
two-way ANOVA compared the Perception of Victim Blame Scale mean
scores among the four different crime conditions and between male and
female participants. The main effect for crime condition was significant, F(3,
389) = 8.598, p < .001. A Bonferroni post hoc test showed that participants
rated the victimas more culpable in the non-hate crime condition (M=46.83,
SD = 11.54) than in each of the three hate crime conditions (race hate crime,
M= 38.84, SD= 11.83; anti-Semitic hate crime, M= 36.51, SD= 12.73; sex-
ual orientation hate crime, M=38.27, SD=11.35). No significant differences
1062 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
were found among the three hate crime conditions on the Perception of Vic-
tim Blame Scale (see Figure 1). In addition, we found a significant main
effect for participants sex, F(1, 389) = 16.372, p < .001. Men (M = 44.23,
SD = 1.17) perceived the victim as more blameworthy than did women (M =
38.76, SD= 0.68). There was no significant interaction between crime condi-
tion and participants sex.
Two-Way ANOVA Evaluating Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 predicted that participants would perceive the perpetrators
in the hate crime scenarios as more culpable than the perpetrator in the non-
hate crime scenario. Our results provided support for this hypothesis. Atwo-
way ANOVA compared the Perception of Perpetrator Blame Scale scores
among the four different crime conditions and between male and female par-
ticipants. The main effect for crime condition was significant, F(3, 393) =
6.140, p < .001. ABonferroni post hoc test showed that participants rated the
perpetrator as less culpable in the non-hate crime condition (M= 81.09, SD=
11.39) than in each of the three hate crime conditions (race hate crime, M =
87.89, SD = 8.51; anti-Semitic hate crime, M = 86.15, SD = 9.92; sexual ori-
entation hate crime, M= 87.50, SD= 10.30). No significant differences were
found when comparing the three hate crime conditions on the Perception of
Perpetrator Blame Scale (see Figure 2). In addition, we found a significant
main effect for participants sex, F(2, 393) = 6.689, p < .001. Women (M =
86.42, SD= 0.58) perceived the crime perpetrators as more culpable than did
men (M = 83.37, SD = 1.0). There was no significant interaction between
crime condition and participants sex.
Three-Way ANOVAs: Type of Crime Participants
Minority Status Participants Prejudice
For the purpose of the following analyses, we collapsed the race hate
crime, anti-Semitic hate crime, and sexual orientation hate crime conditions
into one condition, which we labeled simply hate crime condition. This deci-
sion was reasonable due to the absence of significant differences among the
three hate crime conditions on both dependent variables (Perception of Vic-
tim Blame Scale and Perception of Perpetrator Blame Scale). In addition,
participants were classified as racial/ethnic minorities or nonminorities,
depending on their responses on the demographic questionnaire. Participants
who stated they were White/Caucasian were classified as nonminorities. Par-
ticipants who indicated their race/ethnicity as African American, Asian/
Pacific Islander, Latino, Middle Eastern, or other non-Caucasian/White eth-
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1063
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
nic group were classified as minorities. We collapsed these different minority
groups into one category because we were primarily interested in comparing
the majority and minority perspectives. Collapsing the minority groups was
sensible due to the absence of significant differences among the minority
groups on both dependent variables.
Furthermore, we classified participants into prejudiced and unprejudiced
groups. Participants scores on the three prejudice measures (Anti-Semitism
Scale, Modern Racism Scale, and Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gays
Scale) were moderately correlated (significant correlations ranging from
.318 to .398). The correlations among these questionnaires justified the cre-
ation of an overall Prejudice Index. This index represents the sum of stan-
dardized questionnaire scores. For the purpose of analyzing group differ-
ences between the perceptions of prejudiced and unprejudiced participants,
we performed a median split for the Prejudice Index. The median on the Prej-
udice Index was .0633. Hence, participants with Prejudice Index scores
larger than .0633 were classified as prejudiced, whereas participants with
Prejudice Index scores smaller than or equal to .0633 were classified as
unprejudiced.
1064 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
Antigay
Hate Crime
Anti-Semitic
Hate Crime
Racial
Hate Crime
Nonhate Crime
M
e
a
n

P
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

V
i
c
t
i
m

B
l
a
m
e

S
c
o
r
e
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
Figure 1: Mean Perception of Victim Blame Scores
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Dependent variable: Perception of Victim Blame Scale. We investigated
whether participants perception of the victim differed as a function of the
type of crime, their minority status, or their level of prejudice. We calculated
a three-way ANOVA for Type of Crime Vignette (hate crime or nonhate
crime) Participants Minority Status (minority or nonminority) Partici-
pants Level of Prejudice (prejudiced or unprejudiced). We found a signifi-
cant main effect for type of crime vignette, F(1, 387) = 40.229, p < .001. As
expected, based on our two-way ANOVA results, it turned out that partici-
pants perceived the victim in the non-hate crime vignette (M = 46.95, SD =
11.53) more negatively than the victims in the hate crime vignettes (M =
37.94, SD= 11.96). In addition, we found a main effect for participants level
of prejudice, F(1, 387) = 8.103, p < .005. Prejudiced participants (M= 42.56,
SD= 11.96) judged all victims more culpable than participants who were not
prejudiced (M = 38.38, SD = 12.63). The main effect for minority group
membership was nonsignificant. In addition, none of the two-way interac-
tions was significant. However, the three-way interaction was significant,
F(1, 387) = 8.749, p < .003.
Table 1 displays the residuals of the three-way interaction calculated in
accordance with Rosenthal and Rosnows (1991) procedure for defining
three-way interactions. The numbers within Table 1 represent the pure
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1065
Antigay
Hate Crime
Anti-Semitic
Hate Crime
Racial
Hate Crime
Nonhate Crime
M
e
a
n

P
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
e
r
p
e
t
r
a
t
o
r

B
l
a
m
e

S
c
o
r
e
90
88
86
84
82
80
Figure 2: Mean Perception of Perpetrator Blame Scores
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
three-way interaction effects after removal of the grand mean, the three main
effects, and the three two-way interaction effects. The table shows that preju-
diced minority participants and unprejudiced nonminority participants per-
ceptions of the non-hate crime victimwere relatively negative. With regard to
the hate crime victim, unprejudiced minority participants and prejudiced
nonminority participants exhibited relatively negative perceptions of the vic-
tim. On the other hand, unprejudiced minority participants and prejudiced
nonminority participantsperceptions of the non-hate crime victimwere rela-
tively positive. In addition, with regard to the hate crime victim, prejudiced
minority participants and unprejudiced nonminority participants exhibited
relatively positive perceptions of the victim. The three-way interaction is dis-
played in Figure 3.
Dependent variable: Perception of Perpetrator Blame Scale. We investi-
gated whether participants perception of the perpetrator differed as a func-
tion of the type of crime, their minority status, or their level of prejudice. We
calculated a three-way ANOVA for Type of Crime Vignette (hate crime or
nonhate crime) Participants Minority Status (minority or nonminority)
Participants Level of Prejudice (prejudiced or unprejudiced). As expected,
based on the two-way ANOVAresults, we found a significant main effect for
type of crime vignette, F(1, 391) = 25.636, p < .001. It turned out that partici-
pants perceived the perpetrators in the hate crime vignette (M = 87.20, SD =
9.56) as more culpable than the perpetrator in the non-hate crime vignette (M
= 81.00, SD = 11.40). In addition, we found a main effect for participants
level of prejudice, F(1, 391) =3.915, p <.049. Prejudiced participants judged
the perpetrators less culpable (M=84.27, SD=10.66) than unprejudiced par-
ticipants (M = 86.68, SD = 10.12). The main effect for minority group mem-
bership was nonsignificant. In addition, none of the two- or three-way inter-
actions was significant.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate peoples perceptions of blame
regarding hate crime perpetrators and victims. The use of the person percep-
tion method in the analysis of hate crimes provided new insights into the
issue. Because this method is designed to reduce participants social desir-
ability bias, it enhanced uncensored responses to a sensitive and highly
charged topic. We hypothesized that participants would perceive the victims
in the hate crime scenarios as less blameworthy than the victim in the non-
1066 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
hate crime scenario. In addition, we hypothesized that participants would
perceive the perpetrators in the hate crime scenarios as more culpable than
the perpetrator in the non-hate crime scenario.
Our results support both hypotheses. People viewed the hate crime vic-
tims as more innocent than the non-hate crime victimand the hate crime per-
petrators as more culpable than the non-hate crime perpetrator. Women, how-
ever, perceived all crime victims (hate crime and nonhate crime) as more
innocent and all perpetrators (hate crime and nonhate crime) as more blame-
worthy than did men. This finding is consistent with previous research.
Compared to women, men tend to attribute greater fault to victims and per-
ceive aggressors as more excusable (e.g., Adams & Betz, 1993; Kanekar &
Nazareth, 1988; Sheldon-Keller, Lloyd-McGarvey, West, & Canterbury,
1994; Whatley &Riggio, 1993). This study also showed that in terms of par-
ticipants perceptions of blame within the hate crime situations, the specific
hate crime category was insignificant. Findings revealed no significant dif-
ferences among the three hate crime conditions (sexual orientation, race, or
religion) with regard to perceptions of blame concerning the victim and the
perpetrator. Thus, although the fact that the perpetrator was motivated by
group bias did affect peoples perceptions, the specific nature of the bias
appeared to be of minor relevance.
Why did participants perceive hate crime perpetrators as more blamewor-
thy than non-hate crime perpetrators, and why did they view hate crime vic-
tims as less blameworthy than victims of nonbias crimes? Perhaps, hate
crime victims appeared less culpable than the other crime victimbecause the
hate crime perpetrators specifically targeted their victims due to their group
membership. Hate crime perpetrators do not choose their victims randomly.
Instead, they select certain individuals because of their demographic charac-
teristics. These stable victimcharacteristics (i.e., race, religion, or sexual ori-
entation), which provide the perpetrator with a motive for the crime, make
blaming the victim unreasonable. Consequently, bystanders may conclude
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1067
TABLE 1: Residuals of the Three-Way Interaction Type of Crime Vignette Partici-
pants Minority Status Participants Level of Prejudice for the Depend-
ent Variable Perception of Victim Blame Scale
Nonhate Crime Hate Crime
Prejudiced Unprejudiced Prejudiced Unprejudiced
Minority 2 2 2 2
Nonminority 2 2 2 2
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
1068 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
Nonhate Crime
Minority Status
Non-Minority Minority
M
e
a
n

P
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

V
i
c
t
i
m

B
l
a
m
e

S
c
a
l
e
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Prejudiced
Unprejudiced
Hate Crime
Minority Status
Non-Minority Minority
M
e
a
n

P
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

V
i
c
t
i
m

B
l
a
m
e

S
c
a
l
e
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Prejudiced
Unprejudiced
Figure 3: Residuals of the Three-Way Interaction Type of Crime Vignette Par-
ticipants Minority Status Participants Level of Prejudice for the
Dependent Variable Perception of Victim Blame Scale
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
that there was little the victim could have done to avoid the assault because
the perpetrator would have targeted the victimregardless of his or her behav-
ior. In this study, the perpetrators motive for the nonhate crime, on the other
hand, was ambiguous. Hence, participants may have made inferences about
the victims behavior. Perhaps, they assumed that people seldomget attacked
for no specific reason. Hence, they may have inferred that the victim must
have provoked the perpetrator in some way. This may have facilitated a more
guilty impression of the non-hate crime victim.
It is important to point out, however, that observers, especially male ones,
did ascribe a certain degree of blame to hate crime victims as well as to non-
hate crime victims. This suggests that people did not perceive hate crime vic-
tims as entirely innocent. That participants attributed some blame to both
hate crime and non-hate crime victims made sense in light of previous
research. It may reflect the well-established blaming the victim phenome-
non (Lerner, 1970; Ryan, 1976) mentioned earlier.
We had hypothesized that people with prejudiced attitudes would perceive
the victimof a hate crime less favorably than the victimof a nonhate crime. It
turned out that prejudiced attitudes did play an important role in howpartici-
pants perceived the victims and perpetrators in this study. However, we found
that prejudice was associated with more blame for all crime victims (both
hate crime and nonhate crime) and less blame for all perpetrators. This find-
ing is consistent with previous research describing prejudiced individuals as
suspicious, low in altruism, and unconcerned about the feelings of others
(Gough, 1951, 1987; Gough & Bradley, 1993). This general attitude may
supercede their specific antipathies toward certain groups.
It is also possible, however, that the lack of a difference between the preju-
diced and unprejudiced participants evaluation of hate crimes reflects a
shortcoming in our measurement of prejudice. Dovidio, Kawakami, John-
son, and Howard (1997) proposed that explicit prejudice measures, such as
the Modern RacismScale, tend to predict deliberative bias when people have
sufficient time and motivation to contemplate their response. Implicit preju-
dice measures (e.g., response-latency measures), on the other hand, predict
spontaneous behaviors. Because the person perception paradigm assessed
peoples spontaneous impressions about victims and perpetrators, an implicit
measure of prejudice may have been more predictive of prejudiced and
unprejudiced peoples responses.
In addition, we had expected that participants who were members of
racial/ethnic minorities would rate the victim in the hate crime vignette as
less culpable than would White participants. The data did not reveal such
group difference between minority and nonminority participants. Interesting
findings emerged when participants racial/ethnic minority status and their
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1069
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
level of prejudice were taken into consideration. Keeping in mind that (a) par-
ticipants overall assigned more blame to the non-hate crime as opposed to the
hate crime victim and (b) participants high level of prejudice overall was
associated with more blame, the following findings emerged: (a) Prejudiced
minority participants perceived especially high blame for non-hate crime
victims. Prejudiced nonminority participants, on the other hand, perceived
relatively high blame for hate crime victims. (b) Unprejudiced minority par-
ticipants perceived relatively high victim blame in the hate crime scenario.
The pattern was reversed for unprejudiced nonminority participants. They
perceived relatively high victim blame in the non-hate crime scenario.
Stated differently, prejudiced minority participants judged hate crime vic-
tims as less culpable to the same degree that prejudiced nonminority partici-
pants judged them as more culpable. Furthermore, prejudiced minority par-
ticipants judged non-hate crime victims as more blameworthy to the same
extent that prejudiced nonminority participants judged them as less
blameworthy.
These results appear to point to the following conclusion: Prejudiced
nonminorities, but not prejudiced minorities, may be more likely to blame the
victim of a hate crime. Racial/ethnic minority members, even prejudiced
ones, may experience more empathy for a crime victim who was targeted
solely because of his or her membership in a stigmatized group. This suggests
that people who can identify with the victim, potentially due to a shared his-
tory of prejudice victimization, react to hate crime victims in a less punishing
way.
This study has important implications with regard to the original question
of why hate crimes are supposedly more psychologically damaging for the
victimthan nonbias crimes. In the beginning of this article, we proposed that
if hate crimes indeed result in less favorable impressions of the victim by
third parties, this may partially explain why they are more psychologically
damaging to the victim. We based this assumption on social support being an
important determinant of postcrime psychological adjustment. However, the
results of this study showed that peoples views of hate crime victims are
more positive than their views of non-hate crime victims. This suggests that
hate crime victims may potentially receive more public support than non-
hate crime victims, a conclusion supported by recent research findings (e.g.,
Franklin, 2002). Hence, any potential adverse impact of hate crimes on the
victim may not be due to hate crime victims receiving less social support
from the public than non-hate crime victims. If hate crimes are indeed more
psychologically impairing, it may be because hate crimes link a victims core
identity with a heightened sense of vulnerability, which typically follows vic-
timization (Garnets et al., 1992).
1070 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Some caution is warranted with respect to the interpretation that hate
crime victims may receive more social support than non-hate crime victims.
First, it is unclear whether the perceptions of perpetrator and victim blame
assessed in this study translate into actual social support of the victim. This
means that it is unknown whether less victim blame is predictive of any kind
of actual tangible assistance or emotional comfort of hate crime victims. Fur-
thermore, it is uncertain whether hate crime victims actually perceive public
support in the aftermath of the crime. With regard to hate crime victimization,
it may in fact be functional social support (i.e., the awareness of other peo-
ples support) (Cohen & Willis, 1985) that influences the victims postcrime
adjustment. Therefore, it is possible that although social support for hate
crime victims actually exists, hate crime victims themselves are not aware of
it. Research on hate crime victims perceptions regarding secondary victim-
ization and their impression of the police as insensitive (Berrill & Herek,
1992) certainly corroborates this notion. Nevertheless, future research
should further examine the question of whether hate crime victims perceive
social support from the public.
A potential limitation of this study concerns the generalizability of the
sample because mostly female students froman urban college campus do not
represent the population at large. In addition, this study created an analogue
situation and did not include the bystanders of actual crimes. The artificial
nature of the vignette reduces the external validity of this study. Future stud-
ies should employ real world populations, such as community samples of
African Americans, Jews, and homosexuals. In addition, they should include
the victim groups not addressed in the present study, such as victims of hate
crimes based on gender and disability.
In addition, future studies should examine additional characteristics of
bystanders that may influence their judgments of hate crime victims. For
example, peoples prior hate crime victimization may affect their perception
of hate crime victims and perpetrators.
In conclusion, although the study did not resolve the issue of why hate
crimes may possibly be more psychologically impairing than nonhate crimes
for certain groups of victims, it did provide important insights with regard to
the larger context in which these crimes occur. This study emphasized that
hate crimes are unique types of crimes that provoke unique reactions in
bystanders. Acontinued analysis of the perceptions surrounding hate crimes
is crucial because it will provide insight into attitudes and beliefs that facili-
tate tolerance, as well as those that result in hostility toward victims of hate
crimes.
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1071
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
APPENDIX
violent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 nonviolent
gentle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 forceful
maniacal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sane
good natured 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 vicious
malicious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 kind
blameless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 blameworthy
fault 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 faultless
harmful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 harmless
hurtful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 innocuous
responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 irresponsible
careful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 reckless
conscientious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 careless
reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unreliable
dependable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 undependable
REFERENCES
Adams, E. W., &Betz, N. E. (1993). Gender differences in counselorsattitudes toward and attri-
butions about incest. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 210-216.
Allport, G. W. (1958). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Asch, W. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychol-
ogy, 41, 258-290.
Bard, M., & Sangrey, D. (1979). The crime victims book. New York: Basic Books.
Berrill, K. T., & Herek, G. M. (1992). Primary and secondary victimization in anti-gay hate
crimes: Official response and public policy. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Ed.), Hate
crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 289-301). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Bryant, G., & Cirel, P. (1977). A community response to rape: An exemplary project (Polk
County Rape/Sexual Assault Care Center). Washington, DC: National Institute of Law
Enforcement.
Burgess, A. W., &Holstrom, L. L. (1974). Rape trauma syndrome. American Journal of Psychi-
atry, 131, 981-985.
Castaeda, D., & Collins, B. E. (1997). The effects of gender, ethnicity and close relationship
themes on perceptions of persons introducing a condom. Unpublished manuscript, San
Diego State University, San Diego, CA.
Cohen, S., & Willis, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering process. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Collins, B. E., & Brief, D. E. (1995). Using person-perception vignette methodologies to
uncover the symbolic meanings of teacher behaviors in the Milgram paradigm. Journal of
Social Issues, 51, 89-106.
Craig, K. M. (1999). Retaliation, fear, or rage: An investigation of African American and White
reactions to racist hate crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 135-151.
Denkers, A. (1999). Factors affecting support after criminal victimization: Needed and received
support fromthe partner, the social network, and distant support providers. Journal of Social
Psychology, 139, 191-201.
1072 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Dovidio, J., Kawakami, K., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). The nature of prejudice: Auto-
matic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510-540.
Franklin, K. (2002). Good intentions: The enforcement of hate crime penalty-enhancement stat-
utes. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 154-172.
Frazier, P. A. (1990). Victimattributions and post-rape trauma. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 298-304.
Garnets, L., Herek, G. M., & Levy, B. (1992). Violence and victimization of lesbians and gay
men: Mental health consequences. In G. M. Herek &K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Con-
fronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 207-222). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gough, H. G. (1951). Studies of social intolerance: II. A personality scale of anti-Semitism.
Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 247-255.
Gough, H. G. (1987). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press.
Gough, H. G., &Bradley, P. (1993). Personal attributes of people described by others as intoler-
ant. In P. M. Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the
American dilemma (pp. 60-85). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hastorf, A. H., Schneider, D. L., & Polefka, J. (1970). Person perception. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Afactor analytic study. Journal of
Homosexuality, 10, 39-51.
Herek, G. M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for research and policy.
American Psychologist, 44, 948-955.
Herek, G. M. (1993). The context of antigay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological
heterosexism. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on les-
bian and gay male experiences (pp. 89-107). New York: Columbia University Press.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victim-
ization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 67, 945-951.
Herek, G. M., &Glunt, E. K. (1993a). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals attitudes toward
gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239-244.
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993b). Public reactions to AIDS in the United States. In J. B.
Pryor & G. D. Reeder (Eds.), The social psychology of HIV infection (pp. 229-261).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social support.
American Review of Sociology, 14, 293-318.
Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road fromacts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 343, 107-
117.
Kanekar, S., &Nazareth, A. M. (1988). Attributed rape victims fault as a function of her attrac-
tiveness, physical hurt, and emotional disturbance. Social Behaviour, 3, 37-40.
Krysan, M. (2000). Prejudice, politics, and public opinion: Understanding the sources of racial
policy attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 135-168.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial dis-
crimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of
Black Psychology, 22, 144-168.
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Gibbs, J., Manning, V., &Lund, M. (1995). Physical and psychiat-
ric correlates of gender discrimination. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 473-492.
Lerner, M. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims: Social psychological studies of
some antecedents and consequences. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and
helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Rayburn et al. / PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES 1073
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Lerner, M., & Miller, D. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back
and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.
Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. New
York: Plenum.
McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racismand modern discrimination: The effects of race, racial
attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 9, 551-558.
Madea, A., & Thompson, K. (1974). Against rape. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
McKinney, K., Sprecher, S., &Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Aperson perception experiment examining
the effects of contraceptive behavior on first impressions. Basic and Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 8, 235-248.
Rayburn, N. R., &Davison, G. C. (2002). Articulated thoughts about anti-gay hate crimes. Cog-
nitive Therapy and Research, 26, 431-447.
Reiff, R. (1979). The invisible victim: The criminal justice systems forgotten responsibility. New
York: Basic Books.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data
analysis. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage.
Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., &Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and
interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Selznick, G. J., &Steinberg, S. (1969). The tenacity of prejudice. NewYork: Harper and Row.
Sheldon-Keller, A., Lloyd-McGarvey, E., West, M., &Canterbury, R. J. (1994). Attachment and
assessment of blame in date rape scenarios. Social Behavior & Personality, 22, 313-318.
Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1991). Black Americans views of racial inequality: The dream
deferred. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Symonds, M. (1980). The second injury to victims. In L. Kivens (Ed.), Evaluation and
change: Services for survivors (pp. 36-38). Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Medical Research
Foundation.
Thompson, V. L. S. (1996). Perceived experiences of racismas stressful life events. Community
Mental Health Journal, 32, 223-233.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Hate crime statistics 1999. Washington, DC: Author.
Utsey, S. O., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1996). Development and validation of the Index of Race-
Related Stress (IRRS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 490-501.
Whatley, M. A., &Riggio, R. E. (1993). Gender difference in attributions of blame for male rape
victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 502-511.
Nadine Recker Rayburn received her Ph.D. in clinical psychology fromthe University of
Southern California. She is now at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, CA.
Margaret Mendoza received her B.A. in psychology fromthe University of Southern Cal-
ifornia and is currently a graduate student at Teachers College, Columbia University.
This research was supported by a McNair Scholarship awarded to Mendoza.
Gerald C. Davison is a professor in and chair of the Department of Psychology at the
University of Southern California.
1074 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2003
at OhioLink on May 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from