Search results

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether indicating victims of sexual attacks actively resisted their attacker or froze during their assault affected perceptions of victim blame, perpetrator blame and seriousness of the crime. We also tested whether victim and perpetrator gender or participants’ rape myth endorsement moderated the outcomes.

This study was a cross-sectional, vignette survey study with a 2 × 2 between-participants experimental design. Participants read a mock police report describing an alleged rape with a female or male victim who either resisted or froze, while perpetrator gender was adjusted heteronormatively.

Freezing and male victims were blamed more than resisting and female victims. Perpetrators were blamed more when the victim resisted, but male and female perpetrators were blamed equally. Seriousness of the crime was higher for male perpetrators and when the victim resisted. Female, but not male, rape myth acceptance moderated the relationship between victim behaviour and outcome variables.

This study highlights the influence of expectations about victim behaviour on perceptions of rape victims and the pervasive influence of rape myths when evaluating female rape victims. The data is drawn from the German border region of the Netherlands, which is an especially valuable population given the evolving legal definitions of rape in both countries.

This paper seeks to identify a rounded understanding of two fuzzy terms in wide but muddled use in guiding corporate leadership: accountability and responsibility. Both have deep resonance discussions of strategy and corporate affairs, but their often-confused meanings both inform actions and impede understanding. Each has normative implications for the practice of corporate governance, and yet each, like an empty vessel,[1] leaves practitioners with an unhappy sense of knowing they have a use but not knowing what to do with them.

This essay examines the varied uses of these terms in academic literature and practitioner discussions, exploring their conflicting meanings through lenses of philosophy, literary writing, and management studies to show how each, in their flux, overlap and diverge.

The article analyses themes obscured by these muddy waters and clarifies them by speculating on how their ambiguity demands reflexive, thoughtful action and interaction between the parties in absence of clear hierarchy of command or greater authority. How meaningful that interaction is questionable, when the words are so full of meanings without an iterative process of understanding.

Given the prevalence of the ambiguities is usage, clarifying terms is not a realistic option. Instead, this essay proposes that insofar as these concepts reflect abilities, they represent our ability to embrace their ambiguity in a philosophically pragmatic way, and in so doing be able to act accountably and responsibly.