New Study Finds Variation in Public Perception of Crime Victims

A new study shows that people judge crime victims with neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, fetal alcohol syndrome) based on both the type of disability and the type of crime. These factors also influence how strongly people support punishing perpetrators.

Conducted by Colleen Berryessa, associate professor at the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice, and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Wyoming, the study involved an online experiment with more than 550 adults who read a vignette about a female victim and assessed their level of “victim blaming” (holding someone in some way responsible for the harm done to them) toward the victim, as well as their support for punishing the perpetrator.

Published in the Victims & Offenders, the study found that victims with autism spectrum disorder were blamed for their victimization the least and those with fetal alcohol syndrome were blamed the most—even more than victims with no disability. In addition, victims were blamed most for physical assaults, less for robberies, and least for sexual assault. Sexual assault elicited the strongest support for harsh punishment of perpetrators.

Study participants were also asked about the role of trait essentialism, the belief that some of individuals’ personal characteristics are innate, fixed, and determining their “essence.” Those with stronger essentialist beliefs assigned more blame to victims with neurodevelopmental disorders.

“Research on legal decision-making has largely ignored this population,” said Berryessa. “Our findings suggest how certain perceptions and biases can affect vulnerable people who are already significantly more likely to be victimized.”