The efficacy of Denial of the Victim arguments within simulated coercive control suspect interviews on attributions of victim and suspect blame

Objectives
We previously showed that Denial of the Victim (DoV) arguments in suspect interviews for coercive control increased attribution of blame against victims, but not suspects. The effect of DoV was stronger when participants endorsed ambivalent sexist beliefs. In two experiments we replicate these findings while varying the control group and adding a second influence behaviour: Benevolence, arguing that the behaviour the suspect is accused of is out of character.

Methodology
In both experiments, participants read allegations of coercive control made against a suspect and then interview scripts where suspects responded to the allegations with DoV arguments.
Study 1 (N = 131) used a within-participants design where participants attributions of blame to the victim and suspect were measured before and after exposure to the interviews.
Study 2 (N = 170) used a “no interview” control where participants were not presented with an interview script. Study 2 also included a second influence behaviour, benevolence to capture that in actual interview suspects use combinations of influence behaviours when making arguments.

Results
Study 1 showed that attributions of blame against the suspect decreased after reading DoV interviews, while attributions of blame against the victim increased. Sexist beliefs increased the strength of these relationships.
Study 2 showed DoV only increased attributions of blame against the victim in combination with hostile sexism. Benevolence directly reduced attributions of blame toward the suspect.

Conclusions
Study 2 replicated our finding indicating DoV primarily impacts on perceptions of victims, not suspects, and especially in combination with hostile sexism. The more sensitive within-participants design of Study 1 suggests that there may be direct effects of DoV even without sexist biases. Study 2 also showed that different suspect behaviours may have complementary effects, indicating the necessity to understand both the unique and combinatory effects of multiple influence behaviours within interviews.