After the Crime Victim Decision Making

Perspectives in

Law & Psychology Sponsored by the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association

Series Editor: THOMAS GRISSO, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts

Editorial Board: JOHN S. CARROLL, PATRICK H. DELEON, SHARI S. DIAMOND, FELICE J. LEVINE, MURRAY LEVINE, STEPHEN J. MORSE, THOMAS D. OVERCAST, NORMAN G. POYTHRESS, JR.,

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Volume 4

Volume 5

Volume 6

Volume 7

VolumeS

Volume 9

BRUCE DENNIS SALES, SALEEM A. SHAH, AND DAVID B. WEXLER

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Edited by Bruce Dennis Sales

THE TRIAL PROCESS Edited by Bruce Dennis Sales

JUVENILES' WAIVER OF RIGHTS Legal and Psychological Competence Thomas Grisso

MENTAL HEALTH LAW Major Issues David B. Wexler

HANDBOOK OF SCALES FOR RESEARCH IN CRIME AND DELINQUENCY Stanley 1. Brodsky and H. O'Neal Smitherman

MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS Perspectives from Law and Social Science Edited by John Monahan and Henry J. Steadman

EVALUATING COMPETENCIES Forensic Assessments and Instruments Thomas Grisso

INSANITY ON TRIAL Norman J. Finkel

AFTER THE CRIME Victim Decision Making Martin S. Greenberg and R. Barry Ruback

After the Crime Victim Decision Making

Martin s. Greenberg University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

and

R. Barry Ruback Georgia State University

Atlanta, Georgia

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Llbrary of Congress Catlloglng-ln-Publlcltlon OItl

Greenbarg. Martln S. After the erl.e : vIetI. deelslon laklng I Martln S. Greanberg and

R. Barry Rubaek. p. CI. -- (Perspeetlves In law & psyehology ; v. 9)

Ineludes blbllographleal refereneas and Index. ISBN 978-1-4613-6469-6 ISBN 978-1-4615-3334-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-3334-4 1. Vletlls of erlle--Psyehology. 1. Rubaek. R. Barry. 1950-

II. Tltle. III. Ser Ies. [DNLM: 1. Crl.e. 2. Deelslon Maklng. Wl PE871AS v.9 / HV

8250.25 G798al HV8250.25G74 1992 362.88'OI'9--de20 DNLM/DLC for Llbrary of Congress

ISBN 978-1-4613-6469-6

92-18942 CIP

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York Originally published by Plenum. Press, New York in 1992

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 st edition 1992

AlI rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,

recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher

To my wife, Janelle -MSG

To my brothers, Stephen and Albert -RBR

Preface

Much has been written in recent years about the aftermath of criminal victimization. This book describes the findings from 20 studies designed to explore decision making by crime victims in the immediate aftermath of the victimization, as well as the role played by emotions and social influences in this process.

Immediately following the crime, victims experience a wide array of feelings, such as shock, anger, fear, and sadness. Amidst such feelings, victims are confronted with the dilemma of deciding whether to notify the police. How this decisional dilemma is resolved has important implications for the criminal justice system, since research has shown that victims are the primary activators of the criminal justice process. Without victims' notifica­tion, most crimes would not come to the attention of the police. Given the emotional arousal that accompanies the victimization, victims tend to be receptive to information and advice from others. A major aim of the re­search, therefore, was to examine the dynamics of social influence and the role that it plays in victim decision making in the moments immediately following the crime.

The research described in this volume is distinctive in that multiple methods were employed to study decision making by multiple types of vic­tims. The research involved experiments in a field laboratory, use of archival data, and collection of self-reports via interviews and questionnaires. The

vii

viii PREFACE

victim population included victims of rape, robbery, burglary, and theft. Moreover, individuals of diverse ethnic backgrounds were represented, in­cluding participants in the United States, India, Thailand, and Nigeria.

These studies of reactions to criminal victimization should be of interest to researchers, service providers, informal-aid givers, those concerned with issues of public policy, and criminal justice personnel.

The work represents a true collaboration between the two authors. The research could not have been completed without the assistance of many others, however. In particular, we are deeply indebted to Chauncey Wilson, David Westcott, and Deborah Ivie. Chauncey played a vital role in the planning and the actual conduct of the experimental studies. David made valuable contributions to many phases of the research: he helped conduct the experimental research, interviewed crime victims, analyzed data, and contributed to the development of the model of victim decision making. Deborah provided invaluable assistance by interviewing sexual assault vic­tims and by coding, checking, and analyzing data.

We were able to overcome innumerable problems in conducting the field experiments described in Chapters 2 and 3 because of an extremely competent and dedicated staff. Special thanks go to Mary Wartella, Amy Robins, Elizabeth Mahoney, Wayne Albitz, Michael Mills, Ann DeMay, Sheree Thomas, and Charles Muchow. We wish to express our appreciation to the following "thieves" and ''bystanders'' for their fine acting: Donald Case, Lynn Eckert, Blaine Givner, William Heller, Denise Herbol, Jim Kutzer, Tim Newell, Jim Silver, Edward Turner, and Lawrence Williams. In developing the experimental paradigm, we profited greatly from advice given by our two consultants, Dr. Arthur Van Cara and Detective Stephen Tercsak. Both were there when we needed them.

We owe a debt of gratitude to numerous individuals who helped us collect data on normative expectations for notifying the police (Chapter 6). We are particularly indebted to Rachel Kelly and Ladi Anjorin for assisting in the data collection in Nigeria and for their insightful comments on the data. In collecting the normative data, we were fortunate to have the able assistance of Biodun Anjorin, Bisi Anjorin, Mary Iketuonie, Theeraporn Uwanno, Rajesh Patnaik, Deepak Gupta, and Neena Kohli.

The archival studies reported in Chapter 7 involved time-consuming efforts by Amy Robins, David Westcott, and Sandra Stone. We are grateful for their efforts in this regard. We also wish to thank Dick Holland, who assisted in the statistical analysis of the archival data.

Numerous individuals assisted in the interviews with crime victims reported in Chapter 8: George Boguslawski, Felicia Chmelovsky, Aaron Geller, Gary Geller, Susan Knechtel, Mercedes Mahsoob, Olga Salvatori, Fred Stevens, William Vrbin, Danyel Wendroff, and Scott Westcott. We are indebted to Scott Beach, Michael Cross, and Matthew Torres for their able assistance in the analysis of the data. We express our warm thanks to the

PREFACE ix

individuals who facilitated our access to crime victims. They include chiefs of police Ronald Lees (Swissval~, Pennsylvania), James Lundie (McKees­port, Pennsylvania), George Napper (Atlanta), and David Varrelman (Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania). For their help in studying the reactions of rape victims, we are also grateful to Patty Hayes, Molly Knox, the late Ann Pride of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, and Peg Ziegler and Sherry Emery of the Rape Crisis Center at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta.

We express our warm thanks to Jasmin Riad for her assistance in compiling the references and to Marla Beller for her help with data entry.

We express our appreciation to the grant agencies that funded the research reported in this book: the National Institute of Mental Health (Violence and Traumatic Stress Research Branch), formerly known as the Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency (Grant No. MH275260), the National Institute of Justice (Grant No. 85-IJ-CS-0064), the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (Fulbright Scholar Program), and the Indo-American Fellowship Program of the Indo-U.S. Subcommission on Education and Culture.

Finally, we are deeply indebted to Tom Grisso for his careful reading of the manuscript and his many thoughtful and constructive comments. The manuscript profited greatly from his skillful editorial hand.

Contents

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .. . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . • . . • . . . 1

Victimization as a Social Problem ............................... 2 Extent of Criminal Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Impact of Crime ............................................ 2 The Victims' Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Research on Victims of Crime ................................ 5

Decision Making by Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Victims' Decision to Notify the Police ......................... 7 Social Psychology and Victim Decision Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A Program of Research on Victims' Decisions .................... 11 Purposes of the Research Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Strategy of the Research ..................................... 12 Goals and Outline of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER 2. AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH TO VICfIM DECISION MAKING.... 17

The Experimental Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Crime Scene and Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 The Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Participants'Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20

xi

xii CONTENTS

Study 1: Theft Magnitude and Thief's Race and Proximity as Determinants of Crime Reporting..... ...................... 21

Method.................................................... 22 Results....... ......... ..................................... 29

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35

CHAPTER 3. ExPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON lliE ROLE OF Scx:IAL INFLUENCE IN

VICTIM DECISION MAKING •.•.•.•..•••.....•.•........•.•.•..... 37

Study 2: Social and Emotional Factors in Victim Decision Making . .. 38 Method.................................................... 38 Results............................. .. .. ...... .. ..... ....... 42 Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44

Study 3: Type of Bystander Advice and Supporting Arguments .... 45 Method ..................................... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46 Results and Discussion ...................................... 48

Study 4: Parameters of Bystander Influence: Proximity, Support, and Knowledge ofthe Theft.......... ...................... 50

Method.................................................... 50 Results and Discussion ...................................... 51

Study 5: Parameters of Bystander Influence: Sex Similarity, Type of Supporting Argument, and Level of Surveillance ............. 53

Method.................................................... 54 Results and Discussion ...................................... 55

Study 6: The Effect of Fate Similarity on Theft-Victim Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57

Method.................................................... 58 Results and Discussion ...................................... 60

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63

CHAPTER 4. EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION BY THEFf VICTIMS .•.•.•.•....•.. 65

Study 7: Effect of a Prior Lineup Identification on a Subsequent Lineup Identification ...................................... 66

Method.................................................... 67 Results..................................................... 67 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68

Study 8: Effect of Type of Identification Task on Subsequent Lineup Identifications ..................................... 69

Method.................................................... 69 Results.................. ............. ......... .... .. .. ..... 70 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73

CONTENTS xiii

Study 9: Same Race and Cross-Race Identifications ............... 74 Method.................................................... 74 Results....... ...... ... ...... .. ............... ... .. . .. ...... 75 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76

Results Using Data from All Participants ........................ 76 General Discussion ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77

CHAPTER 5. ANALYSES ACROSS EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81

Validity of the Experimental Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82 Internal Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82 External Validity ............................................ 84

Variables Related to Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 Effect of Individual Characteristics on Reporting ............... 86 Relative Effects of Advice and Individual Characteristics

on Reporting ........................................... 88 Variables Related to Delay in Reporting ......................... 89 Relationship of Reporting Decision to Participants' Perceptions .... 90 Variables Related to Participants' Recall of the Theft .............. 92

Reasons for Participants' Reporting Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94 Reasons for Not Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95 Reasons for Reporting ....................................... 97

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99

CHAPTER 6. NORMATIVE EXPECTATIONS FOR CALLING THE POLICE .....•..... 101

Study of Normative Influence .................................. 101 Crime Seriousness ............................................. 103 Study 10: Crime Seriousness and Norms for Reporting in

Four Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104 Method .................................................... 105 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108 Discussion .................................................. 115

Study 11: Appropriateness of Reporting: Effects of Type of Offender and Sex of Victim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 116

Method .................................................... 117 Results ..................................................... 118 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119

Study 12: Norms for Reporting among Different Ethnic Groups in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 121

Method .................................................... 121

xiv CONTENTS

Results and Discussion ...................................... 121 General Discussion .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126

CHAPTER 7. ARCHIVAL ANALYSES .................................... 129

Study 13: Calls to the Atlanta Council on Battered Women ........ 130 Study 14: Police Records on Reported Thefts and Burglaries ....... 131

Method .................................................... 131 Results ..................................................... 132

Study 15: Rape Crisis Center Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 134 Method .................................................... 135 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 136

General Discussion of the Archival Research ..................... 148

CHAPTER 8. SELF.REpORTS: SURVEYING CRIME VICTIMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• 151

Study 16: Self-Reports of Rape Victims .......................... 152 Method .................................................... 153 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 153 Discussion .................................................. 154

Study 17: Interviews with Victims of Burglary, Theft, and Robbery .............................................. 155

Method .................................................... 155 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 158

Study 18: Survey of Reporter and Nonreporter Victims of Burglary and Theft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 159

Method .................................................... 159 Results and Discussion ...................................... 160

Study 19: Telephone Interviews with Victims of Burglary and Theft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 163

Method .................................................... 164 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 165 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 169

Study 20: A Longitudinal Study of Rape Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171 Method .................................................... 171 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 173 Discussion .................................................. 176

Summary and Conclusions ..................................... 177

CONTENTS xv

CHAPTER 9. A MODEL OF CRIME-VICfIM DECISION MAKING. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 181

Stage 1: Labeling the Event a Crime ............................. 185 Stage 2: Determining the Seriousness of the Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 187

Stress Resulting from Perception of Being Wronged . . . . . . . . . . . .. 188 Stress Resulting from Perceived Vulnerability .................. 190

Stage 3: Deciding What to Do .................................. 194 Victims' Options ............................................ 196

Social Influence and Victim Decision Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 204 Providing Information ....................................... 205 Receptivity to Information from Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205 Applying Normative Pressure ................................ 209 Providing Socioemotional Support or Nonsupport .............. 211

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 212

CHAPTER to. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH .............. 215

Summary of the Research ...................................... 215 The Reporting Decision ...................................... 216 Recall and Recognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 221

Implications of the Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 222 Multimethod Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 222 Theory-Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 224 Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 236

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 243

APPENDIX: A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE REsEARCHERS ....................... 245

Description of the Incident ..................................... 246 The Lawsuit .................................................. 248

Causes of Action ............................................ 248 Damages ................................................... 251

The Immediate Aftermath of the Filing .......................... 251 Pretrial Discovery ............................................. 254 The Trial ..................................................... 255

The Plaintiff's Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 256 Motion for a Directed Verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 257 The Verdict ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 258 Posttrial Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259

The Defendants' Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259 Reasonableness of the Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 260 Sensitivity ofthe Participant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 261

xvi CONTENTS

Consequences of the Lawsuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 261 Lessons to Be Learned ......................................... 262

Should the Study Have Been Conducted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 263 Could This Research Be Conducted Today? .................... 264

REFERENCES • • . • . • . • . . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . • . . • • . • . • . • . . . . . . • . • . • . . • . . . •. 265

TABLE OF CASES •.•.•.•.••.•...•.•.•.•••.•...•...•.....•...•..•••. 283

INDEX •..•..•...•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•...•.•.•.•..•........•.•••... 285