8 Categories of Motives Cited:
1) Alibi
2) Attention
3) Disturbed Mental State
4) Material Gain
5) Relabeling* (see below)
6) Regret
7) Revenge
8) Sympathy
***
Motives for Filing a False Allegation
of Rape
André
W. E. A. De Zutter, Robert Horselenberg, Peter J. van Koppen
Published
online 2017 Feb 17.
Arch Sex Behav. 2018; 47(2): 457–464.
Abstract: The list
of motives by Kanin (1994) is
the most cited list of motives to file a false allegation of rape. Kanin
posited that complainants file a false allegation out of revenge, to produce an
alibi or to get sympathy. A new list of motives is proposed in which gain is
the predominant factor. In the proposed list, complainants file a false
allegation out of material gain, emotional gain, or a disturbed mental state.
The list can be subdivided into eight different categories: material gain,
alibi, revenge, sympathy, attention, a disturbed mental state, relabeling, or
regret. To test the validity of the list, a sample of 57 proven false
allegations were studied at and provided by the National Unit of the Dutch
National Police (NU). The complete files were studied to ensure correct
classification by the NU and to identify the motives of the complainants. The
results support the overall validity of the list. Complainants were primarily
motivated by emotional gain. Most false allegations were used to cover up other
behavior such as adultery or skipping school. Some complainants, however,
reported more than one motive. A large proportion, 20% of complainants, said
that they did not know why they filed a false allegation. The results confirm
the complexity of motivations for filing false allegations and the difficulties
associated with archival studies. In conclusion, the list of Kanin is, based on
the current results, valid but insufficient to explain all the different
motives of complainants to file a false allegation.
FULL
TEXT - LINK:
Excerpt on “RELABELING" ~
A
Dutch defense lawyer, Veraart (2006), described
two other motives for filing a false allegation. Sometimes consensual sex is
afterward presented by the complainant as rape to the police, because of its
disappointing or shameful character. The relabeling, however, is not
internalized as the complainant is still aware of the fact that she was not
raped at all because the sexual encounter was consensual. If consensual sex
afterward is, due to external pressure or influence, relabeled as rape, the
complainant might not have desired the sexual encounter but did consent without
any abuse of power or manipulation by the other party. The complainant,
however, did not convey her lack of desire. Unwanted but consensual sex is
common (Bay-Cheng & Eliseo-Arras, 2008; Erickson
& Rapkin, 1991; O’Sullivan
& Allgeier, 1998; Philips, 2000). In the study
conducted by O’Sullivan and Allgeier, 26% of men and 50% of women reported at
least one occasion in which they had engaged in unwanted, but consented, sexual
activity in a 2-week period. The element of a not wanting, a lack of desire, is
used to justify the false allegation of rape. But the complainant is still
aware of the fact that she was not raped and consented to the sexual encounter.
Lay people tend to associate rape with not wanting. De Zutter, Horselenberg,
and van Koppen (2017) conducted a
quasi-experiment in which they asked 35 women to fabricate rape and file a
false allegation. They found that the fabricated stories of rape, the false
allegations, resembled unwanted sex. Studies on fabricated rape have
consistently shown that lay people tend to associate not wanting sex with rape
(De Zutter, Horselenberg, & van Koppen, 2016; De Zutter et
al., 2017). Thus, if a
complainant recounts her unwanted consensual sexual encounter to friends and
family, her social environment will react with the label of rape. Once the consensual
sexual encounter is labeled rape by the environment, it creates a proverbial
point of no return in the head of the complainant who decides to file a false
allegation of rape at the police station instead of confronting her social
environment with the assertion that their label is invalid (Veraart, 1997, 2006). Sometimes
scholars have been said to engage in the process of relabeling consensual
sexual encounters as rape. Sommers (1995) argued in her
book “Who Stole Feminism?” that relabeling by scholars caused an inflation of
the prevalence rates of rape reported by some scholars in the USA, because only
one in four women who were labeled victims of rape by scientists in these
studies believed that they were, in fact, raped. [Excerpt from: André W. E. A.
De Zutter, Robert Horselenberg, Peter J. van Koppen, “Motives for Filing a
False Allegation of Rape,” Arch Sex Behav. 2018; 47(2): 457–464. Pub. online 2017 Feb 17.]
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete