The Impact of Psychological Consequences of Rapeon Rape Case Attrition: The Police Perspective

Lucy Maddox & Deborah Lee & Chris Barker

Published online: 14 July 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract This paper examines whether the psychologicalsequelae of rape relate to rape case attrition by leadingpolice to see the victim as less reliable. A mixed methodsapproach with two linked studies, one qualitative and onequantitative, was used. In Study 1, the qualitative study,interviews with 12 specialist police officers were analysedusing Framework Analysis. In Study 2, the quantitativestudy, 76 specialist officers completed an online question-naire to assess the generalisability of Study 1’s findings. InStudy 1, officers’ perceptions of victims clustered into threestereotypes, which we label “the real victim”, “the maddiscloser”, and “the bad discloser”. Victims who exhibitedsigns of shame, self-blame, and post-traumatic stressreactions which impeded their ability to give a coherentaccount of the rape were perceived as less reliable “mad” or“bad” victims. The findings of Study 2 supported theseresults. Although police interview strategies have improvedin recent years, there is evidence that signs of trauma andshame in the victim are sometimes misinterpreted as signsof lying. This may affect attrition by impacting on victim-officer relationships. Further training on recognising traumaand understanding its consequences is recommended bothfor specialist officers and front-line staff.

Keywords Rape . Police . PTSD . Shame . Self-blame

Introduction

Rape is a particularly vicious crime with potentially severepsychological consequences (Faravelli et al. 2004). Forvictims wanting to seek redress from the criminal justicesystem, disclosure to the police is necessary. This involvesgiving a detailed account of the traumatic event to a totalstranger, and is acknowledged as more likely to result in re-victimisation than disclosure of any other crime (Kelly et al.2005). The attrition rate for rape cases in the UK is high:between one-half and two-thirds of individuals in the UKwho report rape discontinue legal proceedings before theircase is referred to the prosecutors (Kelly et al. 2005). Thishigh attrition rate is a continuing source of political andpublic concern.

Previous research has paid attention to victim factors thatmight contribute to attrition, such as victim experience ofdisclosure and factors related to the type of rape whichoccurred (Temkin 1997). Temkin (1997) found that victimswho have been raped by a stranger, been subjected tothreats or violence, or reported the rape immediately, aremore likely to report a more positive experience ofdisclosure to the police. This could be interpreted asstereotypical ‘rape myths’ (Brownmiller 1975; Burt 1980)of the quickly reported, violent stranger attack affecting thevictim-police interaction.

However, exactly how the psychological consequencesof rape experienced by the victim might impact ondisclosure to police and subsequent attrition from the courtprocess, remains scarcely investigated (e.g. Lees andGregory 1996; Temkin 1997). In addition, there is littleresearch exploring police officers’ views of rape case

L. Maddox :D. Lee : C. BarkerDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology,University College London,London WC1E 6BT, UK

L. Maddox (*)Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents,Child Care Assessment Team, Maudsley Hospital,De Crespigny park, Denmark Hill,London SE5 8AZ, UKe-mail: Maddox.lucy@gmail.com

J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44DOI 10.1007/s11896-011-9092-0

attrition or the phenomenology of their decision makingabout the victim’s credibility. Better understanding of whatoccurs at the point of disclosure to the police, from bothvictim and police perspectives, might help understand whyso many victims discontinue with the legal process afterinitial disclosure.

Nearly 60% of rape victims experience Post TraumaticStress Disorder (PTSD) (Kilpatrick et al. 1987), charac-terised by flashbacks, avoidance and hyperarousal. In theDSM-IV, PTSD is associated with self-blaming cognitions,a lack of memory for detail of the traumatic event, emotionssuch as shame, anger and fear, and sometimes a markedlack of affect (American Psychiatric Association 1994). Thepresence of PTSD symptoms, self-blaming thoughts andfeelings of shame can affect the presentation of victims asthey disclose a rape, by making their account disjointed, ormaking them appear unemotional.

Previous research has shown that disclosure of rape ismore positively perceived by both professionals (Kaufmannet al. 2003) and lay people (Winkel and Koppelaar 1991) ifthe victim reports in an emotional fashion, seeming nervousor upset, as opposed to cold or numbed (Burgess andHolmstrom 1974a, b). It is therefore likely that PTSDsymptoms of emotional numbing may potentially bemisinterpreted as signs of unreliability.

In addition, the associated feeling of shame has beenlinked to “shame-avoidance behaviours” (Lee et al. 2001)such as lack of eye contact, agitation, and avoidance oftalking about the shame-associated event. These samebehaviours are also associated with lying (Akehurst et al.1996) and again risk misinterpretation. Parole officers (Porteret al. 2000), judges (Porter and ten Brinke 2009) and otherprofessionals and non-professionals (DePaulo et al. 2003;Global Detection Research Team 2006; Hatz and Bourgeois2010) are known to be unreliable at detecting cues ofdeception from these types of behaviours.

Recent findings have suggested that victims who perceivethe police officer they disclose to as being more empathic aremore likely to take their case to court, and that perceivedpolice empathy is associated with reduced symptoms of PTSDand shame (Maddox et al. 2010). It is possible that police findit harder to believe and empathise with a victim who hasmore severe psychological symptoms, because these symp-toms may resemble signs of lying. For example, avoidance oftalking about the rape may be seen as deception, hyperarous-al may be seen as nervousness and re-experiencing symp-toms may cause the victim to appear cold and dissociated.This last example in particular goes against the stereotypical‘appropriate emotional response’ which is recognised in theliterature (Burgess and Holmstrom 1974a, b).

It is thus possible that psychological consequences ofrape might play a role in attrition of rape cases, both byaffecting the victim’s ability to continue with an often

distressing legal process and also by affecting how reliablethe victim seems to the police and legal representatives (i.e.the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK).

There is therefore a need for research on how thepsychological consequences of rape might impact onpolice perceptions of victim reliability. The present paperreports on two linked studies, one qualitative and onequantitative, exploring the police view of attrition in rapecases, police judgements of victim believability, andpolice experiences of interviewing victims of rape. Thestudies used a mixed methods approach in order toprovide a stronger triangulation of the phenomena(Barker and Pistrang 2005).

Study 1 was a qualitative interview study which aimed tounderstand police perspectives of victim presentation andpolice views on attrition. It examined how specialist policeofficers form their opinions about the reliability orunreliability of a victim’s account, focusing on how theyperceive psychological reactions to rape, e.g. symptoms ofPTSD, shame behaviours, and self-blaming cognitions.Study 2 was a quantitative survey which aimed to assessthe generalisability of the results of Study 1.

Study 1: Method

Participants

Participants were recruited via emails to police officerswho specialised in rape and sexual assault cases. Twelveofficers (four men, eight women) took part. Theseofficers had been trained to take statements from rapevictims and to support and guide the victim through theprocess of reporting and subsequently going to court.They provided a liaison point for the victim throughoutthe investigation of the rape. Officers ages ranged from26 to 55, M=34.23, SD=7.68; they had been working asspecialist officers in seven different urban police stationsfor between six months and 12 years, M=3.31, SD=4.07and had carried out between 10 and 400 interviews each,M=97. They were mostly white (10), with one black andone Asian officer.

Procedure

The semi-structured qualitative interview aimed to explorewhat might affect the officer’s perception of the veracity ofthe victim’s statement, and police views on rape caseattrition. An interview schedule of 13 questions wasdesigned in accordance with general principles of designinga semi-structured interview, as outlined in Smith (2008), forexample using open ended questions, planned prompts, andstructuring the interview so that the questions flow easily

34 J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44

into each other. In line with standard qualitative researchprocedures (Smith 1995), the interview protocol was usedflexibly. All officers were asked similar questions, althoughsometimes follow-up prompts were added. Two of thequestions asked for specific case examples, e.g. ‘have youever had a case where you think the victim is telling thetruth but you don’t have enough evidence, can you tellme about that?’ and ‘have you ever had a case whereyou think the victim is not wholly telling the truth, canyou tell me about that?’.

Most officers were interviewed in their respective policestations; two were interviewed off-site. No reimbursementwas offered. Interviews, conducted by the first author, tookapproximately one hour and were digitally recorded andmanually transcribed.

Analysis

Transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis(Ritchie and Spencer 1994). This type of thematic analysisis used to identify key themes in participants’ accounts,whilst integrating a priori issues into the data analysis(Pistrang and Barker in press). The process of analysisinvolves five inter-related stages: familiarisation, identifi-cation of a thematic framework, indexing, charting, andfinally mapping and interpreting the data (Ritchie andSpencer 1994). This process was carried out by the firstauthor and audited by the other two authors, in line with thequality criteria of Pope et al. (2000). The themes generatedby this analytic process are exemplified below by illustra-tive quotations, selected for representativeness by the firstauthor and audited by the other two authors (Pope et al.2000).

Study 1: Results

The findings are organised into two domains, according tothe two main topic areas in the interview: police views onindicators of victim reliability, and police views on reasons

for attrition. The participant number of the officer isindicated in brackets after all quotations. Ellipses (…)indicate editorial omissions.

Some additional material could be grouped into a thirdtheme, officer experience of secondary traumatisation,but in the interests of space and focus this has beenomitted from this paper, which concentrates on reasonsfor attrition.

Domain One: Indicators of Victim Reliability

Descriptions given by officers of reliable and unreliablevictims whom they had interviewed, were often couchedin a preliminary acknowledgement that “everyone isdifferent”. Accounts included sensitive consideration ofstrategies officers used to encourage victims to talk, forexample, getting people to write things down instead ofsaying them out loud, helping the victim to relax byusing personable, informal interview styles, and beinghonest and clear to encourage victims to disclose.

Features that officers thought indicated reliable orunreliable accounts clustered into three stereotypes, whichcan be labelled as “real”, “mad” and “bad” victims (seeFig. 1).

“Real” Victims

Victims thought by the interviewing officer to be giving atrue account were described as intelligent, well-dressed,emotionally distressed and vulnerable. They wanted to goto court, could describe the rape in detail and showedcongruent emotion:

“She came across as really plausible. I know weshouldn’t make judgements but she was really welldressed, very articulate, comes across as very com-posed and together. Clearly intelligent and educatedand comes across as such” (P2).“She wrote it down because she couldn’t say thewords… She was so distressed because she was

“Real victim” “Mad” disclosee “Bad” disclosee

Intelligent Well-

dressed Upset

Vulnerable Wants to go

to court

Mental health issues Vague

Irrational Doesn’t

come back

Overtly sexual Ulterior motive

Cold Unemotional

Unwilling witness

Fig. 1 Conceptualisation of categorisation of victims by the police

J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44 35

reliving it… she had a nose bleed, physically. She satthere and her nose bled and she was shaking and itwas horrible to watch her” (P1)“The way she tells it, the detail, the pain, thephysicality… The detail and not the crocodile tears,not the silence, just the relief in telling someone andbeing able to say in as much detail… people don’tmake that kind of thing up” (P8).

“Mad” Victims

Victims perceived as having mental health issues weredescribed as presenting in a vague and irrational way, with anincongruent affect, often not returning after the initial report:

“Vaguer and more resistant to the questioning… shetalks more about the fact that her phone was stolen,and I just think she’s nuts to be honest… she justexplains it to me as if she’s grazed her knee… it wasjust deadpan, ‘that’s what he did’” (P7).“Last week I dealt with two rapes, and both victimswere mentally unstable to the point where they’veboth withdrawn, suggesting to me that they’re nottelling the truth” (P8).“She had something wrong in the head” (P5).“Lady who is psychotic. I don’t know the technicaldefinition of psychotic, I use it in a colloquial sense.But she believes that her boyfriend has been rapingher. And you talk to her and it’s absolutelyexhausting… she talks about her emotions and howhe was beating her down with his words and youcan… there’s an element of truth… but it’s all soirrationally expressed” (P8).

“Bad” Victims

The third type of description was of people reporting arape for ulterior motives, which was often associatedwith a cold, unemotional and unwilling presentation.These victims were also described as sometimes appear-ing overtly sexual or angry: showing emotion incongru-ent with the distressed presentation of the “real” victim.In addition a lack of detail was thought to indicate a lackof reliability.

“There was one girl who was doing it, I think, to get ahouse. But they’re all pissed these people. All alcoholrelated issues. It’s terrible. It’s just frustrating becausewe have to deal with it as if we’re going to go all theway with it… when all you want to do is ‘see youlater, that’s rubbish’ Write it off. Instead you have to

view CCTV, take statements. Ridiculous. Even whenthey’re bloody lying. It’s a pain in the arse” (P6).“There’s no emotion expressed, there’s no anger…some people are just so… cold” (P7).“With false rape, people tend to, they talk in somuch detail about everything else around it, butwhen it comes to the act itself, they can either onlytalk about what they know from their own sexualexperience, or from what they see on the televi-sion… when pressed to talk about anything likepenetration… they can’t even begin to imagine howto describe it” (P12).“The ones who are telling lies will give you a brief,brief account and then he raped me and they will notgive you no matter how hard you try … they will notgive you any detail” (P4).

Several officers mentioned an instinct for detecting areliable account:

“A lot of the time it’s really easy to tell the differencebetween someone that’s telling the truth and someonethat’s not. You just get a feeling. I’ve been doing it foryears now and I’ve kind of… I’m not always right but99% of the time you can get a bit of a feel for agenuine victim and not… it’s just really a gut instinct”(P6).

Domain Two: Reasons for Attrition

Officers attributed attrition either to victim drop-out, or toCrown Prosecution Service refusal of a case.

Victim Drop-Out

Officers related victim drop-out to (a) victim-specificfactors, (b) factors related to the case, (c) factors relatedto the legal process and (d) external factors.

Victim-Specific Factors These related to the victim them-selves: their personality, whether they had mental healthissues or experienced self-blame, and whether theywanted to go to court or whether they just wanted toforget:

“I honestly believe that for some people that report tothe police, going to court and getting a conviction isnot what they want from the very beginning… I’veactually had a victim of a serial rapist say to me‘when the police came I was almost hoping that theywouldn’t be sympathetic and nice to me so I could say‘just forget it’. I was actually looking for an excusenot to go ahead’” (P2).

36 J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44

One officer regarded the majority of victims as beinghighly vulnerable in general:

“It is a stressful situation and the people we deal with are,the majority of them, vulnerable. By nature they are justvulnerable people, they’ve got sort of broken lives” (P7).

Victims with mental health issues were seen as particu-larly vulnerable, although, paradoxically, mental healthissues were seen to decrease believability (see above):

“She had a history of mental illness… depression…and she didn’t feel strong enough” (P5).

The possibility that the victimwas lying was also discussed:

“I’ve got ten cases at the moment and I’d say six ofthem are not true, and that’s based on fact rather thangut feeling” (P9)

Lying was described as an important factor in attrition,but one which isn’t mentioned and often not acted upon bythe police:

“I think that they’re still a little unsure of prosecutingmalicious allegations because on the front of thenewspaper it would probably have ‘rape victimprosecuted’ and it would stop genuine victims comingforward” (P6).

Factors Related to the Case These involved availability ofevidence and nature of the assault. Victims who knew theirassailant were thought less likely to go to court, whetherbecause they were more afraid of being disbelieved, orbecause they felt fear of, or loyalty to, the assailant:

“I don’t think I’ve ever had a stranger one assault[stranger rape] where the victim has not wanted to goahead. Stranger two or your acquaintance or met in abar a couple of hours before then yes” (P2).

Factors Related to the Legal Process These comprisedmost of the reasons for attrition. A lengthy, frightening,badly-perceived court process was described, with officersacknowledging that they would be reluctant to undergo thesame scenario themselves:

“A lot of people come in, report it, and the next day,no I’m not going to speak to you… I lied… Becausegoing through it is a hassle, and I’m afraid for figures,to get people to report and prosecute for rape, themain person, the only person you need really is the

victim. And I wouldn’t do it” (P8).“It’s the length of time involved” (P3).

The media were described as exacerbating these fears:

“People don’t know that much about the court system,just see on TV programmes that you stand up in thebox and you’re called a slag” (P6).

External Factors The importance of the perception of othersand ongoing life stresses were acknowledged. The perceptionof family, friends and community was thought important:

“They don’t want to be thought of as ‘soiled goods’”(P3).

This was thought of as relevant across different cultures:

“Especially in this borough you get a lot of Asianwomenwho… not even just their family, the community… thepressure that’s put on them… ‘don’t shame us, don’tshame him, don’t do this’ you know” (P4).“It’s a tight, white, community where they’re very wellestablished and the families are very close. There’s a lotof pressure on her to pull out and that’s probably just asbig a factor as the evidence itself” (P8).

Views of the family on whether or not the victim shouldproceed to court were also important, particularly indomestic rape cases:

“A lot of the women, say for instance a married partner,if there’s kids in the family then he can virtually getaway with killing her. They can get away with anythingbecause she’s got this big guilt factor… ‘it’s mychildren’s dad – how can I do that to them?’” (P4).

In addition other stresses were seen as important:

“I’m talking to her three times a week trying to solveher housing problems, her childcare problems, so thatthe chances are she’ll have more time to concentrateemotionally on the case” (P8).

Crown Prosecution Service Refusal

Opinions on Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) involve-ment in attrition were split. Some said it was the “numberone factor without a doubt” (P3), whilst others thought itwas not involved at all “the CPS really do give people thebenefit of the doubt” (P7). Reasons for CPS refusal were

J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44 37

attributed to motivation of the CPS, witness credibility andavailability of evidence.

Motivation of the CPS This was a contentious issue. Someofficers thought that the CPS provided a really good service,and were lenient about letting cases go to court even if therewas the possibility of the case being unsuccessful:

“In this region they’re really good… they look for reasonsto take the case forward rather than reasons not to” (P12).

The same officer thought it was good that the CPSturned some cases away:

“The CPS is the gatekeeper… that’s a good thing, sothat the case doesn’t fall apart in court” (P12).

Others thought the CPS was overly harsh in turningcases away, motivated by a desire only to accept caseswhich had a good chance of resulting in conviction, sincethis is the standard that the CPS is judged on:

“They have their own agenda… money targets,figures, government. Their target is conviction, oursis charge” (P3).

Officers acknowledged variability in the service provided:

“It’s pot luck to be honest, it’s who you get on thephone to speak to” (P7)

as well as bureaucratic errors:

“Speaking to the detectives who have daily, daily run-inswith the CPS, losing papers, it’s like any organisation,mistakes happen. The admin is just silly. That’s wheremost of the problems with the CPS lie” (P7).

Witness Credibility Officer perceptions of what theythought would make a strong case for the CPS were verysimilar to material addressed above in relation to officerperceptions of reliability or unreliability. One example ofthis was the nature of the victim’s affect in interview:

“You go on the evidence but if you go on the stand weneed some tears. We need something to sell thisbecause that’s what juries respond to” (P7).

One officer illustrated this point with two examples:

“The victim was dragged off the street at knifepoint andit was a horrific rape over a period of about an hour and

a half, they did practically everything to her. In theinterview she was very emotional, she broke down, shewas crying because she was angry, and she went throughthis whole kind of channel of emotions in interview.They looked at that and she was a good witness, becauseshe had that anger, she had that emotion.Similar attack, not as vicious but similar. She was stillgrabbed but there was no weapon used. She just satthere and said it very factually ‘This is what happened’.There was no ‘I’m angry’, there was no tears, there wasno emotion. Her voice didn’t rise or go, she didn’t lookup, she didn’t look down, she just sat there. And theysaid she’s not believable. Having watched her on thevideo I could see what they were saying. But I dealt withher initially, and that was her… you know when it firsthappened she was very upset, very distressed… I thinkthat was her coping mechanism” (P9).

Other factors related more to rape myth stereotypes, forexample perceived promiscuity of the victim as reflected by theclothes worn by the victim. As a result of this, officerssometimes told victims not to wear a short skirt or low top intheir recorded interview:

“Now everything is videoed. They come in and they’vegot make up on or they’ve got a short skirt on or a fittedtop. And that can make a difference… she doesn’t ‘looklike a victim’. We can’t say change what you’re wearing,but we tend to meet people over a period of days and wetend to say it might be more suitable… it’s going to bevideoed so you don’t want to be wearing a skirt. Wedon’t want anything catching up with you…” (P9).

Availability of Evidence This was a common theme in CPSrefusal, especially where the case involved just one person’sword against another:

“DNA has been found everywhere that the suspectsays we’re going to find DNA, and that agrees withwhat the victim says. It’s just a matter of whether itwas consensual or not” (P5).

And especially where alcohol was involved:

“Alcohol! That’s the mother! That’s what gets you everytime. I don’t know what the answer to that is…” (P5).

Study 1: Discussion

This study aimed to explore how victim presentationimpacts on officers’ perceptions of victim reliability andtheir views of rape case attrition. Results showed that

38 J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44

despite officers being sensitive to the ordeal that victimshave to go through in reporting a rape, and creative inthinking about strategies to overcome this, some stereotyp-ical perceptions of what made a victim seem reliable wereapparent. The factors comprising these stereotypes sug-gested that some psychological consequences of traumawere misconstrued as signs of unreliability, which officerslinked with attrition.

Officers’ descriptions could be grouped into threeclusters: “real” victim accounts which were truthful,“mad” victim accounts which were misguided, and “bad”victim accounts which were due to an ulterior motive.Several officers talked of an instinct for detecting reliability.Many of the factors described as indicating an unreliableaccount (both “mad” and “bad”) were symptoms of PTSD(e.g. coldness and avoidance of talking about the rape) orbehaviours linked to shame (e.g. vagueness arounddescriptions of the rape itself). These findings supportresearch suggesting that psychological consequences oftrauma could be misinterpreted (Akehurst et al. 1996;Kaufmann et al. 2003; Winkel and Koppelaar 1991) andsuggesting that “rape myths” of a stereotypical rape andrape victim (Brownmiller 1975; Krulewitz and Payne1978), still persist.

Features attributed to unreliable “mad” victim accountsincluded existing mental health issues and drug and alcoholuse. This contrasts with findings that people with mentalhealth issues and who drink or take drugs are at increasedvulnerability of rape (Stanko et al. 2005).

In response to questions about their views on the causesof rape case attrition, officers attributed the low rate of rapecases that go to court both to victim drop-out and CrownProsecution Service (CPS) refusal. Officers linked bothrefusal and attrition to unreliability. Two main features wereidentified by officers as leading to victim drop-out. Firstly,the nature of the process from report to court, which wasdescribed as lengthy, frightening, repetitious and badlyportrayed by the media. The length of time taken to go tocourt was particularly stressed as an important barrier.Secondly, the possibility that the victim was lying about therape. Additionally, officers related victim drop-out to thepersonality of the victim, and acknowledged the role oftrauma, mental health issues, and external stressors inmaking it more difficult to go to court.

CPS refusal was seen as due to lack of evidence, lack ofvictim credibility and a difference in motivation for the CPSthan for the police, with the CPS judged on successful casesat court, and so potentially more reluctant to allow lessstraightforward cases to get to the courtroom. Whilstreasons for CPS refusal of cases clearly involves featuresrelated to the rape itself and not only to psychologicalfeatures, descriptions of Crown Prosecution Service evalu-ation of account credibility were similar to the three clusters

of “real”, “mad” and “bad” attributes. For example, moreemotional victims were thought to be seen as more credibleby the CPS, in line with previous literature (Winkel andKoppelaar 1991). CPS judgement of credibility was alsothought to involve consideration of how a victim wasdressed. Victims were advised to dress in a way whichwould help them to appear “real” to the CPS, again in linewith ideas of rape myth stereotypes (Brownmiller 1975;Krulewitz, and Payne 1978). How victims experiencedbeing asked to change their clothes was not addressed, butit seems likely that this could exacerbate shame and self-blame, which are likely to already be high in victims ofrape (Maddox et al. 2010).

The link that officers made between emotion andcredibility is of note in the context of the notion of an‘appropriate presentation’ in interview. Literature onwhether people can detect if someone is telling the truthor not is mixed, with some research suggesting thatdeception can be detected in some circumstances (Hatzand Bourgeois 2010; Porter et al. 2000). Howeverevidence for this is limited and context specific, and thereis at least an equal body of research to suggest thatbehavioural cues and gut instinct should not be relied upon(e.g. Porter et al. 2000). Individuals respond to trauma indifferent ways, and there is not enough research to suggestthat it is possible, or appropriate, to make a judgementabout veracity at the point of the police interview.

An officer’s role is not to make a judgement about thetruthfulness of the account, or to make a decision aboutwhether it goes forward in the court process, but the data showthat most officers hold a view about whether an interviewee istelling the truth or not. How perceived credibility is linkedwith attrition is unclear. It is possible that officers are correctlydetecting untruthful accounts and that these are the caseswhich are then discontinued. It is also possible that officers areunwittingly communicating their lack of belief to the victim,and making it less likely for them to continue with the courtprocess. A further possibility is that the CPS are makingjudgements about witness credibility and feasibility in court,based in a similar way on behavioural presentation in thepolice interview, and also based on informal discussions withpolice officers.

It should be emphasised that the descriptions of CPSreactions were from officers’ accounts, and so furtherresearch is needed to establish the CPS perspective.Research could explore whether such stereotypes arepresent elsewhere in the judicial system, specifically byinterviewing CPS professionals, to investigate their view ofvictim credibility. Since, as one officer described, the CPSare the “gatekeepers” to the courtroom, their attitudes couldimpact profoundly on cases that are allowed through.

A limitation of this study was that it involved only 12officers, all of whom volunteered for the study, and who

J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44 39

therefore may be unrepresentative. Two thirds of the samplewere female, reflecting the greater proportion of femaleofficers who are trained sexual offences investigativeofficers, which may possibly have led to a bias in response.

To assess the representativeness of these results, study 2used a quantitative methodology and recruited a largerspecialist officer sample.

Study 2: Method

Recruitment

All specialist officers from five English police forces wereemailed inviting them to take part in the follow-upquestionnaire. Officers consented and participated online.

Participants

Seventy-five specialist officers (11 men, 64 women) tookpart. They were aged between 24 and 59, M=34.34, SD=7.67) and had been working in the specialist role forbetween two months and 19 years, M=3.85 years, SD=4.56. They had interviewed from two to 250 victims each,M=44.98, SD=47.6. Officers were almost all white (70;93.3%), with one black Caribbean (1.3%), and one mixed-race Asian–White officer responding (1.3%). Three (4%)did not disclose their ethnicity.

Measures

The questionnaire consisted of three sections: i), viewson victim reliability, ii) views on factors influencingattrition, and iii) views on the emotional impact ofworking as a specialist Sexual Offences InvestigativeTrained officer. Data from the first two sections arepresented here. Due to length restrictions, data from thethird section are omitted.

To explore views on victim reliability, officers wereasked to rate the importance of each of 50 items regardingfeatures which had been identified in Study 1 as relating toattrition and reliability, for example “There are no incon-sistencies in their account”. Officers were asked to rate eachitem on a 5 point Likert scale, ranging from 1=“Suggeststhat the victim’s account is very reliable” to 5=“Suggeststhat the victim’s account is very unreliable”.

To explore officers’ views on reasons for attrition, theywere asked to rate 17 items describing features which hadbeen identified in Study 1 as relating to attrition, forexample “The person just wants to forget all about therape”. They responded to each item on a 4 point Likertscale, ranging from 1=“Very important” to 4=“Not at allimportant”.

Study 2: Results

Views on Victim Reliability

Table 1 presents officers’ reliability ratings, condensed forease of presentation into three categories: Reliable, Neutral,and Unreliable. Frequencies were rated in order ofperceived importance, with items ranked in order fromthose that were thought to indicate reliability, down to thosethat were thought to indicate unreliability (shown with anegative value in the score column). The closer the score isto zero, the less the item was rated as either a sign ofreliability or unreliability. Notable minorities of the officersthought all of the features identified in Study 1 wereimportant indicators, and for some features a majorityagreed that they were markers of reliability or unreliability(see Table 1).

Items associated with the “real” stereotype described inStudy 1 are all towards the top half of the table, showingthey are thought to indicate reliability, (e.g. no inconsistenciesin the account, victim is upset as they talk about the rape)whilst items associated with “bad” and “mad” stereotypesappear lower down the table, as signs of unreliability (e.g.victim contradicts themselves, victim is vague, victim hascurrent or past mental health issues, victim was drinking ortaking drugs). Ulterior motive and evidence against accountwere the items most strongly rated as signs of unreliability,whilst a lack of inconsistencies in the account and a gutinstinct that the account rings true were rated as mostindicative of reliability.

The results are broadly consistent with the clustersderived from Study 1. Features thought to relate to themost reliable “real” victim included being able to remembereverything about the rape, appearing tense and upset, andhaving a reputable job. Victims who reported the rapedirectly after the attack were thought to be more reliable by40% of officers. Victims who worked in a reputable jobwere thought more reliable by nearly 10% of officers.Victims who were upset or scared as they described theirrape were thought more reliable by one-third of officers.Tense body language indicated reliability to one-fifth. Alack of inconsistencies in the victim’s account portrayedincreased reliability for over one-half of officers. Victimswho could remember everything were thought to be morereliable by one-fifth of officers, and victims who couldrecall all the details of the rape were thought more reliableby one-quarter. Physical detail was seen as a sign of evengreater reliability by one-third of officers.

Items indicating less reliability included the “mad”stereotype features of vagueness, previous mental healthissues and lack of sobriety: victims with a history of mentalhealth issues, or known to have current mental health issueswere thought less reliable by nearly one-fifth of officers.

40 J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44

Drug or alcohol usemade nearly 15% of officers think a victimwas less reliable, whilst sobriety made one-fifth of officersthink a victimwasmore reliable. Vagueness in victim accountssuggested unreliability to nearly one-third of officers.

Features indicating less reliability also encompassed the“bad” cluster of features described in study one, includingulterior motive for allegation, lack of detail, and reluctance

to carry out the police interview. Contradictory accounts werealso thought to indicate less reliability by most officers.Victims who did not want to do the interview at all werethought less reliable by one-quarter. Most officers thought thatvictims seeming to have an ulterior motive, e.g. housing orcustody of children, were less reliable. Just under half ofofficers thought victims with a history of several previous

Table 1 Officer views on what makes a victim seem reliable or unreliable in interview

Suggestsreliability

Neither suggestsreliability nor unreliability

Suggestsunreliability

Score

% % %

No inconsistencies in account 54.0 36.5 9.5 0.43

Victim account “rings true” 45.2 54.8 0 0.43

Victim reports rape immediately 40.5 59.5 0 0.39

Victim seems scared 33.8 66.2 0 0.33

Victim upset as they talk about the rape 28.4 71.6 0 0.28

Account is full of physical detail 29.7 67.6 2.7 0.26

Tense body language 20.3 79.7 0 0.20

Victim can tell the officer all the details 21.6 77 1.4 0.20

Victim is sober 17.6 82.4 0 0.17

Victim remembers everything 18.9 77 4.1 0.14

Victim working in a reputable job 8.1 91.9 0 0.08

Victim seems cold and detached 8.1 91.9 0 0.08

Victim seems embarrassed 8.1 91.9 0 0.08

Victim had no previous contact withpolice

5.4 94.6 0 0.05

Victim goes red 5.4 93.2 1.4 0.04

Victim seems nervous 5.4 91.9 2.7 0.03

Victim is well-dressed 2.8 97.2 0 0.03

Victim has memory blanks 8 86.5 5.5 0.03

Victim avoids talking about the rape 9.5 83.7 6.8 0.03

Victim has a history of one night stands 1.4 98.6 0 0.01

Victim looks down as they speak 4.1 89.1 6.8 −0.03Victim finds it hard to make eye contact 1.4 89.1 9.5 −0.08Victim skirts around the issue 4.1 82.4 13.5 −0.09Victim was drinking or taking drugs 1.4 83.7 14.9 −0.13Victim has past mental health issues 0 85.1 14.9 −0.14Victim has current mental health issues 0 81 19 −0.18Victim doesn’t want to do the interview 1.4 77 21.6 −0.20Victim is vague 1.4 67.6 31 −0.29Officer gets gut feeling something is notright

5.5 45.2 49.3 −0.42

Victim has made several previousallegations

1.4 51.4 47.2 −0.45

Victim contradicts themselves 5.4 36.5 58.1 −0.51Victim has an ulterior motive e.g. housing 1.4 28.8 69.8 −0.66There is evidence against the account 1.4 27 71.6 −0.68

Note. For each item a summary score has been calculated by summing the product of the number of officers rating this item as either 1 (reliable orvery reliable), 0 (neither reliable nor unreliable) or −1 (unreliable or very unreliable), and dividing this score by the total number of officersresponding. A score of +1 would indicate that all respondents thought this item indicated reliability, whilst a score of −1 would indicate that allrespondents thought the item indicated unreliability

J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44 41

allegations were less reliable. However, in contrast to Study 1,“cold” presentations did not suggest unreliability and shame-behaviours were seen as signs of unreliability only by aminority.

Reasons for Attrition

Officers rated all reasons for attrition identified in thequalitative study as important, to varying degrees (seeTable 2). The most important were that the victim was nottelling the truth, that the victim wanted to forget about therape, that the victim never wanted to go to court but justwanted to tell someone, and that there was not enoughevidence. Least important were that the victim had had abad experience with the police, that the victim was notcapable of going to court, and that the victim was protectingthe suspect or was worried about the perceptions of others.Psychological reactions to trauma ranked approximately half-way in perceived importance in attrition.

Individual Differences

The officer’s years of experience as a specialist sexual offencesofficer was not correlated with their views of the victim’sreliability, but longer serving officers tended to give thefollowing features lower importance in predicting whether theperson would continue legal proceedings: if the person felt therape was their fault (Spearman’s rho=.31, p=.006), if theywere worried what others would think about them (Spearman’srho=.27, p=.021), and there was not enough evidence to go tocourt (Spearman’s rho=.23, p=.045).

There were too few male respondents to enablemeaningful comparison of sex differences.

Study 2: Discussion

The findings of study 2 were broadly consistent with thosefrom the qualitative interviews in Study 1. Several, thoughnot all, of the items identified as indicators of victimreliability in study 1, were also thought important by amajority of officers in study 2. All items generated fromstudy 1 were considered important by at least a minority.Items thought to impact on attrition were consistent acrossstudies 1 and 2. No major differences in opinion were foundto be related to years of experience.

A notable minority of officers responded in a way thatsuggests they read reliability from behavioural signs. Signsthat are interpreted as less reliable were often those whichcould stem from symptoms of PTSD (e.g. avoidance of theinterview, inconsistencies in the account, vagueness ofaccount), and in one instance shame-behaviours (lack ofeye contact). In accordance with literature on stereotypicalvictim presentation (Brownmiller 1975; Kaufmann et al.2003; Winkel and Koppelaar 1991) victims who were moreemotional (scared or upset) were seen to be more reliableby a significant minority of officers, although officers did notrate the opposite of this, “cold” or detached victim presenta-tion, as less reliable. Nonetheless, most items which werelinked with officer perception of victim unreliability werepotential symptoms of PTSD or behaviours associated withshame. These findings suggest that some psychological

Mean rating

Not telling the truth 2.43

Wants to forget about the rape 2.35

Not enough evidence 2.28

Never wanted to go to court, just wanted to tell someone 2.24

Trauma reactions make it hard 2.18

Scared of known suspect 2.16

Frightened of court process 2.15

Feel they are not/will not be believed 2.11

Victim not credible enough 1.97

Feel rape was their fault 1.97

Court process too long 1.96

No support from friends and family 1.96

Put off by media portrayal of court 1.84

Worried about others’ perceptions 1.83

Protecting known suspect 1.82

Victim not capable of going to court 1.69

Bad experience with the police 1.58

Table 2 Officer views on theimportance of factors impactingon rape case attrition

To calculate mean scores, eachLikert scale rating was given aweighted score, where 3=”Veryimportant”, 2=A little bitimportant, 1=Moderatelyimportant and 0=”Not at allimportant”. For each item theweighted score was multipliedby the number of officers whogave this rating and then dividedby the total number of officersresponding to the question

42 J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44

indicators of trauma are being misconstrued as signs ofunreliability.

Views on indicators of victim reliability supported the threeclusters described in Study 1: “real”, “bad” and “mad” victimcharacteristics. Ten percent of officers thought that if a victimhad a reputable job they were more reliable. Conversely, thiscould suggest that victims are also being presumed to beunreliable because of lifestyle factors such as employmentstatus. Most officers agreed that victims with a potentialulterior motive, such as housing needs or an ongoing custodybattle, were less reliable, fitting with the idea of the “bad”victim, who lies about a rape in order to meet an unrelatedneed. A relatively high percentage of officers rated victimswith mental health issues and victims who used drugs oralcohol as less reliable, in accordance to a stereotype of a“mad” victim who is less reliable, and in contrast to literaturewhich shows that these populations are at increased risk ofrape (Stanko et al. 2005). Officers also thought that victimswho report immediately after the rape were more reliable,when in fact it is a common reaction for rape victims to delayreporting the crime (Rickert et al. 2005). The idea that aninstinct for the truth was possessed by officers was supportedby approximately half this sample, despite evidence tosuggest that “gut instinct” is unreliable (Porter et al. 2000).

Views on attrition revealed that although most officersrated reactions to trauma as being very important ormoderately important, a significant minority thought traumareactions were only a little bit or not at all important. It isnotable that one item relating to shame, “worries about theperception of others”, was rated as particularly unimportant.That victim untruthfulness is ranked so highly as related toattrition may be explained by signs of trauma beingmisinterpreted as signs of lying.

A limitation of Study 2 is its use of a volunteer samplerecruited via the internet. It is not clear what wouldmotivate an officer to complete an online questionnaire onthis subject, and so it is hard to draw conclusions about anypotential direction of bias. The sample had a greaterproportion of female respondents but again, this reflectsthe greater proportion of women acting in a sexual offencesspecialist role. Additionally, fewer responses from ruralthan urban police services precluded any comparison byarea, which a larger scale study might attempt.

General Discussion

Studies 1 and 2 used complementary research methods toinvestigate whether psychological consequences of raperelate to rape case attrition by affecting police experience ofthe victim.

The two studies found that some behaviours associatedwith PTSD were interpreted as signs of unreliability of

victim account. Despite much evidence of diligent, sensi-tive work with victims, three perceptions of victim stereo-types were described (Fig. 1), which can be linked to rapemyths described in the literature (Brownmiller 1975;Krulewitz and Payne 1978), and which reveal that somepossible symptoms of PTSD (e.g. emotional numbness,vagueness, difficulty remembering the trauma) and relatedshame (e.g. lack of eye contact, unwillingness to discuss thetraumatic event) were interpreted as signs of lying orirrationality, in accordance with previous literature (Akehurstet al. 1996). Whilst psychological consequences of rape areby no means the only likely contributory factor in rape caseattrition, these studies seem to suggest that they are animportant and often overlooked consideration.

One speculation about why officers may not believevictims is that the officers may be defending againstsecondary trauma, as described in relation to otherprofessionals in the literature (e.g. Figley 1995). This maylead to officers defending against the difficult material theyhave to listen to by minimising its likely effect on thevictim, by not empathising too much with the victimexperience or by believing that it is not true. Future studiescould consider the influence of case-specific features onboth victim and police reaction, for example the effect thatdifferent types of rape have both on the victim’s psycho-logical reaction and on the officer’s perception of thereliability of the account. This type of study might integrateresearch on other factors which contribute to attrition (Leesand Gregory 1996; Temkin 1997) for example victimexperience of initial disclosure, or the presence or absenceof other sources of support available to victims. Futurestudies might also try to ascertain the two perspectives ofpolice and victim, for example by gathering data frompolice officers and victims who had been involved in thesame interview. This would add to our understanding ofhow important psychological consequences are in relationto other trauma-specific features.

In summary, these findings suggest that despite evidenceof great police dedication and specialist knowledge indealing with victims, police perception of the reliability ofrape victims’ accounts is still adversely affected by victims’experiencing shame and PTSD symptoms. If symptoms oftraumatic stress are being misrepresented as unreliability,this suggests that attrition might be reduced by moreknowledge of the psychological consequences of rape.Since symptoms of PTSD and shame behaviours are opento misinterpretation, further training on mental healthissues, in particular PTSD and shame, is recommended inorder to challenge the stereotypes of “real”, “mad” and“bad” accounts. Training on deception literature may alsohelp officers to remember that behavioural indications areopen to misinterpretation. It is hoped that the results ofthese studies will aid police training and contribute to

J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44 43

policy on treatment of rape victims and interpretation oftheir evidence, which ultimately may result in a decrease invictim drop-out, and an improvement in victim mentalhealth.

Acknowledgements Professor Betsy Stanko and the MetropolitanPolice Service Strategic Research Unit helped to set up the project.Thanks to all the participants for their time and helpfulness inspeaking about their experiences.

References

Akehurst L, Kohnken G, Vrij A, Bull R (1996) Lay persons’ andpolice officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. ApplCognit Psychol 10:461–471

American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders, 4th edn. American PsychiatricAssociation, Washington, DC

Barker C, Pistrang N (2005) Quality criteria under methodologicalpluralism: implications for conducting and evaluating research.Am J Community Psychol 35:201–212

Brownmiller S (1975) Against our will. Men, women and rape… aconscious process of intimidation by which all men keep allwomen in a state of fear. Penguin, Harmondsworth

Burgess AW, Holmstrom LL (1974a) Rape trauma syndrome. Am JPsychiatry 131:981–985

Burgess AW, Holmstrom LL (1974b) Rape: victims of crisis. Brady,US

Burt MR (1980) Cultural myths and support for rape. J Pers SocPsychol 38:217–230

DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K,Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129:74–118

Faravelli C, Giugni A, Salvatori S, Ricca V (2004) Psychopathologyafter rape. Am J Psychiatry 161:1483–1485

Figley CR (1995) Compassion fatigue: coping with secondarytraumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized.Brunner/Mazel, New York

Global Detection Research Team (2006) A world of lies. J Cross CultPsychol 37:60–74

Hatz JL, Bourgeois (2010) Anger as a cue to truthfulness. J Exp SocPsychol 46:680–683

Kaufmann G, Drevland GCB, Wessel E, Overskeid G, Magnussen S(2003) The importance of being earnest: displayed emotions andwitness credibility. Appl Cognit Psychol 17:21–34

Kelly L, Lovett J, Regan L (2005) A gap or a chasm? Attrition inreported rape cases. Home Office, London (Research Study 293)

Kilpatrick DG, Saunders BE, Veronen LJ, Best CL, Von JM (1987)Criminal victimization: lifetime prevalence, reporting to police,and psychological impact. Crime Delinquen 33:479–489

Krulewitz JE, Payne EJ (1978) Attributions about rape: effects ofrapist force, observer sex, and sex role attitudes. J Appl SocPsychol 8:291–305

Lee DA, Scragg P, Turner SW (2001) The role of shame and guilt intraumatic events: a clinical model of shame-based and guilt-basedPTSD. Br J Med Psychol 74:451–466

Lees S, Gregory J (1996) Attrition in rape and sexual assault cases. BrJ Criminol 36(1):1–17

Maddox, L., Lee, D.A., & Barker, C. (2010). Police empathy andvictim PTSD as potential factors in rape case attrition. Journal ofPolice and Criminal Psychology. Advance online publication.doi:10.1007/s11896-010-9075-6

Pistrang N, Barker C (in press) Varieties of qualitative research: apragmatic approach to selecting methods. In: Cooper H (ed) APAhandbook of research methods in psychology. American Psycho-logical Association, Washington, DC

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N (2000) Qualitative research in healthcare: analysing qualitative data. Br Med J 320:114–116

Porter S, ten Brinke (2009) Dangerous decisions: a theoreticalframework for understanding how judges assess credibility inthe courtroom. Legal and Criminological Psychology 14:119–134

Porter S, Woodworth M, Birt AR (2000) Truth, lies and videotape: aninvestigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detectdeception. Law Hum Behav 24:643–658

Rickert VI, Wiemann CM, Vaughan RD (2005) Disclosure of date/acquaintance rape: who reports and when. J Pediatr AdolescGynecol 18:17–24

Ritchie J, Spencer L (1994) Qualitative data analysis. In: Burgess RG(ed) Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge, London, pp 173–194

Smith JA (1995) Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis.In: Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L (eds) Rethinkingmethodsin psychology. Sage, London

Smith JA (2008) Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to researchmethods, 2nd edn. Sage, London

Stanko B, Osborn D, Paddick B (2005) A review of rape investigationin the Metropolitan Police Service. Territorial Policing, ProjectSapphire and the Directorate of Strategic Development, London

Temkin J (1997) Plus Ca change. Reporting Rape in the 1900s. Br JCriminol 37(4):507–528

Winkel F, Koppelaar L (1991) Rape victims’ style of self-presentationand secondary victimisation by the environment. J InterpersViolence 6:29–40

44 J Police Crim Psych (2012) 27:33–44