Sexual Assault in a ‘Just World’: An Immersive VR Study of Bystanders

This paper explores how the need to believe in a just world (NBJW) affects bystanders’ intentions to intervene when witnessing a sexual assault. More specifically, we explored how non-rational strategies used to resolve a threat to the belief in a just world (BJW) are related to Latané and Darley’s (1970) bystander decision-making process, and whether empathic variables mediate this. In Study 1, the threat to the BJW was indirectly manipulated by varying the sexual assault severity described in a text vignette. Measures assessing victim derogation, blame, psychological distancing from the victim, empathy, empathic concern and the bystander process were completed by 294 participants. The assault severity had no significant effect on BJW strategies, but increased intervention intentions. There was a lack of evidence for the role of victim derogation and blaming, but greater psychological distancing indirectly predicted lower general intervention intentions via reduced empathic concern, and a reduced ability to succeed in several of the bystander stages, especially accepting responsibility to intervene. We replicated this design in Study 2 ( N = 117), but using filmed virtual reality (VR) stimuli. We again found a lack of effect of the severity manipulation beyond increasing the likelihood of intending to intervene. In Study 2, we also found that victim blaming predicted general intentions, but with no clear mediators. Implications are discussed, including how factors like the emotional impact of stimuli and the empathic nature of VR could help to explain some of the differing results found across our studies.