1. Centre for Women’s Justice, End Violence Against Women Coalition, Imkaan, Rape Crisis England & Wales. The decriminalisation of rape: Why the justice system is failing

2. FRA [European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights]. Violence against women: an EU-wide survey. Main results. Vienna: FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2014 [cited 2026 Feb 4]. Available from: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-2_en.pdf (Accessed 4 February 2026).

3. FRA [European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights], EIGE [European Institute for Gender Equality], Eurostat. EU gender-based violence survey – Key results. Experiences of women in the EU-27. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 2024 [cited 2026 Feb 4]. Available from: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/eu-gender_based_violence_survey_key_results.pdf (Accessed 4 February 2026).

4. Alderden MA, Ullman SE. Creating a more complete and current picture: Examining police and prosecutor decision-making when processing sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women. 2012 May 19;18(5):525-51.

5. Daly K, Bouhours B. Rape and Attrition in the Legal Process: A Comparative Analysis of Five Countries. Crime and Justice. 2010 Jan;39(1):565-650.

6. HM Government. The end-to-end rape review report on findings and actions [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2026 Feb 4]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001417/end-to-end-rape-review-report-with-correction-slip.pdf (Accessed 4 February 2026).

7. Machisa M, Jina R, Labuschagne G, Vetten L, Loots L, Jewkes R. Factors associated with rape case attrition in the South African criminal justice system: A national cross-sectional study. Br J Criminol. 2023 May 5;63(3):588-614.

8. Dudka K. Podstawy umorzenia i odmowy wszczęcia postępowania karnego w sprawach o przestępstwa zgwałcenia [Bases of dismissing and refusing to initiate criminal proceedings in cases involving the crime of rape]. Warszawa: Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości. 2012 [cited 2026 Feb 4]. Available from: https://iws.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Dudka-K-Zgwa%C5%82cenia-podstawy-umorzenia-i-odmowy-wszcz%C4%99cia-2012.pdf (Accessed 4 February 2026).

9. Widacki J, Szuba-Boroń A. Przestępstwo zgwałcenia w Polsce w latach 1999–2017 [Rape crime in Poland in 1999-2017]. Archiwum Kryminologii [Archive of Criminology]. 2019 Dec 2;(XLI/2):253-85.

10. Golding JM, Lynch KR, Renzetti CM, Pals AM. Beyond the stranger in the woods: Investigating the complexity of adult rape cases in the courtroom. In: Bornstein BH, Miller MK, DeMatteo D, editors. Advances in Psychology and Law. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2022. p. 1-37.

11. Venema RM, Lorenz K, Sweda N. Unfounded, cleared, or cleared by exceptional means: Sexual assault case outcomes from 1999 to 2014. J Interpers Violence. 2021 Oct 21;36(19-20):NP10688-719.

12. Burt MR. Cultural myths and supports for rape. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;38(2):217-30.

13. European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 2016. Special Eurobarometer 449. Gender-based Violence.

14. Johnson KKP, Ju HW, Wu J. Young adults’ inferences surrounding an alleged sexual assault. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 2016 Apr 10;34(2):127-42.

15. Christie N. The Ideal Victim. In: Fattah EA, editor. From crime policy to victim policy: Reorienting the justice system. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 1986. p. 17-30.

16. Randall M. Sexual assault law, credibility, and “ideal victims”: Consent, resistance, and victim blaming. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. 2010 Oct;22(2):397-433.

17. Smith SG, Chen J, Basile KC, Gilbert LK, Merrick MT, Patel N, et al. The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017 [cited 2026 Feb 4]. Available from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/46305 (Accessed 4 February 2026).

18. Galliano G, Noble LM, Travis LA, Puechl C. Victim reactions during rape/sexual assault: A preliminary study of the immobility response and its correlates. J Interpers Violence. 1993;8(1):109-14.

19. Möller A, Söndergaard HP, Helström L. Tonic immobility during sexual assault – a common reaction predicting post‐traumatic stress disorder and severe depression. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Aug 22;96(8):932-8.

20. TeBockhorst SF, O’Halloran MS, Nyline BN. Tonic immobility among survivors of sexual assault. Psychol Trauma. 2015;7(2):171-8.

21. Waterhouse GF, Reynolds A, Egan V. Myths and legends: The reality of rape offences reported to a UK police force. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context. 2016 Jan;8(1):1-10.

22. Fox KA, Cook CL. Is Knowledge Power? The Effects of a Victimology Course on Victim Blaming. J Interpers Violence. 2011 Nov 20;26(17):3407-27.

23. Gavin S, Kosaka R, Bangura MD, Kruis NE, Rowland NJ. Rape myth acceptance in the criminal justice system: Do criminal justice decision-makers endorse rape myths? J Interpers Violence. 2025 Sep 9 :8862605251363618. doi: 10.1177/08862605251363618.

24. Ramirez-Ene AD. [PhD thesis]. Walden University. 2021. comparing rape myth acceptance in law enforcement officers and non-law enforcement.

25. Page AD. True colors: Police officers and rape myth acceptance. Fem Criminol. 2010 Oct 20;5(4):315-34.

26. Areh I, Meško G, Umek P. Attribution of personal characteristics to victims of rape-police officers’ perspectives. Stud Psychol (Bratisl). 2009;51(1):85-100.

27. Sleath E, Bull R. Comparing rape victim and perpetrator blaming in a police officer sample. Crim Justice Behav. 2012 May 16;39(5):646-65.

28. Sleath E, Bull R. Police perceptions of rape victims and the impact on case decision making: A systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2017 May;34:102-12.

29. Camplá X, Novo M, Arce R. Fuerzas policiales y mitos sobre las agresiones sexuales: una revisión sistemática de la evidencia. In: Bringas C, Novo M, editors. Psicología jurídica: Conocimiento y práctica. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla; 2017. p. 287-303.

30. Hine B, Murphy A. The impact of victim-perpetrator relationship, reputation and initial point of resistance on officers’ responsibility and authenticity ratings towards hypothetical rape cases. J Crim Justice. 2017 Mar;49:1-13.

31. Venema RM. Making judgments: How blame mediates the influence of rape myth acceptance in police response to sexual assault. J Interpers Violence. 2019 Jul 4;34(13):2697-722.

32. Ask K, Landström S. Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law Hum Behav. 2010 Oct;34(5):392-401.

33. Franklin CA, Bouffard LA, Goodson A, Garza AD. Police Decisions in a Rape Scenario: The effect of trauma response, forensic evidence, stranger–perpetrators, and rape mythology. Violence Against Women. 2023 Dec 14;29(15–16):3024-49.

34. Davies M, Smith R, Rogers P. Police perceptions of rape as function of victim gender and sexuality. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles. 2009 Mar 1;82(1):4-12.

35. Zvi L. Police perceptions of sex-worker rape victims and their offenders: A vignette study. J Interpers Violence. 2022 Aug 18;37(15–16):NP14189-214.

36. Zvi L, Shechory Bitton M. Sex work and sexual victimization: A comparative study of students’ and police officers’ perceptions of sex‐working rape victims. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2026 Feb 28;44(1):109-19.

37. Constantinou AG, Butorac K. Rape myth acceptance among Croatian and Cypriot police officers. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 2025 Jul 16;25(3):851-69.

38. Fávero M, del Campo A, Faria S, Moreira D, Ribeiro F, Sousa-Gomes V. Rape myth acceptance of police officers in Portugal. J Interpers Violence. 2022 Jan 20;37(1–2):659-80.

39. Garza AD, Franklin CA. The effect of rape myth endorsement on police response to sexual assault survivors. Violence Against Women. 2021 Mar 3;27(3–4):552-73.

40. Parratt KA, Pina A. From “real rape” to real justice: A systematic review of police officers’ rape myth beliefs. Aggress Violent Behav. 2017 May;34:68-83.

41. Sleath E, Bull R. A brief report on rape myth acceptance: Differences between police officers, law students, and psychology students in the United Kingdom. Violence Vict. 2015;30(1):136-47.

42. Łyś AE. [PhD thesis]. University of Warsaw. Warsaw; 2021. Jawne i utajone postawy wobec przemocy seksualnej - rola usprawiedliwiania systemu i esencjalizmu biologicznego [Explicit and implicit attitudes toward sexual violence - role of system justification and biological essentialism].

43. Krahé B, Temkin J, Bieneck S, Berger A. Prospective lawyers’ rape stereotypes and schematic decision making about rape cases. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2008 Oct;14(5):461-79.

44. Bohner G, Schapansky E. Law students’ judgments of a rape victim’s statement: The role of displays of emotion and acceptance of sexual aggression myths. Int J Conf Violence. 2018;12:a635.

45. Lapsey DS, Campbell BA, Plumlee BT. Focal concerns and police decision making in sexual assault cases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2022 Oct 15;23(4):1220-34.

46. O’Neal EN, Beckman LO, Spohn C. The sexual stratification hypothesis: Is the decision to arrest influenced by the victim/suspect racial/ethnic dyad? J Interpers Violence. 2019 Mar 24;34(6):1287-310.

47. Salerno-Ferraro AC, Jung S. To charge or not to charge? Police decisions in Canadian sexual assault cases and the relevance of rape myths. Police Practice and Research. 2022 Sep 3;23(5):539-52.

48. Morabito MS, Williams LM, Pattavina A. Decision making in sexual assault cases: Replication research on sexual violence case attrition in the U.S. U.S. Department of Justice; 2019.

49. Tasca M, Rodriguez N, Spohn C, Koss MP. Police decision making in sexual assault cases. J Interpers Violence. 2013 Apr 16;28(6):1157-77.

50. Shaw J, Campbell R, Cain D, Feeney H. Beyond surveys and scales: How rape myths manifest in sexual assault police records. Psychol Violence. 2017 Oct;7(4):602-14.

51. Fansher AK, Welsh B. A Decade of Decision Making: Prosecutorial decision making in sexual assault cases. Soc Sci. 2023 Jun 12;12(6):348.

52. [ St. George S, Spohn C. Liberating discretion: The effect of rape myth factors on prosecutors’ decisions to charge suspects in penetrative and non-penetrative sex offenses. Justice Quarterly. 2018 Nov 10;35(7):1280-308.

53. Beichner D, Spohn C. Modeling the effects of victim behavior and moral character on prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Violence Vict. 2012;27(1):3-24.

54. Spohn C, Holleran D. Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly. 2001 Sep 1;18(3):651-88.

55. Murray S, Heenan M. Reported rapes in Victoria: Police responses to victims with a psychiatric disability or mental health issue. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 2012 Mar 30;23(3):353-68.

56. Bitsch A, Klemetsen ME. The legal grading of sexual citizenship: sentencing practices in Norwegian rape cases. Gender, Place & Culture. 2017 Feb 20;24(2):174-88.

57. Tamarit Sumalla JM, Romero Seseña P, Arantegui Arràez L, Aizpitarte A. How criminal is it to rape a partner according to the justice system? Analysis of sentences in Spain (2015–2022). Eur J Crim Pol Res. 2024 Dec 29;30(4):567-87.

58. Bielen S, Dimitrova-Grajzl V, Grajzl P. Sanctions for intimate partner sexual violence: Is the law on the books the law in action? J Interpers Violence. 2022 Jun 29;37(11–12):NP9635-66.

59. Peng Y, Yu X. Consent myths and norm violation responses: Reconceptualizing rape myth theory in sexual assault sentencing in China. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2026 Feb;44(1):1-19.

60. Barr S. [Bachelor thesis]. Mount Royal University. 2022. An exploration of how rape myth acceptance affects sexual assault trials in Canada.

61. McGlynn C. Rape trials and sexual history evidence. The Journal of Criminal Law. 2017 Oct 8;81(5):367-92.

62. Wilkinson-Ryan T. Admitting mental health evidence to impeach the credibility of a sexual assault complainant. Univ PA Law Rev. 2005;153(4):1373-97.

63. Smith O, Skinner T. How rape myths are used and challenged in rape and sexual assault trials. Soc Leg Stud. 2017 Aug 10;26(4):441-66.

64. Guarnera LA, Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT. Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations. Transl Issues Psychol Sci. 2017;3(2):143-52.

65. Neal TMS, Slobogin C, Saks MJ, Faigman DL, Geisinger KF. Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2019 Dec 15;20(3):135-64.

66. Depko A. Błędy w opiniowaniu sądowo-seksuologicznym. Rodzaje i przyczyny. In: Depko A, Krasowska A, editors. Seksuologia sądowa III Opiniowanie seksuologiczne w praktyce. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Lekarskie PZWL; 2023. p. 107-133.

67. Lew-Starowicz Z, Stusiński J. Etyka w diagnostyce seksuologicznej i orzecznictwie sądowo-seksuologicznym. In: Lew-Starowicz Z, Przyłuska-Fiszer A, Stusiński J, editors. Normy i kontrowersje etyczne w seksuologii. Sopot: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne; 2015. p. 237-250.

68. Pastwa-Wojciechowska B, Błażek M, Kaźmierczak M. Jakość opinii sądowo-psychologicznych – wymagania, wyzwania a rzeczywistość. In: Habzda-Siwek E, Kabzińska J, editors. Psychologia i prawo: Między teorią a praktyką. Sopot: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne; 2014. p. 399-418.

69. Pastwa-Wojciechowska B, Błażek M, Kaźmierczak M. Jakość opinii sądowo-psychologicznych - między oczekiwaniami i wymaganiami wymiaru sprawiedliwości. In: Szpitalak M, Kasparek K, editors. Psychologia sądowa Wybrane zagadnienia. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego; 2014. p. 49-74.

70. Vredeveldt A, van Rosmalen EAJ, van Koppen PJ, Dror IE, Otgaar H. Legal psychologists as experts: guidelines for minimizing bias. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2024 Aug 8;30(7):705-29.

71. Dror I, Melinek J, Arden JL, Kukucka J, Hawkins S, Carter J, et al. Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions. J Forensic Sci. 2021 Sep 20;66(5):1751-7.

72. de Keijser JW, Malsch M, Luining ET, Weulen Kranenbarg M, Lenssen DJHM. Differential reporting of mixed DNA profiles and its impact on jurists’ evaluation of evidence. An international analysis. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016 Jul;23:71-82.

73. Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice. 2011 Dec;51(4):204-8.

74. Milone JM, Burg MA, Duerson MC, Hagen MG, Pauly RR. The effect of lecture and a standardized patient encounter on medical student rape myth acceptance and attitudes toward screening patients for a history of sexual assault. Teach Learn Med. 2010 Jan 5;22(1):37-44.

75. Walker LE. Who are the battered women? Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 1977;2(1):52-7.

76. Chorn JA, Kovera MB. Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law Hum Behav. 2019 Dec;43(6):542-57.

77. Line ECN. [Master thesis]. Arizona State University. 2020. Experts screening experts: Are courts effectively gatekeeping psychological assessment evidence?

78. Barn R, Powers RA. Rape myth acceptance in contemporary times: A comparative study of university students in India and the United Kingdom. J Interpers Violence. 2021 Apr 22;36(7-8):3514-35.

79. Fakunmoju SB, Abrefa-Gyan T, Maphosa N, Gutura P. Rape myth acceptance: Gender and cross-national comparisons across the United States, South Africa, Ghana, and Nigeria. Sex Cult. 2021 Feb 24;25(1):18-38.

80. Hill S, Marshall TC. Beliefs about sexual assault in India and Britain are explained by attitudes toward women and hostile sexism. Sex Roles. 2018 Oct 6;79(7–8):421-30.

81. Lee J, Pomeroy EC, Yoo SK, Rheinboldt KT. Attitudes toward rape. A comparison between Asian and Caucasian college students. Violence Against Women. 2005 Feb 1;11(2):177-96.

82. Łyś AE, Studzińska A, Bargiel-Matusiewicz K, Nyúl B, Folkierska-Żukowska M. Myths concerning sexual violence toward women in Poland, Hungary, and Norway in the context of system justification theory: the role of beliefs in the biological origins of gender differences and ambivalent sexism. J Interpers Violence. 2022 Sep 8;37(17–18):NP16647-69.

83. Sasaki R, Hahnel-Peeters RK, Shimizu E. Development of the Japanese version of the Rape Excusing Attitudes and Language Scale and comparison between rape myth acceptance in Japan and the U.S. J Interpers Violence. 2025 Apr 30;40(7–8):1597-618.

84. Stephens T, Kamimura A, Yamawaki N, Bhattacharya H, Mo W, Birkholz R, et al. Rape myth acceptance among college students in the United States, Japan, and India. Sage Open. 2016 Oct 1;6(4).

85. Yamawaki N, Tschanz BT. Rape perception differences between Japanese and American college students: On the mediating influence of gender role traditionality. Sex Roles. 2005 Mar;52(5–6):379-92.

86. Peterson ZD, Perez Trujillo M, Jaramillo-Sierra AL. Judging the legality of sexually violent tactics: a comparison between prosecuting attorneys in the United States and Colombia. Journal of Sexual Aggression. 2022 May 4;28(2):261-79.

87. Beshers S, DiVita M. Changes in rape myth acceptance among undergraduates: 2010 to 2017. J Interpers Violence. 2021 Oct 6;36(19–20):9371-92.

88. Byrne CA, Petri JM, Oh JK. Changes in female rape myth acceptance among college students: A 20-year perspective. Sex Roles. 2021 Nov 21;85(9–10):542-57.

89. Szekeres H, Shuman E, Saguy T. Views of sexual assault following #MeToo: The role of gender and individual differences. Pers Individ Dif. 2020 Nov;166:110203.

90. Lee J, Lee C, Lee W. Attitudes toward women, rape myths, and rape perceptions among male police officers in South Korea. Psychol Women Q. 2012 Sep 1;36(3):365-76.

91. Murphy A, Hine B. Investigating the demographic and attitudinal predictors of rape myth acceptance in U.K. Police officers: developing an evidence-base for training and professional development. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2019 Jan 2;25(1):69-89.

92. Soria Verde MÁ, Armadans Tremolosa I. Efectos de la formación policial en el cambio actitudinal hacia la agresión sexual. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica. 2006;16:25-39.

93. Brehm JW, Cole AH. Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1966;3(4):420-6.

94. Bosson JK, Parrott DJ, Swan SC, Kuchynka SL, Schramm AT. A dangerous boomerang: Injunctive norms, hostile sexist attitudes, and male‐to‐female sexual aggression. Aggress Behav [Internet]. 2015 Nov;41(6):580-93. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21597 

95. Lathan EC, Langhinrichsen-Rohling J, Stefurak JT, Duncan J, Selwyn CN. Trauma-informed sexual assault investigations training: Lessons learned attempting to enhance sexual assault-related understanding and reduce rape myth beliefs and burnout among Police Officers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. 2022 Dec 31;16(4):539-59.

96. Arbiyah N, Otgaar H, Sauerland M, Rassin E, Maegherman E, Merckelbach H. The use of alternative scenarios in assessing the reliability of victims’ statements. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2025 Mar 16;31(3):291-308.

97. Griffith R. [Master thesis]. Washburn University. 2019. Forensic confirmation bias: Is consider-the-opposite an effective debiasing strategy?

98. Neal TMS, Lienert P, Denne E, Singh JP. A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law Hum Behav. 2022 Apr;46(2):99-120.