Participative leadership and hierarchical structures in multiple perpetrator rape: replicating and extending a scale of influence among offenders

ABSTRACT

This paper replicates and extends Porter and Alison’s (2001. A partially ordered scale of influence in violent group behavior: An example from gang rape. Small Group Research, 32(4), 475–497) method of leader identification in Multiple Perpetrator Rape (MPR). The study examined 216 MPR offences (totalling 712 different offenders), collected from archival sources (predominantly law reports). Porter and Alison’s original coding scheme was refined and Multidimensional Scaling identified a partially ordered scale of influence based upon the decisions, actions and orders made by the offenders at each chronological offence stage. The updated scale identified leaders in 97% of the sample groups. The hierarchical structures of the groups were also examined through the distribution of influence among co-offenders. While the majority (68%) of cases exhibited a dichotomous leader/follower structure, some “followers” also exhibited influence tactics to varying degrees with the presence of “lieutenants” and linear hierarchies. The findings are discussed in relation to group dynamics as well as the reliability and validity of the influence scale.

KEYWORDS:

• Multiple perpetrator rape
• group rape
• leadership
• influence
• co-offending
• group dynamics

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Economic and Social Research Council (UK) for funding this research as part of the first author’s PhD thesis.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Serial offences are included in the analysis as group leadership may be context dependent, varying with the changing group membership and changing offence context. The small proportion of serial offences is unlikely to unduly affect the over all structure of results (see Porter & Alison, 2006b).

2. The linear structure is the same as the lieutenant structure for teams of three, since there are only three roles to distinguish between. In the present analysis, teams of three that exhibit three different J scores have been categorised as a linear hierarchy, rather than a “lieutenant” hierarchy.

Additional information

Funding

The authors would like to thank the Economic and Social Research Council (UK) for funding this research as part of the first author’s PhD thesis.