The significance of crises experiences in personal development is supported by literature in all fields of social science. Recent literature has given evidence to the prevalence of the influence of such events throughout the individuals’ life beyond the context of the experience through the process of reality construction. An important element of this process is how an individual creates personal avoidability or responsibility for their experience. According to the Antonia Abbey’s (1987) article Perceptions of Personal Avoidability Versus Responsibility: How Do They Differ?, an understanding of avoidability and responsibility is important in developing communication with the subject because it provides an understanding of the motivations and needs that are most prevalent (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).The premise presented by Abbey (1987) is significantly parallel to the classical characterization of fight versus flight response with the action focused on the perspective of responsibility. It also has uses psychoanalytic and analytic psychology in understanding the motivations and mechanism of responses (Hebding & Glick, 1992). Taken into a sociological study, avoidance and responsibility is discussed by the manner by which an individual creates personal attributions of responsibility that are directly influence their feelings regarding future negative outcomes and the degree of responsibility for the event, such as in the case of rape which was the focus of the study (Abbey, 1987).The treatment of the subject reflects the over-all trend in evaluating individual perceptions, experiences and responses for their unique value to create sensitivity and effectivity in the study of psychological and sociological issues (Neuliep, 2006). There are few direct valuations of the etymology of cultural, emotional or psychological influence to the development of responsibility and avoidance attributions to rape and the focus of the article is on the operation of the attributions. However, Abbey’s (1987) theory is in line with the currently accepted, if not popularized, ideas about the influence of culture, psychology and experience that there is no difficulty in cross-referencing the theoretical basis of the hypothesis presented.Impact to IssueRape, in itself, is a very complicated subject of study. Studying it from either the perspective of perpetrators and victims alike provides a wide range of research. Traditional perspectives regarding the resolution criminal acts focused on it as a criminal justice issue: punishment of offenders provides resolution of the act. However, according to Adams and Sydie (2001), there is greater realization now that the impact of crime is indicative and far pervasive after post-crime rather than during the event itself.In addition, since the issue is sensitive to gender and culture, understanding the mechanisms of responsibility attributions of rape and related crime can provide social organization competencies that can promote better interventions for victims. At the same time, these attributions indicate the prevailing social constructs regarding sex, gender and the nature of crime that is critical in developing criminal and social justice programs. Though there maybe need to further integrate more current literature into Abbey’s theory, the realization of the responsibility attributions is not based so much on reality of the crime but on the pre-existing and the developed constructs by the individual and the social context regarding the experience.ConclusionFrom the theory presented by Abbey, rape is an act that directly questions the value of the victim. Considered as the highest violation of a person, it challenges an individual’s perception of one’s self and how the individual deals with the experience of rape and the social attributions for it. In avoidance, the responsibility of rape is solely place on the perpetrator: the act is offender centered violation against the victim and society. In responsibility, the consequences of the action do not absolve the perpetrator but assign significant accountability among victims.In the former, the crime is unsolicited, victims are the object of the crime and beyond it do not have any operational influence on the commitment of the crime. In the latter, there is perception that the victim may have motivated the crime to be acted unto them whether it was in attracting the crime or by placing one’s self in a situation of vulnerability. Abbey points out that the factors that influence the perceptions of responsibility for rape develop from concepts of the individual before, during and after it.The responses seen as avoidance and responsibility for the event can actually be considered as a accumulation of the individual’s and society’s perception and experience of an event, construct or idea. The most critical premise to take however is to develop comprehensive insight to these elements and the mechanism by which they influence personality and socialization. In doing so, the impact on the individual and society can be mitigated to ensure that individuals who become victims are not discriminated or incapacitated by their experience.