Claims of sexual assault are especially prone to scrutiny and (re)interpretation as something else. We investigated how people judged the veracity of sexual assault claims and how they subsequently framed their interpretations of these claims using ‘general knowledge’ in the form of sexual scripts, rape myths, and gender stereotypes. Participants (n = 161) read about a sexual assault allegation by a male or female claimant and were asked to describe in more detail what they thought had happened. Data were analyzed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative frame analysis. A key finding was that although participants mostly accepted the facts of the claim, this did not automatically imply they shared the claimant’s interpretation of the event as (serious) sexual assault. The analysis revealed that participants drew upon distinct frames to interpret the claim, including frames – such as regretted consensual sex and miscommunication – that exonerated the accused and emphasized claimant responsibility. Frames were differentially employed in response to male and female claims of sexual assault. We discuss how our research design and findings can contribute to an increased understanding of the underlying mechanisms of victim acknowledgment.

性侵犯的说法特别容易受到审查和（重新）解释为其他东西。我们调查了人们如何判断性侵犯索赔的真实性，以及他们随后如何使用性脚本、强奸神话和性别刻板印象形式的“常识”来构建对这些索赔的解释。参与者（n= 161) 阅读了男性或女性索赔人的性侵犯指控，并被要求更详细地描述他们认为发生的事情。使用定量和定性框架分析相结合的方法分析数据。一个关键的发现是，尽管参与者大多接受了索赔的事实，但这并不意味着他们同意索赔人对该事件的（严重）性侵犯事件的解释。分析显示，参与者利用不同的框架来解释索赔，包括框架 - 例如遗憾的自愿性行为和沟通不畅 - 免除被告并强调索赔人的责任。在回应男性和女性的性侵犯指控时，采用了不同的框架。