Contradictory predictions concerning control over negative events exist in Walster's self-protective attribution theory which maintains that on-lookers in negative situations are apt to seek control by convincing themselves that such a situation couldn't happen to them, while Shaver's defensive attribution theory suggests that in a comparable situation people are more likely to attribute the responsibility to change. A field test was utilized to survey women in three cities, by telephone, about rape prevention. Hypothesizing from the two theories, Walster would predict that the respondents feeling more likely to be victimized will be more likely to attribute effectiveness to control-maintaining strategies, while Shaver would predict the opposite. Assessment of risk by the subjects supported Walster with high endorsement for personal strategies by those judging their risk as high. In addition, respondents who believed there was no risk endorsed such strategies most of all, which satisfied neither theory. Shaver's theory received no confirmation. Passive responses were due to feelings of inadequacy among the subjects. (LS)