Authors: Hackathorn, J., Ashdown, B. K., Rife, S., & Jordan D. ABSTRACT Recently, the Ashley Madison (AM) website was hacked and many users were identified. Despite the fact that technically they were the victims of a crime; the public has shown little empathy toward the AM user. The current study examines the tendency for victim blaming in this very specific, but real world event. That is, what variables might predict blaming and derogation of AM users? In the current study, an online survey measured participants' demonization of the users (Prooijen & Van der Veer, 2010), and attitudes toward deception, sexual attitudes and behaviors, as well as various relevant demographics (e.g., sex, relationship history). Information was collected at two separate times from two diverse samples each. In study one, participants (*N* = 185; 73 females and 11 males) were recruited via convenience samples of YOUNG undergraduates (*M*age = 19.14 *SD* = 2.18) at two universities: one Midwestern regional state university ( *n* = 119), and one northeastern private liberal arts college (*n* = 79). In study two, ADULT participants were recruited online via MTURK (*n* = 50) and Craigslist (*n* = 74). These participants (*N* = 124; 72 females and 52 males) ranged in age from 19 to 78 years old (*M*age = 37.24, *SD* = 13.43). Participants completed an online survey that queried perceptions of AM users, and potential predictors including belief in a just world (Murray, Spadafore, & McIntosh, 2005), perceptions of infidelity (Wilson et al., 2011), jealousy (White, 1981), sexual guilt (Janda & Bazemore, 2011), sociosexuality (Simpson & Gangestad, 1986), attitudes regarding deception (Levine, McCormack, & Avery, 1992), foundations of moral judgment (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2008), emotional responses toward the user (Batson, et al 1997), and various other demographics. Only variables that were correlated with the dependent variable were entered into the main analysis. Our analysis consisted of comparing and replicating multiple linear regression models in each study. The overall model in the YOUNG sample was significant *F*(9, 175) = 7.49, *p* < .001, *R2* = .28, *adjR2* = .24. The results indicated that the only predictor for demonization of AM users was participants’ anger toward the user, *B* = .33, *t* = 4.86, *p* < .001. However, it might be noteworthy that sex guilt was approaching significance *B* = ..15, *t* = 1.91, *p *= .058. The model in the ADULT sample was also significant, *F*(8, 107) = 4.93, *p* < .001, *R2* = .27, *adjR2* = .22, and replicated study one. The results indicated that participants’ anger toward the user, *B* = .30, *t* = 3.51, *p* = .001, was the only significant predictor. In this study, we measured multiple potential variables for how one might perceived the AM users. Individual differences, such as sex or sociosexuality, perceptions of overall infidelity behaviors or general deception, personal feelings of jealousy or sexual guilt and even belief in a just world were all measured. Our findings, which were then replicated in a second study with an adult sample suggest the one variable that predicts whether one demonizes AM users, is the participants’ anger toward the users. This self-reported anger was measured feeling anger, vengeful, and enraged toward the user (Batson, et al., 1997). The next question is of course: what is leading to the anger? Manuscript is currently under review. Manuscript is currently under revise and resubmit (Nov. 16, 2016). Manuscript accepted for publication in Psychology and Sexuality (March 28, 2017). Manuscript published online 4/21/17