There Are No “Innocent Victims”

Abstract

Utilizing data from an online survey of 979 university students, this study explores the relationship between prior sexual assault victimization experiences, belief in a just world, and acceptance of rape myths. Results indicated that men, younger respondents, and those with less education were more likely to support rape myths. Support for just world beliefs and rape myths were also positively associated, while rape victims exhibited less support for rape myths than non-victims. Implications for future studies are discussed.

Keywords

rape myths just world beliefs victimization sexual assault

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations, approximately 83,425 cases of forcible rape were reported to the police in the United States in 2011 (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011). In contrast, 208,987 females reported being raped that same year on the National Criminal Victimization Survey (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). Criminologists have long noted this pattern; rape is the most underreported violent crime in the United States (Koss, 1992). Scholars frequently argue that victims are discouraged from reporting by victim-blaming attitudes encountered among peers and members of the criminal justice system (Bachman, 1998; Kahn, Jackson, Kully, Badger, & Halvorsen, 2003). Scholars often refer to these attitudes as rape myths. In addition, psychologists have examined the belief in a “just world,” which is based on the assumption that people get what they deserve (Lerner, 1980). This study assesses levels of rape myth acceptance among a sample of college students while testing the impact of just world beliefs, prior victimization experiences, gender, age, ethnicity, and education on these victim-blaming attitudes.

Rape Myth Acceptance

The fear of rape is common among females of all ages; from an early age, they learn that the world is not a safe place for women (Burt, 1980). Socialized to modify their behaviors and limit their freedom of dress and movement to reduce their risk of rape, girls learn that society is quick to place the blame on the victim. These “cautions” are spawned from rape myths, which are “attitudes and beliefs that are generally false but are widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women” (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994, p. 134). Burt (1980) defined rape myths as “prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists,” noting that these myths are, “creating a climate hostile to rape victims” (p. 217). Studies suggest that rape myths are supported by many members of society, including men and women (Carmody & Washington, 2001; Hammond, Berry, & Rodriquez, 2011; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994).

Rape myths protect men from being held accountable for the rape, deny victim injury, and place the blame on the victim (Burt, 1980; Carmody & Washington, 2001; Ward, 1995). In addition, several studies conducted in the past 30 years found that men are more accepting of rape myths than women, whereas others find no difference (Aosved & Long, 2006; Aronowitz, Lambert, & Davidoff, 2012; Buddie & Miller, 2001; Hammond et al., 2011; Hayes, Lorenz, & Bell, 2013; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Sinclair & Bourne, 1998; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Also, Burt (1980) found that “rape attitudes are strongly connected to other deeply held and pervasive attitudes such as sex role stereotyping, distrust of the opposite sex (adversarial sexual beliefs), and acceptance of interpersonal violence” (p. 229).

Just World Beliefs

Individuals who hold just world beliefs support the assertion that in general, people get what they deserve (Lerner, 1980). Events in life are “deserved, so the world cannot be unjust” (Faccenda & Pantaleon, 2011, p. 506). Just world beliefs are rooted in the Protestant Ethic ideology where hard work is rewarded with good fortune and people are responsible for what happens to them (Lerner, 1980; Montada & Lerner, 1998). Because rape myths encourage victim blaming, they are consistent with just world beliefs. (Lerner, 1980; Montada & Lerner, 1998). Research suggests that people who endorse just world beliefs have a higher rape myth acceptance than those who do not (Burt, 1980; Hafer, 2000; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). A crime involving an “innocent” rape victim poses a threat to just world beliefs because it provides evidence that people do not always get what they deserve (Hafer, 2000; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Research has also shown that when individuals are faced with a threat to their just world beliefs (i.e., there was no retribution for a crime), they are more likely to assert that the victim was to blame (Stromwall, Alfredsson, & Landstrom, 2013). Furthermore, individuals reject and derogate victims who react to the rape in certain ways, or whose assailant is not brought to justice (Hafer, 2000).

In a recent study, Hayes et al. (2013) examined the relationship between belief in a just world and rape myth acceptance and distinguished between belief in a just world for oneself and belief in a just world for others. Hayes et al. (2013) found a negative relationship between just world belief for self and rape myth acceptance, and a positive relationship between just world belief for others and acceptance of rape myths. Just world beliefs not only affect individuals’ attitudes toward rape victims but also affect the attitudes of the victims themselves. Victims have to find a way to make sense of the incident. If they do not take some blame or responsibility for the incident, then they are admitting that they did not have any control over the event and this random event can occur again. Just world beliefs provide a basis for individuals to make sense of their world by believing that the world is “predictable, fundamentally just and governed by a certain order” (Faccenda & Pantaleon, 2011, p. 494).

Egan and Wilson (2012) found that rape victims who did report the crime to police did not differ in their just world beliefs from rape victims who did not report, which indicates that just world beliefs alone may not be a good predictor of whether or not a victim will report a crime. These findings conflict with Lerner’s (1980) assertion that “rape victims’ belief in a just world is seriously challenged after being raped and therefore they may no longer hold the belief that the world is a stable, orderly, and just place” (Egan & Wilson, 2012, p. 352). Interestingly, just world beliefs were related to rape attitudes for victims of a crime other than rape. The importance of this distinction leads us to our examination of just world beliefs among rape victims specifically, and in conjunction with other variables.

Prior Victimization

One might expect an individual’s attitudes and beliefs to be influenced by past experiences, but research on the relationship between prior victimization and rape myth acceptance is mixed. A victim’s perception of her own sexual assault may be “greatly influenced by rape myths and gendered stereotypes that excuse and justify sexual victimization” (Weiss, 2009, p. 830). When a woman is raped, she must try to make sense of what has happened to her. In an attempt to regain a sense of control, victims may blame themselves for the rape. This victim self-blame is further reinforced by rape myths.

In a survey of 623 undergraduate women, Carmody and Washington (2001) found no relationship between prior victimization experience and the general acceptance or rejection of rape myths. In addition, most of the women in their sample rejected most of the rape myths, regardless of their victimization status. Thus, within this study, rape victims and non-victims both reported low rape myth acceptance. Another study found that in situations of sexual assault and attempted sexual assault, victims have a lower rape myth acceptance than non-victims (Baugher, Elhai, Monroe, & Gray, 2010). Furthermore, Egan and Wilson (2012) found that rape victims had lower levels of rape myth acceptance, but only when controlling for reporting to the police.

Gender, Age, Education, and Ethnicity

Rape myth researchers have revealed patterns of support for these attitudes based on respondents’ gender, age, educational level, and ethnicity. Much of the past research has shown that men are more accepting of rape myths than women, or that there is no difference between men and women (Aosved & Long, 2006; Aronowitz et al., 2012; Buddie & Miller, 2001; Hammond et al., 2011; Hayes et al., 2013; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Sinclair & Bourne, 1998; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Furthermore, men are more likely to place more blame on the victim than the accused (Hammond et al., 2011). Buddie and Miller (2001) noted that individuals who accept rape myths are also aware of the negative impact that rape has on a victim. Women are “ultimately more aware of the cultural stereotypes surrounding rape than are males” (Buddie & Miller, 2001, p. 156).

Women may also support rape myths. They have been taught to avoid certain things to minimize their risk of rape or sexual assault. The results of these studies may seem contrary to what one would expect. But this can be explained by the Just World Theory, wherein women need to believe that they are in control of their lives and can prevent rape. American women may share the same beliefs as men because they live in a male-dominated society where women are considered the “gatekeepers” in sexual relationships, giving the false impression that women have control over all sexual experiences (Carmody & Washington, 2001, p. 434).

The relationship between age and rape myth acceptance has been examined in previous studies with mixed results. In a study of 125 college women, Mynatt and Allgeier (1990) found that older respondents reported higher rape myth acceptance. Burt (1980) found the same results in her study of 598 non-students above the age of 18. Conversely, other studies have indicated that older respondents report less support for rape myths (Aromäki, Haebich, & Lindman, 2002; Hamilton & Yee, 1990). And others did not find age to be a significant predictor of rape myth acceptance at all (Carmody & Washington, 2001; Feild, 1978a). In an attempt to explain the mixed results, Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994) suggested, “there is no conceptual rationale for expecting that biological age alone would be directly related to rape myth acceptance” (p. 144). They assert that there must be some third variable, such as education, that covaries with age and predicts rape myth acceptance.

Although education has been included as a demographic variable in many studies regarding rape myth acceptance, very few studies have reported any significant relationship between the two. Research by Sinclair and Bourne (1998) found that the majority of college students in their study scored low to moderate on measures of rape myth acceptance. In addition, Burt (1980) and Burt and Albin (1981) found that among non-students, respondents with a higher level of education reported lower rape myth acceptance. In contrast, Feild (1978a) examined 1,448 police personnel, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens and found no relationship between education and attitudes toward rape.

Conflicting findings have also emerged in the research on ethnicity and rape myth acceptance. Carmody and Washington (2001) found that although White women are slightly more supportive of rape myths than Black women, differences between the two groups on specific rape myth scale items were not statistically significant. The results of this study are contrary to research conducted by Burt (1980) and Feild (1978a), which found that Blacks are generally more accepting of rape myths than Whites. Carmody and Washington (2001) noted that the difference in results may be linked to the two decades that separated the studies, noting that, “sexual assault education programs have informed the public about these issues, especially on college campuses” (p. 433).

Purpose of This Study

This study builds on previous research by including just world beliefs, prior victimization, gender, age, education, and race/ethnicity as potential predictors of rape myth acceptance. This study expands our understanding of the underlying belief systems associated with rape myth acceptance by including just world beliefs and prior victimization as predictors of rape myth acceptance. A recent study by Hayes et al. (2013) examined the relationship between prior victimization, rape myth acceptance, and just world beliefs; however, their sample of prior victims did not distinguish between sexual assault victims and non-victims. Instead, the participants were divided into two categories: victims of personal crimes and victims of property crimes (Hayes et al., 2013).

Method

Sample

The current study utilizes data collected in 2008 as part of a long-term study designed to examine attitudinal change over time. The sample consisted of 979 students, 608 females (62.1%) and 371 males (37.9%). These sample demographics were compared with the university’s published demographics for 2008. Sample and university demographics are displayed in Table 1. Our sample had a higher proportion of females and freshmen and a lower proportion of students at the graduate level. This is also reflected in the lower mean age of the sample (24.1 years vs. 26.6 years). There were 90 female rape victims in the sample.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Sample.

Variable	Sample, n (%); n = 979	University, n (%); n = 22,912
Rape victims	90 (10)
Female	90
Gender
Female	608 (62.1)	12,871 (56.2)
Male	371 (37.9)	9,950 (43.4)
Unknown		91 (0.4)
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White	568 (58.0)	13,762 (60.1)
Non-Hispanic Black	201 (20.5)	4,789 (20.9)
Asian, Pacific Islander	120 (12.3)	1,373 (6.0)
Hispanic, American Indian, Other	88 (9.0)	1,788 (7.8)
Unknown		1,200 (5.2)
Class standing
Freshman	187 (19.1)	2,670 (12.0)
Sophomore	138 (14.1)	3,511 (15.0)
Junior	221 (22.6)	4,364 (19.0)
Senior	244 (24.9)	6,146 (27.0)
Graduate, Other	189 (19.3)	6,221 (27.0)
Age
Range = 17-56
M = 24.16
SD = 7.492

Procedure

Data for this study were obtained using an online survey. The survey was conducted in 2008 and included a variety of questions related to students’ criminal victimization experiences. All students enrolled at a large urban university were invited to participate via the daily “University Announcements” email. Students were invited to follow a link to an online survey on “campus crime and safety.” Via the web-link, participants were directed to a separate website that contained the survey. Students were guaranteed anonymity, advised that the findings would be reported only as group data, and told that no identifying information was requested. As several of the questions were related to sexual assault, a list of sexual assault support services was included at the end of the survey. The survey instrument and protocol were reviewed and approved by the University Institutional Review Board.

The data set utilized in our analysis was originally collected as part of a longitudinal study of change in attitudes over time. The first wave of data for the larger study was collected in 1998, and utilized Burt’s (1980) measure of rape myths and a rather limited measure of prior victimization, which was based on the Virginia Code 18.2-61, applicable at the time. We analyzed data collected in 2008 which also includes Burt’s measure. Although more recent measures of rape myths and prior victimization are available, these measures were used to retain consistency and enable comparison over time.

Measures

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale

Rape myth acceptance was measured with a modified version of Burt’s (1980) Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, which is a 19-item self-report questionnaire with a Cronbach’s alpha of .875 (Burt, 1980). The modified scale consists of 11 of the 19 questions from the original instrument and responses to items were assessed using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. Additive scale scores were computed and ranged from 11 to 41. The modified scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .834. Higher scores reflect stronger support for rape myths. The mean rape myth acceptance score was 18.52 with a standard deviation of 5.09. Mean scores for individual scale items are reported in Table 2.

Table 2.

Mean Scores for Rape Myth Acceptance Items (N = 979).

Questions	M	SD
A woman who goes to the home or apartment of a man on their first date implies that she is willing to have sex.	1.89	0.813
Any female can be raped.	1.59	0.851
One reason that women falsely report a rape is that they frequently have a need to call attention to themselves.	2.40	0.856
Any healthy woman can successfully resist a rapist if she really wants to.	1.78	0.789
When women go around braless or wearing short skirts and tight tops, they are just asking for trouble.	2.17	0.930
In the majority of rapes, the victim is promiscuous or has a bad reputation.	1.68	0.734
If a girl engages in necking or petting and she lets things get out of hand, it is her own fault if her partner forces sex on her.	1.61	0.749
Women who get raped while hitchhiking get what they deserve.	1.47	0.669
A woman who is stuck up and thinks she is too good to talk to guys on the street deserves to be taught a lesson.	1.34	0.607
Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped, and may then set up a situation in which they are likely to be attacked.	1.33	0.607
If a woman gets drunk at a party and has intercourse with a man she’s just met there, she should be considered “fair game” to other males at the party who want to have sex with her too, whether she wants to or not.	1.28	0.597

Note. Cronbach’s α = .83.

Prior victimization

Two questions were used to identify rape victims in the sample. Respondents were asked, “Have you ever had sexual intercourse with a man when you didn’t want to because he threatened to use physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) if you didn’t cooperate?” and “Have you ever been raped?” Response categories for the two questions were “yes” or “no.” Respondents who answered “yes” to either question were coded as rape victims (1) and non-victims were coded (0). Under this measure, 90 subjects were coded as rape victims (see Table 1).

Just World Belief Scale

To measure just world beliefs, we utilized a modified version of Janoff-Bulman’s (1989) World Assumption Scale. The modified scale consists of 15 items, and was assessed on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). A Cronbach’s alpha of .787 was obtained for the modified scale. The summative scale scores ranged from 15 to 90, with higher scores reflecting stronger adherence to just world beliefs. Mean scores for items included in the Just World Belief Scale are reported in Table 3. The mean just world belief scale score was 58.18 and the standard deviation was 8.34.

Table 3.

Mean Scores on the Just World Belief Scale (N = 979).

Questions	M	SD
Misfortune is least likely to strike worthy, decent people.	2.46	1.36
Bad events are distributed to people at random.	4.07	1.37
The course of our lives is largely determined by chance.	3.31	1.39
Generally people deserve what they get in the world.	3.41	1.29
People’s misfortunes result from mistakes they have made.	3.69	1.17
I usually behave in ways that are likely to maximize good results for me.	4.52	1.10
People will experience good fortune if they themselves are good.	4.08	1.17
Life is too full of uncertainties that are determined by chance.	3.55	1.21
I almost always make an effort to prevent bad things from happening to me.	4.50	1.08
By and large, good people get what they deserve in the world.	3.76	1.19
Through our actions, we can prevent bad things happening to us.	4.10	1.14
I take the actions necessary to protect myself against misfortune.	4.34	0.94
In general, my life is most a gamble.	4.43	1.17
I usually behave so as to bring about the greatest good for me.	4.52	0.98
When bad things happen, it is typically because people have not taken the necessary actions to protect themselves.	3.45	1.12

Note. Cronbach’s α = .787.

Findings

Just World Beliefs and Age

As expected, just world beliefs and rape myth acceptance were positively correlated (r = .105; p < .01). Those with a higher score on the Just World Belief scale, also tended to score higher on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Also, younger respondents scored higher on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale than older respondents (r = −.180; p < .01).

Gender and prior victimization

The t tests were utilized to compare levels of rape myth acceptance based on two independent variables: gender and rape victim status. The mean rape myth acceptance score for rape victims (M = 15.96) was lower than non-victims (M = 18.78) and this difference was statistically significant (p < .01). The results of the t test for gender revealed that males had a higher mean rape myth acceptance score (M = 20.43) than females (M = 17.35; p < .05).

Education and ethnicity

ANOVA tests were used to assess differences in levels of rape myth acceptance based on education and ethnicity. The results of the ANOVA tests are displayed in Table 5. The analysis revealed a statistically significant relationship between education and rape myth acceptance. Those with less education had higher levels of rape myth acceptance.

One-way ANOVA tests also revealed a statistically significant relationship between rape myth acceptance and ethnicity. Asian, Pacific Islanders had the highest scores on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (M = 21.9), whereas Whites had the lowest scores (M = 17.9).

Multivariate analysis

Multiple linear regression analysis (see Table 4) was performed on the independent variables without the control variable ethnicity (Model 1) and on the independent variables with the control variable (Model 2). The independent variables and control variable were tested for multicollinearity and they were sufficiently independent. The results also showed that the variation inflation factors (VIF) for Models 1 and 2 were less than 1.842. The findings for Models 1 and 2 were statistically significant as a whole (Model 1: Significant F Change = .000; Model 2: Significant F Change = .000). The variables in Model 1 explained 14.4% of the variance in the rape myth scale score and 18.8% of the variation in the rape myth scale score is explained by the variables in Model 2. The independent variables as a group were statistically significant predictors of rape myth scale scores in Models 1 and 2 (significance = .000).

Table 4.

Results of Multiple Linear Regression Analysis.

	Beta Coefficient
Variable	Model 1	Model 2
Control variable
Non-Hispanic Black	—	.041
Asian, Pacific Islander	—	.228**
Other	—	.060*
Independent variables
Just world belief	.104*	.095**
Sophomore	−.061	−.063
Junior	−.104*	−.084*
Senior	−.172*	−.176**
Graduate student/Other	−.088*	−.131**
Female	−.265*	−.259**
Age	−.128*	−.098**
Female rape victim	−.075*	−.060*

Note. Reference group: Freshman and non-Hispanic White; Model 1: Adjusted R² = .144*; Model 2: Adjusted R² = .188*.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 5.

Results of ANOVA Test: Rape Myth Acceptance With Class Standing and Ethnicity.

Variable	n	M	SD	F
Class standing				12.671*
Freshman	187	20.6	5.4
Sophomore	138	18.8	4.8
Junior	221	18.3	4.7
Senior	244	17.3	4.4
Ethnicity (control variable)				21.98*
Non-Hispanic Black	201	18.2	4.9
Asian, Pacific Islander	120	21.9	5.4
Non-Hispanic White	568	17.9	4.7
Other	88	18.6	5.6

p < .05.

Discussion

The overall purpose of this study was to extend the research on rape myth acceptance to include just world beliefs, prior sexual assault victimization, gender, age, education, and ethnicity. This study considered belief in a just world as an underlying belief system directly related to support of rape myths. This study also extends the work of Carmody and Washington (2001), by including additional ethnic groups and education as independent variables.

Individuals who scored higher on the just world belief scale also scored higher on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. This finding is consistent with previous research (Burt, 1980; Hafer, 2000; Hayes et al., 2013; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994).

One of the most important results from this study is that rape victims scored lower (M = 16.0) on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale than non-victims (M = 18.8). This finding is consistent with research that found rape victims who reported their crime had lower levels of rape myth acceptance than those who did not report. It should be noted that other studies have found no relationship between rape victims and the acceptance of rape myths (Carmody & Washington, 2001). These results are promising; they may reflect a change in societal attitudes about rape, based on changes in laws and implementation of sexual assault awareness campaigns. These efforts support victims’ understanding that rape is not their fault and that our legal system is becoming more aggressive in arresting and convicting rape offenders.

Much of the past research has shown that men are more accepting of rape myths than women, or that there is no difference between men and women (Aosved & Long, 2006; Aronowitz et al., 2012; Buddie & Miller, 2001; Hammond et al., 2011; Hayes et al., 2013; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Sinclair & Bourne, 1998; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). The current study also finds that men have higher rape myth scores than women.

This study found that males scored higher (M = 20.4) on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale than females (M = 17.4). The results of this study are consistent with previous research; however, it must be noted in previous studies that the relationship between gender and rape myth acceptance has been mediated by occupation, education, as well as restitution to the victim (Burt, 1980; van Prooijen & van den Bos, 2009).

Education has been a variable included in the demographics of previous studies, but rarely reported on. As hypothesized, freshman and sophomore students scored higher on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale than juniors and seniors. These results are consistent with previous research (Burt, 1980; Burt & Albin, 1981). Along a similar vein, a negative relationship was found between age and rape myth acceptance—Older respondents did score lower on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale than younger respondents (Hamilton & Yee, 1990). Regarding age and education, the initial belief was that these variables were tapping into the same construct, and one would lose its impact in the regression equation. This did not occur; both remained statistically significant in the regression analysis.

The findings concerning the relationship between respondent’s ethnicity and rape myth acceptance were interesting in that Asian, Pacific Islanders scored higher (M score = 22.0) on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale than non-Hispanic Blacks, non-Hispanic Whites, and Othesr. This finding is consistent with previous research, which has found that Asian students tolerate sexually harassing behavior and rape myths more than other groups and these results may be attributed to their culture (Kennedy & Gorzalka, 2002; J. Lee, Pomeroy, Yoo, & Rheinboldt, 2005).

There are two main implications for the results of this study: social and legal. Just world beliefs have been shown to be positively associated with rape myth acceptance (Burt, 1980; Hafer, 2000; Hayes et al., 2013; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). When an individual’s just world beliefs are threatened, they tend to place more blame on the victim (Hafer, 2000; Lerner, 1980; Stromwall et al., 2013; van den Bos & Maas, 2009). Furthermore, individuals who are more accepting of rape myths, tend to attribute more blame to the victim of a sexual assault (Mason, Riger, & Foley, 2004). The way in which individuals react to a rape victim is important because it affects the recovery of the victim and how family, friends, and society may help the victim (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1978; Ullman, 1996). Negative reactions such as blaming the victim, makes it very difficult for victims to heal from the rape and rebuild their lives (Ullman, 1996). According to Ullman, “members of the natural support networks of victims need to be educated about the specific social reactions that help and hinder recovery of victims of sexual assault” (p. 523).

As the results of this study indicate, younger individuals and lower classmen (freshmen and sophomores) are more inclined to believe rape myths; therefore, this particular group should be targeted and educated about the negative effects of rape.

Instead of conducting rape prevention programs that foster fear in women and teach them what they should do to prevent being raped, programs should target potential perpetrators and provide education on rape laws and the negative effects of rape on individuals. There have been several studies regarding the effectiveness of sexual awareness programs on campus and the results are encouraging. A study of 24 undergraduate men who participated in educational workshops designed to educate men on rape myths and provide them with the facts on rape, found that participant’s attitudes about rape did change after attending the workshops and they were less accepting of rape myths (L. A. Lee, 1987). In another study of 155 fraternity men, Foubert and McEwen (1998) found that after participating in a 1-hr program titled “How to Help a Sexual Assault Survivor: What Men Can Do,” the subjects’ rape myth acceptance scores declined.

Our legal system has made some changes to protect victims in the courtroom (Rape Shield Laws) and has broadened the definition of rape to include spousal rape (Deming & Eppy, 1981). These changes are useless, however, if the first responders to a rape scene (i.e., police officers) are not properly trained. Furthermore, participants in the judicial process need to be educated and make decisions based on the laws and not their own personal beliefs. Feild (1978b) suggested that in rape trial scenarios, juror’s attitudes toward rape during the course of voir dire should be assessed to detect any discriminatory attitudes of the jurors. In addition, based on the findings of this study, questions should include just world beliefs as well, as they appear to be strongly linked to the acceptance of rape myths. These attitudes need to be addressed within our legal system so that rape victims receive justice.

Limitations

Measuring rape is uniquely complicated because definitions of rape vary and rape is an especially underreported crime (Koss, 1992). As with much of the prior research regarding rape myth acceptance, this study was conducted on a college campus with mostly female participants. Although many would argue that due to their higher levels of risk of victimization, college students are an ideal study population, research including non-college participants would be helpful in determining whether rape myth acceptance is as pervasive in older, less educated individuals as it is in college students. Furthermore, testing freshman before they enter college would be useful in determining their level of knowledge and acceptance before they have the opportunity to be affected by their classes or are exposed to a sexual awareness campaign. As stated by Carmody and Washington (2001), without any longitudinal data “when exploring the relationship between women’s attitudes and their prior victimization experiences . . . we do not know if the women changed or maintained their attitudes in response to victimization” (p. 428).

Additional variables such as religiosity and exposure to sexual assault awareness programs would also benefit the current body of research and allow us to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of rape myth acceptance. Furthermore, more accurate and consistent measurement tools should be used to measure attitudes toward rape. Finally, research on rape has failed to provide any solid theory to explain rape myths, although feminist theory has done much to bring rape into the forefront of research and identify rape as a significant cultural problem.

Recommendations

Past research has focused on the relationship between gender and the acceptance of rape myths, specifically as it relates to victim blame. However, recent studies have shown that the acceptance of rape myths is closely related to gender and other oppressive beliefs such as ageism, racism, and homophobia (Aosved & Long, 2006). Much of this research has occurred on college campuses with a larger sample of females than males. Future research should include samples of non-students and include a more diverse sample. Also, future research should assess the effectiveness of sexual assault awareness programs to determine whether they are effective tools in preventing rapes and encouraging society to support rape victims.

Understanding and reducing rape myth acceptance has political and social implications. First, one of the main purposes of the criminal justice system is deterrence of crime. Rape myths and other victim-blaming attitudes discourage reporting. If rape continues to go unreported, then potential rapists “perceive the likelihood of apprehensions from the authorities as low, which can only serve to undermine any deterrent value the legal system may have in preventing rape” (Bachman, 1998, p. 9). Second, by identifying these causes, clinicians and social workers will have better tools to combat these myths. Better training tools can also be implemented to help them with their initial contact with offenders and victims. Finally, if we better understand the predictors of rape myth acceptance, more effective education and awareness programs may be implemented to challenge the societal attitudes fostering rape myth acceptance.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Rebecca L. Vonderhaar is an adjunct instructor of sociology at Old Dominion University. She received her master’s in applied sociology from Old Dominion University. Her current research focuses on rape myths and effectiveness of sexual assault programs.

Dianne Cyr Carmody is a university professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Her research interests include the media portrayal of crime and criminals, juvenile offenders, the criminal justice response to wife assault, school violence, and rape victimization.

References

Aosved

A. C.

Long

P. J.

(2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55, 481-492. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9101-4

Aromäki

A. S.

Haebich

K. K.

Lindman

R. E.

(2002). Age as a modifier of sexually aggressive attitudes in men. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 419-423.

Aronowitz

Lambert

C. A.

Davidoff

(2012). The role of rape myth acceptance in the social norms regarding sexual behavior among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 29, 173-182.

Bachman

(1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8-29.

Baugher

S. N.

Elhai

J. D.

Monroe

J. R.

Gray

M. J.

(2010). Rape myth acceptance, sexual trauma history, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2036-2053.

Buddie

A. M.

Miller

A. G.

(2001). Beyond rape myths: A more complex view of perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles, 45, 139-160.

Burgess

A. W.

Holmstrom

L. L.

(1978). Recovery from rape and prior life stress. Research in Nursing & Health, 1, 15-174.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Burt

M. R.

Albin

R. S.

(1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of conviction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 212-230.

10.

Carmody

D. C.

Washington

L. M.

(2001). Rape myth acceptance among college women: The impact of race and prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 424-436.

11.

Deming

M. B.

Eppy

(1981). The sociology of rape. Sociology and Social Research, 65, 357-379.

12.

Egan

Wilson

J. C.

(2012). Rape victims’ attitudes to rape myth acceptance. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19, 345-357.

13.

Faccenda

Pantaleon

(2011). Analysis of the relationships between sensitivity to injustice, principles of justice and belief in a just world. Journal of Moral Education, 40, 491-511.

14.

Feild

H. S.

(1978a). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 156-179.

15.

Feild

H. S.

(1978b). Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 73-93.

16.

Foubert

J. D.

McEwen

M. K.

(1998). An all-male rape prevention peer education program: Decreasing fraternity men’s behavioral intent to rape. Journal of College Student Development, 3, 548-556.

17.

Hafer

C. L.

(2000). Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified Stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 165-173.

18.

Hamilton

Yee

(1990). Rape knowledge and propensity to rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 111-122.

19.

Hammond

E. M.

Berry

M. A.

Rodriquez

D. N.

(2011). The influence of rape myth acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 242-252.

20.

Hayes

R. M.

Lorenz

Bell

K. A.

(2013). Victim blaming others: Rape myth acceptance and just world belief. Feminist Criminology, 8, 202-220.

21.

Janoff-Bulman

(1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition, 7, 113-136.

22.

Kahn

A. S.

Jackson

Kully

Badger

Halvorsen

(2003). Calling it rape: Differences in experiences of women who do or do not label their sexual assault as rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 233-242.

23.

Kennedy

A. M.

Gorzalka

B. B.

(2002). Asian and non-Asian attitudes toward rape, sexual harassment, and sexuality. Sex Roles, 46, 227-238.

24.

Koss

M. P.

(1992). The under detection of rape: Methodological choice influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-75.

25.

Lee

Pomeroy

E. C.

Yoo

Rheinboldt

K. T.

(2005). Attitudes toward rape: A comparison between Asian and Caucasian college students. Violence Against Women, 11, 177-196.

26.

Lee

L. A.

(1987). Rape prevention: Experimental training for men. Journal of Counseling & Development, 66, 100-101.

27.

Lerner

M. J.

(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

28.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths. Psychology of Women, 18, 133-164.

29.

Mason

G. E.

Riger

Foley

L. C.

(2004). The impact of past sexual experiences on attributions of responsibility for rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1157-1171.

30.

McMahon

Farmer

G. L.

(2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71-81.

31.

Montada

Lerner

M. J.

(Eds.). (1998). Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

32.

Mynatt

C. R.

Allgeier

E. R.

(1990). Risk factors, self-attributions, and adjustment problems among victims of sexual coercion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 130-153.

33.

Sinclair

H. C.

Bourne

L. E.

Jr. (1998). Cycle of blame or just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 575-589.

34.

Stromwall

L. A.

Alfredsson

Landstrom

(2013). Blame attributions and rape: Effects of belief in a just world and relationship level. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 254-261.

35.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010-2035. doi:10.1177/0886260509354503

36.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996). Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 505-526.

37.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Forcible rape. Crime in the United States 2011: Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape

38.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). National Crime Victimization Survey (ICPSR34061-v1). Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

39.

van den Bos

Maas

(2009). On the psychology of the belief in a just world: Exploring experiential and rationalistic paths to victim blaming. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1567-1578.

40.

van Prooijen

van den Bos

(2009). We blame innocent victims more than I do: Self-construal level moderates responses to just-world threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1528-1539.

41.

Ward

C. A.

(1995). Attitudes toward rape. London, England: SAGE.

42.

Weiss

K. G.

(2009). “Boys will be boys” and other gendered accounts: An exploration of victims’ excuses and justifications of unwanted sexual contact and coercion. Violence Against Women, 15, 810-834.