Religious Affiliation,Religiosity,Gender,and Rape Myth Acceptance: Feminist Theory and Rape Culture

Abstract

Rape myths are false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists, often prejudicial and stereotypical. Guided by feminist theory and available empirical research, this study aimed to examine the influences of gender, religious affiliation, and religiosity on rape myth acceptance of U.S. emerging adults. A sample of 653 university students aged 18 to 30 years were recruited from a large public university in the southern United States to complete the research questionnaires. Results indicated that individuals who identified as Roman Catholic or Protestant endorsed higher levels of rape myth acceptance than their atheist or agnostic counterparts. Men were found more likely to ascribe to rape myths than their female counterparts. Religiosity was positively associated with rape myth acceptance, even after controlling the effect of conservative political ideology. No significant interaction was found between gender and religious affiliation or gender and religiosity. Limitations, future research directions, and implications of the findings are discussed from the perspective of feminist theory.

Keywords

rape myth acceptance religious affiliation religiosity gender political ideology

The prevalence of rape in the United States has been described as an “epidemic” (Davis, 1981; Russell & Bolen, 2000). In 2013, 79,770 rapes (excluding statutory rape and incest) were reported to law enforcement (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). The overall lifetime rate of rape for all women is 17.6%, indicating that one of every six U.S. women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network [RAINN], 2009; Rozee & Koss, 2001). Experts posit that approximately 68% of rapes go unreported, making it one of the most underreported personal crimes in the United States (RAINN, 2009), Canada (Ontario Women Directorate, 2004), and the United Kingdom (Walby & Allen, 2004). Rape also is prevalent on college campuses. For instance, it is estimated that one in five women and one in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college, but also, that more than 90% of these victims do not report the assault (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996).

The epidemic of rape in U.S. society has prompted the creation of many rape prevention programs; however, the impact of such programs may be short lived (Anderson & Whiston, 2005) due to the “rape culture” present in our society. Rape culture refers to the broader, deeply entrenched cultural attitudes regarding biological sex, gender, and sexuality that inform people’s attitudes about rape (Rozee & Koss, 2001). Through rape culture, it is assumed that sexual violence is a fact of life and ultimately inevitable (Buchwald, Fletcher, & Roth, 1993). According to Herman (1988), U.S. society is a rape culture because it fosters and encourages rape by instructing citizens that it is normal and natural for sexual relations to involve aggressive behavior on the part of males. Herman goes on to say that as long as these types of relationships are supported, rape will remain a common occurrence. Rape culture impacts the United States not only at the individual level but also at the institutional level, affecting how victims are perceived and essentially how cultural systems treat them, including how police officers interact with victims (Page, 2008).

The general purpose of this study was to investigate the influences of three selected factors on the endorsement of rape culture in university students. Guided by feminist theory, religious affiliation, religiosity, and gender have been linked with patriarchal attitudes and/or biased attitudes about women in separate studies but no published research work could be located that examined their unique contributions and possible interaction effect on rape myth acceptance attitudes. Relevant literature and theoretical reasoning will be presented next, followed by the specific hypotheses.

Rape Myth Acceptance

Rape culture is supported by rape myth acceptance (Herman, 1988; Kondos, 2016; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Rape myths are false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists, and are often prejudicial and stereotypical (Burt, 1980; Finley, 2016), and rape myth acceptance is the extent to which individuals endorse or believe in rape myths. Rape myths are culturally based, used to explain an important cultural phenomenon, and justify cultural arrangements (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). In addition, rape myths place the blame onto the victim while exonerating the rapist (Bohner et al., 1998). Rape myths appear to affect not only societal perceptions of rape but also the victim’s perceptions of rape (Jenkins, 2016; Monson, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Binderup, 2000).

Rape myth acceptance has been found to predict men’s sexual violence (Loh, Gidycz, Lobo, & Luthra, 2005), and overall, men are more likely to endorse rape myths than women (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Rape myth acceptance is associated with hyper-masculinity, hostility toward women, and homophobia (Anderson & Anderson, 2008; Parrot & Zeichner, 2003). In previous literature, religiosity has been found to correlate with rape myth acceptance, as well as interact with gender while affecting rape myth acceptance, with religious men being more likely to expect the women to take blame for her rape, whereas religious women were more likely to sympathize with the victim (Freymeyer, 1997).

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory is concerned with the fundamental inequalities between men and women, as well as the sense of patriarchy it entails (Hooks, 1984; Jackson, 1998; Price & Shildrick, 1999). Rozee and Koss (2001) emphasize the use of feminist theory to understand rape myth acceptance as society’s acceptance of patriarchy and male dominance, themes that are present in most religious systems (Ozorak, 1996). In this study, radical feminism is used as the guiding theoretical framework to explain why religion might influence the endorsement of rape myth acceptance through patriarchal values. Radical feminism is a branch of feminism that focuses on male oppression, or patriarchy as the cause of gender inequalities, the emphasis being violence, both physical and psychological, as perpetrated by male-dominated institutions against females (Williams, Sawyer, & Wahlstrom, 2012). Schneider (2004) states that patriarchy is the system of domination, which legitimizes the oppression on the weaker sex/gender by the more powerful one and is rooted in the hierarchal idea of men over women, as well as the marginalization of women (Edwards, Turchick, Dardis, Reynolds, & Gidycz, 2011). People who subscribe to the ideology of patriarchy, especially its sacralized form as hierarchy, regard what men do to women as their right (Schneider, 2004). Because rape ideologies emanate from and are perpetuated by a patriarchy system (Edwards et al., 2011) and because religion is a prevalently influential social and cultural source in our society that promotes hierarchy and patriarchy, it is reasonable to expect that religion would likely be a strong predictor of rape myth acceptance.

Religion and Religiosity

Religion is an important component of American life and culture (Newport, 2012). Religious affiliation is a categorical form of religious classification based on denomination (Steensland et al., 2000; Wald & Calhoun-Brown, 2014), whereas religiosity usually refers to religious beliefs, practice, involvement, or importance, often measured as a continuous variable (Freymeyer, 1997; Neff, 2006). Religious affiliation is a potent influence on culture, as well as socialization (Finlay & Walther, 2003; Sapienza, Zingales, & Guiso, 2006) that guides many political, cultural, and social attitudes. Survey findings suggest that approximately 77% of Americans identify as Christian, with 52% as Protestant and 23% as Roman Catholic (Newport, 2012). Of those who are religiously unaffiliated, 61% still believe in God (Pew Research Center, 2015). The statistical evidence clearly echoes the potential profound influence of religion, particularly Christianity, on beliefs and attitudes held by individuals in our country.

It has been suggested that some religious texts include passages that support rape myths and patriarchal attitudes, and that distorted or selective interpretations of these texts could influence the endorsement of rape myth acceptance (Barlas, 2009; Franiuk & Shain, 2011; Gross, 1993; Mir-Hosseini, 2006). Female chastity, wifely duties, and the ideal women are a few examples of the themes within religious texts that endorse patriarchy and contribute to a culture that excuses men’s violence against women (Narasimhan-Madhavan, 2006; Niaz, 2003). Sheldon and Parent’s (2002) research suggests that rape myths are endorsed by a large number of clergy. Findings show that more religious participants have higher rape myth endorsement than less religious participants (Edwards et al., 2011; Freymeyer, 1997; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Both religious affiliation and religiosity have been linked with other sociocultural attitudes, including homophobia (Finlay & Walther, 2003), transphobia (Nagoshi et al., 2008), racism, and sexism (Henley & Pincus, 1978).

Researchers conclude that rape myths do not develop due to objective evidence; rather, they develop within groups that provide a setting that is supportive of their development, and that these communities of believers often develop in-group mentalities (Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Freymeyer, 1997; Humphrey & Kahn, 2000). A religion is a powerful and influential community. Patriarchy and the status of women around the world are strongly influenced by religion (Albee & Perry, 1998; Starr, 1991), and if the church is an agent of socialization, akin to family, school, or profession (Boakye, 2009), it is reasonable to consider that religious beliefs may influence views of women and attitudes about rape.

Previous research has found that conservative political ideology is also associated with rape myth acceptance (Kahlor & Morrison, 2007). Wilson (2013) offered a definition of conservatism as a sense of resistance to change and the predilection to prefer safe, traditional forms of institutions and behavior. Not only do more conservative people prefer existing institutions, they also typically report having a disposition toward being cautious or moderate (Wilson, 2013). Although religion has been recognized as a conservative force in society and people who report being religious typically have more conservative views (Renzetti & Curran, 1995), it is not unusual to find some non-religious individuals also endorsing conservative political ideology. Because the purpose of this study was to explore the impacts of religious affiliation and religiosity on rape myth acceptance, we sought to control for conservative political ideology.

The Current Study

Although some research has explored religion and rape myth acceptance (e.g., Edwards et al., 2011; Freymeyer, 1997; Sheldon & Parent, 2002), limited research has considered both religious affiliation and religiosity, for available studies have focused mainly on Christian versus non-Christian beliefs as variables for rape myth acceptance (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994), failing to separate religious affiliation into sub-groups (or categories). In addition, previous studies have not simultaneously considered the roles of gender and political ideology while investigating the impacts of religion and religiosity. To address these limitations, the primary goal of this study was to examine the differences by religious affiliations in rape myth acceptance while controlling for conservative political ideology as well as to explore the unique and interaction effects of religiosity and gender on rape myth acceptance.

Guided by feminist theory and available literature, the following hypotheses were advanced:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): After controlling for political ideology, individuals who identified as Protestant or Catholic (i.e., who affiliate with a specific religion) would demonstrate higher rape myth acceptance than individuals who identified as agnostic or atheist (i.e., who do not affiliate with a specific religion).

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Religiosity would be positively associated with higher rape myth acceptance.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Men would have higher rape myth acceptance than women.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Gender would play a moderating role between religious affiliation and rape myth acceptance such that the interaction between gender and religious affiliation would explain variance in rape myth acceptance beyond either variable alone.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Gender would play a moderating role between religiosity and rape myth acceptance such that the interaction between gender and religiosity would explain variance in rape myth acceptance beyond either variable alone.

Method

Participants

Participants were undergraduate students aged 18 to 30 years (71.7% female, N = 961) enrolled in psychology courses at a large public university in the southern United States. Participants were recruited through the department research website and offered extra course credits for participation. Regarding religious affiliation, most students identified as Christian: Protestant (n = 341, 52.2%), Christian: Roman Catholic (n = 156, 23.9%), atheist (n = 68, 10.4%), or agnostic (n = 88, 13.5%). Because the sample did not contain a sufficient number of members of the other religious affiliation categories, only these four religious groups were included in the study, leaving a final sample of 653 for subsequent analyses. Demographic characteristics of the final participants are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

		N = 653	%
Gender
Male		185	28.3
Female		468	71.7
Age
M	20.40	—	—
SD	2.071	—	—
Range	18-30	—	—
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian		352	53.9
Black/African American		97	14.9
Hispanic		144	22.1
Asian/Pacific Island		39	6.0
Other		21	3.2
Academic classification
Freshman		177	27.1
Sophomore		148	22.7
Junior		182	27.9
Senior		142	21.7
Other		4	0.6
Religious affiliation
Protestant		341	52.2
Roman Catholic		156	23.9
Atheist		68	10.4
Agnostic		88	13.5

Measures

Religious affiliation

Participants selected their religious affiliation from a list of options (e.g., Christian: Roman Catholic, Christian: Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, and other).

Religiosity

Religiosity was an author-derived measure with two items. Participants were asked how important their religion is to them in their daily life and responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important. Participants were asked how often they attended church services and responded on a scale where 1 = never through 5 = more than once a week. These two items were summed together to form the religiosity variable (Cronbach’s α = .79).

Political ideology

Political ideology was an author-derived measure with two items. The first asked participants to rate their political ideology on social issues, and the second asked them to rate their political ideology on economic issues. On both, participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = very liberal through 7 = very conservative. These two items were summed together to form the political ideology variable, with higher scores representing a higher level of conservative political ideology (Cronbach’s α = .74).

Rape myth acceptance

This construct was measured by the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale–Short Form (IRMA-SF; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999). The IRMA-SF is a self-report measure of rape myth acceptance. Participants read 19 items regarding rape and rape victims and responded on a scale where 1 = not at all agree through 7 = very much agree. The IRMA-SF scale includes the following subscales: she asked for it (e.g., “If a woman is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of control”), it wasn’t really rape (e.g., “If a woman doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say that it was rape”), he didn’t mean to (e.g., “When men rape, it is because of their strong desire for sex”), she wanted it (e.g., “Although most women wouldn’t admit it, they generally find being physically forced into sex a real ‘turn-on’”), she lied (e.g., “Women who are caught having an illicit affair sometimes claim that it was rape”), rape is a trivial event (e.g., “If a woman is willing to ‘make out’ with a guy, then it’s no big deal if he goes a little further and has sex”), and rape is a deviant event (e.g., “Rape mainly occurs on the ‘bad’ side of town”). In this study, all the subscale scores were summed to form a total score, with higher scores representing a higher level of rape myth acceptance (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Procedure

This study was approved first by the university institutional review board (IRB). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants completed a survey online (remotely) and received course credit as compensation of their participation time. To encourage self-disclosure, the survey instructions emphasized that the information provided was anonymous and confidential, and no identifying information was requested from the participant.

Results

Rape myth acceptance total scores demonstrated high positive skewness across both men and women. A log10 transformation was performed to address this skewness (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and the transformed values were used in all primary analyses. Although other transformations such as the square root were explored, it was found that the log10 transformation yielded the best results in eliminating the skewness. For the ANCOVA, Levene’s test for the homogeneity of variance was significant, F(7, 645) = 3.518, p = .001; thus, a more stringent alpha value (p < .001) was specified. According to McLean (1978), concern over the effects of violations of homogeneity of variance may be minimized unless such violations are gross. Hill and Lewicki (2006) stated the F statistic is quite robust against violations of this assumption. Therefore, we proceeded with the planned ANCOVA. No other assumptions were violated. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of continuous variables are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Measured Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	M	SD
1. RMA	—				1.49	0.19
2. Political ideology	−.09**	—			3.75	1.76
3. Gender	.20***	.07*	—		1.72	0.46
4. Religiosity	.24***	−.29***	.14***	—	6.55	2.75

Note. Gender: male = 1, female = 2. RMA = rape myth acceptance.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Differences by Religious Affiliation and Gender

To test H1, H3, and H4, a two-way, between-groups ANCOVA was conducted in which gender (male and female) and religious affiliation (Christian: Protestant, Christian: Roman Catholic, agnostic, and atheist) were the independent variables and rape myth acceptance was the dependent variable with political ideology being the covariate. Results found significant differences in rape myth acceptance by gender, F(1, 644) = 25.87, p < .001, partial η² = .04, and by religious affiliation, F(3, 644) = 13.59, p < .001, partial η² = .060. No significant interaction was found between gender and religious affiliation on rape myth acceptance. Tukey’s post hoc analysis indicated the Protestant group endorsed significantly higher levels of rape myths than the atheist group (p = .003) and the agnostic group (p = .002). The post hoc analysis also indicated that the Roman Catholic group endorsed significantly higher levels of rape myths than the atheist group (p = .002) and agnostic group (p = .001). Based on the findings, we concluded that H1 and H3 were supported and H4 was not. The findings of ANCOVA and post hoc analyses are shown in Tables 3 and 4. To provide a visual illustration, we developed Figure 1 to show the rape myth acceptance scores of participants by gender and religion affiliation.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics—Rape Myth Acceptance ANCOVA.

Religious affiliation	N	M	SD
Protestant	341	1.51	.19
Roman Catholic	156	1.52	.22
Atheist	68	1.42	.17
Agnostic	88	1.42	.15
Gender
Male	185	1.56	.20
Female	468	1.47	.18
Total	653	1.49	.19

Table 4.

Tukey Post Hoc Results.

Variables (Religious Affiliation)	1	2	3	4	M	SD
1. Protestant	—				1.50	.19
2. Roman Catholic	−.01	—			1.52	.22
3. Atheist	.09**	.10**	—		1.42	.17
4. Agnostic	.08**	.10**	.01	—	1.42	.15

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Effects of Religiosity and Gender

To test H2, H3, and H5, a four-step hierarchical regression was performed with rape myth acceptance as the dependent variable. Political ideology was entered in the first step to control its effect, gender was added in the second, religiosity in the third, and the interaction of gender and religiosity was entered into the fourth step. Findings of the regression indicated that conservative political ideology was a significant contributor to the model, F(1, 651) = 5.49, p = .02, accounting for 1% of the variance in rape myth acceptance. The gender variable entered in Step 2 contributed significantly as well, F(2, 650) = 17.00, p < .001, accounting for 5% of the additional variance, which again supported H3. Accounting for 7% of the variance, religiosity demonstrated significant results at the third step, F(3, 649) = 28.15, p < .001, which yielded support to H2. The interaction term of religiosity and gender entered in the fourth step did not result in significant increment in variance, which suggested that H5 was not supported. The summary of the hierarchical regression analysis is displayed in Table 5.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Rape Myth Acceptance.

Variable	B	SE	β	T	R	R ²	ΔR²	ΔF
Step 1					.09	.01	.01	5.49
Political ideology	−.01	.00	−.09	−2.34*
Step 2					.22	05	05	28.29
Political ideology	−.01	.00	−.10	−2.74**
Gender	.087	.02	.20	5.32***
Step 3					.34	.12	.07	47.99
Political ideology	−.00	.00	−.03	−0.79
Gender	.10	.02	.24	6.35***
Religiosity	.02	.00	.27	6.93***
Step 4					.34	.12	.00	1.51
Political ideology	−.00	.00	.03	−0.72
Gender	−.03	.11	−.07	−0.28
Religiosity	.02	.00	.27	6.82***
Gender × Religiosity	−.13	.11	−.31	−1.23

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Gender and religious affiliation on rape myth acceptance.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to explore differences by religious affiliation in rape myth acceptance as well as the relationships among religiosity, gender, and rape myth acceptance. Results supported H1 in that, after controlling for political ideology, individuals who identified as Protestant or Roman Catholic demonstrated higher rape myth acceptance than individuals who identified as agnostic or atheist. This might suggest that people who affiliate with a religion may be more likely to place the blame on the victim rather than the rapist. Results supported H2 in that, after controlling for political ideology, religiosity was found to be associated with higher rape myth acceptance. Results supported H3 in that gender was found to be significantly associated with rape myth acceptance, with men being more likely to endorse rape myth acceptance than women, findings that are consistent with previous studies (Freymeyer, 1997; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010).

This could imply that individuals who are more religious (i.e., those with higher religiosity scores), due to their greater attendance and involvement in church activities, are exposed more often to patriarchal teachings and more likely to hold religion to a greater importance, which together result in stronger endorsement of rape myths. Our findings suggest that religious women may not endorse rape myths to the extent that their male counterparts do. This may be because the patriarchal teachings they are so often exposed to are oppressive in nature; and being someone sitting on the recipient end of the oppressive, patriarchal system, they presumably would be more readily and better able to empathize with victims of sexual assault due to their personal experience or feelings (Freymeyer, 1997). Results did not support H4 as there was not a significant interaction effect between gender and religious affiliation on rape myth acceptance; also, there was no significant interaction between religiosity and gender on rape myth acceptance, leaving H5 unsupported as well. The findings suggest that gender socialization and religion affiliation may be two significant yet independent sources affecting people’s rape myth acceptance attitudes. This study controlled for political ideology, with results overall staying consistent with previous research (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Findings suggest that individuals who affiliate with a religion, as well as individuals who are higher in religiosity, are more likely to endorse rape myths.

It should be noted that this study was limited in several ways. This study included only individuals who identified as either Christian (Christian: Protestant, Christian: Roman Catholic) or as a non-believer (atheist, agnostic), meaning that many other religions were not represented; therefore, the results may not be generalized to all religions. Second, findings of religiosity relied on a two-question, self-report scale of religious attendance and importance. Diverse interpretations of religious importance could have led to a variation in findings, and thus, religiosity could have been better accounted for through a more comprehensive measure. Similarly, the political ideology scale being made up of just two items could have also benefited from a more in-depth scale. This study utilized a convenience sample of college students, limiting the generalizability of the results to general populations of older ages or less educated. Analyzing young college adults could limit generalizability due to previous studies finding that levels of rape myth acceptance often vary between generations (Devdas & Rubin, 2007). Acceptance of rape myths reported by college students recruited from a single university campus in the southern United States may not be representative of those in other regions, especially in more liberal states. Because the data are cross-sectional in nature, the results that can be drawn about causality and directionality of results are limited.

Future studies could include individuals who affiliate with other religions. Analyzing results yielded by the rape myth acceptance subscales to identify particular rape myths that may be more prevalent than others may be a fruitful direction. Similar moderator/mediator effects may be examined on other dependent variables relevant to the rape culture, such as hostility toward women and the sexual double standard.

Because rape is so prevalent in U.S. culture, it is important to address the sociocultural attitudes underlying our perspectives of rape and rape victims. Feminist theory has been used in previous research to comprehend our society’s acceptance of patriarchy and male dominance (Rozee & Koss, 2001), themes found within most religions (Ozorak, 1996). Through the lens of radical feminism, patriarchal teachings contribute to the rape culture in the United States. Due to the social and cultural influence of religion in U.S. culture, radical feminist theorists would suggest that addressing the patriarchal teachings within the church may help to decrease rape myth acceptance. If we use the church as a platform to foster a positive environment for victims of rape, as well as an educational resource to diminish rape myths, it might lead to some substantial and lasting changes within our rape culture. If as a society we are able to lessen victim-blaming attitudes and provide a safe reporting environment, women as a result would then be encouraged to report sexual assault when it occurs and, thus, more likely to do so. Educating our society about the rape culture we live in, as well as sex and gender equality, could have the potential to make the impact of rape prevention programs successful and long lasting, and as a result might even decrease rape and the stigma surrounding its victims. Not many social institutions have the similar level of influence and power in our culture as religion does, and thus, it has the tools to drastically impact our society’s rape culture.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

A special thank you to Dr. Heidemarie Blumenthal for her contribution of helpful ideas and her time spent reviewing this article.

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

Michael D. Barnett is a senior lecturer in psychology at the Univeristy of North Texas. His current research includes older adults/aging, death and dying, end-of-life decision making, neuropsychology, and sexuality.

Kylie B. Sligar is a graduate from the University of North Texas. She earned her Bachelor’s of Science in psychology. Her research interests include trauma and gender issues.

Chiachih D. C. Wang is an associate professor of psychology at the University of North Texas. His current research includes attachment theory, cultural variations of adult attachment, acculturation, adjustment and psychological wellbeing of immigrant individuals, and parent-child relationships in Asian immigrant families.

References

Albee

G. W.

Perry

(1998). Economic and social causes of sexism and the exploitation of women. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 8, 145-160. doi:10.1002/1099-1298

Anderson

C. A.

Anderson

K. B.

(2008). Men who target women: Specificity of target, generality of aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 605-622. doi:10.1002/ab.20274

Anderson

L. A.

Whiston

S. C.

(2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 374-388. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00237.x

Barlas

(2009). “ Believing in women” in Islam: Unreading patriarchy interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: The University of Texas Press.

Boakye

K. E.

(2009). Attitudes toward rape and victims of rape: A test of the feminist theory in Ghana. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1633-1651. doi:10.1177/0886260509331493

Bohner

Reinhard

M. A.

Rutz

Sturm

Kerschbaum

Effler

(1998). Rape myths as neutralizing cognitions: Evidence for a causal impact of anti-victim attitudes on men’s self-reported likelihood of raping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 257-268. doi:10.1002/1099-0992

Brown

A. L.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2010). Personal and perceived peer attitudes supporting sexual aggression as predictors of male college students’ willingness to intervene against sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 503-517. doi:10.1177/0886260509334400

Buchwald

Fletcher

Roth

(1993). Transforming a rape culture. Minneapolis, MD: Milkweed Editions.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217

10.

Davis

A. Y.

(1981). Rape, racism, and the capitalist setting. The Black Scholar: Journal of Black Studies and Research, 12, 39-45.

11.

Devdas

N. R.

Rubin

L. J.

(2007). Rape myth acceptance among first and second generation South Asian American women. Sex roles, 56, 701-705. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9209-1

12.

Edwards

K. M.

Turchick

J. A.

Dardis

Reynolds

Gidycz

C. A.

(2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65, 761-773. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2

13.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Uniform crime reports. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/

14.

Finlay

Walther

C. S.

(2003). The relation of religious affiliation, service attendance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students. Review of Religious Research, 44, 370-393. doi:10.2307/3512216

15.

Finley

L. L.

(2016). Domestic abuse and sexual assault in popular culture. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

16.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women (Research Report). Institute of Educational Sciences, Education Resources Information Center. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449712

17.

Franiuk

Shain

(2011). Beyond Christianity: The status of women and rape myths. Sex Roles, 65, 783-791. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9974-8

18.

Freymeyer

R. H.

(1997). Rape myths and religiosity. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 17, 473-489. doi:10.1080/02732173.1997.9982179

19.

Gross

R. M.

(1993). Buddhism after patriarchy: A feminist history, analysis and reconstruction of Buddhism. Albany: State University of New York Press.

20.

Henley

N. M.

Pincus

(1978). Interrelationship of sexist, racist, and anti-homosexual attitudes. Psychological Reports, 42, 83-90. doi:10.2466/pr0.1978.42.1.83

21.

Herman

(1988). The rape culture. Culture, 1(10), 45-53.

22.

Hill

Lewicki

(2006). Statistics: Methods and applications: A comprehensive reference for science, industry, and data mining. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft.

23.

Hooks

(1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. New York, NY: Routledge.

24.

Humphrey

S. E.

Kahn

A. S.

(2000). Fraternities, athletic teams, and rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1313-1320.

25.

Jackson

(1998). Contemporary feminist theories. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

26.

Jenkins

(2016). Rape myths and domestic abuse myths as hermeneutical injustices. Journal of Applied Philosophy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/japp.12174

27.

Kahlor

Morrison

(2007). Television viewing and rape myth acceptance among college women. Sex Roles, 56, 729-739. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9232-2

28.

Kondos

L. M.

(2016). Linguistic causes of rape culture on college campuses. Philologia, 8, 1-15.

29.

Loh

Gidycz

C. A.

Lobo

T. R.

Luthra

(2005). A prospective analysis of sexual assault perpetration: Risk factors related to perpetrator characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1325-1348. doi:10.1177/0886260505278528

30.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths in review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x

31.

McLean

J. E.

(1978). The care and feeding of ANCOVA. Institute of Educational Sciences, Education Resources Information Center. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED191867

32.

Miller

T. R.

Cohen

M. A.

Wiersema

(1996). Victim costs and consequences: A new look (155282). National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155282

33.

Mir-Hosseini

(2006). Muslim women’s quest for equality: Between Islamic law and feminism. Critical Inquiry, 32, 629-645. doi:10.1086/508085

34.

Monson

C. M.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Binderup

(2000). Does “no” really mean “no” after you say “yes”? Attributions about date and marital rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1156-1174. doi:10.1177/088626000015011003

35.

Nagoshi

J. L.

Adams

K. A.

Terrell

H. K.

Hill

E. D.

Brzuzy

Nagoshi

C. T.

(2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Springer Science: Sex Roles, 59, 521-531. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7

36.

Narasimhan-Madhavan

(2006). Gender, sexuality, and violence: Permissible violence against women during the partition of India and Pakistan. HAWWA, 4, 396-416. doi:10.1163/156920806779152237

37.

Neff

J. A.

(2006). Exploring the dimensionality of “religiosity” and “spirituality” in the Fetzer multidimensional measure. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 449-459. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2006.00318.x

38.

Newport

(2012). Seven in 10 Americans are very or moderately religious. Gallup. Retrieved from http://gallup.com/poll/159050/seven-americans-moderately-religious.aspx

39.

Niaz

(2003). Violence against women in South Asian countries. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 6, 173-184. doi:10.1007/s00737-003-0171-9

40.

Ontario Women Directorate. (2004). Sexual assault: Reporting issues. Retrieved from http://www.orcc.net/sites/all/files/pdf/Sexual-Assault-Statistics-FS.pdf

41.

Ozorak

E. W.

(1996). The power, but not the glory: How women empower themselves through religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 17-29. doi:10.2307/1386392

42.

Page

A. D.

(2008). Judging women and defining crime: Police officers’ attitudes toward women and rape. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 389-411. doi:10.1080/02732170802053621

43.

Parrot

D. J.

Zeichner

(2003). Effects of hyper-masculinity on physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 70-78. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.70

44.

Payne

D. L.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of Its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.22386

45.

Pew Research Center. (2015). America’s changing religious landscape: Demographic study. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

46.

Price

Shildrick

(1999). Feminist theory and the body. New York, NY: Routledge.

47.

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. (2009). Sexual assault: Reporting rates. Retrieved from https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

48.

Renzetti

C. M.

Curran

D. J.

(1995). Women, men and society: The sociology of gender. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

49.

Rozee

P. D.

Koss

M. P.

(2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 295-311. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00030

50.

Russell

D. E. H.

Bolen

R. M.

(2000). The epidemic of rape and child sexual abuse in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

51.

Sapienza

Zingales

Guiso

(2006). Does culture affect economic outcomes? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 23-48.

52.

Schneider

S. M.

(2004). Beyond patching: Faith and feminism in the Catholic Church. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

53.

Sheldon

J. P.

Parent

S. L.

(2002). Clergy’s attitudes and attributions of blame toward female rape victims. Violence Against Women, 8, 233-256.

54.

Starr

(1991). The “natural inferiority” of women. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

55.

Steensland

Park

J. Z.

Regnerus

M. D.

Robinson

L. D.

Wilcox

W. B.

Woodberry

R. D.

(2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291-318. doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.291

56.

Suarez

E. B.

Gadalla

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2012-2035. doi:10.1177/0886260509354503

57.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.

58.

Walby

Allen

(2004). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey (Research Study No. 276). London, England: Home Office Research and Statistics Department.

59.

Wald

K. D.

Calhoun-Brown

(2014). Religion and politics in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

60.

Williams

B. K.

Sawyer

S. C.

Wahlstrom

C. M.

(2012). Marriages, families, and intimate relationships (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Education.

61.

Wilson

(2013). The psychology of conservatism. London, England: Routledge.