Rape Myths,Rape Scripts,and Common Rape Experiences of College Women

Abstract

Rape is prevalent at colleges. Although research suggests commonalities across many college women’s rape experiences (e.g., perpetrators using multiple coercive strategies), vignettes used to assess rape perceptions often reflect false beliefs. Two studies varying a perpetrator’s coercive tactics examine rape perceptions using vignettes reflecting rape myths, rape scripts, or many college women’s common rape experiences. Participants perceive a woman who was raped more positively in vignettes reflecting common rape experiences versus those reflecting rape myths or scripts. Theoretical, educational, and research implications are discussed.

Keywords

rape victim perceptions rape myths rape scripts blame responsibility minimization gender differences

Research shows that individuals vary in their perceptions of women who have been sexually assaulted. Meta-analyses show demographic, attitudinal, and affective variations in individuals’ attributions of blame and responsibility to women who have been raped and perceptions of rapes as nonserious (i.e., rape minimization; for example, Anderson, Cooper, & Okamura, 1997; Hockett, Smith, Klausing, & Saucier, 2016; Pollard, 1992; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010; Whatley, 1996). Negative perceptions of and beliefs about women who have been sexually assaulted may serve self-protective functions for the perceivers (e.g., women may imagine themselves immune to sexual assault through avoiding characteristics and behaviors that appear related to the sexual assaults) and status quo maintaining functions (e.g., men may justify their group position in the social status hierarchy by blaming the victim rather than taking responsibility to end sexual assault).

However, rather than solely reflecting self-promoting ideologies, individuals’ negative perceptions of and beliefs about rape may also reflect, in part, the way researchers have depicted rape. A recent meta-analysis (Hockett et al., 2016) suggested that many rape vignettes (i.e., a short depiction of a rape scenario describing and manipulating various characteristics of the victims, perpetrators, and situations) used in previous research may contain elements that evoke such blame by reflecting individuals’ false beliefs (i.e., rape myths) and unrealistic expectations (i.e., rape scripts) regarding what constitutes rape, rape perpetrators, and women who have been raped. For example, these vignettes have commonly depicted the women who have been raped as being dressed provocatively, giving or accepting an invitation to be alone with the perpetrator, having a promiscuous reputation, engaging in physical intimacy with the perpetrator, being alone in the dark, and/or offering little to no resistance at the time of the assault (Hockett et al., 2016). Although these characteristics may be represented among women who have been raped, they may not represent common experiences of women who have been raped. Thus, such representations present a limitation in past research. Furthermore, as these examples suggest, past research has also focused on the behaviors of women who are raped, rather than on perpetrators’ behaviors. This focus may be another possible limitation of past research, because it may unintentionally reinforce the false belief that rape is primarily the targets’ responsibility. Thus, the central question of the current research is as follows:

Research Question 1: How can researchers construct sexual assault vignettes that may help educate participants about sexual assault victimization, rather than reinforcing false beliefs and unrealistic expectations?

Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current research was to extend the literature by exploring perceptions of women who have been sexually assaulted in the context of vignettes that reflect rape myths, rape scripts, or the common rape experiences of many college women (e.g., Lisak & Margolis, 2010; Lisak & Miller, 2002; McWhorter, Stander, Merrill, Thomsen, & Milner, 2009). College women’s rape experiences are of particular interest in the current research for two reasons. First, much of the rape attitude and perception literature has relied on college student samples. Second, although these samples are often viewed as a limitation to the research, they are actually ideal given that rape on college campuses is prevalent: at least 2.8% of college women are raped per semester (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). Thus, it was our expectation that vignettes reflecting common rape experiences of many college women would be perceived more positively than those reflecting individuals’ false beliefs about rape.

A secondary purpose of this research was to explore the effects of the sexual assault vignettes’ presentations on differences between men’s and women’s perceptions of the targets. Men (vs. women) consistently report more negative perceptions of women who have been raped (e.g., Anderson et al., 1997; Hockett et al., 2016). Thus, we also examined whether the differences between men’s and women’s perceptions of women who have been sexually assaulted varied dependent upon the consistency of rape vignettes with false beliefs about rape.

Rape Myths, Rape Scripts, and Common Rape Experiences of Many College Women

As previously suggested, false beliefs about rape may be categorized as either rape myths or rape scripts. Rape myths may be more explicitly defined as “prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists” (Burt, 1980, p. 217). For example, two common rape myths (Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2004) are that rape must be perpetrated with the use of physical—and usually violent—coercive means (e.g., using a weapon, leaving bruises) and that women who are sexually assaulted while under the effects of alcohol intoxication are “at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of control” (p. 131). These beliefs deny the existence of sexual violence (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994) unless obvious indicators of force are manifestly evident and justify sexual violence by suggesting that the behaviors of the woman who was raped may have invited the rape (Burt, 1980; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2004). These beliefs also disregard the existence of sexual assault that may occur with coercion other than physical force. For example, many state legislatures include some forms of verbal coercion, such as the threat of force, as sufficient to prevent individuals from providing legal consent to engage in sexual activity. Many state legislatures also indicate that individuals cannot legally provide consent for sexual activity while intoxicated. Furthermore, alcohol is often used as a coercive tactic in rape on college campuses (i.e., perpetrators encourage targeted victims to become intoxicated; for example, Lisak & Margolis, 2010; Lisak & Miller, 2002; McWhorter et al., 2009).

Rape scripts, while also false beliefs about rape, may be more specifically defined as beliefs that individuals have about what is (stereo)typical of an incident of rape (Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2004). Rape scripts present an “ideal victim” image, often including the assumptions that rape is always a spontaneous and violent attack against a chaste, nonintoxicated, and otherwise “respectable” White woman (e.g., Nightingale, 1991; Razack, 1994; Russell, 1980) by a stranger in a deserted public location, culminating in manifestly violent sexual intercourse (Du Mont, Miller, & Myhr, 2003; Maier, 2008; Weis & Borges, 1973; Williams, 1984). As these examples suggest, rape myths and rape scripts are mutually reinforcing, defining rape more narrowly than it is reflected in law and the experiences of women who have been raped, and resulting in attributions of blame for being raped to women who are actually raped (Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2004).

Rape myths and rape scripts may also develop based on similar motivations. For example, both men and women may develop rape myths and rape scripts out of desires to avoid associating blame for rape with their own social groups (Giacopassi & Dull, 1986), to avoid confronting the reality of rape (e.g., Burt, 1991; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995), to protect their beliefs that the world is a just place in which rape only happens to women who “ask for it” (e.g., Lerner, 1980; Lerner & Miller, 1978), and/or to maintain a gendered social status hierarchy (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980, 1983, 1991; Hockett, Saucier, Hoffman, Smith, & Craig, 2009). Support for rape myths and rape scripts may also develop in relation to individuals’ sexual scripts—that is, what individuals believe is typical of sexual interactions. For example, common sexual scripts include the beliefs that men have higher sex drives than women, that men should initiate sexual activity, and that women should determine the extent of sexual activity (e.g., Byers, 1996; LaPlante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980; Lottes, 1988; Metis & Spitzberg, 1996). Notably, research has shown that rape scripts and sexual scripts, in some cases, may overlap. For example, Littleton and Axsom (2003) found that the element of manipulation to obtain sex was present in both individuals’ rape and seduction scripts. The implications of such findings may suggest that rape myths and rape scripts, and perhaps rape myths as well, may be mutually reinforcing to influence rape perceptions. For example, sexual scripts may inform both rape myths (e.g., since women “should” have lower sex drives, women with higher sex drives must have “asked for it”) and rape scripts (e.g., since women control sexual activity, failure to do so resulting in rape should be accompanied by evidence—such as physical injury—that she could not). Rape myths, rape scripts, and sexual scripts may also be mutually reinforcing to influence rape perpetration itself. For example, if a man believes that manipulation to obtain sex is socially acceptable rather than socially reprehensible (i.e., this belief is part of his seduction script), he may coerce another individual into unwanted sexual activity without realizing that his behavior may meet legal definitions of rape (i.e., this belief is part of his rape script), and then may blame the woman for failing to halt the unwanted sexual activity (i.e., this belief is part of his rape myths). Thus, it may be important for rape education to address rape myths, rape scripts, as well as sexual scripts toward mitigating not only negative perceptions of women who have been raped but also perhaps the prevalence of rape itself.

Although the similarities among rape myths and rape scripts are important, it is the difference between rape myths and rape scripts that is of greatest interest in the present research. More specifically, the primary difference between these two concepts is that rape myths place the onus of responsibility for the rape on the woman who was raped, whereas rape scripts place the onus of responsibility on the situation and the perpetrator.

Of even more importance in the current research is the distinction between rape myths, rape scripts, and common rape experiences of many college women (e.g., Lisak & Margolis, 2010; Lisak & Miller, 2002; McWhorter et al., 2009). Although women’s rape experiences may reflect elements that are consistent with either rape myths or rape scripts, research on college women’s rape experiences suggests that there may be some commonalities, which make actual rape experiences more complex than individuals’ false beliefs and expectations regarding rape suggest. For example, college rape perpetrators often use multiple coercive strategies, including verbal coercion, physical coercion, and the deliberate use of alcohol to make victims vulnerable (e.g., Lisak & Margolis, 2010; McWhorter et al., 2009; Tyler, Hoyt, & Whitbeck, 1998).

Hypotheses

Given the differences among the implications for responsibility held by rape myths, rape scripts, and common rape experiences of many college women, the primary purpose of the current research was to explore individuals’ perceptions of women who have been raped in the context of vignettes that vary in their consistency with rape myths, rape scripts, or actual rape experiences of many college women. Expectations and hypotheses were developed based on the justification-suppression model (JSM) of prejudice (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). The JSM suggests that individuals may express negative attitudes toward others when such expressions may be viewed as appropriate or may be otherwise justified (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) or rationalized as nonprejudiced to themselves and others (e.g., Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Saucier, Miller, & Doucet, 2005). If sufficient justification factors are not present, individuals will likely suppress their negative attitudes. In general, we expect that rape may be a situation in which negative attitudes toward women who have been raped may be “justifiably” expressed due to the prevalence of false beliefs about rape (e.g., Burt, 1980; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was that the perceived justification for and expression of such negative attitudes would vary depending on whether a rape vignette is consistent with rape myths, rape scripts, or many college women’s common rape experiences.

Two studies, each manipulating a different aspect of a perpetrator’s use of coercive tactics, were conducted to test this hypothesis. In Study 1, we examined individuals’ perceptions of a woman who was raped in a series of vignettes that manipulated the use of alcohol to be consistent with rape myths (i.e., the victim was self-intoxicated), rape scripts (i.e., no alcohol use was apparent), or many college women’s common rape experiences (i.e., the perpetrator encouraged the victim’s intoxication as a coercive tactic). In Study 2, we examined individuals’ perceptions of a woman who was raped in a series of vignettes that manipulated a perpetrator’s use of coercion to be consistent, again, with rape myths (i.e., the perpetrator used verbal coercion only), rape scripts (i.e., the perpetrator used physical coercion only), or many college women’s common rape experiences (i.e., the perpetrator used multiple forms of coercion).¹

The current studies fulfilled a secondary purpose in testing Hypothesis 2, that the differences between men’s and women’s perceptions of a woman who was raped would vary based on condition. This hypothesis was derived from feminist theories of social power suggesting that the “maintenance of a social hierarchy in which men are dominant may play a role in their beliefs about rape and rape victims” (Hockett et al., 2009, p. 892). Because the male-dominant social hierarchy is benefited and potentially maintained by such beliefs, we expected that men would have more negative perceptions of the rape victim than would women (e.g., Anderson et al., 1997; Hockett et al., 2016). However, recent meta-analytic research (Hockett et al., 2016) demonstrated that differences in men’s and women’s perceptions of women who have been raped decreased as rape vignettes became more consistent with rape myths. One explanation for this finding is that women’s perceptions of other women who have been raped may have become increasingly negative as they perceived more justification factors, while men’s negative perceptions may have reached a ceiling. Some feminist theories of social power support this explanation, proposing that oppressive attitudes become normalized in a society, in part via self-enactment by the population they most harm (e.g., Puar & Rai, 2002). Furthermore, according to system-justification theory (e.g., Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004), this self-enactment occurs through the adoption of belief systems that excuse and justify existing social arrangements—a palliative process that makes oppressed groups feel better about the status quo. The Just World Hypothesis (Rubin & Peplau, 1975) also suggests that individuals tend to believe that people get what they deserve. Thus, if women believe that a rape did not truly occur or that the blame for rape lays with victims due to some easily identifiable and avoidable variable that appears to justify the sexual violence the victims experienced, women may cognitively distance themselves from the possibility of their own potential rape victimization. These motivations may effectively preserve women’s self-conceptions that they do not deserve to be raped as well as reinforce the belief that women who are raped must have done something to deserve it (e.g., Whatley, 2005). Thus, we further expected that men’s perceptions of the target should remain stable (and more negative than women’s), but women’s perceptions should vary by vignette. That is, women’s perceptions should be more negative in vignettes that may appear to contain more justification factors for the expression of negative attitudes toward women who have been raped (i.e., those that were consistent with rape myths) versus vignettes that contained fewer apparent justification factors (i.e., those that were consistent with rape scripts and many college women’s common rape experiences).

Study 1: Alcohol Use

Method

Participants

In partial fulfillment of research requirements for their general psychology courses, undergraduates (N = 119) at a Midwestern university volunteered for the study using an electronic research participation system. Fifty-six participants were male and 63 were female. The majority of participants were White (79%), first-year students (73.9%), single (97.5%), and from suburban locales (49.6%). The participants’ mean age was 19.45 (SD = 3.92) with the overall sample being between the ages of 18-54 and the majority of participants being traditional college student age (92.4%).

Materials

Rape vignettes

Study 1 employed a 2 (participant sex: Male or Female) × 3 (Alcohol Use: None Apparent, Intoxication as Choice, or Intoxication as Coercion) factorial between-groups design, resulting in the creation of three rape vignettes. In each vignette, participants read a description of interactions between a male (John) and female (Jane) college student. The vignettes portrayed John and Jane, as meeting for the first time at a party. Across the vignettes, John made sexual advances toward Jane, who quickly and clearly indicated her disinterest. Jane later retired to a guest room, where she was awoken by John climbing into the bed. Jane reiterated her disinterest in sexual intercourse with John, but allowed him to kiss her. When John began to fondle Jane, she resisted verbally (e.g., insisting that he stop touching her, telling him to stop) and physically (e.g., knocking his hands away, wriggling away). Despite her protests, John forced himself upon Jane and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. In the Intoxication as Choice condition (which was consistent with the rape myth that a woman who drinks alcohol and is raped is responsible for the rape), Jane drank three cups of a strong alcoholic drink. The first drink was provided to her by the party’s host, which Jane finished and refilled, after which “she felt loosened up and enjoyed herself.” An unspecified individual offered Jane the second drink, which “at first she declined appreciatively, but knew that she was supposed to be having fun at the party and if she didn’t drink the Jungle Juice offered to her, the beverage would go to waste.” In the None Apparent condition (which was consistent with the rape script that an “ideal victim” should not be intoxicated), no explicit use of alcohol by Jane was portrayed (nor did the vignette contain any additional indicators that coercion took place). In the Intoxication as Coercion condition (which was consistent with many college women’s common rape experiences, in which perpetrators often use alcohol as a coercive tactic; for example, Lisak & Margolis, 2010), the host again provided Jane the first drink, but her second and third drinks were obtained under John’s consistent pressure for her to drink more. All other features of the vignettes were identical across the conditions. The vignettes are available upon request from the first author.

Rape perceptions

Individuals’ tendencies to minimize the seriousness of the situations in the vignettes and their attributions of blame and responsibility to the target, Jane, were assessed with the four-item Rape-Supportive Attributions Scale and the four-item Sex-Role Stereotypical Victim Blame Attributions Scale (Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Monson, 1998). On a 9-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very little) to 9 (very much), participants reported their perceptions by responding to items assessing attributions of blame and responsibility (e.g., How much control did Jane have in this situation?). However, because neither scale contains items directly assessing individuals’ blame attributions, participants responded on the same 9-point scale to three additional items more directly assessing their attributions of blame (e.g., How much should Jane blame herself for what happened?). Due to relatively low reliabilities for each of these groups of items (αs = .68, .45, and .49, respectively), all items were combined into a single, reliable measure (α = .76). Participants’ rape perception scores consisted of the average of their responses on each item. Relevant items were reverse scored so that higher average scores indicate more negative and less positive perceptions of Jane.

Social desirability measure

Because rape is a sensitive topic, we assessed participants’ need for social approval using the Marlowe–Crowne social desirability measure (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). This scale consists of 33 true–false statements that participants who are motivated to present themselves in socially acceptable ways are more likely to report as being true (e.g., I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake) or false (e.g., I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way) of themselves. Participants’ scores on this measure consisted of the number of socially desirable responses they reported, with higher scores indicating greater need for approval. In their original analyses of the scale, Crowne and Marlowe (1964) reported a Kuder–Richardson formula 20 coefficient (a reliability index for measures with dichotomous choice) of .88, suggesting very good internal consistency.

Procedure

Research sessions took approximately 30 min. Participants in groups of approximately 15 received randomly assigned questionnaire packets. Participants completed demographic items regarding their sex, race, marital status, description of their hometown (i.e. rural, suburban, or urban), and age; read the rape vignettes; and responded to the rape perception items. After completing the questionnaire packets, participants were thanked, debriefed regarding the purpose of the research, provided with contact information for local and national sexual assault services, and dismissed. The research was conducted in full compliance with American Psychological Association (APA) ethical standards and was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Results and Discussion

Relationships among measures

Bivariate correlations were conducted to assess relationships between participants’ rape perception and social desirability scores as assessed by the Marlowe–Crowne (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). These scores were not significantly correlated, r = −.14, p = .16, suggesting that individuals’ desires for social approval were not related to their rape perceptions. Thus, participants’ scores on the Marlowe–Crowne (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) measure of social desirability were excluded from subsequent analyses.

Condition and sex effects

Analytic strategy

We used a 2 (participant sex: Male or Female) × 3 (alcohol use: None Apparent, Self-Intoxication, or As Coercion) between-groups factorial ANOVA with participants’ average rape perception scores as our dependent measure. Results indicated a main effect of condition on the dependent measure, F(2, 111) = 4.61, p < .05, indicating that participants’ perceptions of Jane differed by condition. The effect size for this main effect was medium, partial η² = .08. Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparisons revealed that participants perceived Jane less positively and more negatively when no alcohol was used (M = 2.31, SD = 1.00) versus when alcohol was used by choice (M = 1.87, SD = 0.69) and when alcohol was used as coercion (M = 1.81, SD = 0.66). However, the results of the ANOVA revealed no main effect of participant sex on the dependent measure, F(1, 111) = 0.02, p = .89, and no interaction effect between participant sex and condition, F(2, 111) = 0.33, p = .72. These outcomes supported Hypothesis 1, that individuals’ perceptions of a woman who was raped would vary based on the rape scenario’s consistency with their false beliefs about rape, but failed to support any facets of Hypothesis 2, that sex differences would vary by condition.

More specifically, results indicate that individuals perceive a woman who has been raped more negatively when her use of alcohol is consistent with rape scripts than when it is consistent with rape myths, or most importantly, when it is consistent with many college women’s common rape experiences. Although one might expect that alcohol use consistent with rape scripts should result in more positive perceptions of a woman who has been raped due to her reflecting characteristics associated with an “ideal victim” image, our results may suggest that other characteristics are important to individuals’ attributions of blame and responsibility. Specifically, it may be that individuals’ attributions of blame and responsibility to a woman who has been raped are more influenced by their perceptions of her ability to resist—which they may perceive “should” be more evident if the woman used no alcohol. This perception may in turn reflect the myth that women precipitate or facilitate rape by not resisting effectively (e.g., Weiss, 2009). Although this explanation is only conjecture that should be further assessed in future research, evidence from “the real world” does suggest that women who fail to “adequately” resist may be perceived as to blame for the rape. Specifically, research on police officer behavior has shown that perceptions of resistance given by a woman who was raped influence the officers’ decisions to pursue investigations and the extent to which they encourage or discourage those women to pursue legal action (e.g., Jordan, 2004).

As this previous research indicates, and as we earlier suggested, focus is often placed on the woman who was raped and on her behaviors when attributions of blame and responsibility are made. Although Study 1 included a condition in which the perpetrator used alcohol as a coercive tactic to perpetrate a rape, it also focused primarily on the behaviors of the woman who was raped by manipulating her use of alcohol in the other conditions. In Study 2, we continue to examine perceptions of a woman who was raped, but we shift the focus from her behaviors to the behaviors of the perpetrator by varying his use of coercive tactics.

Study 2: Coercive Tactics

Method

Participants

In partial fulfillment of research requirements for their general psychology courses at the same Midwestern university, undergraduates (N = 167) volunteered for the study using an electronic research participation system. Eighty-seven participants were male and 80 were female. The majority of participants were White (82.6%), first-year students (71.9%), single (97%). and from suburban locales (50.9%). The participants’ mean age was 19.50 (SD = 3.61) with the overall sample being between the ages of 18-41 and the majority of participants being traditional college student age (94.6%).

Materials

Rape vignettes

Study 2 employed a 2 (participant sex: Male or Female) × 4 (coercive tactic: None Apparent, Verbal Only, Physical Only, or Verbal and Physical) factorial between-groups design, resulting in the creation of four rape vignettes. As in Study 1, participants read a description of interactions between a male (John) and female (Jane) college student. The vignettes portrayed John and Jane, as meeting for the first time at a party. Across the vignettes, John made sexual advances toward Jane, who quickly and clearly indicated her disinterest. Jane later retired to a guest room, where she was awoken by John climbing into the bed. Jane reiterated her disinterest in sexual intercourse with John, but allowed him to kiss her. When John began to fondle Jane, she resisted verbally (e.g., insisting that he stop touching her, telling him to stop) and physically (e.g., knocking his hands away, wriggling away). These vignettes were the same as those used in Study 1, with the exception of the condition manipulations. In the None Apparent condition (which served as a control condition), the sexual intercourse occurred with no explicit depiction of coercion by John. In the Verbal Only condition (which was consistent with rape myths that a sexual act is not really rape if it fails to involve obvious indicators of force), John used verbal coercion only, responding to Jane’s resistances by saying, “But I really like you. I respect you and promise this isn’t just a one-night stand,” and “You got me so turned on all night, you can’t just leave me like this. I know you want this.” Notably, although these statements could be perceived as vaguely threatening (thus meeting legal definitions of rape), they could also be perceived as simply deceptive (thus failing to meet legal definitions of rape, though still constituting a breach of consent; Falk, 1998), or, possibly, even as honest. Regardless of how participants perceived John’s statements, all of the vignettes were consistent across conditions in embedding the manipulations within the context of Jane’s resistance to the sexual activity (“Jane knocked his hands away and insisted that he stop touching her because she wasn’t interested in going any further”; “Jane wriggled and pushed his hands away, telling him to stop”), supporting our designation of John’s statements as coercive. In the Physical-Only condition (which was consistent with the rape script that an “ideal victim” is one against whom physical force was used), John responded to Jane’s resistances by using physical coercion, catching hold of her hands when she tried to push him away, and “holding both of Jane’s hands down against the bed” while engaging in sexual intercourse. Finally, in the Verbal and Physical condition (which was consistent with many college women’s common rape experiences, in which perpetrators often use multiple forms of coercion; for example, Lisak & Margolis, 2010), John used a combination of the verbal and physical coercive tactics depicted in the other conditions. All other features of the vignettes were identical across the conditions. The vignettes may be obtained from the first author upon request.

Measures

The dependent measure of rape perceptions (α = .77) and the measure of social desirability used in Study 1 were also used in Study 2.

Procedure

The procedure for Study 2 was the same as for Study 1.

Results and Discussion

Relationships among measures

Bivariate correlations were conducted to assess relationships between participants’ rape perception and social desirability scores as assessed by the Marlowe–Crowne (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). These scores were not significantly correlated, r = −.08, p = .33, suggesting that individuals’ desires for social approval were not related to their rape perceptions. Thus, participants’ scores on the Marlowe–Crowne (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) measure of social desirability were excluded from subsequent analyses.

Condition and sex effects

Analytic strategy

We used a 2 (participant sex: Male or Female) × 4 (coercive tactic: None Apparent, Verbal Only, Physical Only, or Verbal and Physical) between-groups factorial ANOVA with participants’ average perception scores as our dependent measure. Results indicated a main effect of condition on the dependent measure, F(3, 158) = 9.79, p < .001, indicating that perceptions of the rape differed by condition. The effect size for this main effect of condition on participants’ rape perceptions of Jane was large, partial η² = .16. Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparisons revealed that participants perceived Jane less positively and more negatively when John used verbal coercion (M = 2.47, SD = 1.06), versus when no apparent coercion was used (M = 2.06, SD = 0.65), when physical coercion was used (M = 1.68, SD = 0.50), and when multiple forms of coercion were used (i.e., verbal and physical; M = 1.63, SD = 0.59). Participants also perceived Jane less positively and more negatively when no coercion was used versus when multiple forms of coercion were used. These outcomes supported Hypothesis 1, that individuals’ perceptions of a woman who was raped would vary based on the rape scenario’s consistency with their false beliefs about rape. More specifically, they indicated that individuals perceive a woman who was raped less positively and more negatively when the coercion used against her is consistent with rape myths than with rape scripts or, most importantly, with many college women’s common rape experiences.

The results of the ANOVA also revealed a main effect of participant sex on the dependent measure, F(1, 158) = 4.17, p = .04, indicating that men and women perceived Jane differently. The effect size for this main effect was small, partial η² = .03. Comparisons of means revealed that male participants (M = 2.06, SD = .08) perceived Jane less positively and more negatively than did female participants (M = 1.83, SD = .08). However, no interaction effect between participant sex and condition was found, F(3, 158) = 2.16, p = .10. These outcomes offer partial support for Hypothesis 2 and meta-analytic findings (e.g., Hockett et al., 2016) showing that men (vs. women) generally have more negative perceptions of women who are raped, but fail to support our expectation that the difference between men’s and women’s perceptions of Jane would vary by condition.

General Discussion

The results of these two studies offer partial support for our hypotheses, holding meaningful implications for both the JSM and feminist theories of power. Fully supporting Hypothesis 1, we found that individuals’ perceptions of a woman who was raped varied based on our vignettes’ consistency with rape myths, rape scripts, or many college women’s common rape experiences. In Study 1, participants had the least positive and most negative perceptions of a woman who was raped after reading the rape script vignette (which was consistent with the rape script that a woman who has been raped should not be intoxicated) versus the rape myth vignette (which was consistent with the rape myth that a woman who was raped while intoxicated is responsible) and the vignette that was consistent with many college women’s common rape experiences (i.e., in which alcohol is often used as a coercive tactic by perpetrators). These results offer possible implications regarding what elements of a rape scenario individuals consider the most when attributing blame and responsibility to women who have been raped. In this case, it seems that the woman’s use of alcohol may have been a factor that mitigated blame and responsibility attributions, as it may have indicated her inability to resist the perpetrator (which, without alcohol, she “should” have been able to do).

In Study 2, participants had the least positive and most negative perceptions of a woman who was raped after reading a vignette that was consistent with the rape myth that a woman who was raped without evidence of force was not really raped versus the vignette that was consistent with the rape script that an “ideal victim” should experience physical force or the vignette that was consistent with many college women’s common rape experiences in which perpetrators often use multiple coercive tactics to commit rape. However, because our verbal and multiple coercive tactics conditions relied on verbal coercion that could be considered both fraudulent and threatening—or perhaps neither—it would be valuable for future research to assess differences in individuals’ perceptions of different forms of verbal coercion. This differentiation may be particularly important because nonthreatening verbal coercion (which does not legally constitute rape) is at least as common as, if not more common than, threatening verbal coercion (which does legally constitute rape; for example, Messman-Moore, Coates, Gaffey, & Johnson, 2008).

We found partial support for Hypothesis 2 in Study 1. That is, men had more negative perceptions of the rape victim than did women. This outcome supported feminist theories of social power, which suggest that men’s social dominance benefits from keeping rape victims in a debased social position. However, we did not find support for our expectation that the sex difference would vary by condition. One possible explanation for this failure is that, although the feminist theories of social power (Puar & Rai, 2002), system-justification theory (e.g., Jost et al., 2004), and just world theory (Rubin & Peplau, 1975) do suggest that women’s perceptions of a rape victim should become less positive and more negative with greater perceived justifications for those perceptions (e.g., Hockett et al., 2016), other factors associated with gender but extraneous to the rape scenario may account for such differences. Indeed, studies have shown that individual differences may help account for the sex differences shown by previous research on perceptions of women who have been raped. These include general aggressiveness, gender role beliefs, conservative ideology, religiousness, and other cognitive, experiential, behavioral, affective, and personality factors not assessed in the current studies (for a meta-analytic review, see Anderson et al., 1997). Thus, future research should assess such individual difference variables in conjunction with manipulations of rape vignettes to be more consistent with rape myths, rape scripts, and actual rape experiences of many college women.

Overall, however, the results of Studies 1 and 2 supported the JSM by demonstrating that rape in general may be a situation in which negative attitudes toward the victims may be “justifiably” expressed due to the prevalence of individuals’ false beliefs about rape (e.g., Burt, 1980; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). They also demonstrate that the perceived justification for the expression of negative attitudes (i.e., blame and responsibility attributions and rape minimization) varies based on a rape scenario’s consistency with rape myths, rape scripts, or many college women’s common rape experiences. This outcome suggests that individuals’ perceptions of women who have been raped may be a function of their perceptions of the situation rather than solely of the victim’s characteristics or behaviors. This implication could inform what elements of a rape should be highlighted in education aimed at minimizing attributions of blame and responsibility to women who have been raped, by such women themselves when sharing their experiences of victimization and survival, and for juries by the prosecutors in rape cases. However, it would be useful to replicate the hypothesis tests of the current studies with manipulations of other common characteristics of rape crimes, particularly those that maintain a focus on the perpetrator (e.g., the spontaneity of the crime and the repetition of its offense), to be consistent with associated rape myths, rape scripts, and especially common rape experiences of many women—both those in college as well as other demographics. Such a replication would help clarify whether the findings of the present studies were specific to the variables manipulated (i.e., coercive tactics) or whether the same trends would appear in other contexts, thus offering stronger theoretical support to the hypotheses, the JSM, and feminist theories of social power.

Future research should also more thoroughly investigate potential factors that influence and motivate men’s and women’s perceptions of women who have been raped in conjunction with assessment of individual differences and differences in rape vignettes’ consistency with rape myths, rape scripts, and many college women’s common rape experiences. By assessing individuals’ motivations to hold negative attitudes toward women who have been raped alongside intrinsic and situational factors, we may develop a more integrative understanding of differences and similarities in men’s and women’s perceptions of women who have been raped.

In addition to the limitations posed by the scope of the current research, other limitations that should be considered when interpreting results include characteristics of our samples. Because our samples were limited in size (Study 1, N = 119; Study 2, N = 167) and demographic composition, our participants’ responses on the measures may not represent the attitudes and beliefs of society in general. However, their responses, to some extent, may represent attitudes and beliefs held by their parents. Research suggests that many attitudes and beliefs may be transmitted intergenerationally (i.e., from parents to children), including prejudicial attitudes related to gender (e.g., Moen, Erickson, & Dempster-McClain, 1997; Montañés et al., 2012; O’Bryan, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2004), although such transmission may be moderated by various factors (e.g., social status of child, sex of parent). Regardless, although the current research is revelatory regarding the college students’ perceptions of rape, it is important to extend the present research by examining rape attitudes and beliefs in larger, more demographically diverse samples.

Conclusion

Although the experiences of women who have been raped may reflect elements associated with rape myths (e.g., rape in which only verbal coercion is used) or rape scripts (e.g., rape in which the woman consumes no alcohol), research has indicated that there are features of rape victims’ experiences that seem to be particularly common among college women (e.g., Lisak & Margolis, 2010). Given that much research on perceptions of women who have been raped is often conducted with college student samples and that rape is prevalent on college campuses (e.g., Fisher et al., 2000), these features are important to examine. By comparing individuals’ perceptions of a woman who was raped across scenarios that reflected features of many college women’s common rape experiences (e.g., Lisak & Margolis, 2010), rape myths, and rape scripts, the present studies showed that individuals may perceive varying degrees of justification for the expression of negative attitudes toward women who have been raped depending on how she is portrayed and whether focus is put on her behaviors or the behaviors of the perpetrator. Given that much of the previous research has used vignettes that are consistent with rape myths, it is unsurprising that the literature often shows negative perceptions of women who have been raped. Thus, despite the limitation posed by some failures to fully support hypotheses (i.e., Hypothesis 2), the results of the current studies expand the literature by demonstrating that perceptions of women who have been raped in scenarios that reflect many college women’s common rape experiences are more positive and less negative than perceptions of women in scenarios that reflect rape scripts (Study 1) and rape myths (Study 2). These outcomes offer novel support for feminist and social psychological theories, directions for further research, and important implications for educational programs designed to inhibit the formation and expressions of false rape beliefs.

Most importantly, the results of the current research begin to shape the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this work: How can researchers construct sexual assault vignettes that may help educate participants about sexual assault victimization, rather than reinforcing their false beliefs and unrealistic expectations? Specifically, our results suggest that using vignettes that are consistent with the common experiences of many college women rather than those that are consistent with rape myths and rape scripts may be associated with more positive perceptions of women who have been raped. Importantly, these outcomes may be more representative of individuals’ true perceptions of women who have been raped than have been found in research that has relied on vignettes that are consistent with rape myths and rape scripts. Although additional research to further support this claim is needed, the current research offers a more nuanced understanding of individuals’ perceptions of women who have been raped and how those perceptions are formed. It is our hope that such research will contribute to improving the outcomes of women who have been raped as individuals and as a social group.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jericho M. Hockett is an assistant professor in psychology at Washburn University. Her research interests focus on examining the psychological mechanisms, processes, and outcomes of social power, particularly perceptions of nonnormative beliefs and changes in expressions of prejudice and social support according to stigmatized group status and situational factors.

Donald A. Saucier is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Kansas State University. His research focuses on expressions of antisocial and prosocial behavior—particularly the individual differences and situational factors that contribute to the justification and suppression of antisocial behavior (e.g., prejudice, aggression), as well as to decisions to behave prosocially (e.g., to give or withhold help).

Caitlyn Badke was an undergraduate research assistant in Dr. Saucier’s lab at Kansas State University at the time the research for this article was conducted.

References

Anderson

K. B.

Cooper

Okamura

(1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295-315.

Brownmiller

(1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Burt

M. R.

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

Burt

M. R.

(1983). Justifying personal violence: A comparison of rapists and the general public. Victimology, 8, 131-150.

Burt

M. R.

(1991). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In Parrot

Bechhofer

(Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 26-40). New York: John Wiley.

Byers

E. S.

(1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. In Byers

E. S.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp. 7-25). New York: Haworth Press.

Crandall

C. S.

Eshleman

(2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446.

Crosby

Bromley

Saxe

(1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546-563.

Crowne

D. P.

Marlowe

(1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: John Wiley.

10.

Du Mont

J. D.

Miller

Myhr

T. L.

(2003). The role of “real rape” and “real victim” stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 9, 466-486.

11.

Falk

P. J.

(1998). Rape by fraud and rape by coercion. Brooklyn Law Review, 64(1), 44-180.

12.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

13.

Gaertner

S. L.

Dovidio

J. F.

(1986). The aversive form of racism. In Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

14.

Giacopassi

D. J.

Dull

R. T.

(1986). Gender and racial differences in the acceptance of rape myths within a college population. Sex Roles, 15, 63-75.

15.

Hockett

J. M.

Saucier

D. A.

Hoffman

B. H.

Smith

S. J.

Craig

A. W.

(2009). Oppression through acceptance? Predicting rape myth acceptance and attitudes toward rape victims. Violence Against Women, 15, 877-897.

16.

Hockett

J. M.

Smith

S. J.

Klausing

C. D.

Saucier

D. A.

(2016). The influence of rape myth consistent information on gender differences in rape victim perceptions: A meta-analysis. Violence Against Women, 22(2), 139-167.

17.

Jordan

(2004). Beyond belief? Police, rape and women’s credibility. Criminal Justice, 4, 29-59.

18.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

(2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.

19.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Monson

C. M.

(1998). Marital rape: Is the crime taken seriously without co-occurring physical abuse? Journal of Family Violence, 13, 433-443.

20.

LaPlante

M. N.

McCormick

Brannigan

G. G.

(1980). Living the sexual script: College students’ views of influence in sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 338-355.

21.

Lerner

M. J.

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

22.

Lerner

M. J.

Miller

D. T.

(1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.

23.

Lisak

Margolis

(2010). Preventing violence against women on campus. National webinar hosted by RAVE Mobile Safety and Margolis, Healey & Associates, Framingham, MA.

24.

Lisak

Miller

P. M.

(2002). Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists. Violence and Victims, 17, 73-84.

25.

Littleton

H. L.

Axsom

(2003). Rape and seduction scripts of university students: Implications for rape attributions and unacknowledged rape. Sex Roles, 49, 465-475.

26.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164.

27.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704-711.

28.

Lottes

I. L.

(1988). Sexual socialization and attitudes toward rape. In Burgess

A. W.

(Ed.), Rape and sexual assault (pp. 193-220). New York: Garland.

29.

Maier

S. L.

(2008). “I have heard horrible stories . . .”: Rape victim advocates’ perceptions of the revictimization of rape victims by the police and medical system. Violence Against Women, 14, 786-808.

30.

McWhorter

S. K.

Stander

V. A.

Merrill

L. L.

Thomsen

C. J.

Milner

J. S.

(2009). Reports of rape reperpetration by newly enlisted male navy personnel. Violence and Victims, 24(2), 204–218.

31.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

Coates

A. A.

Gaffey

K. J.

Johnson

C. F.

(2008). Sexuality, substance use, and susceptibility to victimization: Risk for rape and sexual coercion in a prospective study of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1730-1746.

32.

Metis

Spitzberg

B. H.

(1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. In Burleson

B. R.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 49-91). New Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association.

33.

Moen

Erickson

M. A.

Dempster-McClain

(1997). Their mother’s daughters? The intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes in a world of changing roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 281-293.

34.

Montañés

de Lemus

Bohner

Megías

J. L.

Moya

Garcia-Retamero

(2012). Intergenerational transmission of benevolent sexism from mothers to daughters and its relation to daughters’ academic performance and goals. Sex Roles, 66, 468-478.

35.

Nightingale

(1991). Judicial attitudes and differential treatment: Native women in sexual assault cases. Ottawa Law Review, 23, 71-98.

36.

O’Bryan

Fishbein

H. D.

Ritchey

P. N.

(2004). Intergenerational transmission of prejudice, sex role stereotyping, and intolerance. Adolescence, 39, 407-426.

37.

Peterson

Z. D.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(2004). Was it rape? The function of women’s rape myth acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles, 51, 129-144.

38.

Pollard

(1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307-326.

39.

Puar

J. K.

Rai

A. S.

(2002). Monster, terrorist, fag: The war on terrorism and the production of docile patriots. Social Text, 20, 117-148.

40.

Razack

(1994). What is to be gained by looking white people in the eye? Culture, race, and gender in cases of sexual violence. Signs, 19, 894-923.

41.

Rubin

Peplau

L. A.

(1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65-90.

42.

Russell

(1980). Rape victims and police reporting. Canada’s Mental Health, 28, 14-16.

43.

Saucier

D. A.

Miller

C. T.

Doucet

(2005). Differences in helping whites and blacks: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 2-16.

44.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

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

45.

Tyler

K. A.

Hoyt

D. R.

Whitbeck

L. B.

(1998). Coercive sexual strategies. Violence and Victims, 13, 47-61.

46.

Weis

Borges

S. S.

(1973). Victimology and rape: The case of the legitimate victim. Issues in Criminology, 8, 71-115.

47.

Weiss

K. G.

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

48.

Whatley

M. A.

(1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 81-95.

49.

Whatley

M. A.

(2005). The effect of participant sex, victim dress, and traditional attitudes on causal judgments for marital rape victims. Journal of Family Violence, 20(3), 191-200.

50.

Williams

J. E.

(1984). Secondary victimization: Confronting public attitudes about rape. Victimology, 9, 66-81.