See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/8678219

Social Perception of Rape

Article  in  Journal of Interpersonal Violence · March 2004

DOI: 10.1177/0886260503260245 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
138 929

3 authors, including:

Miguel Moya Jesús L Megías

University of Granada University of Granada
166 PUBLICATIONS   4,791 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   743 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) View project

Desarrollo de herramientas psicológicas y computacionales de ayuda a la decisión para la prevención de la radicalización islamista de corte yihadista. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jesús L Megías on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARTICLE
JOURNAL
10.1177/0886260503260245
Frese et al. /OF
SOCIAL
INTERPERSON
PERCEPTION
AL VIOLENCE
OF RAPE / February 2004

Social Perception of Rape

How Rape Myth Acceptance Modulates
the Influence of Situational Factors

BETTINA FRESE
MIGUEL MOYA
JESÚS L. MEGÍAS
University of Granada, Spain

This study assessed the role of rape myth acceptance (RMA) and situational factors
in the perception of three different rape scenarios (date rape, marital rape, and
stranger rape). One hundred and eighty-two psychology undergraduates were asked
to emit four judgements about each rape situation: victim responsibility, perpetrator
responsibility, intensity of trauma, and likelihood to report the crime to the police. It
was hypothesized that neither RMA nor situational factors alone can explain how
rape is perceived; it is the interaction between these two factors that best account for
social reactions to sexual aggression. The results generally supported the authors’
hypothesis: Victim blame, estimation of trauma, and the likelihood of reporting the
crime to the police were best explained by the interaction between observer charac-
teristics, such as RMA, and situational clues. That is, the less stereotypic the rape sit-
uation was, the greater was the influence of attitudes toward rape on attributions.

Keywords: attitudes; rape myths; victim blame

Attitudes toward rape are important to understand how people react or

behave toward victims and perpetrators of rape. These attitudes are often
characterized by blaming the victim, minimizing the psychological impact
and justifying the perpetrator and can be sustained by the perpetrators as well
as the victims. Attitudes toward rape seem to be linked to traditional gender-
role stereotypes, in particular those related to sexual behavior (Acock & Ire-
land, 1983; Anderson, Cooper, & Okamura, 1997; Burt, 1980; Check &
Malamuth, 1983; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995; Willis, 1992): Women are
not supposed to show their sexual interest, so that their refusal is interpreted

Authors’ Note: This research was funded by Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Spain)
Grant BSO2001-3158. The authors would like to express their appreciation to Bruce Milliken for
his help with the manuscript preparation and Estrella Ryan for her assistance with English
translation.
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE, Vol. 19 No. 2, February 2004 143-161
DOI: 10.1177/0886260503260245
© 2004 Sage Publications
143
144 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

as token, whereas men learn to act out their sexual interest and they are told
that in certain circumstances, it is not necessary to control their sexual urge,
such as dating situations or marriage. Women in these situations are viewed
as sexual objects whose function is to satisfy men’s needs so that in some sit-
uations, sexual coercion is seen as normal and acceptable in-role behavior
(Brownmiller, 1975; Check & Malamuth, 1983). This tolerance toward rape
has several extremely negative consequences for the victim, as she is more
likely to blame herself for the assault, which then has an important impact on
her recovery. Trauma-related guilt has been highly positively correlated with
posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, negative self-esteem, shame, social
anxiety, and suicidal thoughts (Kubany et al., 1995). Furthermore, this social
perception of rape makes its eradication more difficult as it reduces the likeli-
hood of reporting the crime and elevates judges’ and police officers’ prone-
ness to not investigate further such assaults. Prevalence studies have repeat-
edly shown that rape victims, more so than victims of other crimes of
comparably severity, keep their victimization hidden (Koss, 1992). There-
fore, assailants perceive that the law will not punish their actions, which then
makes victims feel even more helpless and unsafe. What is it that makes it
still so difficult to identify rape as a crime and perceive sexually assaulted
women as innocent and traumatized victims?
A huge amount of empirical research has tried to determine the factors
that make rape victim blame more likely (see Pollard, 1992, for a review). On
one hand, factors related to the assault, such as the absence or presence of vic-
tim resistance (McCaul, Veltum, Boyechko, & Crawford, 1990; Ong &
Ward, 1999) or the relationship between the perpetrator and his victim (Bell,
Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Check & Malamuth, 1983; Monson, Byrd, &
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1996) have been shown to influence attitudes
toward rape victims and perpetrators. The probability that a victim is held
responsible for her victimization is higher when she was acquainted with the
rapist (Bell et al., 1994; Bridges & McGrail, 1989). Comparing marital rape
to stranger rape, Monson et al. (1996) found that people perceived less viola-
tion of victims’ rights in marital rape than in stranger rape. Other “behav-
ioral” indexes support these attitudinal data. For instance, McCormick,
Maric, Seto, and Barbaree (1998) revealed that stranger rapists received lon-
ger sentences than assailants who knew their victims. This study deserves
special interest because the fact that it uses behavioral intention as the
dependent variable allows for more ecologically valid conclusions about the
relationship between situational factors and the legal prosecution of rape.
On the other hand, several characteristics of the observer have also been
studied in relation to social perception of rape. One of the most studied demo-
graphic characteristics is the observer’s sex. As would be expected, men gen-
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 145

erally hold more accepting attitudes toward rape than do women (see Ander-
son et al., 1997 for a review). More interesting, investigators have dedicated a
lot of effort to analyze how attitudinal factors, such as gender attitude (Burt,
1980; Check & Malamuth, 1983; Ong & Ward, 1999; Ryckman, Kaczor, &
Thornton, 1992) or rape myth acceptance (RMA) (Jenkins and Dambrot,
1987; Krahe, 1988; Stormo, Lang, & Stritzke, 1997), relate to reactions to
rape. RMA is conceptualized as the amount of stereotypic ideas people have
about rape, such as that women falsely accuse men of rape, rape is not harm-
ful, women want or enjoy rape, or women cause or deserve rape by inappro-
priate or risky behavior (Burt, 1980). Generally, these studies confirm that
the more stereotypic ideas an individual has about gender roles or rape, the
less likely he or she is to interpret forced sexual intercourse as rape and the
more likely it is they blame the victim and justify the assailant’s behavior.
Nevertheless, most of the studies conducted so far present an important
limitation: Most of them study the impact of assault characteristics and cog-
nitive factors of the observer separately. Most researchers in this field either
manipulate situational factors to assess their influence on rape attributions or
they assess correlations between observer characteristics and attitudes toward
rape. These strategies make it impossible to analyze the interaction between
cognitive variables of the observer and situational factors. Yet there is abun-
dant evidence in social cognition research that it is the interaction between
these two factors that gives a better picture about social perception. Attitudes,
as is the case for any kind of knowledge or beliefs that people have in their
mind, are not activated and used in a uniform or automatic way independ-
ently of the situation or of the social stimulus. Research in social cognition
has shown that there are two basic variables that influence the likelihood that
some stored knowledge will be activated: the accessibility of the stored
knowledge prior to stimulus presentation (e.g., rape myths) and the “fit”
between the stored knowledge and the presented stimulus (Higgins, 1996).
That is, although some beliefs may be accessible to social perceivers, these
beliefs would not be used if the perceiver thinks that they are not applicable to
the stimulus or situation. There is substantial evidence that perceivers’
assessment of the relevance or appropriateness of particular information for
their response can determine their use of this information for subse-
quent judgements (Higgins & Bargh, 1987). Moreover, as the studies about
new forms of prejudice and racism show (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), “old-
fashioned” beliefs (i.e., those concerning rape myths) are probably used
when situations are less stereotypic and people’s behavior and opinions can-
not be labeled as prejudiced, sexist, or old-fashioned. That is, even though
people hold old-fashioned rape myths that favor victim blame, they will
apply these stereotypic ideas differently depending on the characteristics of
146 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

the assault. Supporting this view, Johnson and Russ (1989) stated that there is
some evidence that cognitive biases have their greatest effect on perception
of information concerning rape with a certain degree of perceived ambiguity.
They propose that factors associated with acquaintance rape, such as previ-
ous physical contact or the victim voluntarily being with the assailant or situ-
ational characteristics like drinking, lack of resistance, or provocative dress-
ing, may increase the level of perceived ambiguity associated with victim
consent. For the same reason, marital rape might also be perceived as more
ambiguous due to the previous intimate contact between the perpetrator and
his victim and to the traditional ideas about “marital duties” (Monson et al.,
1996).
In fact, there is some empirical evidence that supports this view about the
interaction between perceived ambiguity and attitudinal factors on social
perception of rape. In relation to gender attitudes, Check and Malamuth
(1983) found that gender-role stereotyping affected the amount of sexual
arousal to an acquaintance rape scenario but not to a stranger rape scenario
(both were compared to a scenario of consenting sex). Assessing victim
truthfulness, Willis (1992) found an interaction effect between gender-role
stereotyping and acquaintance versus stranger rape. Ryckman et al. (1992)
studied the differences in responsibility attributions to resistive versus non-
resistive victims in women with high versus low gender-role stereotyping.
They obtained an interaction effect, in which more traditional women attrib-
uted more responsibility to the resistive victim, whereas the nontraditional
women blamed the nonresistive victim. These results suggest that gender-
role stereotyping plays a more dominant role when rape scenarios contain
information about gender-role relevant behavior, such as the degree of inti-
macy tolerated by the woman or her resistance to victimization. Another
study conducted by Johnson and Russ (1989) provides additional evidence
about the importance of the interaction between gender-role stereotypes and
situational factors in the perception of rape. They manipulated the salience of
information about women’s discrimination and showed that people who pre-
viously heard about the different social status of men and women (salient
condition) did not make different responsibility attributions for acquaintance
versus stranger rape. However, participants in the nonsalient condition
attributed more blame to the acquaintance rape victim than to the stranger
rape victim.
The second main attitudinal factor studied in relation to social perception
of rape is RMA. To our knowledge, there is only one study that assesses how
RMA affects the perception of different rape scenarios. Krahe (1988) investi-
gated the importance of RMA in responsibility attributions when different
victims’ pre-rape behaviors were described. Her study shows that people
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 147

with high RMA evaluated victim and perpetrator’s responsibility differently

depending on victim’s pre-rape behavior, whereas individuals with low
RMA did not. Stormo et al. (1997) addressed this issue but only by treating
RMA as a covariate into the analysis of blame and responsibility attributions
throughout different rape scenarios.
The aim of our study was to investigate the interaction between RMA and
characteristics of the rape situation on rape perception. Therefore, we created
three different rape scenarios: acquaintance rape, marital rape, and stranger
rape. Following Johnson and Russ’s (1989) proposal that ambiguity might
play a role in the social perception of rape, we manipulated the descriptions
of the situations so that acquaintance rape and marital rape might be under-
stood as more ambiguous than stranger rape, although perhaps for different
reasons. Acquaintance rape (see below for our description of the situations)
was ambiguous because the victim was portrayed as drunk, dressed in a short
skirt, attending a party, and freely accepting to leave with the perpetrator.
Thus, observers could interpret that the woman was, in some way, responsi-
ble for the outcome or that she actually wanted to have sexual intercourse. In
the marital rape situation, ambiguity can be provoked because according to
traditional gender-role stereotypes, it is the duty of a wife to have sexual rela-
tionships with her husband. We also described the perpetrator as drunk,
which has been shown to reduce responsibility attributions for the assailant
(Stormo et al., 1997). In addition, this fact could lead to minimize the psycho-
logical impact of the rape because stereotypical ideas about gender roles
maintain that a wife should understand and tolerate her husband’s behavior.
Some authors have also found differences between men and women in
their perceptions of different rape scenarios (Monson et al., 1996; Stormo
et al., 1997), but others have found that gender was not a relevant variable
(Johnson & Russ, 1989; Krahe, 1988; L’Armand & Pepitone, 1982). Due to
these contradictory results, we also included gender as an independent vari-
able in our study.
To assess the perception of these three rape scenarios, four different ques-
tions were included for each of them. First, participants rated victim respon-
sibility. Second, they rated how much responsibility they attributed to the
perpetrator. Third, the amount of psychological impact each rape would have
on the victim was assessed. Finally, a behavioral index was introduced to
measure how likely it was that the observer would recommend that the victim
report the assault to the police. This question gave us the opportunity to eval-
uate whether acquaintance and marital rape are highly underreported crimes
(e.g., Hanneke & Shields, 1985; Sorenson & White, 1992) is related to the
amount of stereotypical ideas about rape.
Our hypotheses were as follows:
148 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

Hypothesis 1: Individuals with high RMA, compared to people with low RMA,
generally would attribute more responsibility to the rape victim and less
responsibility to the assailant, they would perceive rape as less traumatic, and
they would be less prone to report the rape.
Hypothesis 2: We also expected a main effect of situational cues. That is, individu-
als would attribute less responsibility to the victim in the stranger rape scenario
than in the other two rape situations. Furthermore, they would blame the perpe-
trator more when he is a stranger than when he is acquainted or married to the
victim. Stranger rape would be perceived as more traumatic than the other two
scenarios, and stranger rape would be more likely to be reported.
Hypothesis 3: Finally, we expected a significant interaction effect between levels
of RMA and situational factors. That is, individuals with high and low RMA
were not expected to differ in their judgements of the stranger rape scenario,
but they were expected to make different judgements in the date rape and the
marital rape situation.

Because previous studies have yielded inconsistent findings regarding

gender differences, we had no specific hypothesis about the effect of this
variable.

METHOD

Participants
Respondents were 182 psychology undergraduates (91 men and 91
women) from the University of Granada, Spain, who participated in our
study for extra credits. Women ranged in age from 18 to 28 (mean age = 19.2;
SD = 1.84). Men ranged in age from 18 to 43 (mean age = 21.9; SD = 4.42).
This difference in age between males and females was significant, t(180) =
5.47, p < .01.

Materials
Participants were given a booklet that included instructions, questions
about their sex and age, and a questionnaire to assess attitudes toward rape
and the different rape settings.

Rape attitudes. The Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) (Burt, 1980),
translated to Spanish specifically for this research, was used to assess atti-
tudes toward rape. This scale consists of statements that involve prevalent
myths about rape and includes 19 items. This instrument used a 7-point,
Likert-type rating scale with response options ranging from 1 (strongly
agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Ratings were added to obtain an RMA score.
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 149

Because it was the first time that this measure was used with a Spanish popu-
lation, no previous statistical information was available. In this study, we
obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73, similar to that obtained with the English
version (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.875).

Rape scenarios. We used three short vignettes developed for this study.
Participants read the following descriptions in Spanish1: (a) Imagine that a
young woman who is drunk and dressed in a short skirt leaves a party accom-
panied by a man who she doesn’t know very much and this man forces her
to have sexual intercourse with him; (b) Imagine that a young woman who
doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse with her husband, who comes home
drunk, is forced by him; and (c) Imagine that a young woman is threatened by
a knife and forced to have sexual intercourse with an unknown man in the
doorway of her house when she comes home at night.
We labeled the first situation as “acquaintance rape,” the second as “mari-
tal rape,” and the last as “stranger rape.” Each participant read all the descrip-
tions. We chose these situations to depict possible rape scenarios in a
naturalistic way. In the acquaintance rape description, “provocative” victim’s
clothing and her drunkenness were included to create an ambiguous sce-
nario; in the marital rape scene, drunkenness of the assailant was included
with the same aim. In the stranger rape condition, the presence of a weapon
was supposed to decrease ambiguity. In neither of the three descriptions was
the expression “rape” used so that participants would be less likely to answer
questions based on their individual preconceptions about the meaning of the
word.
The three scenarios were followed by the same four questions in Spanish2:
(a) Evaluate how much responsibility can be assigned to the woman for what
has happened, (b) Evaluate how much responsibility can be assigned to the
man for what has happened, (c) How traumatic must this experience have
been for the woman? and (d) If you were a friend of this woman, would you
recommend that she report the incident to the police? Each question was
answered on a 5-point, Likert-type scale. The first three questions had
responses ranging from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a lot), and the last question had
responses ranging from 1 (definitely no) to 5 (definitely yes).

Procedure

Participants answered the questionnaire in their classrooms. They were

seated separately to guarantee privacy. When they finished, they inserted the
questionnaire in an envelope to guarantee the privacy of their answers. To
eliminate possible order effects, half of the male and half of the female partic-
150 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

ipants answered first the RMAS and then the questions about the rape set-
tings and the other half answered in the opposite order. Because type of rape
was manipulated within subject, the order of the three rape vignettes was
counterbalanced, so that each scenario was preceded by each of the other two
the same number of times. Order of the four questions about each rape
vignette was incompletely counterbalanced using the following sequences:
abdc, bcad, cdba, and dacb.

Overall Design

In this study, there were three independent variables: RMAS (median

split), gender, and type of rape, the first two factors being manipulated
between participants, the last factor being manipulated within participant.
Dependent variables were participants’ judgments about victim responsibil-
ity, perpetrator responsibility, victim traumatization, and reporting of rape to
police.

RESULTS

We classified participants as high or low on RMA using a median split

procedure (Krahe, 1988) with their scores on RMAS (higher scores in
RMAS indicated lower acceptance of rape myths and vice versa). We also
checked for possible order effects, but neither the order of questionnaire pre-
sentation, nor the order of rape scenarios, nor the order of the four questions
about the perception of the rape situation yielded significant differences (all
Fs < 1).
We then conducted a one-way ANOVA on total RMA scores with subject
gender as the independent variable. This analysis showed no significant dif-
ferences between men (mean = 100.86, SD = 10.1) and women (mean =
99.51, SD = 8) in attitudes toward rape, F(1, 180) = .92, p > .30.
Separate 2 × 2 × 3 ANOVAs were performed for each of the four questions
following the rape vignettes (victim responsibility, assailant responsibility,
victim trauma, and probability of report). The independent variables were
RMA, gender, and type of rape, the first two factors being manipulated
between participants and the last factor being manipulated within participant.

Victim Responsibility Attributions

This analysis yielded significant main effects for RMA F(1, 177) = 11.89,
p < .01, for type of rape, F(2, 354) = 239.75, p < .01, but not for gender. High
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 151

2 High RMA
Low RMA

1
Acquaintance Marriage Stranger

Figure 1: Ratings of Victim Responsibility by Participants With High Rape Myth

Acceptance (RMA) and Low RMA in the Three Rape Situations
NOTE: Low scores express lower responsibility attributions.

RMA participants attributed more responsibility to the victim (M = 1.9) than

low RMA participants (M = 1.5). Post hoc least significant difference (LSD)
tests of differences revealed that the victim responsibility ratings were signif-
icantly higher for the acquaintance rape situation (M = 2.6), than for the mari-
tal rape (M = 1.3) and for the stranger rape situation (M = 1.1) (both ps < .05).
The difference between these two latter scenarios was marginally significant
(p < .06).
However, these main effects were modulated by a significant interaction
between type of rape and RMA, F(2, 354) = 6.22, p < .01. Data illustrating
this interaction are presented in Figure 1. To know how RMA influenced
responsibility attributed to the victim in each rape situation, we conducted
three one-way ANOVAs with RMA as the independent variable. These anal-
yses yielded significant differences for the acquaintance rape, F(1, 180) =
11.3, p < .01, and the stranger rape F(1, 179) = 9.4, p < .01 situation. No dif-
ferences in responsibility attributions for marital rape were found (F < 1). As
shown in Figure 1, in the acquaintance and stranger rape situation, partici-
pants with high RMA saw victims more responsible than participants with
low RMA.

Perpetrator Responsibility Attributions

Figure 2 shows ratings of assailant responsibility by participants with high

and low RMA in the three rape situations. The global ANOVA with RMA,
gender, and type of rape as independent variables showed only a significant
152 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

4 High RMA
Low RMA

3
Acquaintance Marriage Stranger

Figure 2: Ratings of Assailant Responsibility by Participants With High Rape

Myth Acceptance (RMA) and Low RMA in the Three Rape Situations
NOTE: Low scores express lower responsibility attributions.

main effect for type of rape, F(2, 352) = 25.36, p < .01. Post hoc LSD tests
revealed that people judged the assailant significantly more responsible in
the stranger rape situation (M = 5.0) than in the acquaintance rape (M = 4.6)
and the marital rape setting (M = 4.8). The difference between the ratings in
the last two settings also reached significance. Neither the main effect of
RMA nor the main effect of gender was significant. The only interaction to
approach significance was that between RMA and type of rape (p < .09).

Estimation of Trauma
Figure 3 shows estimations of victim trauma by participants with high and
low RMA in the three rape situations. Analysis of this dependent variable
yielded a significant main effect for RMA, F(1, 177) = 12.3 , p < .01, indicat-
ing that people with high RMA (M = 4.6) judged the trauma of rape as less
severe than people with low RMA (M = 4.8). We also obtained a significant
main effect for type of rape, F(2, 354)= 42.7, p < 0.01. Post hoc LSD tests
revealed that participants judged the stranger rape as significantly more trau-
matic (M = 5.0) than the acquaintance rape (M = 4.5) and the marital rape
(M = 4.5). The main effect for gender was marginally significant (p < 0.07),
as was the interaction of gender and RMA (p < 0.06). Most important, the
interaction between RMA and type of rape was significant, F(2, 354) = 3.7,
p > 0.05.
To understand the interaction between RMA and type of rape, we per-
formed three one-way ANOVAs, one for each rape scenario, to see how
RMA influenced trauma estimation in each of the three rape situations. Peo-
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 153

4 High RMA
Low RMA

3
Acquaintance Marriage Stranger

Figure 3: Estimations of Victim Trauma by Participants With High Rape Myth

Acceptance (RMA) and Low RMA in the Three Rape Situations
NOTE: Low scores express lower trauma estimations.

ple with low RMA judged victim’s trauma as more severe (M = 4.7) than peo-
ple with high RMA (M = 4.4) in the acquaintance rape setting, F(1, 179) =
12.8, p < .01. No differences were found for the other two situations.

Reporting of Rape to Police

Ratings of the probability that participants with high and low RMA would
recommend the victim to report the incident to the police in the three rape sit-
uations are displayed in Figure 4. Analysis of the probability that participants
would recommend the woman to report the incident to the police resulted in a
significant main effect for RMA, F(1, 178) = 16.61, p < .01, indicating that
people with high RMA were less likely to recommend the report to police
(M = 4.3) than people with low RMA (M = 4.6). The main effect for type of
rape was also significant, F(2, 356) = 71.15, p < .01. Post hoc LSD tests
revealed that people were less likely to recommend report to police for the
marital rape scenario (M = 4.2) than for the acquaintance rape scenario (M =
4.4). The stranger rape scenario was the most likely to be reported (M = 4.9).
The main effect of gender was not significant, and gender did not enter into
any significant interactions with other variables.
However, there was a significant interaction between type of rape and
RMA, F(2, 356) = 4.22, p < .05. Again, this interaction was examined further
by conducting three one-way ANOVAs, one for each rape scenario, that
treated RMA as the lone factor. A significant difference between high and
low RMA participants was found for both scenarios in which the victim knew
her assailant; acquaintance rape, F(1, 180) = 12.5, p < .01, and marital rape
154 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

4 High RMA
Low RMA

3
Acquaintance Marriage Stranger

Figure 4: Ratings of the Probability That Participants Would Recommend the

Victim to Report the Incident to the Police, With High Rape Myth
Acceptance (RMA) and Low RMA, in the Three Rape Situations.
NOTE: Higher scores express higher probability to recommend a report.

F(1, 180) = 8.5, p < .01. In both cases, people with high RMA (M = 4.2 for
acquaintance rape and M = 4.0 for marital rape) were less likely to recom-
mend a report than individuals with low RMA (M = 4.6 for acquaintance rape
and M = 4.4 for marital rape). No differences for stranger rape were found.

DISCUSSION

The main aim of the present study was to examine the importance of RMA
and situational factors in rape attributions. We first assessed the role of RMA
and differences in rape settings separately and then examined the interaction
between these two factors on perception of rape. Our results strongly support
the importance of RMA and situational factors in accounting for differences
in rape attributions. Furthermore, they support our hypothesis that it is the
interaction between these two factors that best describes how individuals
judge victim responsibility and the intensity of trauma. The results also sug-
gest that an interaction between RMA and situational factors affects the like-
lihood of reporting the rape to the police, whereas assailant responsibility
attributions seem to depend mostly on situational factors.
There was support for our first hypothesis because our results revealed
that people with high RMA attribute more responsibility to the victim, esti-
mate victim trauma as less severe, and would be less likely to recommend the
victim to report the rape to the police than people with low RMA. Therefore,
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 155

our results demonstrate once more that RMA is an important predictor of

people’s attributions about victim blame (Krahe, 1988; Stormo et al., 1997).
Only attributions of assailant responsibility did not seem to depend on the
amount of stereotypic ideas about rape. Krahe (1988) reported a similar find-
ing. She obtained a significant main effect for RMA on victim blame but not
on assailant blame. In our study, we suspect that this null effect may be due to
a ceiling effect. Another possibility relates to a potential shortcoming of the
RMAS, which measures attitudes toward rape by using mainly items that
describe victim behavior, including statements that describe false beliefs
about the perpetrators of sexual aggressions, such as “men can’t control their
sexual urges once they feel sexually aroused” or “men have the right to force
a woman to have sex once they are in an intimate relationship.” Taking into
account the role of the assailant might lead to more sensitive measures of
attitudes toward rape.
Our second hypothesis was also supported by the data. Characteristics of
the context in which rape takes place influence the social perception of this
type of violence. The results showed that the three scenarios were perceived
differently, but the directions of these differences varied according to the
dependent variable considered.
Victim blame was highest in the acquaintance rape situation, whereas in
marital and stranger rape, the responsibility of the woman was perceived sim-
ilarly. As expected, responsibility attributions for the perpetrator were high-
est for the stranger rape and lowest for the acquaintance rape. These results
may reveal the underlying belief that an assailant who knows the victim may
not understand her refusal, which then gives him the right to rape her. Fur-
thermore, participants clearly estimated a more important trauma for the vic-
tim of stranger rape than for the other two. This pattern of results expresses
the common assumption that being assaulted by a known man is less trau-
matic than becoming a victim of an unknown rapist. This belief is false
because several studies have demonstrated that victims of known offenders
are as prone to develop trauma symptoms as victims of stranger rape (Koss,
1993; Shapiro & Schwarz, 1997). The same pattern of results was found for
the likelihood to recommend a police report: Participants clearly recommend
report of the stranger rape but are less likely to recommend report of the
acquaintance and the marital rape. There is evidence that sexual assaults
committed by an offender who was known to the victim are less likely to be
reported than sexual assaults committed by a stranger (Koss, 1993). It has
been proposed that this is due to the victim’s fear of becoming stigmatized
and that this could be especially true for acquaintance rape situations
(Stormo et al., 1997). Our results suggest that this fear is justified.
156 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

Nevertheless, the more important results of our study are those concern-
ing the interaction between attitudes toward rape and the type of rape
(Hypothesis 3). We predicted that stereotypic ideas about rape would be most
influential when the rape situation was perceived as more “ambiguous.” This
prediction was correct for three of the four measures of rape perception. Par-
ticipants with high and low RMA showed the largest differences when they
estimated victim responsibility, intensity of trauma, and likelihood of report
in the acquaintance rape situation. Surprisingly though, in the case of victim
blame, individuals with high RMA differed from those with low RMA not
only in the acquaintance rape situation but also in the stranger rape situation.
These results indicate that RMA modulates the importance of rape character-
istics in social reactions to sexual violence. Nevertheless, our hypothesis that
individuals with fewer stereotypic ideas about rape would not be affected by
situational factors in making attributions about sexual aggression was not
supported. This unexpected pattern of results reveals that the absence of ste-
reotypic ideas about rape does not make a person invulnerable to the influ-
ence of situational factors. Even people with low RMA expressed more
doubts about the victim’s responsibility in the acquaintance rape in which the
victim was drunk and dressed in a “provocative” way. Furthermore, these
people also hold the erroneous belief that this kind of rape is less traumatic
than a stranger rape, and they were less likely to recommend a report to the
police.
These findings have important implications for the design of programs for
rape prevention. In contrast to other authors’ conclusions (Stormo et al.,
1997), the fact that rape acceptance is a major factor influencing attributions
about rape does not necessarily mean that educational and prevention efforts
are best aimed at eliminating general beliefs that support aggression against
women. Instead, an additional effort has to be directed at eradicating specific
misconceptions about situations that are perceived as “ambiguious” in sexual
aggressions. This specific information seems to be necessary to make clear
that “there are, in fact, no circumstances under which a woman gives up her
right to say no to sexual intercourse” (Unger & Crawford, 1992; see Monson
et al., 1996). Future investigation will have to look for other attitudinal vari-
ables, which could explain people’s proneness to blame the rape victim as a
function of the amount of ambiguous clues present. We think that gender-role
attitudes, especially taking into account evidence of new forms of sexism
(Glick & Fiske, 1996), could be one of these attitudinal antecedents of rape
attributions.
Because scarce empirical research about the perception of marital rape is
available, we will comment on our results about this rape situation separately.
Perception of this type of rape differed substantially depending on the mea-
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 157

sure we used. In the case of victim blame, attributions were similar to those of
stranger rape, whereas for assailant responsibility, intensity of trauma, and
the likelihood to report the crime to the police ratings were similar to those of
acquaintance rape. In general, these results indicate that people do not blame
married women for being raped by their husbands as they tend to do for vic-
tims in an acquaintance rape setting. This would mean that the idea of a
woman having “marital duties” is no longer valid. But still, people in general
hold a husband less responsible for raping his wife than the stranger rapist,
and they consider marital rape less traumatic. Further research of this issue is
necessary because in our manipulation the husband was described as drunk
and this might have introduced a significant difference between marital and
stranger rape scenarios. Furthermore, RMA did not influence victim blame
but was important for the estimation of trauma and the likelihood to report.
These results can be seen as evidence that high RMA individuals, although
they justify the married sexual assailant more than the stranger rapist, do not
blame marital rape victims more than stranger rape victims. Instead, they
hold other erroneous beliefs about this type of rape, such as that marital rape
is less traumatic than stranger rape. Finally, marital rape was seen as the most
difficult to denunciate, especially for those with high RMA. This might indi-
cate that individuals do not interpret marital rape to be as serious a crime as
stranger rape, in particular when they hold stereotypic ideas about rape. This
conclusion is consistent with Monson et al.’s (1996) data. They found that,
for marital rape, participants perceived a lower level of victim rights viol-
ation, a lower level of violence, and less psychological damage than for stranger
rape. In addition, they judged marital rape as less obviously an act of rape.
We did not find any effect of participant’s gender on rape attributions. Our
results confirm those obtained by other authors (Check & Malamuth, 1983;
Johnson & Russ, 1989; Krahe, 1988) who haven’t found significant gender
effects on rape perception when situational factors were manipulated. Our
results also contradict the general finding that men hold more rape myths
than women do (Anderson et al., 1997). Our data indicate that it is not the
observer’s gender that determines rape attributions but his or her preconcep-
tions about rape. Thus, the influence of gender on rape attributions might be
mediated by RMA, which then might explain why some studies reveal a sig-
nificant gender effect (Monson et al., 1996; Stormo et al., 1997). Our failure
to find gender differences in RMA might be due to our sample as men who
study psychology might show less stereotypic ideas about rape then men
from other populations. Even though sample choice is a limitation of our
study, Krahe (1988) found similar results with a nonstudent sample.
Several other limitations of our study should be mentioned. As we already
outlined before, we used a student sample, and some of the results might not
158 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

generalize to the rest of the population. Nevertheless, the aim of our study
was mainly to show the importance of the interaction between situational fac-
tors and RMA for specific rape attributions. Even if we assume student popu-
lation as holding less rape myths than the general population, our study still
proves that this interaction is important to understand the social perception of
rape. We might also be critical about the rape depictions we used. They were
aimed to be representative for common rape situations, but at the same time
they are abstract and contain only a restricted amount of relevant detail. In
real rape perception, observers have much more information that can be used
to make their judgements. As such, we cannot rule out the possibility that our
results are due to the artificial manipulation of situational factors. Further
investigations using more ecologically valid scenarios are needed. The same
is true for our dependent variables. In this study, only cognitive measures
were used, whereas there is some empirical evidence for the importance of
other measures of rape perception, such as sexual arousal to rape depictions
(Check & Malamuth, 1983) and measures of behavioral intentions (Bohner
et al., 1998; Check & Malamuth, 1983). Future studies should relate these
variables to RMA across different rape settings. Finally, because several
authors have proposed that RMA is related to other forms of sexism, such as
sex-role stereotyping (Anderson et al., 1996), hostility toward women
(Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995), or ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996),
these variables should be taken into account for future analysis of social
perception of rape.

NOTES

1. Imagínese usted que una mujer joven borracha vestida con minifalda se va de una fiesta con
un hombre al que no conoce muy bien y éste le fuerza a mantener relaciones sexuales. Imagínese
usted que una mujer joven que no quiere mantener relaciones sexuales con su marido que ha
llegado borracho a casa es forzada por él. Imagínese que una mujer joven vuelve a casa de noche y
es amenazada con un cuchillo y forzada por un desconocido a mantener relaciones sexuales con
él en el portal de su casa.
2. Valore cuánta responsabilidad tiene la mujer en lo que ha ocurrido. Valore cuánta
responsabilidad tiene el hombre en lo que ha ocurrido. ¿Cómo de traumática puede haber sido la
experiencia para la mujer? Si fuese amigo/a de la mujer, ¿le aconsejaría que denunciara lo
ocurrido?
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 159

REFERENCES

Acock, A. C., & Ireland, N. K. (1983). Attribution of blame in rape cases: The impact of norm
violation, gender, and sex-role attitudes. Sex Roles, 9, 179-193.
Anderson, K. B., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward
rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295-315.
Bell, S. T., Kuriloff, P. J., & Lottes, I. (1994). Understanding attributions of blame in stranger
rape and date rape situations: An examination of gender, race, identification, and students’
social perceptions of rape victims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 1719-1734.
Bohner, G., Reinhard, M. A., Rutz, S., Sturm, S., Kerschbaum, B., & Effler, D. (1998). Rape
myths as neutralizing cognitions: Evidence for causal impact of anti-victim attitudes on
men’s self-reported likelihood of raping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 257-
268.
Bridges, J. S., & McGrail, C. A. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape.
Sex Roles, 21, 273-287.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will. New York: Bantam.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 38, 217-230.
Check, J., & Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of
stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 344-
356.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L.
Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
Hanneke, C. R., & Shields, N. A. (1985). Marital rape: Implications for the helping professions.
Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 66, 451-458.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). The “self digest”: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1062-1083.
Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of
Psychology, 38, 369-425.
Jenkins, M. J., & Dambrot, F. H. (1987). The attribution of date rape: Observer’s attitudes and
sexual experiences and the dating situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 875-
895.
Johnson, J. D., & Russ, I. (1989). Effects of salience of consciousness-raising information on
perception of acquaintance versus stranger rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19,
1182-1197.
Koss, M. P. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence
estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-75.
Koss, M. P. (1993). Rape. Scope, impact, interventions, and public policy response. American
Psychologist, 48, 1062-1069.
Krahe, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility attribu-
tions to victims of rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 50-58.
Kubany, E. S., Abueg, F. R., Owens, J. A., Brennan, J. M., Kaplan, A. S., & Watson, S. B. (1995).
Initial examination of a multidimensional model of trauma-related guilt: Applications to
combat veterans and battered women. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assess-
ment, 17, 353-376.
160 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / February 2004

L’Armand, K., & Pepitone, A. (1982). Judgments of rape: A study of victim-rapist relationship
and victim’s sexual history. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 134-139.
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.
McCaul, K., Veltum, L. G., Boyechko, V., & Crawford, J. J. (1990). Understanding attributions
of victim blame for rape: Sex, violence and foreseeability. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 20, 1-26.
McCormick, J. S., Maric, A., Seto, M. C., & Barbaree, H. E. (1998). Relationship to victim pre-
dicts sentence length in sexual assault cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 413-420.
Monson, C. M., Byrd, G. R., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). To have and to hold. Percep-
tions of marital rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 410-424.
Ong, A. S. J., & Ward, C. A. (1999). The effects of sex and power schemas, attitudes toward
women, and victim resistance on rape attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
362-376.
Pollard, P. (1992). Judgements about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307-326.
Ryckman, R. M., Kaczor, L. M., & Thornton, B. (1992). Traditional and nontraditional women’s
attributions of responsibility to physically resistive and nonresistive rape victims. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1453-1463.
Shapiro, B. L., & Schwarz, J. C. (1997). Date rape. Its relationship to trauma symptoms and sex-
ual self-esteem. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 407-419.
Sorenson, S. B., & White, J. (1992). Adult sexual assault: Overview of research. Journal of
Social Issues, 48, 1-8.
Stormo, K. J., Lang, A. R., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (1997). Attributions about acquaintance rape:
The role of alcohol and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27,
279-305.
Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1992). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Willis, C. E. (1992). The effect of sex role stereotype, victim and defendant race, and prior rela-
tionship on rape culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 26, 213-227.

Bettina Frese is a Ph.D. student at the University of Granada in Spain. She received her
doctoral training in experimental psychology. Her research interests concern social per-
ception of women who suffer male violence and its impact on psychological adjustment
after victimization. She also works as a clinical psychologist treating victims of rape and
sexual abuse.

Miguel Moya is a professor in social psychology at the School of Psychology of the Uni-
versity of Granada. His main research interests are gender and prejudice. Some of his
papers have been published in the following journals: European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, Sex Roles, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. He has been a
postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Kent at Canterbury (U.K.) and at the
University of California, Los Angeles (U.S.).
 Frese et al. / SOCIAL PERCEPTION OF RAPE 161

Jesús L. Megías is a senior lecturer in experimental psychology at the School of Psychol-

ogy of the University of Granada. He received his Ph.D. in learning; now his main
research interests concern psychological adjustment of women who suffer male violence
and posttraumatic stress disorder in several populations. He coordinates a Psychologi-
cal Assistance Service for women victims of male violence in Granada in Spain.

View publication stats