Judgments About Male Victims of Sexual Assault by Women: A 35-Year Replication Study

Sexual assault of men by women has received increasing attention in recent years, as has research on rape myths about male victims. This study is a cross-generational replication of a 1984 study of college students’ judgments about male and female victims in a scenario involving a sexual assault carried out by male or female assailants. The 1984 data ( n = 172) were compared with those of a 2019 cohort ( n = 372) in a 2 (participant gender) x 2 (assailant gender) x 2 (victim gender) x 2 (cohort) factorial design to assess potential generational changes in perceptions of victims. Judgments by male participants of male victims of assaults carried out by women changed notably over time. The 2019 male cohort was less likely to judge that the victim initiated or encouraged the incident (40% in 1984 compared with 15% in 2019) and derived pleasure from it (47.4% in 1984 compared with 5.8% in 2019). In contrast, the 2019 female cohort was more likely to attribute victim encouragement (26.9% compared with 4.3% in 1984) and pleasure to the male victim (25% in 2019 compared with 5% in 1984). A similar gender pattern occurred in judgments of how stressful the event was for the male victim. Analysis of the 2019 data revealed that overall, despite scientific and cultural shifts that have occurred over the past three decades, participants continued to judge the male victim of assault by a female to have been more encouraging and to have experienced more pleasure and less stress than in any other assailant/victim gender combination. Results are discussed in relation to gendered stereotypical beliefs and male rape myths, as well as possible sensitization to power differentials inspired by the #MeToo movement. We emphasize the need for greater awareness and empirical attention to abuse that runs counter to preconceived notions about sexual victimization.

Detectives’ Descriptions of Their Responses to Sexual Assault Cases and Victims: Assessing the Overlap Between Rape Myths and Focal Concerns

Increasing just responses to sexual assault requires understanding how police perceive sexual assault cases and victims, and which legal (e.g., evidence), extralegal (e.g., suspect characteristics), and practical (e.g., convictability) concerns influence their responses in these cases. Using interview data collected in the Los Angeles Sexual Assault Study, we qualitatively analyzed 611 comments made by 52 detectives in response to questions about case processing decisions (e.g., what it takes to arrest) to examine the factors detectives described as relevant to their assessments of allegations as legitimate, victims as credible, and cases as chargeable. Results revealed overlap between rape myths and legal, extralegal, and practical concerns. Specifically, comments referenced rape myths in relation to suspect blameworthiness and dangerousness, evidence, victim cooperation, and prosecutors’ decisions. Comments also revealed some detectives lacked knowledge of relevant legal statutes and case processing guidelines (e.g., unfound criteria). These results suggest that sexual assault case attrition stems from an orientation to prosecutors’ charging criteria rather than probable cause, and organizational factors, such as deprioritization of sex crimes investigations. We recommend that departments adequately staff and equip sex crimes units with investigatory resources and prioritize sex crimes investigations over non-violent crimes. Departments should incentivize sex crimes assignments and screen applicants for quality, experience, and bias. Detectives in these units should undergo regular trainings on unfounding and probable cause criteria and should be required to make arrests when they have probable cause to do so.

Myths about myths? A commentary on Thomas (2020) and the question of jury rape myth acceptance

This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas ‘shows’ no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between ‘real’ jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Thomas (2020) argued that her research showed rape myths do not influence juries.</li><br /><li>We critique Thomas’ claim because the research was not designed to ask about influence on juries, there are several methodological limitations, and the data actually reveal ambivalence about rape myths on the part of many jurors.</li></ul>

Filling in the (gendered) gaps: How observers frame claims of sexual assault

Claims of sexual assault are especially prone to scrutiny and (re)interpretation as something else. We investigated how people judged the veracity of sexual assault claims and how they subsequently framed their interpretations of these claims using ‘general knowledge’ in the form of sexual scripts, rape myths, and gender stereotypes. Participants ( n = 161) read about a sexual assault allegation by a male or female claimant and were asked to describe in more detail what they thought had happened. Data were analyzed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative frame analysis. A key finding was that although participants mostly accepted the facts of the claim, this did not automatically imply they shared the claimant’s interpretation of the event as (serious) sexual assault. The analysis revealed that participants drew upon distinct frames to interpret the claim, including frames – such as regretted consensual sex and miscommunication – that exonerated the accused and emphasized claimant responsibility. Frames were differentially employed in response to male and female claims of sexual assault. We discuss how our research design and findings can contribute to an increased understanding of the underlying mechanisms of victim acknowledgment.

Development and Preliminary Validation of the Gender Inclusive Rape Myth Acceptance Scale

Rape myths are widespread and contribute to a rape culture that excuses and normalizes permissive attitudes surrounding rape and sexual assault. To combat rape culture and decrease sexual assault, many programs focus on reducing rape myth acceptance (RMA). To best assess outcomes of such prevention efforts, we must ensure we are accurately measuring this construct. Current RMA scales are decades old and focus almost exclusively on cisgender women. As such, they are outdated and leave out important experiences of cisgender men and gender diverse individuals. The Gender Inclusive Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (GIRMA) was developed to address such limitations in current measures. Two studies were completed to develop and establish preliminary validation of the GIRMA. Study One included 614 adults in the United States, recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk; Study Two included 414 adults in the United States, recruited in the same way. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted with an original pool of 73 items that included myths about the experiences of cisgender women, cisgender men, transgender, and gender diverse individuals. Parallel analysis indicated a single factor structure for measuring rape myths. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for Study Two, which supported the single-factor approach. These analyses resulted in a concise, robust, inclusive 18-item scale to measure rape myths. Model fit was excellent, as was reliability. Additionally, construct validity was supported through examining the relationship between the GIRMA and previously validated RMA and sexism scales. The GIRMA offers researchers the ability to fully assess the construct of rape myths in a short, psychometrically sound manner. Future research is needed to investigate the reliability of the GIRMA in other populations.

Sexual Assault Myths Acceptance in University Campus: Construction and Validation of a Scale

The study related to the myths of rape has been carried out since the 1980s at different scales. However, the interaction between the acceptance of these rape myths (myths related to sexual abuse) and the nightlife scene—where alcohol consumption becomes the epicenter of this particular context—has not been specifically evaluated. In this work, a questionnaire has been developed considering different scales. It has been tested online in a population of 367 first-year undergraduate students at the University of Alcalá (Spain). The results of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, as well as the reliability ones, indicate the adequacy of the scale construction and validation process for the university student population. In addition, the results obtained, in line with the specialized literature, indicate that the consumption of alcohol and other drugs appear as justifying elements of sexual violence, exonerating the aggressors and perpetrating the victim.

She Asked for It: Hardcore Porn, Sexism, and Rape Myth Acceptance

The present study examined pornography viewing, rape myth acceptance, and sexist attitudes. Data came from 392 male and 903 female participants. Multigroup SEM indicated neither pornography viewing, nor hardcore pornography viewing, were related to rape myth acceptance when controlling for sexist attitudes among men. Wald tests indicated hostile sexism to be a significantly stronger predictor of all rape myths examined compared to pornography viewing or hardcore pornography viewing in men and women. Latent variable interaction analyses suggested hardcore pornography viewing as a significant exacerbating factor for the relationship between hostile sexism and “she asked for it” rape myths across genders.

A space to resist rape myths? Journalism, patriarchy and sexual violence

In September 2018, a controversial judicial sentence concerning sexual violence caused a public outcry in Portugal. The court decision invoked the alleged environment of mutual seduction, the use of much alcohol consumption, and the lack of serious injuries to justify the suspended penalty. Stemming from the idea that understandings of what journalism is and what it should be are profoundly ideological and that notions of what it means to be and to behave like a woman and as a man have been developed (and altered over time) based on shifting realities within generalised patriarchal structures, this article intends to critically analyse the news media coverage of the controversial judicial sentence on this rape case in Portugal exploring the implications objective-based journalism entails for gender equality. As such, it will identify the shortcomings of objectivity and its leeway when covering sexual violence exploring how objective-based journalism provides room to (re)negotiate practices, norms, identities, and meanings concerning sexual violence, particularly rape and rape myths, and questioning whether a margin of maneuvre is enough to deconstruct patriarchal assumptions of feminity, masculinity and sexuality.

Rape myths in practice: the everyday work of accounting for rape survivors

Abstract‘Rape mythologising’ has been found to be a reason why survivors of rape feel blamed, and might contribute to low rates of reporting or conviction. No research to date examines whether ‘rape mythologising’ occurs in the conversations of sexual health staff when discussing rape cases. Conversation Analysis was used to analyse a focus group conversation between five sexual healthcare clinic staff who routinely provided support to rape survivors, on the topic of three rape cases presented at the clinic. Three forms of conversation were noted in the focus group: (1) assessing ‘relatability’ in cases, (2) diagnostically reconstructing events and (3) apportioning blame to rapists. Implications for professional training are discussed. In all three, a tension was noted between drawing on rape myths and professional non-blaming discourses. This research demonstrates the need for further training of those who work with rape survivors.