Running head: LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 1
Double Standards in Perceived Traits of Women Labeled Victims vs. Survivors
Aanchal Setia1, Michael Marks2, and Sieun An1
1 Ashoka University, India
2 New Mexico State University, USA
Address correspondence to:
Sieun An, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Ashoka University [email protected] LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 2
Abstract
Media reports on sexual assaults are omnipresent in today’s societies. Applying the labels
“victim” and “survivor” to women who have been sexually assaulted influences their identities by evoking certain stereotypical images. However, the use of these labels is possibly affected by double standards in contemporary society. Certain traits are viewed more positively for men than women. The present study aimed to investigate the presence of the double standard phenomenon in the labelling of women who have been sexually assaulted.
Two studies were conducted. Study 1 examined differences in character traits attached to the labels. Results showed significant differences for 13 of 15 adjectives in the victim vs. survivor label conditions. Study 2 consisted of two sub-studies that examined the double standard nature of these character traits using explicit (2a) and implicit measures (2b). Study
2a did not show pronounced effects of the double standard. However, findings of Study 2b demonstrated that the character traits attached to the label “survivor” suggest a double standard. The findings underscore the impact of labelling on women who have been sexually assaulted. Further implications are discussed.
Keywords: sexual assault, double standard, sexual stereotypes, explicit bias, implicit bias LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 3
Double Standards in Perceived Traits of Women Labeled Victims vs. Survivor
Labels such as victim and survivor reflect the experiences and recovery of the women who have been raped (Hockett & Saucier, 2015). However, these labels themselves are associated with multiple connotations (Thompson, 2000), which may contribute to the stigma attached to the sexual assault. Our research aims to elucidate the character traits associated with these labels. Additionally, there exists a discrepancy regarding the behavioral expectations between men and women, which is termed as the sexual double standard phenomenon (Sakaluk & Milhausen, 2012). Therefore, it is plausible that the character traits associated with labels could also possibly exhibit the double standard, i.e. certain character traits are favourable for men and unfavourable for women due to these traditional gender based expectations of behaviour. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of double standard in the labels (victim vs. survivor) associated with women who have been sexually assaulted. To our knowledge, this is the first study to link the labels with double standards. This is important to study, as it helps us understand how these labels evoke sexual stereotypes and reinforce the trauma as well as shape the identity of the women who have been sexually assaulted.
Labelling of Sexually Assaulted Women
Women who have been sexually assaulted are typically labelled as victims and/or survivors in contemporary society. The labels victim and survivor have different connotations attached to them (van Dijk, 2009). For example, a victim is associated with perceptions of passivity and vulnerability, whereas a survivor is associated with those of strength and recovery (Thompson, 2000). These labels not only carry these different connotations, but also influence the identities of the woman who have been raped (Hockett & Saucier, 2015). In addition, it affects the way people respond to women who have been sexually assaulted, LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 4 which may further affect their recovery. Therefore, there is a need to better understand these labels and their possible consequences on women who have been sexually assaulted.
Victim and survivor encapsulate different experiences of the women who have been raped. The label victim elicits sympathy and support from others, and the label survivor elicits a positive self-identity respected by others (Thompson, 2000). However, the findings of Hockett, McGraw, and Saucier (2014) suggest that people associate the label victim with more negatively valenced characteristics such as having fewer coping characteristics compared to the label survivor. McCarthy (1986) also explained that the internalization of the label “victim” frames sexual assault as the dominant event in the assaulted person’s life. The victim label might elicit compassion for women who have been assaulted; however, it also assigns them with restraining connotations attached to the term itself, like passivity or forgiveness (Hockett & Saucier, 2015). Hence, recently, people use the label “survivor” rather than “victim” in an attempt to break free from the negative stigma associated with the label “victim” (van Dijk, 2009). Such a transition in the choice of labels raises an important question: whether this transition has entirely positive outcomes.
Double Standards Exhibited by the Labels
There are prevalent differences in the traditional gender-based expectations of the behavior from both men and women (Sakaluk & Milhausen, 2012). For example, men are rewarded for multiple sexual activities whereas women are derogated for the same behavior
(Barash & Lipton, 2001). Such discrepancies in the expectations on which men and women are held in the society are labelled as the sexual double standard (Crawford & Popp, 2003).
The sexual double standard is evident in three broad areas: sexual fidelity is expected from women more than men, and both sex without affection and initiation of sex is deemed appropriate only for men compared to women (Bordini & Sperb, 2013; Marks & Fraley, LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 5
2005). It is important to study as it continues to influence behaviors and perceptions of people
(Bordini & Sperb, 2013; Mark & Miller, 1986; Milhausen & Herold, 2000).
The sexual double standard also contributes to miscommunication and sexual assault
(Muehlenhard, 1988). It has perpetuated the notion that women engage in token resistance to sex (Muehlenhard & Rodgers, 1998); i.e. they reject sexual advances with an intention to engage in them. Osman (2006) found that male participants who had a weaker belief in token resistance to sex understood that coitus occurred non-consensually when women said ‘No’ compared to participants who had a stronger belief in token resistance. This implies that the prevalent sexual double standard has trivialized the value of women’s consent. Additionally, the sexual double standard significantly influences the acceptance of rape myths (Choi &
Kim, 1998; Lee, Kim, & Lee, 2010). People with a strong belief in the sexual double standard hold the belief that rape occurs spontaneously due to the uncontrollable sexual desires of men
(Cowan & Quinton, 1997; Lee, Kim, & Lee, 2010). Further, rape is also trivialized and justified due to social perceptions of traits such as dominance and submissiveness attributed to men and women, respectively (Warner, 2000).
Certain character traits associated with the labels might also be deemed desirable for men but undesirable for women. For example, findings related to double standards suggest that the connotation of the traits associated with these labels applies differently for women as compared to men due to the prevalent double standards in contemporary society (Marks &
Fraley, 2005; Prentice & Carranza, 2002; Zaikman & Marks, 2015). For women to be perceived as emotionally healthy, they need to have conventional feminine traits such as submissiveness, reduced competitiveness, and sensitivity (Seem & Clark, 2006). Indeed, adjectives such as “extroverted,” “dominant,” “confident,” “active,” and “strong” are classified as agentic traits that are undesirable for women but desirable for men (Eagly &
Carli, 2012; Nass, Moon, & Green, 1997; Rudman & Glick, 1999; Zaikman & Marks, 2016). LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 6
Additionally, the adjective “loud” is an acceptable stereotype for men in society, but is viewed as aggressive when associated with women (Thomas, Witherspoon & Speight, 2004).
Therefore, we believe it is plausible that the character traits attached to the label survivor might be negatively valenced.
The sexual double standard phenomenon represents the notion that men have more sexual freedom compared to women (Milhausen & Harold, 2001). Therefore, women who perform sexual actions that are inconsistent with the sexual norms of society are perceived in a negative light. Few traits associated with the labels such as dominance and extraversion might also defy the conventional restrictions of freedom posed by society on women.
Therefore, the objective of the research is to examine the sexual double standard effect in the labels (victim vs. survivor) that are used to address women who have been sexually assaulted.
These labels might extend the trauma of the assaulted person by socially victimizing them and influencing their identity (Hockett & Saucier, 2015; Marks & An, 2019).
Study 1
Framing of the descriptions of sexually assaulted women via the use of labels may hold positive and negative consequences for said women Papendick and Bohner’s (2017)
Study 1 suggested that positive traits are more strongly associated with the label “survivor” compared to the label “victim.” However, they did not measure the valence of these traits that were associated with the labels. Therefore, we suspect that the traits associated with the label survivor might be negatively valenced, and thus, have possible negative consequences for the targeted women. Before measuring the valence of these adjectives, the present study aimed to replicate and extend the findings of Papendick and Bohner’s (2017) study that investigates the stigmatization caused by the labelling of victim vs. survivor. Moreover, Papendick and
Bohner’s study had a low English-speaking sample size for both victim and survivor conditions (n=86). Therefore, the present study aimed to replicate it with a larger sample of LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 7
English speaking participants. We examined the characteristics attached to the labels and underscore the differences that exist between them.
We measured associations between the labels survivor and victim and fifteen bipolar adjectives (optimistic-pessimistic, confident-insecure, healthy-ill, dominant-submissive, extroverted-introverted, forward-backward looking, good-bad, strong-weak, active-passive, brave-anxious, successful-unsuccessful, hard-soft, innocent-guilty, loud-quite, and fast-slow).
We predicted that “survivor” would be rated more positively (via associations with positive adjectives) overall compared to “victim,” but that at the same time, some adjectives (e.g. loud, extroverted, dominant, confident, active, strong, etc.) that are rather negative for women due to double standards would be rated higher for survivor compared to victim.
Method
Design and Participants. We employed a fully between participants design (Label:
Victim vs. Survivor). The independent variable was label type, and the dependent variables were ratings on 15 bipolar adjectives items that were used for sexual stereotype research
(Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957). An a priori power analysis using G*power software
(Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) revealed that it would require 128 participants to detect a moderate effect size with 80% power. Thus, 130 participants were recruited.
Participants included undergraduates with different academic majors (61 men and 69 women) with a mean age of 19.56 years (SD=1.95). All participants were Indian nationals from multiple parts of the country.
Procedure. Upon recruitment, participants were told that their reading comprehension abilities would be evaluated. After consenting to participate, participants read the condition specific vignette (victim vs. survivor) that was randomly assigned to them. The study was conducted for one semester in the Fall of 2018. Participants completed the following LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 8 measures: demographics, a vignette, and a 15-bipolar adjectives questionnaire (Osgood,
1957) on a computer screen.
The vignette read as follows:
“Shweta is a rape victim (or survivor). She works as a business analyst in an IT company. On a Thursday night, she was standing in front of her office waiting for a cab. A stranger walked towards her. He asked her for directions. As she tried to look at google maps, he grabbed her, dragged her towards a shady lane, and raped her. Then he left the crime scene.”
A common Indian name was used for the target person since participants were
Indians. After reading the vignette, participants were asked to rate the label (victim vs. survivor) on 15 bipolar adjectives (Osgood, 1957) on a 7-point scale e.g. 0 (pessimistic) to 6
(optimistic) in response to the question “Please indicate, based on your understanding of the text, how well the following adjectives describe the label, victim (or survivor)?” All items were presented in random order. The research was approved by the local Institutional Review
Board. Participants gave informed consent, and their participation was voluntary and anonymous. They were fully debriefed following the study.
Results and Discussion
A MANOVA was conducted with label type as an independent variable and, with the
15 pairs of adjectives as dependent variables. There was a significant multivariate effect for label (p<.001). See Table 1 for effects revealed by the univariate analysis.
Overall, the pattern of the results replicated the findings of Papendick and Bohner
(2017), which shows significant differences for 13 items in the English-speaking sample and suggested that higher ratings mean more positivity. The survivor condition was rated higher compared to the victim condition except for 2 items (healthy-ill and extroversion- LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 9 introversion) which were not significantly different between the two conditions. There were no noteworthy sex differences found in the study.
It has been previously suggested that all the bipolar adjectives were positive when they were rated higher (Papendick & Bohner, 2017); however, the perceived valence of the adjectives was not measured. Moreover, the double standard may have been elicited by some of the adjectives and could be overlooked. Also, there is evidence that adjectives found to be associated with survivor are related to double standards via the different associations with masculinity and femininity. Survivor was associated with agentic traits for women (e.g. loud, extroverted, dominant, confident, active, strong, etc.), which are considered negative for women and positive for men (Eagly & Carli, 2012; Nass et al., 1997; Rudman & Glick, 1999;
Thomas et al., 2004).
Study 2
Although the results of Study 1 revealed the differences in the adjectives associated with both the labels, it did not measure the perceived valence of those associated adjectives.
The perceived valence is important to highlight the influence of labels on people’s perception towards women who have been sexually assaulted. Therefore, Study 2 was conducted to examine the perceived valence of the fifteen bipolar adjectives that were positively associated with “survivor” in Study 1. We attempt to illustrate whether the use of label survivor will have certain negative consequences for the women who have been sexually assaulted in order to investigate whether these adjectives exhibit double standards phenomenon. We employed two types of assessment tools in this experiment: self-reported explicit measures as well as an implicit measure test using the IAT. Our motivation to use these tools is based on the theory that both the measures reflect different representations of attitudes (Wilson, Lindsey, &
Schooler, 2000).
Study 2a LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 10
People can simultaneously hold multiple attitudes. Explicit measures highlight the top layer, whereas implicit measures help identify the deepest layer of the attitude (Hofmann,
Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le, & Schmitt, 2005). Additionally, explicit measures help us understand the deliberate processing and behavior of the participants. Therefore, we aimed to determine the participant’s perceived valence of the 15 bipolar adjectives associated with both men and women using explicit measures. We predicted that the adjectives associated with survivor in Study 1 would be rated positively for men but negatively for women, and the adjectives associated with victim would be rated positively for women but negatively for men. Since the measure is an explicit one, participants may not show obvious and traditional biases between sex, and may even try to overcompensate to the contemporary expectation of the gender role of women being able to do anything.
Method
Design and Participants. We employed a 2 (Target: Woman vs. Man) fully between participants design. The independent variable was target gender. The dependent variables were the differences between the ratings of the valence (positive vs. negative) of thirty adjectives that were used in experiment 1. An a priori power analysis using G*power revealed that it would require 60 participants to detect a moderate effect size with 80% power. A total of 64 participants were recruited. Participants included undergraduates with different academic majors (33 women and 31 men) with a mean age of 20.06 years
(SD=1.98) All were Indian nationals from multiple parts of the country.
Procedure. When participants were recruited, they were told that the aim of the study was to examine the meanings of certain words used in daily lives. A computer-based questionnaire was conducted in the lab during the Fall 2018 semester. After consenting to participate, participants completed the condition-specific questionnaire (woman vs. man) that was randomly assigned to them. The questionnaire consisted of 60 items, of which 30 LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 11 measured the positive valence of the adjective and 30 measured the negative valence of the adjectives. An example of the woman target condition includes “How positive is the word
‘extroverted’ to you in regard to describing a woman?” An example of the man target condition includes “How positive is the word ‘extroverted’ to you in regard to describing a man?”. Participants were asked to rate the positivity or negativity of the adjective depending upon the question on a 7-point scale from 0 (Not at all Positive) or (Not at all Negative) to 6
(Very Positive) or (Very Negative). All items were presented in random order. See
Supplemental materials. The research was approved by the Institutional Review Board.
Participants gave informed consent, and their participation was voluntary and anonymous.
They were fully debriefed following the study.
Results and Discussion
Each participant rated the positivity and negativity of each adjective, and a difference score between their responses to two different questions provided the valence of the adjective
(Choi & Choi, 2002). To create a difference index, each participant’s response to the negative question was subtracted from their response to the positive question, hereafter referred to as
POS-NEG. Therefore, a value of POS-NEG greater than zero implies that participants considered the adjective positive whereas a value of POS-NEG less than zero implies that participants considered the adjective negative.
One sample t-tests for a men and women against zero were conducted, with adjusted alpha levels of .001 per test (.05/30) using the Bonferroni correction. The adjectives pessimistic, insecure, ill, backward-looking, bad, weak, unsuccessful, and guilty were rated negatively for men and positively for women. The adjectives optimistic, confident, extroverted, healthy, forward-looking, good, strong, active, brave, and successful were rated negatively for women and positively for men. The adjective loud was rated negatively for men and neutral for women. The adjectives soft, innocent, and quiet were rated positively for LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 12 men and neutral for women. The adjectives passive, submissive and slow were rated positively for women and neutral for men. See Table 2. The hypothesis was partially supported. There were no noteworthy sex differences found in the study.
The findings showed that adjectives associated with survivor such as optimistic, confident, extroverted, healthy, forward-looking, good, strong, active, brave, and successful were considered positive for men but were considered negative for women. This outcome reflects the presence of double standards in society. However, the adjectives such as pessimistic, insecure, ill, backward-looking, bad, weak, unsuccessful, and guilty were considered positive for women but negative for men. These results aligns with past research about traits associated with men and women in society (Eagly & Carli, 2012; Rudman &
Glick, 1999). In addition, participants perceived the adjectives quiet, innocent, and soft as positive for men, and the adjective loud as negative for men. However, these adjectives were considered neutral for women. This outcome for men contradicts the gender-based expectations of behaviour accepted by society. A possible reason for such an outcome is the direct nature of the questionnaire. It might have activated the social desirability effect hindering participants from being completely honest in the study. Further findings highlight the adjectives quiet and soft as being traits desirable for men, though research suggests that these adjectives stereotypically tend to undermine masculinity (Courtenay, 2000). Lastly, the adjectives passive and submissive were found to be positive for women and these adjectives are considered desirable for women in society (Seem & Clark, 2006).
Study 2b
The effects of double standards are not fully demonstrated via explicit measures due to the aspect of social desirability (Milhausen & Harold, 2001). Thus, people might conceal their true beliefs in self-reported explicit measures. Therefore, we conducted Study 2 by employing an implicit measure using the IAT. For the IAT, the hypothesis stated that LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 13 participants would associate the assumed positive adjectives associated with survivor to men and the assumed negative adjectives associated with victim to women. We also predicted that the positive adjectives for men will be negative for women and negative adjectives for women will be positive for men. Hence, we hypothesize that a double standard effect will be found.
Method
Design and Participants. We employed a 2 (Traits: Desirable vs. Undesirable) X 2
(Target: Male vs. Female) X 2 (Gender Scripts: Non-traditional vs. Traditional) mixed participants design. The independent variables were traits, sex, and gender scripts and the dependent variable was the participants’ association of desirable or undesirable traits with the categories man and woman. Target was a between subject factor and traits and gender scripts were within subject factors. An a priori power analysis using G*power revealed that it would require 82 participants to detect a moderate effect size with 80% power. Thus, a total of 108
(68 women and 40 men) participants were recruited. Participants included undergraduates with different academic majors with a mean age of 19.13 years (SD=1.46). They participated in exchange for fulfilment of an Introduction to Psychology course credit during the Spring
2019 semester. The sample consisted of 95% Indians, 2% Americans, 1% Bangladeshi, 1%
Brazilian, and 1% Spanish.
Materials and Apparatus. The experiment consisted of two IAT sessions: IAT (I) and
IAT (II). For IAT (I), we used 90 stimulus words that were used in Study 1. These words were categorized into 30 traits which were desirable for men but undesirable for women (e.g., active man, passive woman), 30 undesirable traits for men but desirable for women (e.g., passive man, active woman), 15 positive adjectives as found in Study 1 (e.g., optimistic, confident), and 15 negative adjectives as found in Study 1 (e.g., passive, insecure).
Evaluative attributes (desirable and undesirable traits) were categorized into two subordinate LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 14 categories of “Man” and “Woman”. See Supplements. Similarly, for IAT (II), we used 90 stimulus words that were used in Study 1. However, the words that were deemed desirable for men in IAT (I) were deemed undesirable for men in IAT (II) and vice-versa. Also, the words that were deemed desirable for women in IAT (I) were deemed undesirable for women in IAT (II) and vice-versa. These words were again categorized into 30 traits which were desirable for women but undesirable for men (e.g., active woman, passive man), 30 desirable traits for women but undesirable for men (e.g., passive man, active woman), 15 positive adjectives as found in Study 1 (e.g., optimistic, confident), and 15 negative adjectives as found in Study 1 (e.g., passive, insecure). Both IAT (I) and IAT (II) were programmed and administered on lab computers using Inquisit software for Windows 10. Both IATs were used to examine the implicit relative association strength between the targets, which were man and woman and the attributes, which were desirable traits and undesirable traits. Participants completed two IATs with a five-minute gap between them. The two IATs were conducted to examine the double standard effect. IAT (I) measured the association of positive adjectives with men and negative adjective with women. IAT (I), the computer script used in the
Inquisit software listed correct answers as adjectives positive for the category ‘Man’ but negative for the category ‘Woman’ (e.g. an extroverted man is desirable but an extroverted woman is undesirable, and a man is dominant, but a woman is submissive). Therefore, a positive D score will indicate an association between desirable traits and men, and undesirable traits and women, while a negative D score will indicate association between desirable traits with women, and undesirable traits with men. However, IAT (II) measured the association of the earlier found positive adjectives for men with women and the earlier found negative adjectives for women with men. IAT (II), category of “Man” consisted of 15 negative adjectives and category of “Woman” consisted of 15 positive adjectives. For IAT
(II), the computer script used in the Inquisit software listed correct answers as adjectives LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 15 positive for women but negative for men (e.g. an extroverted woman is desirable but extroverted man is undesirable and woman is dominant, but man is submissive). Therefore, a positive D score will indicate an association between desirable traits and women, and undesirable traits and men, while a negative D score will indicate an association between desirable traits with men, and undesirable traits with women. The order of IAT (I) and IAT
(II) were alternated for each participant.
Procedure. When participants were recruited, they were told that their reaction times would be measured. The study was conducted in a lab setting on a computer screen. After consenting to participate, participants filled a demographic form, and then participated in two
IATs. Participants were given a 5-minute gap between the two IATs. During the IATs, participants were asked to perform the task as quickly as possible while making few errors as possible. Participants gave left responses with their left forefinger (using the E key) and right responses with their right forefinger (using I key). The study was approved by the
Institutional Review Board. Participants gave informed consent, and their participation was voluntary and anonymous. They were fully debriefed following the study.
Results and Discussion
Participants classified targets “man” and “woman” while classifying attributes as desirable and undesirable traits. For the IAT (I), the IAT effect revealed participants’ automatic preference for desirable traits with men and undesirable traits with women (d
= .09). The IAT (II) effect also revealed participant’s automatic preference of desirable traits with men and undesirable traits with women (d = -.27). Overall, the results lent some support to the hypothesis.
The findings suggest that people attributed desirable traits with men and undesirable traits with women. Moreover, people attributed the same desirable traits for men as undesirable for women, and the undesirable traits for women as desirable for men. This LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 16 outcome provides some evidence for the existence of the double standard effect in the adjectives associated with the labelling of the women who have been sexually assaulted in contemporary society. The non-conformity of the gender roles results in backlash effects for both men and women (Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010; Rudman & Phelan, 2008).
The results of the study are also consistent with the double standard literature available about the adjectives used in the study (Eagly & Carli, 2012; Nass et al., 1997; Rudman & Glick,
1999; Thomas et al., 2004).
General Discussion
The current study aimed to examine the different character traits associated with the labels (victim vs. survivor) that are used to address women who have been sexually assaulted.
Moreover, it aimed to investigate the effect of double standards in the adjectives associated with the labels. The findings of Study 1 suggest that different traits are associated with different labels. However, past research (Papendick & Bohner, 2017), overlooked the double standard effect and suggested that the adjectives associated with survivor are positive and those associated with victim are negative. However, the findings of Study 2b suggest that the adjectives associated with the label survivor indeed exhibit a double standard and, therefore, are not entirely positive.
Double standards determine an individual’s attitudes towards men and women
(England & Bearak, 2014). For example, it is found to be associated with peer acceptance of adolescents (Kreager & Staff, 2009): Multiple sexual partners are positively associated with a boy’s peer acceptance, and are negatively associated with a girl’s peer acceptance.
Additionally, double standards are associated with dating violence (Lee, Kim, & Lim, 2010).
Therefore, there are serious consequences of double standards for women who have been sexually assaulted. Additionally, if the adjectives that are associated with the labels are used in the descriptions of women (e.g. in media reporting), then it may lead to the attribution of LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 17 blame to women who have been sexually assaulted for violation of traditional gender behavior scripts.
There were differences in the results found using explicit and implicit measures.
Explicit measures, used in Study 2a, was not able to fully illustrate the double standard effect compared to the implicit measure used in Study 2b. Such outcome mirrors the speculation of
Marks (2008) that highlights the incapability of explicit measures to capture double standards. Explicit measures require participants to provide their full attention in evaluating the target that leads to the individuation of the participants, which may have hampered the results. Therefore, the study supports the concerns raised against the use of explicit measures to study the double standard effect.
The labels victim and survivor both hold different connotations for women who have been sexually assaulted. We saw that the adjectives associated with labels activated the double standard and, therefore may affect the perception of people towards the women who have been sexually assaulted. While the adjectives associated with the label survivor indeed elicits the double standard effect, it also represents strength for women who have been sexually assaulted (Hockett & Saucier, 2015). The label survivor helps affected women to see their life as more than the act of assault. It helps them view themselves more than a passive person who suffered a tragedy (van Dijk, 2009). Therefore, the positive associations of the labels for women who have been sexually assaulted should not be overlooked.
Popular media, when reporting sexual assaults, frequently use the labels “victim” and
“survivor” to address women who have been sexually assaulted. Such portrayals play a role in framing the affected women in a passive and negative light. It either paints a picture of a helpless woman, or highlights the woman’s role in the assault (Easteal, Holland, & Judd,
2015). Labels, due to the associated double standards, may contribute to the reinforcement of LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 18 stereotypes. Therefore, media reports should be conscious of the labels used and the implications they have on the understanding of violence in the community.
Limitations and Future Directions
There are some limitations of the study that need to be acknowledged. Convenience sampling was used. The sample of the study was comprised of homogenous undergraduate
Indian students. Therefore, the connotations associated with the labels victim and survivor should be cautiously generalized to other parts of the world. There also might be some concern regarding the construct validity of the IAT that measured the double standard at the implicit level. There were no noteworthy sex differences found in the study because there is a possibility that the sample size was not sufficient to test for sex differences. Additionally, in
Study 2 the association of adjectives with men or women was examined without the context of sexual assault. Therefore, future studies can replicate Study 2 in the context of sexual assault to examine whether this association is dependent upon the context. Future studies could also replicate the study with the LGBTQIA population as the scripts associated with the double standard involves heterosexual contact. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine the views and attitudes of LGBTQIA population towards the double standard and the impact of this construct on them. Additionally, the studies could investigate the different emotions that these labels elicit from the observers. The effect of labels on perception of perpetrator could also be explored.
Future research may also study double standards through the lens of Ambivalent
Sexism Theory. For example, benevolent sexism—a type of seemingly positive but patronizing attitude towards women—was associated with increased blame on women who were assaulted, and decreased blame on the perpetrators of such assaults. (Abrams et al.
2003; Viki et al. 2004). As such, the double standard observed in Study 2 may be stronger in individuals scoring high in benevolent sexism. Future studies on the present topic may LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 19 include ambivalent sexism measures as a covariate or moderator. Further, the double standard noted in here may be related to ambivalence towards men (see Glick & Fiske, 1999), the flip side of ambivalent sexism that is focused on attitudes towards men's social power. Men who are assaulted face their own particular stigma (e.g., Chapleau et al., 2008), so it would be interesting to examine whether there are quantitative or qualitative differences in references to men as "victims" or "survivors"
In conclusion, the labels victim vs. survivor influenced the description of women who have been sexually assaulted. Moreover, the double standard effect was found in the adjectives associated with the labels used to address women who have been sexually assaulted. Using the label “survivor” for a woman who was sexually assaulted have some positive impression compared to the label “victim”; however, it may has a negative aspect due to possible double standards imposed on women in the current social construct. Hence, we hope our findings can further our understanding of the effect of labels for addressing women who have been sexually assaulted, and increase emphasis on the need for efforts to disrupt double standards. LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 20
Conflicts of Interest: None.
Ethical standards: The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committee (Ashoka
Institutional Review Board: 10042017) on human experimentation and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Financial Disclosures: The authors received no funding for this project.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in all the studies.
Word Count: 5363 LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 21
References
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and
acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and
rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125.
Barash, D. P., & Lipton, J. E. (2002). The myth of monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in
animals and people. Macmillan.
Bordini, G. S., & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of the literature
between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality & Culture, 17, 686-704.
Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2008). Male rape myths: The role of
gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 600-615.
Choi, I., & Kim, S. (1998). Sŏngp ‘ongnyŏk ŭi Silt ‘ae-wa Wŏnin-e Kwanhan Yŏn’gu II.
[Sexual violence in Korea, 1996]. Seoul, South Korea: Korean Institute of
Criminology.
Choi, I., & Choi, Y. (2002). Culture and self-concept flexibility. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1508-1517.
Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-
being: a theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1385-1401.
Cowan, G., & Quinton, W. J. (1997). Cognitive style and attitudinal correlates of the
perceived causes of rape scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 227-245.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological
critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13-26.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2012). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Contemporary
Issues in Leadership, 147-162. LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 22
England, P., & Bearak, J. (2014). The sexual double standard and gender differences in
attitudes toward casual sex among US university students. Demographic
Research, 30, 1327-1338.
Easteal, P., Holland, K., & Judd, K. (2015, January). Enduring themes and silences in media
portrayals of violence against women. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol.
48, pp. 103-113). Pergamon.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1999). The ambivalence towards men inventory – differentiating
hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–
536.
Hockett, J. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2015). A systematic literature review of “rape victims”
versus “rape survivors”: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 25, 1-14.
Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-
analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-
report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385.
Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer
acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143-164.
Lee, J., Kim, J., & Lim, H. (2010). Rape myth acceptance among Korean college students:
The roles of gender, attitudes toward women, and sexual double standard. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1200-1223. LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 23
Mark, M. M., & Miller, M. L. (1986). The effects of sexual permissiveness, target gender,
subject gender, and attitude toward women on social perception: In search of the
double standard. Sex Roles, 15, 311–322.
Marks, M. J., & An, S. (2019). The impact of increasing vs. decreasing harassing behaviours
on perceptions of hypothetical instances of repeated sexual harassment. Journal of
Sexual Aggression, 25(2), 131-145.
Marks, M. J. (2008). Evaluations of sexually active men and women under divided attention:
A social cognitive approach to the sexual double standard. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 30, 84–91.
Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction?. Sex
Roles, 52, 175-186.
McCarthy, B. (1986). A cognitive behavioral approach to understanding and treating sexual
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard.
Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 13, 63–83.
Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). " Nice Women" Don't Say Yes and" Real Men" Don't Say No:
How Miscommunication and the Double Standard Can Cause Sexual
Problems. Women & Therapy, 7, 95-108.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender
rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 11, 140.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on
an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443-463.
Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are machines gender neutral? Gender‐ stereotypic
responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 864-
876. LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 24
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). 1975: The measurement of
meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Papendick, M., & Bohner, G. (2017). “Passive victim–strong survivor”? Perceived meaning
of labels applied to women who were raped. PloS one, 12, e0177550.
Parker, J. A., & Mahlstedt, D. (2010). Language, power, and sexual assault: Women's voices
on rape and social change. In Language in the Real World: An Introduction to
Linguistics, ed. by Susan J. Behrens and Judith A. Parker, 139-163. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are
allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender
stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269-281.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic
women: the hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle
managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes
in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61-79.
Sakaluk, J. K., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students’ explicit
and implicit sexual double standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 464-476.
Seem, S. R., & Clark, M. D. (2006). Healthy women, healthy men, and healthy adults: An
evaluation of gender role stereotypes in the twenty-first century. Sex Roles, 55, 247-
258.
Thomas, A. J., Witherspoon, K. M., & Speight, S. L. (2004). Toward the development of the
stereotypic roles for Black women scale. Journal of Black Psychology, 30, 426-442.
Thompson, M. (2000). Life after rape: A chance to speak?. Sexual and Relationship
Therapy, 15, 325-343. LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 25
Van Dijk, J. (2009). Free the victim: A critique of the western conception of
victimhood. International Review of Victimology, 16, 1-33.
Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Masser, B. (2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape:
The role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence
length. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 295–303.
Warner, K. (2000). Sentencing in cases of marital rape: Towards changing the male
imagination. Legal Studies, 20, 592-611.
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual
attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101.
Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2016). The influence of physical appearance and personality
on the exhibition of the sexual double standard. Sexuality & Culture, 20, 255-276. LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 26
Table 1. Ratings of 15 pair of adjectives on the labels: victim vs. survivor Victim Survivor Items M SD M SD t d Optimistic-Pessimistic 3.30 1.43 4.41 1.39 4.49** 0.79 Confident-Insecure 3.55 1.54 4.64 1.46 4.13** 0.73 Extroverted-Introverted 3.67 1.25 4.17 1.05 2.45* 0.44 Healthy-Ill 3.84 1.39 4.36 1.47 2.06* 0.36 Forward-Backward 4.14 1.38 4.88 1.54 2.87* 0.51 looking Good-Bad 4.53 1.32 4.86 1.40 1.39 0.24 Strong-Weak 3.88 1.67 5.08 1.57 4.23** 0.74 Active-Passive 3.64 1.72 4.45 1.35 3.01* 0.53 Brave-Anxious 4.08 1.53 4.98 1.42 3.51** 0.61 Successful- 4.16 1.50 4.85 1.35 2.76* 0.48 Unsuccessful Dominant-Submissive 3.34 1.19 4.05 1.06 3.56** 0.64 Hard-Soft 3.58 1.04 4.44 1.15 4.48** 0.79 Innocent-Guilty 5.89 1.22 5.88 1.39 -0.05 0.01 Loud-Quiet 3.25 1.14 4.15 1.13 4.53** 0.80 Fast-Slow 3.77 1.02 4.11 0.86 2.06* 0.36
Note. * = p<.05, ** = p<.001 LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 27
Table 2. Ratings of 30 adjectives explicitly for targets: man vs. woman Positive Negative Difference Items Target t d M SD M SD M SD Man 1.45 1.09 4.24 1.52 -3.15 2.14 -8.47* -1.47 Optimistic Woman 5.00 1.10 2.23 2.16 2.77 2.64 5.85* 1.05 Man 4.39 1.17 1.24 1.28 2.79 2.15 7.46* 1.30 Pessimistic Woman 1.77 1.65 4.00 1.75 -2.23 2.36 -5.25* -0.94 Man 4.85 1.00 1.24 1.28 -3.58 2.08 -9.89* -1.72 Confident Woman 5.52 1.06 1.03 1.91 4.49 2.32 10.75* 1.94 Man 1.88 1.50 4.36 1.50 2.48 2.45 5.82* 1.01 Insecure Woman 1.71 1.60 4.06 1.75 -2.35 2.54 -5.17* -0.93 Man 3.85 1.15 1.91 1.42 -1.94 1.84 -6.07* -1.05 Extroverted Woman 4.19 1.42 1.29 1.65 2.90 2.20 7.36* 1.32 Man 3.15 1.37 2.27 1.77 -0.88 2.90 -1.74 -0.30 Introverted Woman 3.29 1.42 2.26 1.91 1.03 2.39 2.41 0.43 Man 4.73 1.12 1.09 1.44 -3.64 2.46 -8.50* 1.48 Healthy Woman 5.10 1.19 1.23 1.78 3.87 2.35 9.18* 1.65 Man 1.76 1.48 3.85 1.79 2.09 2.67 4.50* -0.78 Ill Woman 1.77 1.67 3.77 1.89 -2.00 2.49 -4.48* -0.80 Forward- Man 4.39 1.22 1.39 1.62 -3.00 2.45 -7.04* -1.22 looking Woman 4.87 1.31 1.61 1.87 3.26 2.41 7.53* 1.35 Backward- Man 1.64 1.37 4.27 1.57 2.64 2.55 5.95* 1.03 looking Woman 1.84 1.85 3.97 1.89 -2.13 2.63 -4.51* -0.81 Man 4.55 1.23 1.09 1.54 -3.46 2.45 -8.10* -1.41 Good Woman 5.06 0.99 1.51 1.93 3.55 2.23 8.85* 1.60 LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 28
Man 1.39 1.73 4.36 1.75 2.97 3.09 5.53* -0.96 Bad Woman 1.54 1.75 4.58 1.75 -3.03 2.79 -6.06* -1.09 Man 4.27 1.13 1.55 1.39 -2.72 2.07 -7.59* -1.31 Strong Woman 5.13 1.38 1.10 1.92 4.03 2.54 8.86* 1.59 Man 1.70 1.13 3.39 1.60 1.70 2.32 4.20* -0.73 Weak Woman 1.13 1.84 4.65 1.52 -3.52 2.77 -7.07* -1.27 Man 4.36 0.89 1.09 1.13 -3.28 1.72 -10.94* -1.88 Active Woman 5.06 0.99 1.23 1.75 3.84 2.08 10.26* 1.85 Man 2.88 1.50 3.12 1.65 0.24 2.78 0.50 0.09 Passive Woman 1.94 1.60 3.94 1.61 -2.00 2.39 -4.70* -0.84 Man 4.52 1.00 1.39 1.52 -3.12 2.37 -7.59* -1.32 Brave Woman 5.35 1.20 1.10 1.96 -2.00 2.39 -4.70* -0.84 Man 2.61 1.32 3.27 1.44 0.67 2.39 -10.94 0.28 Anxious Woman 2.10 1.85 3.77 1.93 -1.68 2.76 -3.38 -0.61 Man 4.67 0.89 0.88 1.31 -3.79 1.95 -11.17* -1.94 Successful Woman 5.45 0.85 1.26 1.97 4.19 2.17 10.77* 1.93 Man 1.67 1.19 4.33 1.29 2.67 2.17 7.04* 1.23 Unsuccessful Woman 1.03 1.52 4.45 1.86 -3.42 2.42 -7.87* -1.41 Man 2.85 1.68 3.12 1.64 0.27 3.03 0.52 0.09 Dominant Woman 3.45 1.61 2.51 1.77 0.94 2.68 1.94 0.35 Man 2.97 1.69 3.12 1.64 0.00 2.66 0.00 0.00 Submissive Woman 2.00 2.00 4.42 1.69 -2.42 2.98 -4.53* -0.81 Man 3.83 1.13 1.76 1.70 -2.06 2.42 -4.89* -0.85 Soft Woman 3.81 1.56 2.77 1.63 1.03 2.69 2.14 0.38 Hard Man 2.97 1.04 2.97 1.23 0.00 2.09 0.00 0.00 LABELS & DOUBLE STANDARDS 29
Woman 2.97 1.70 2.94 1.63 0.03 2.50 0.07 0.01 Man 3.58 1.70 1.79 1.78 -1.79 2.93 -3.50* -0.61 Innocent Woman 3.45 1.65 2.94 1.86 0.52 2.73 1.05 0.19 Man 1.64 1.54 4.52 1.66 2.88 2.77 5.97* 1.04 Guilty Woman 1.94 1.79 4.19 1.51 -2.26 2.72 -4.62* -0.83 Man 2.45 1.42 3.76 1.54 1.30 2.11 3.54* 0.62 Loud Woman 2.71 1.85 2.94 1.95 -0.23 3.19 -0.40 -0.07 Man 3.39 1.27 2.00 1.48 -1.40 2.06 -3.89* -0.68 Quiet Woman 3.22 1.52 2.74 1.89 0.48 2.63 1.02 0.18 Man 3.15 1.48 2.00 1.41 -1.15 2.08 -3.18 -0.56 Fast Woman 3.71 1.46 2.39 1.78 1.32 2.33 3.16 0.00 Man 2.45 1.33 3.64 1.56 1.18 2.31 2.94 0.51 Slow Woman 2.16 1.83 4.00 1.61 -1.84 2.92 -3.50* 0.00
Note. * = p<.001. Total valence of the adjective is obtained by the difference of the positive and negative valence of that adjective