Evaluating Social Judgments of Acquaintance Rape Myths Michelle E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 5-2017 Context Matters: Evaluating Social Judgments of Acquaintance Rape Myths Michelle E. Deming University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Deming, M. E.(2017). Context Matters: Evaluating Social Judgments of Acquaintance Rape Myths. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4068 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTEXT MATTERS: EVALUATING SOCIAL JUDGMENTS OF ACQUAINTANCE RAPE MYTHS by Michelle E. Deming Bachelor of Arts University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 2007 Master of Arts University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 2009 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2017 Accepted by: Shelley A. Smith, Major Professor Douglas L. Anderton, Committee Member Suzanne C. Swan, Committee Member Jason L. Cummings, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Michelle E. Deming, 2017 All Rights Reserved. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you Shelley Smith for your guidance, encouragement, and patience throughout this journey. I also wish to thank Douglas Anderton for your contribution to the methodology and analyses. Thank you Suzanne Swan, Deborah Billings, and Jason Cummings for your assistance in putting all of these pieces together. Finally, to MD, LD, TD, BD, PD, LB, SS, GD, and BG…I couldn’t have completed this without you. iii ABSTRACT The objectives of my dissertation are to: 1) determine the social psychological factors affecting rape myth judgments and, 2) develop an instrument that utilizes realistic social contexts to measure acquaintance rape myth adherence among undergraduate students. The Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA; McMahon and Farmer 2011; Payne et al. 1999) was used to create acquaintance rape vignettes using factorial surveys (Rossi and Anderson 1982). I manipulated factors known to be associated with victim- blame such as alcohol, a previous sexual relationship, if the woman is dressed provocatively, the type of relationship (e.g., acquaintance versus friend), if the woman verbally protested, and if the woman physically resisted. Using Qualtrics© software, I developed an online survey and recruited introductory sociology students to participate in this research producing an average of 835 vignettes for statistical analyses. Key findings indicate that after controlling for all of the situational variables, the most significant factors related to victim-blame are the respondents’ sexual history and sexual consent (i.e., if the woman verbally and physically protested). This finding is critical as it suggests that even after the “Yes Means Yes” initiative (Affirmative Consent Standard), sexual consent is still constructed using verbal and physical cues of non-consent. This research has implications for informing our understanding of the causal factors contributing to the experiences of rape and sexual assault and the pervasiveness of false ideologies that blame women for their sexual victimization. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF RAPE ...............................................................5 2.1 FEMINIST THEORY OF RAPE ...................................................................................5 2.2 THEORIES OF MASCULINITY ..................................................................................8 2.3 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF RAPE ....................................................................9 CHAPTER 3 RAPE MYTHS AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ACQUAINTANCE RAPE .....12 3.1 CULTURAL RAPE SCRIPTS ...................................................................................14 3.2 SEXUAL SCRIPTS, HETERONORMATIVE SEXUALITY, AND THE TERM RAPE .........15 CHAPTER 4 EXISTING RAPE MYTH SURVEYS AND METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS .........18 4.1 MEASURING RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS ........................18 4.2 ILLINOIS RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE SCALE (IRMA) ...........................................19 4.3 UPDATED ILLINOIS RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE SCALE ........................................20 4.4 RAPE MYTH INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................21 4.5 MEASURING RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE: VIGNETTE METHODOLOGY ..................23 CHAPTER 5 SITUATIONAL AMBIGUITY IN VIGNETTES: CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES, RAPE MYTH ITEMS, AND HYPOTHESES ................................................................26 5.1 AMBIGUOUS ACQUAINTANCE RAPE SCALE (AARMS) .......................................28 v 5.2 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS .......................................................................................29 5.3 “SHE ASKED FOR IT” ..........................................................................................30 5.4 “HE DIDN’T MEAN TO” .......................................................................................33 5.5 “IT WASN’T REALLY RAPE” ................................................................................34 5.6 “SHE LIED” .........................................................................................................35 CHAPTER 6 DATA AND METHODS .......................................................................................37 6.1 DATA...................................................................................................................37 6.2 SAMPLE ...............................................................................................................37 6.3 FACTORIAL SURVEYS ..........................................................................................38 6.4 VIGNETTE FACTORS AND DIMENSIONS ...............................................................42 6.5 VARIABLES .........................................................................................................43 CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS ..........................................................................................................45 7.1 RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE: AVERAGE SCORES ...................................................45 7.2 RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE SCORES: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ..46 7.3 AVERAGE RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE SCORES BY RESPONDENTS’ SEX ...............46 7.4 AVERAGE RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE SCORES BY RESPONDENTS’ SEXUAL HISTORY .........................................................46 7.5 MIXED-EFFECT MODELING: RESPONDENTS’ SEX (MODEL 1) AND RESPONDENTS’ SEXUAL HISTORY (MODEL 2).....................................49 7.6 FACTOR ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................52 7.7 MIXED EFFECT MODELING: VICTIM-BLAME .......................................................52 7.8 HYPOTHESIS TESTING: CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES ...............................................54 7.9 MIXED EFFECT MODELING: MODELS BY SUBSCALE ...........................................60 7.10 “SHE ASKED FOR IT” ........................................................................................60 vi 7.11 “HE DIDN’T MEAN TO” ....................................................................................62 7.12 “IT WASN’T REALLY RAPE” .............................................................................66 7.13 “SHE LIED” ......................................................................................................66 7.14 MAIN EFFECTS AND INTERACTIONS ..................................................................69 CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................74 CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................79 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................81 APPENDIX A – RAPE MYTH INSTRUMENTS .........................................................................92 APPENDIX B – CONCEPTUAL MODEL FRAMEWORK ..........................................................100 APPENDIX C – SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................................................................101 APPENDIX D – ITEM-TO-ITEM COMPARISON OF RAPE MYTH SCALES ...............................106 APPENDIX E – SEQUENTIAL MODEL FITTING ....................................................................110 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1: Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient...................................................................31 Table 6.1: Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................40 Table 7.1: Average Rape Myth Acceptance Scores...........................................................47