The Effect of Language on the Perceived

“SHE’S JUST A SLUT”: THE EFFECT OF LANGUAGE ON THE PERCEIVED

VALUE AND WORTH OF WOMEN

Thesis

Submitted to

The College of Arts and Sciences of the

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of

Master of Arts in Communication

Melissa Marie Hughes

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

Dayton, OH

May, 2016

“SHE’S JUST A SLUT”: THE EFFECT OF LANGUAGE ON THE PERCEIVED

VALUE AND WORTH OF WOMEN

Name: Hughes, Melissa Marie

APPROVED BY:

______T. L. Thompson, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor

______J. E. Combs, Ph.D. Committee Member

______J. D. Robinson, Ph.D. Committee Member

ABSTRACT

“SHE’S JUST A SLUT”: THE EFFECT OF LANGUAGE ON THE PERCEIVED

VALUE AND WORTH OF WOMEN

Name: Hughes, Melissa Marie University of Dayton

Advisor: Dr. Teresa Thompson

This study examines the word “slut” and its impact on the way 638 participants perceived an individual woman. Two test groups were established using a survey that briefly describes a fictional woman named “Stacy”. Test group B received a survey that contained the word “slut/slutty” in reference to “Stacy” whereas Test Group A received a survey that contained the words “flirt/flirty” in reference to Stacy. Using a semantic differential scale that featured 20 word pairings, this study examined the likelihood that participants who were exposed to the word “slut” perceived “Stacy” more negatively than those who were not. Results show that the participants who were exposed to the word

“slut” did perceive “Stacy” somewhat more negatively overall and in relation to word pairings that were both specifically related to promiscuity and specifically unrelated to promiscuity. The implications of these findings are discussed within a Symbolic

Interactionalist framework and conclusions are made about the impact on society at large.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To all of my teachers throughout the years who have fostered in me a lasting love for learning, especially for those who sparked my love for language arts and communication. I wouldn’t be where I am today without the help of some amazing educators who inspired me and challenged me along the way.

To Dr. Teresa Thompson, this thesis would have truly been impossible without your guidance. Thank you for seeing the value in this concept when it was just a crazy

“what if” bouncing around in my head, and for seeing it through to the end with me.

Thank you for spending countless hours counseling me, editing my work, and helping me through my endless issues with statistics – it’s been a long journey and I am so grateful to have had such an amazing advisor to help me though it!

To Dr. Jason Combs, thank you for serving as a member of my committee, I greatly appreciate all the insights you provided along the way. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to experience many of your classes over the last five years. In both your undergraduate and graduate courses I have learned valuable lessons that I believe have made me more successful in the graduate program and in my life outside of academics.

To Dr. James Robinson, thank you for serving as a member of my committee, I appreciate your insights and your dedication to this project. Thank you for always challenging me, you have encouraged me to work hard and to grow as a person and a student.

To Dr. Joseph Valenzano, thank you for all of the help and encouragement that you’ve provided for me this year. I appreciate your willingness to listen to my ideas and contribute to my thesis process despite not being directly involved in the project. Most importantly, thank you for your wisdom, you have been a great mentor to me this year.

To my parents, Theresa Collins and Robert Hughes, thank you for everything you’ve done for me that has brought me to where I am today. Thank you for always encouraging me to follow my dreams and for giving me every possible opportunity to succeed. Thank you for making it possible for me to go to this amazing school. The

University of Dayton has been an integral part of my development and happiness over the past five years; I can’t imagine my life without this incredible place and it wouldn’t have been possible for me to go here without your support. Thank you for everything you do for me and for always putting your children first. Finally, thank you for all of support you have given me during this process, you helped ease my stress and reassure me on this path. I’m so grateful to you both!

To Jeff Chudik for being my biggest supporter and best friend. Thank you for helping me celebrate the successes and work thorough the rough patches. I can always count on you to cheer me up or calm me down, you’ve done so much to help keep me sane during stressful times! Endless thanks for all the emotional support; I love you.

Finally, to all of the great feminists in my life who have inspired me and helped shape me into the person I am today. Thank you for your strength and your passion, thank you for imparting your wisdom to me and for never, ever giving up.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………...………………………………………………………...…….iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……...………………………………………………...………iv

LIST OF TABLES………………...……………………………………………………..vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………...……………………………….1

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE………...... …………………………………9

CHAPTER 3: METHODS…………………..…………………………………………...22

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS…………………..…………………………………………….28

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION………………………………….………………………....45

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..…61

APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………..65

A. Survey Instructions/Description of “Stacy” for Test Group A…………..…..65

B. Survey Instructions/Description of “Stacy” for Test Group B……………....66

C. Semantic Scale Survey/Instructions Used for Both Test Group A and B...... 67

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1A:Frequency of ages……………………………………..…………….……..….30

Table 1B: Frequency of gender………………………………………..….…………..….30

Table 1C: Frequency of race………………………………………..………………...….31

Table 1D: Frequency of citizenship………………………………...……………….…...31

Table 2: Principle Components Factor Analysis……………………..……………….…33

Table 3A: T-test on summed items loading on factor one………………………….……38

Table 3B: Means on summed items loading on factor one...………...... …………..……38

Table 4A: T-test on summed items not loading on factor one……………………...……39

Table 4B: Means on summed items not loading on factor one…...... ……………...…39

Table 5A: T-test on all summed items………………… .………………….……………40

Table 5B: Means on all summed items………..………….………...... …………………40

Table 6A: T-tests on individual items……….…………….………...... …………………41

Table 6B: Means on individual items………...………….………………………………43

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Theoretical Frameworks

Sexual violence is a pervasive issue entrenched in modern society in the United

States and much of the world (Nicholson, Min Qi, Maney, Yuan, Mahoney, & Adame,

1998). According to Nicholson et al., rates of violent sexual crimes have been steadily increasing over the past two decades, particularly on college campuses. There has been a documented increase of reported sexual assault cases by teenagers and adults, particularly on college campuses, since 1992 (Nicholson et al.). It is important to mention that even with these growing numbers of reported sexual assaults, cases of sexual assault or aggression often go unreported due to the uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the event or societal pressure on the victim (Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski, 1987).

In a national study conducted by Koss et al. (1987), 6,159 men and women in 32 different universities were interviewed about their experiences with rape, attempted rape, and sexual coercion. The study’s results indicated that 27.5% of the women had experienced an event that met the legal definition of rape (Koss et al.). Likewise, 7.7% of the men described experiences where they were the perpetrator of an event that met the legal definition of rape. Although this issue began to garner attention in the United States

in the 1990’s, it is still a pressing matter in society today. In fact, this problem is still so critical that a shocking one out of every five women in the United States are assaulted every year (White House Task Force, 2014). In January of 2014, the White House spoke out about this countrywide epidemic and publically announced that they would began to take action against sexual assault issues, specifically on college campuses.

The White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault was created as an initiative to help raise awareness about the issue, provide resources to victims, and provide education that aims at reducing the number of assaults (Keith, 2014;

White House Task Force, 2014). In a radio interview discussing the new initiative, Vice

President Joe Biden stated, “Colleges and universities can no longer turn a blind eye, or pretend rape and sexual assault doesn't occur on their campus” (Keith). As an extension of the White House Task Force, a website titled NotAlone.gov was created as a resource for people all over the country.

The Not Alone website provides key resources under headings such as “Find a

Crisis Service, Know Your Rights, How to File a Complaint, and Changing Our Campus

Culture” (NotAlone.gov). In addition to this website, the White House Task Force has also paired up with the organization It’s On Us and released several national commercials urging the public to become more educated about sexual assault, to recognize the signs, and to step in and speak up in order to prevent assault when possible. Clearly, all of these initiatives and efforts are an implication that sexual assault is still a prevalent issue in the

US, particularly on college campuses.

The study conducted by Koss et al. (1987), mentioned above, noted that although

27.5% of the women had experienced an event that met the legal definition of rape and

7.7% of the men described experiences where they were the perpetrator of an event that met the legal definition of rape, close to none of the people involved in the study had been part of any legal justice system. Therefore, most of these incidents of sexual assault were unreported and occurred outside of any legal crime statistics (Koss et al.).

This lack of reporting calls to light the variety of social factors that can contribute to a victim’s decision to stay silent about a sexual assault (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013).

There may be pressure from the perpetrator, but there are also subtle, insidious social cues that make victims of sexual assault feel that they should be embarrassed and ashamed (Jozkowski & Peterson). This is most likely directly tied to the way our culture views sex, sexual activity, and purity on a greater scale (Eriksson & Humphreys, 2014).

As asserted by Eriksson and Humphreys (2014), our society traditionally supports the assumption that men are the sexual aggressors and women are the sexual gatekeepers.

This essentially indicates that women are expected to be responsible for keeping themselves “pure” by ensuring that no sexual activity occurs. Likewise, this commonly held stereotype creates the expectation that men should be the sexual aggressors and attempt to pursue women and convince them to participate in sexual activity (Eriksson &

Humphreys).

Although this concept is extremely common throughout Western culture, particularly in the U.S., it can be harmful to women, particularly female victims of sexual assault (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). Essentially, the idea of “aggressors and gatekeepers” discourages women from coming forward about an assault because admitting they were assaulted also means admitting to sexual activity (Jozkowski &

Peterson). According to Jozkowski and Peterson, the “aggressors and gatekeepers” (p.

518) concept places the responsibility on the woman to ward off unwanted sexual advances from men, and therefore places the blame on her if she somehow fails to do so.

This subconscious cultural mentality perpetuates the idea that it is a woman’s responsibility to guard herself from all inappropriate sexual activity, even assault

(Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). Although it is not often a verbally addressed concept, the subconscious idea that women are at fault for failing to avoid sexual assault, and the embarrassment that accompanies that idea, is detrimental to victims of assault and correlates to the lack of reporting of assaults on college campuses (Jozkowski &

Peterson). Regardless of the fact that the activity was not consensual, many women fear retribution and loss of status or reputation due to the “infraction” as it lessons their purity

(Eriksson & Humphreys, 2014).

Purity and virginity play a significant role in the perceived value of women

(Garcia, 2009). In a study conducted about virginity loss in adolescent girls, Garcia found that it was very common for the girls to abstain from sexual activity with someone they did not love out of concern for their reputations (Garcia, 2009). The common cultural concept of virginity as a commodity leads to the devaluation of women who no longer possess it (Trautner & Collett, 2010). Or, in more modern cultural scripts, it can lead to the devaluation of women who have lost it in the “wrong way” or to the “wrong person”

(Eriksson & Humphreys, 2014; Garcia, 2009).

The scope of the present inquiry will focus partially on the cultural fixation on virginity and purity and how it leads to the stigmatization and oppression of women who do not choose to adhere to sexual expressions that have been deemed culturally acceptable (East, Jackson, O’Brien, & Peters, 2011). Frequently, women who engage in

sexual activities with many partners or with partners outside of committed relationships are considered to be “dirty” “deviant” or “tainted” (East et al., 2011; Trautner & Collett ,

2010). It is common for women who engage in these activities to be labeled as “sluts”

(Ringrose & Renold, 2012).

According to a recent study on “Slut Walks” by Ringrose and Renold (2012), some women are attempting to take back the word “slut” as a form of empowerment.

These women call themselves and their friends “sluts” in the attempt to re-signify the meaning of the word (Ringrose & Renold). These methods have seen mixed success. Slut

Walks have been widely successful and grown in popularity since their beginnings in

Toronto, Canada. However, despite these individuals’ best efforts, it does not seem that the word “slut” has been successfully re-signified to connote something positive in most settings. This seems to be particularly true for young girls.

Even when taken on as part of an individual identity, the word “slut” still proved to inflict injury on the young women who had adopted it as their own. In the research conducted by Ringrose and Renold (2012), two fifteen year old girls, Natalia and Sadie, discussed their choice to label themselves as sluts as a retaliation to older girls who had insulted them with this label. Natalia asserted, “She’s my whore and I’m her slut.

Whatever. Get over it” (p. 337).

However, this bold and brazen attitude only extended so far. Ringrose and Renold

(2012) discovered that the teens’ willingness to associate with this label had a lot to do with their social support and standing within their friend-group. The teens were happy to change their social media information in order to boldly broadcast their “slut-names” when they felt that they had the support of their friends. These circumstances changed

when the social circumstances changed. After experiencing an emotionally straining breakup with a boyfriend, Natalia had second thoughts about her association with the word “slut” in her new socially threatened atmosphere. When her ex publicly declared his love for a new girlfriend on social media Natalia removed her “slut-name” from her profile. In these more stressful circumstances “slut had once again become too dangerous to ‘try on’” (Ringrose & Renold, p. 337).

Clearly, the use of the word “slut” has a powerful effect on young women

(Armstrong E. A., Hamilton, Armstrong E. M., & Seeley, 2014). Women’s choices about their sexuality have become grounds for interpretation of their moral character and, in turn, their value (Armstrong et al., 2014; Ringrose & Renold, 2012). However, name- calling is not only related specifically or exclusively to sexual activity (Ringrose &

Renold, 2012). In the same study conducted by Ringrose and Renold, some young women interviewed understood “slut” to not only refer to the sexual behavior of a woman. They stated that “slut” could also refer to girls whom they perceived to be unintelligent, dressed provocatively, or exhibiting mean or catty behavior.

These multiple meanings of the word are tied to the stereotypes that often surround women who are sexually promiscuous. For instance, a “slut" is generally someone considered to be immoral due to promiscuity. Inversely, this labeling of promiscuity as immoral leads to the reverse association of the concepts wherein people may assume that because promiscuity equals immorality then, in turn, immorality equals promiscuity. For example, someone might think that a woman who is mean is immoral, and therefore label her a slut. This logical fallacy is an unfortunate mutation of the word

“slut” that has begun to appear in modern youth vernacular. Even more unfortunately, a

distinction is rarely made as to which aspect of the word the user actually intends to convey. This may be particularly hazardous for young girls, considering that those who are labeled as a “slut” often lose a considerable amount of social status and respect

(Ringrose & Renold, 2012).

Communication theory holds that language shapes reality (Blumer, 1969). Thus, the language used to describe women has an effect on the way they are perceived, particularly in relation to promiscuity. There is unquestionably a “type” of woman who is commonly labeled as a “slut”, “slag”, “whore”, etc. in U.S. society (Ringrose & Renold,

2012). This study aims to discover if the application of the word “slut” leads to the devaluation and stigmatization of a woman who engages in promiscuity.

The present study will investigate the effects of labeling and its impact on perceived value. Ideally, researchers will be able to determine the impact of language on the perception of value by determining college students’ assumptions about a fictional woman based on the language used to describe her sexual activity. Previous research has been done on the impact of labeling women as “sluts”, but this study hopes to draw a connection between the negative language itself and the perceived value of the woman in question.

The results of this study are important to communication research and theory for two reasons. The first is that the results will provide preliminary research on the perceptions formed about women and their perceived value based on the language used to describe them in relation to sexual activity. This information will be useful in examining the treatment of women, particularly in situations where they are the victims of sexual assault. If it is true that negative language regarding promiscuity leads to lowered levels

of perceived value of a woman, this may be relevant to research involving women targeted for sexual assault. Secondly, this research will help extend research on the communication theories Symbolic Interactionism and Muted Group. The literature review section will expand on the concepts necessary to understanding these communication theories.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This section will first offer an overview of Symbolic Interactionism, which provides the theoretical foundation for this study. It will then discuss Muted Group

Theory as a method of thinking developed from a Symbolic Interactionist perspective.

Both theories will be discussed in terms of their relevance to this study. Relating to these theoretical frameworks, research on sexual assault and victim blaming will also be assessed, particularly in relation to justification of assault. This section will conclude with a discussion of the possibility that the language used to refer to women who are considered to be promiscuous could have an impact on their perceived worth as a whole, including a review of the research that supports this concept and provides legitimacy to this study.

Symbolic Interactionism

The symbolic interactionism theory explains how meaning is socially constructed.

Communication plays an essential role in everyday life and through a series of interactions creates a constructed reality that shapes the way individuals behave (Mead,

1934). The three main principles of symbolic interactionism are outlined as “meaning”,

“language”, and “thoughts” (Bulmer, 1969). When combined, these principles allow

individuals to make conclusions about how people become socialized into society and create their sense of self.

“Meaning” refers to the way reality is constructed based on the meanings that are assigned. Essentially, the way people act toward other people, objects, or ideas is based on the meanings they have assigned to those people, objects, or ideas. Thus, reality is not in any ultimate or universal truth that exists “out there”, it is constructed through many small interactions. (Blumer, 1969). Therefore, there is a “reciprocal relationship between the individual and the group it is embedded in… the social world is created through interaction between individuals and their environment” (Symbolic Interactionist perspective, 2012, p. 6).

The world is full of objects (anything that can be indicated or referred to) and how individuals respond to those objects is completely based on the meanings that are assigned to them. The meanings for objects vary among individuals and cultures and these meanings determine the way people see objects, act toward them, and talk about them. Basically, “meanings are conferred on objects by those individuals who are prepared to act toward them [and] objects of action, then, are social products” (Grayson,

2008, p. 4-5).

For instance, if a woman in provocative clothing walks past two men on the street, they may act differently toward her based on their learned meaning for the idea

“provocatively dressed woman” or “slut”. One man may yell at or “catcall” the woman while the other may ignore her completely. These different reactions would be based on the previous meanings for “provocatively dressed woman” or “slut” that the men have developed through previous interactions (Blumer, 1969). Along these lines, it is

imperative to this theory to understand that what society agrees upon becomes what is

“real”. This is known as a collective hunch, and, once a situation is defined as real it has very real consequences (Blumer). For example, if a large majority of Americans had begun to believe that “slutty” women are immoral and unintelligent, Americans may begin to consider all women who appear “slutty” to be undeserving of respect. In this hypothetical situation multiple social interactions would solidify the idea that “sluts are not valuable or deserving of respect” and this would form a collective hunch that would be detrimental to women in general.

“Language” refers to the way meaning is derived from the social interactions we share with other people (Blumer, 1969). This is based on the idea that humans define the world they live in through language (Mead, 1934). People create symbols (names) for every object, action, and abstract idea. For this reason, the name of an object almost always has absolutely no logical connection to the thing itself; most of the words assigned to objects have no tie to that object. There is nothing inherently promiscuous, provocative, or deviant about the word slut, but because people have created a shared meaning for the symbol slut it is a stimulus that everyone within a particular culture can understand.

Likewise, people do not simply apply intrinsic meanings to objects, they are learned from past experiences and interactions with others (Blumer, 1969). Due to this ambiguity, individuals are able to understand multiple different meanings for one idea.

For instance, individuals are able to understand that the word “slut” may connote only sexual promiscuity, but it may also mean “unintelligent” or “revealingly dressed”

depending on the context. Through symbolic naming and the way people interact with others individuals, it is learned that meanings must be interpreted.

The final principle, “thinking” connects meaning and language. Essentially, each individual’s unique thought process modifies their interpretation of the symbols they encounter. According to Mead (1934), thinking is a conversation people have with themselves called “minding”. Individuals talk to themselves in order to work out their own meanings and those of other people. In order to think, people need to first be able to interact symbolically. It is for this reason that Mead believed that animals, for the most part, are not able to participate in minding. Animals are not able to think reflectively, they act based on instinct and without deliberation. Humans are essentially “wired” for communication.

Symbolic interactionism provides the most appropriate background for this study due to its focus on meaning and the social construction of meaning. If individuals construct their reality from collections of social interactions, then it follows that the language used to describe women can alter and impact their perceived worth within society, and in turn, the respect they receive. Ultimately, symbolic interactionism supports the concept that the language we use shapes our reality, and, therefore, it is significant. It is important to this study to assert that words hold weight and words that describe promiscuity, such as “slut”, may not be as innocuous as they are often assumed.

Walter Lippmann (1921) asserts that “for the most part we do not first see, then define, we define first and then see...We are told about the world before we experience it. We imagine most things before we experience them. And those preconceptions, unless

education has made us acutely aware, govern deeply the whole process of perception”

(Lippmann, p. 55-60).

This concept is significant to the research conducted in this study because it demonstrates how social perceptions of the word “slut” can have an effect on the individual to whom it is assigned. As is exemplified by the previous quote, once a woman is labeled as a “slut”, it is likely that the person interacting with her will view her with perceptions and biases that would not have been assigned to her otherwise. Because our preconceptions “govern” the process of perception, most people will likely not realize that they are assigning negative attributes to a woman who has been labeled a slut

(Lippmann). This may be particularly true if the negative attributes that are assumed are not directly related to promiscuity in the mind of the person making the assumption.

For instance, it can be hypothesized that if someone has a negative preconception triggered by the word slut, and then encounters a woman who has been labeled a slut, this may lead that person to perceive the woman as subsequently unsuccessful, unintelligent, immoral, etc. However, this person is not likely to even be cognizant of the mental process that led to their perceptions, particularly because those negative perceptions are not directly related to what they may relate consciously to the word “slut”.

This is particularly problematic when considering who has the power to create widely accepted labels in our society. Ultimately, “labeling is controlled by those in power and named according to their understanding of the world” (Jurczak, 2005, p. 31).

This is a dangerous notion when it comes to powerful labels that affect the perception of someone’s worth. In most instances, the people who have the most influence over labels in our society are white, heterosexual men (Jurczak). In a society where purity and

chastity are put on a pedestal and heteronormative and Christian privilege are prevalent, the people with the power to create labels are not the same groups of people affected by the shared meaning created by those labels (Jurczak).

Symbolic interactionism discusses the importance of language to culturally understood meanings. As demonstrated above, language is incredibly powerful and affects societal perceptions and ideals (Blumer, 1969; Jurczak, 2005; Lippmann, 1921).

This investigation aims to determine if there is a link between the language used in regards to a promiscuous woman, ie: the word slut, and the assumptions that individuals make about that woman’s character.

Muted Group Theory

The muted group theory, developed from the symbolic interactionism perspective, provides a strong focus on language in society. Muted group theory describes the inequality that occurs when people in low-power groups within society are forced to adapt their language to that of the high-power groups when communicating in the public sphere (Ardener, 1975). Essentially, ‘“mutedness” does not refer to the absence of voice but to a kind of distortion where subordinate voices…are allowed to speak but only in the confines of the dominant communication system” (Cowan, 2007, p. 9-10).

The researchers who developed muted group theory, Edwin and Shirley Ardener, did so in Cameroon, West Africa (Cowan, 2007). While working with the Bakweri people, the couple discovered that the women appeared to be more “inarticulate” than the men due to “male-oriented social hierarchies” (Cowan, p. 9). In this instance, the word

“inarticulate” does not connote an inability to physically speak, but rather a lack of the

appropriate language needed for the accurate expression of ideas (Ardener, 1975;

Cowan). In the scenario the Ardeners witnessed, the Bakweri women were capable of speaking and allowed to do so, but the language being used had been developed in a way that left them without words to describe problems “of particular concern to them”

(Cowan, p. 9).

This issue of dominant communication systems and mutedness is still prevalent in modern Western culture and the muted group theory provides an appropriate lens with which to examine this issue (Cowan, 2007; Wood, 2005). When a low-power group is forced to change their language to fit into a discourse that has been set by those in power, their ideas are often overlooked and undervalued. The low-power group then becomes the muted group because they cannot fully express their thoughts and ideas (Ardener, 1975).

The muted group theory is frequently used to apply specifically to gender inequalities. Women are considered to be the muted group in most societies because most language is male-centered and male-dominated (Kramarae, 1974; Wood, 2005). Muted group theory has been chosen as a framework for this study because it has “recognized that women’s voices are muted in Western society so that their experiences are not fully represented in language and has argued that women’s experiences merit linguistic recognition” (Wood, p. 2-3).

Throughout their lifetime, women in Western society may realize that there are certain experiences they find problematic but lack the vernacular to describe linguistically. For instance, many women in the 1970’s and 1980’s discovered numerous difficulties climbing the corporate ladder past mid-management positions. This was a common issue that affected women all over the world, and yet no one had a term to

describe the phenomena that was holding them back from promotions to senior management positions.

Around this time the phrase “glass ceiling” was coined. Although the term is commonly thought to have been used for the first time in an article written by Carol

Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt in the Wall Street Journal in 1986, this is not actually the case. The phrase “glass ceiling” was previously used by Family Circle editor

Gay Bryant in an interview with Adweek in 1984. (Churchman, 2009). However, it may not even be Bryant who said it first. Bryant has admitted that she doesn’t recall if she thought of this concept independently or if she overheard it somewhere or read it while researching (Churchman). It is entirely possible that the term was used much earlier, perhaps by a woman frustrated by her current employment position and searching for a way to describe an economic phenomenon that, at the time, had no name.

The phrase “glass ceiling” and its development are excellent examples of the type of language that can be created by a muted group in order to describe an issue that group members previously had no way to discuss. However, a problem sometimes arises with these new rhetorical creations. If a new word is appropriated or invented to describe a commonly experienced issue, it may be disregarded as “false”. This is largely because a vernacular created by the muted group, when it does not fit in seamlessly with the empowered group, is more easily dismissed (Wood, 2005).

As members of a muted group within the United States, women often struggle with representation in a male-centered and male-dominated society. A study conducted by Kramarae (1974) discovered that women characters were largely absent from animated cartoons, and, when women were portrayed in cartoons they were shown as

apologetic, seductive, meek, or over-emotional. However, when women expressed their concern over their lack of representation or the offensive nature of the material in these cartoons they were most often told to “lighten up” or that they need to learn how to take a joke (Kramarae). This instance of dismissal showcases women being actively silenced in the public sphere.

Another example of muted group theory in American society involves the way promiscuity is discussed and how it varies greatly based on gender. A 1977 study

(Stanley) discovered that there are roughly 22 gender related terms used to label men whose behavior is considered promiscuous, and most of them evoke a positive connotation. Contrastingly, there are over 200 gender related terms available to label women whose behavior is considered promiscuous, and most of them are attached to negative connotations. Interestingly, most studies show that sexual promiscuity is usually higher in men than in women, so logically it does not quite follow that there are so many more terms for women than men (Stanley).

This phenomenon likely occurs because men hold the high-power position in modern cultural and language scripts. “Societies are structured hierarchically, designating some groups as dominant, or centered, and other groups as subordinate, or marginal”

(Wood, 2005, p. 2-3). This hierarchical structure affects the way language is used every day; as previously stated, it affects the way individuals are perceived and therefore continuously impacts the “operation of power relations in cultural life” (Wood, 2005, p.

2-3). Sadly, many women are actively silenced by a lack of a publically recognized vocabulary and therefore negatively impacted within society (Wood).

Ultimately, the way women are able to express their experience in our society is likely limited by the vocabulary that exists in the public sphere. These limitations can result in women doubting themselves and the legitimacy of their feelings. Significantly, this also occurs in instances of sexual harassment. Many women do not feel they can come forward about harassment in a male dominated workplace because they are the verbal minority (Wood, 1992). Muted group theory provides a useful background for the present investigation because it provides cultural context for the muting of low-power individuals (women) within the public sphere. This muting is relevant to the discussion of the gendered language that is commonly used to describe women who engage in promiscuous behavior and the effect of those labels on the perceptions of women.

Consequentially, this also relates to rape, justification, and victim blaming.

Rape, Justification, and Victim Blaming

Research on rape, justification, and victim blaming has uncovered a strong correlation between the likelihood of victim blaming and mention of the victim’s attire, location, or state of intoxication (Sthål, Eek & Kazemi, 2010). Victim blaming is the practice of placing the blame for an assault on the victim of the crime. Often this occurs due to the aforementioned “gatekeepers and aggressors” cultural script (Jozkowski et al.,

2013) in which women are considered responsible for warding off unwanted sexual activity. However, Sthål et al. discovered that when participants in a study were primed with information about a fictional victim such as her attire, they were more likely to participate in victim blaming; this was particularly true for the male respondents.

A study by Strőmwall, LandstrőLandstrőm, and Alfredsson (2014) discovered that in a more egalitarian society such as Sweden, where gender roles are less normative and there is more equality between the sexes, people are less likely to attribute blame to the victim in cases of sexual assault. These results are in line with the concepts within muted group theory: if women are the low-power group in a society they are disadvantaged by their lack of voice and thus more likely to be stigmatized by victim blaming (Ardener, 1975).

Subconscious cultural assumptions such as the “gatekeepers and aggressors” script contribute to many commonly held rape myths that feed into victim blaming (Hill,

2014). In a study on rape myths, Hill discovered that 16 out of 20 mock juries found the defendant not guilty, largely due to the assumption that the victim could have done more to avoid the assault. The concept that women should be responsible for protecting themselves against rape is not an uncommon one, and often the focus of victim blaming is on the victim’s “slutty” clothing or behavior (Hill; Sthål et al, 2010). Clearly, the language used to describe a woman, particularly the word “slut” has an effect on how that woman is perceived, particularly in terms of her perceived worth.

The Effect of Language on Perceived Worth

There is ample research to support the claim that language constructs reality

(Ardener, 1975; Blumer, 1969; Kramarae, 1974). This further leads to the argument that language used to refer to women would affect their perceived value in society. Research also supports the concept that women who are labeled as “sluts” experience negative social consequences (Garcia, 2009) and that women who are perceived as provocative or

promiscuous often experience victim blaming in the event of a sexual assault (Hill, 2014;

Sthål et al, 2010). The present study aims to examine the link between the word “slut” and the perceived value of the woman to whom it is assigned.

For the purposes of this study, the word “slut” has been chosen in particular for two reasons. First, the word slut was chosen because it is so commonly used among teenagers and young adults, and, because it is used more casually than other more severe words like “whore”. Second, it was chosen due to its wider range of understood meanings

(Ringrose & Renold, 2012). Even if the individuals using the word “slut” are unaware of the variety of characteristics they may be unwittingly implying, the word itself has potentially come to represent much more than just promiscuity.

As demonstrated in the research above, there is a shared societal meaning or a collective hunch (Blumer) assigned to the word “slut”, therefore it is likely that the word may have a significant impact on what people assume about the women it is used to describe. If the word “slut” has been used to connote “unintelligent” “immoral” and

“distasteful” (Ringrose & Renold, 2012) then it is plausible that the word represents a lack of value or worth in the individual person assigned the label. This rationale leads to the following research questions and hypotheses.

Hypothesis

This research will focus on how one aspect of the language used to describe women who engage in promiscuity, the word slut, affects their perceived value and worth. Although we will not be able to investigate this issue in this particular study, it is possible that if the language used to describe promiscuous women affects their perceived

value and worth it could be related to the high level of sexual violence in modern society.

If women who have had multiple sexual partners are seen as less valuable than women who have had none or few sexual partners that may be used as a rationalization for the rape or assault of women who have been labeled as a “slut”. As a step toward examining this issue, the present study aims to establish how language, specifically the word “slut” may shape the perceived value of women. Concurrently, this study aims to examine the perceptions of participants’ in response to the word “slut” that are seemingly unrelated to promiscuity. For instance, the study will explore the assumption that “sluts” are mean, unintelligent, or emotionally unstable, etc. With this in mind, the following hypotheses are offered.

H1: The categorization of a woman as a “slut” will negatively affect the participants’ overall perceptions of her.

H2: The categorization of a woman as a “slut” will negatively affect the participants’ perceptions of her sexuality, related to promiscuity.

H3: The categorization of a woman as a “slut” will negatively affect the participants’ perceptions of elements of her character that are unrelated to promiscuity.

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

Participants

Data were obtained from a convenience sample of 638 students from the

University of Dayton. Participants were obtained from various sections of undergraduate communication courses. Many of the subjects were enrolled in the entry-level course

“CMM 100, Principles of Oral Communication” but various others were enrolled in major requirement courses and other upper level communication classes. The inclusion of students in the CMM 100 class provided some diversity because CMM 100 is a required course for all university freshmen and there are a variety of different majors included in each section.

Instrumentation

A paper survey was distributed to participants in their classrooms. The survey included a brief description of a fictional character named “Stacy” in which her background and interests will be described vaguely and with no mention of sexual activity. At the end of the description of Stacy there were responses from two fictional interviews, one with her “roommate” and one with a “friend”. Both test groups received responses that generally describe Stacy and the characters’ relationship with her. In Test

Group A the words “crazy”, “flirty” and “flirt” were used to describe Stacy in the response section. In Test Group B the words “slutty” and “slut” were used to describe

Stacy in the response section.

The surveys were identical in everything other than the aforementioned word differences. After reading the description of Stacy and the responses from her

“roommate” and “friend” both test groups then answered a survey asking them to rate

Stacy using a semantic differential scale. The scale included twenty word pairings that were designed to assess the participants’ initial perception of Stacy. The final section of the survey included four items intended to assess gender, age, race, and nationality.

Semantic Scale

A semantic scale was chosen as the means of data collection after a series of pretests. Initially, a Likert scale was used with questions designed to assess the participant’s perception of Stacy’s intelligence, stability, likability, and value. However, when this method was implemented during pretests, students who completed the survey reported that the questions were too blunt and their meaning too apparent. Although it was made clear that the surveys were anonymous, it is likely that participants still felt a degree of social pressure that guided their answers when they were able to infer the deeper meaning of the survey.

One student stated that while answering the questions she strayed away from answering truthfully because it is “not nice” to assume that people are unintelligent or immoral. This student admitted that had she not been able to infer the ways the survey was asking her to evaluate Stacy she may have judged the fictional girl more harshly, but

because the questions were straightforward she felt social pressure to be “nice”. The

Likert scale asked students to agree or disagree with phrases such as “Stacy is intelligent” or “Stacy is immoral”. These sentences proved to be too direct and blunt to uncover genuine answers.

In response to this issue a semantic differential scale was developed in order to access a more subconscious response and honest account of the words students associate with each description of Stacy. Classic research conducted by Charles E. Osgood, George

J. Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum was used to develop this scale. Ultimately, a semantic differential scale gives the participants a list of bipolar adjectives with lines representing a scale between them. The participant is asked to mark an “X” on the line closest to the point they believe best describes the subject. So, for instance, in the example

“Corrupt ______Virtuous”, the participant would mark an “X” on the farthest line to the left if they believe Stacy to be mostly corrupt, an “X” on the farthest line to the right if they believe Stacy to be mostly virtuous, or an “X” somewhere in the middle depending on where they believe she would fall on this semantic scale

(Osgood et al., 1957).

By utilizing a set of twenty semantic word pairings researchers were able to measure the participants’ instinctive reactions to Stacy and the way they perceive her on a very simple basis. By limiting the survey to only two opposing word options with a scale from one to the other the researchers ensured that the participants were more likely to respond with their first instinct instead of analyzing the social ramifications of their initial assumptions about Stacy. Word pairings for this study were chosen based on Osgood et al.’s suggested pairings and then adjusted to better fit the needs of the study and the

vocabulary of the participants. Students who participated in the study were asked to evaluate Stacy using twenty semantic scale pairings like the example above.

The specific word pairings were chosen based on their relation to the possible stereotypes that individuals may harbor in response to the word “slut”. These parings stretched across a variety of concepts, and some more obviously related to sexuality and promiscuity than others; these were designed to test specifically H2. For instance, the word pairing impure/pure is a pairing more obviously related to promiscuity. It can be hypothesized that most people would associate a “slut” (test group B) with the word impure and that they may not do so with a girl who is not labeled as such (test group A).

This pairing and others like it were chosen due to their direct relation to the concept of promiscuity and their negative connotation.

Other pairings were chosen in order to examine H3 by determining if the test groups would associate the “slut” with other negative terms/characteristics unrelated to sexuality or promiscuity. These more subtle pairings further flesh out some of the potentially harmful perceptions made about women in response to the word slut. For instance, the pairings hopeful/hopeless and stable/unstable are not directly related to sexuality. However, this study hypothesized that the “slut” group (test group B) might evaluate their version of Stacy more negatively than the control group.

These pairings were chosen particularly because the possibility that people might make assumptions, specifically negative assumptions, about a “slut” that are actually unrelated to promiscuity is unusual and largely unexamined in existing research. For example, it can be fairly easily deduced that people might assume that a “slut” is impure or immodest. Based on the word’s literal meaning, based on the dictionary definition, and

the cultural value that is often place on purity (Valenti, 2010), this is not a surprising conclusion. Contrastingly, if participants are more likely to identify a “slut” as hopeless, unstable, unfortunate, unsuccessful, inferior, etc. is a less predictable result and a more interesting discovery.

Procedure

Participants in this study were informed about the survey by the researcher, or, in some instances, their professor. The students were given time to take the survey during their class and instructed not to discuss their answers with one another. The survey was self-guided and generally took around 10-15 minutes to complete. Before participating in the survey participants were required to sign an informed consent form that asked them to

“agree to participate” in order for their results to be collected. All participants were informed that their responses were completely anonymous. In order for their survey results to be processed the participants needed to complete all required sections and return them to the researcher or their professor. After their completion of the survey the participants were thanked for their participation and given the contact information of the researcher in the event of any questions or concerns.

Data Analysis

Data for this study has been analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS). Responses were first collected from the survey and then screened for authenticity. All fields have been analyzed to ensure that no irregularities or unusual values have occurred. To determine what participants were motivated to infer about the

hypothetical woman (Stacy) based on the messages they were exposed to, a series of semantic differential items were utilized.

A series of t-tests were used to analyze the assumptions made about Stacy assessed by the semantic differential scales and differences that occurred based upon the response group into which the participants fell. The tests were able to determine the level of influence the independent variable had on each individual dependent variable. Overall, analysis provided statistical data demonstrating that the manipulation of the language used to describe Stacy’s sexuality affected the participants’ perception of her overall value and worth.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The analysis for the current study was conducted in various steps. In part one the data were screened to determine that all surveys appeared to be valid and frequencies were performed on the demographic data. In part two the semantic differential scale parings were examined individually. In part three the hypotheses were analyzed by determining whether participants were more likely to rank a woman negatively on the semantic differential scale when she is labeled as a “slut” when the items were summed.

Descriptive Statistics

A total of 638 responses were collected using a paper survey. Initial data were screened for unusual values and seven surveys were removed from study. Four surveys were removed for invalid or incomplete entries and three surveys were removed because the participant declined to participate in the data collection at all.

Frequencies

Frequencies were conducted on demographic variables to determine the nature of the variation of the sample. Frequencies were run on age, gender identity, race, and US citizenship (possession of or lack thereof).

As can be seen in Table 1A, 200 participants were age 18 (31.3%), 253 participants were age 19 (39.7%), 78 participants were age 20 (12.2%), 48 were age 21

(7.5%), 35 were age 22 (5.5%), 8 were age 23 (1.3%), and 5 were age 25 or older (0.8%).

Eleven participants chose not to disclose their age (1.7%). The higher percentages of 18 and 19 year old participants is likely due to the heavy concentration of participants that were gathered from sections of CMM 100, a first and second year level course. As can be seen in Table 1B, 317 participants identified as male (49.7%) and 314 participants identified as female (49.2%). Seven participants chose not to disclose their gender identity (1.1%).

As can be seen in Table 1C, 548 participants identified as Caucasian (85.9%), 28 identified as Black (4.4%), 16 identified as Asian (2.5%), 16 identified as Hispanic

(2.5%), 7 identified as Middle Eastern (1.1%), and 11 identified as being “mixed race”

(1.7%). Twelve participants chose not to disclose their racial identity (1.9%).

As can be seen in Table 1D, 604 participants identified as a US citizen (94.7%) and 27 did not identify as a US citizen (4.2%). Seven participants chose not to disclose their citizenship (1.1%). It is likely that the majority of the students who identified as

“not a US citizen” are international students, most of which are from China or the Middle

East.

Table 1A Frequency of ages

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 18 200 31.3 31.9 31.9 19 253 39.7 40.4 72.2 20 78 12.2 12.4 84.7 21 48 7.5 7.7 92.3 22 35 5.5 5.6 97.9 23 8 1.3 1.3 99.2 25 or 5 .8 .8 100.0 Older Total 627 98.3 100.0 Missing System 11 1.7 Total 638 100.0

Table 1B Frequency of gender

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Male 317 49.7 50.2 50.2 Female 314 49.2 49.8 100.0 Total 631 98.9 100.0 Missing System 7 1.1 Total 638 100.0

Table 1C Frequency of race

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Caucasian 548 85.9 87.5 87.5 Black 28 4.4 4.5 92.0 Asian 16 2.5 2.6 94.6 Hispanic 16 2.5 2.6 97.1 Middle 7 1.1 1.1 98.2 Eastern Mixed 11 1.7 1.8 100.0 Total 626 98.1 100.0 Missing System 12 1.9 Total 638 100.0

Table 1D Frequency of Citizenship Citizen Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid US Citizen 604 94.7 95.7 95.7 Not a US 27 4.2 4.3 100.0 Citizen Total 631 98.9 100.0 Missing System 7 1.1 Total 638 100.0

Overall Analyses

After recoding the items in which the original wording indicated that a score of 1 was more negative, a reliability analysis was conducted. This analysis indicated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .70). The data were then subjected to a principle components factor analysis with varimax rotation. These results are presented in

Table 2. A loose examination of the factor loadings indicated that all of the items except for five of them (eccentric, recoded inferior, recoded tough, recoded morbid, and modest) loaded together on factor one. Although a proper factor analysis would use a 60/40 criterion, the goal of this analysis was more to get a feel for the variables that grouped together rather than conducting a proper, hypothesis-testing factor analysis. Thus, the highest factor loading of each item was identified.

The items that loaded onto factor one were then summed using a compute statement into a variable that was called “Overall”. Some analyses were conducted on this variable. The remaining items (eccentric, recoded inferior, recoded tough, recoded morbid, and modest) were separately summed in a variable named “Overall 2”. All 20 items were subsequently summed, again using a compute statement, into a new variable that was labeled “Overall 3”. T-tests were then conducted on the three summed variables

Overall, Overall 2, and Overall 3.

Table 2 Principle Components Factor Analysis

Component 1 2 3 4 5 Hopeful .478 .281 .056 .355 -.015 Unselfish .503 -.191 -.084 .011 .426 Safe .609 -.212 .080 .392 -.027 Pure .597 -.249 .307 .098 -.112 Refined .534 -.149 .401 .280 .029 Successful .626 .352 .011 .183 .059 Falling -.741 -.326 .467 .042 .003 Easy -.482 .362 .058 .180 .363 Stable .376 .000 .087 -.242 .125 Eccentric -.290 .506 .028 -.028 .316 Naive -.483 -.095 .018 .443 .199 Modest .243 -.129 .200 -.439 .487 recoded inferior .052 .504 .403 -.098 -.446 recoded morbid .364 .176 .397 -.077 .292 recoded corrupt .613 -.070 .167 .065 .077 recoded dangerous .659 -.034 -.016 .105 .024 recoded falling .741 .326 -.467 -.042 -.003 recoded .527 .372 -.105 .057 .013 unfortunate recoded tough -.220 -.506 -.312 .293 .121 recoded drunk .571 -.383 -.016 -.245 -.116 recoded rash .557 -.345 -.080 -.153 -.058

Hypothesis Tests

H1: The categorization of a woman as a “slut” will negatively affect the participants’ overall perceptions of her.

The results of an independent samples t-test comparing the “slut” group and the

“non-slut” (control) group revealed differences between the two groups on the summed variables Overall, Overall 2, and Overall 3 given a significance level of α = .05. These t- tests indicated that Overall (t = 2.92, df = 633, p = .004), Overall 2 (t = 2.44, df = 633 p =

.015; equal variances not assumed) and Overall 3 (t = -3.47, p = .001) all demonstrated significant differences between group A and group B. As can be seen in Table 3B,

Overall displayed a mean of 46.36 (see tables standard deviations accompanying this and all other means) for group A and a mean of 47.68 for group B, demonstrating that group

A, the control group, perceived their version of “Stacy” slightly more positively than group B, the “slut” group. Concurrently, as can be seen in Table 4B, Overall 2 displayed a mean of 7.35 for group A and a mean of 7.65 for group B, demonstrating that group A, the control group, perceived their version of “Stacy” slightly more positively than group

B, the “slut” group. Finally, as can be seen in Table 5B, in Overall 3 the control group had a mean of 53.71 and the “slut” group had a mean of 55.32 demonstrating yet again that group A, the control group, perceived their version of “Stacy” slightly more positively than group B, the “slut” group.

H2: The categorization of a woman as a “slut” will negatively affect the participants’ perceptions of her sexuality, related to promiscuity.

The results of an independent samples t-test comparing the “slut” group and the

“non-slut” (control) group revealed four variables specifically related to promiscuity showing differences given a significance level of α = .05 (see Tables 6A and 6B).. In the semantic differential scale between pure and impure, the control group had a mean of

3.57 and the “slut” group had a mean of 3.92 (t = -5.89, p < .000). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates the participants believed Stacy to be more pure. Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more pure and the “slut” group believed her to be more impure.

In the semantic differential scale between refined and vulgar, the control group had a mean of 3.36 and the “slut” group had a mean of 3.59 (t = -4.12, p < .000). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates the participants believed Stacy to be more refined.

Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more refined and the “slut” group believed her to be more vulgar.

In the semantic differential scale between morbid and wholesome, the control group had a mean of 3.21 and the “slut” group had a mean of 3.06 (t = 2.66, p = .008). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates the participants believed Stacy to be more morbid. Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more wholesome and the “slut” group believed her to be more morbid.

In the semantic differential scale between corrupt and virtuous, the control group had a mean of 2.75 and the “slut” group had a mean of 2.62 (t = 2.05, p = .041). In this

pairing, a lower mean demonstrates the participants believed Stacy to be more corrupt.

Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more virtuous and the “slut” group believed her to be more corrupt.

H3: The categorization of a woman as a “slut” will negatively affect the participants’ perceptions of elements of her character that are unrelated to promiscuity.

The results of an independent samples t-test comparing the “slut” group and the

“non-slut” (control) group revealed six variables unrelated to promiscuity showing differences given a significance level of α = .05 (see Tables 6A and 6B). In the semantic differential scale between hopeful and hopeless, the control group had a mean of 2.34 and the “slut” group had a mean of 2.55 (t = -3.39, p = .001). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates participants who believed Stacy to be more hopeful. Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more hopeful and the “slut” group believed her to be more hopeless.

In the semantic differential scale comparing unselfish and egotistical, the control group had a mean of 3.14 and the “slut” group had a mean of 2.95 (t = 2.65, p = .008). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates participants who believed Stacy to be more unselfish. Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more egotistical and the “slut” group believed her to be more unselfish.

In the semantic differential scale between safe and unsafe, the control group had a mean of 3.56 and the “slut” group had a mean of 3.71 (t = -2.39, p = .017). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates the participants believed Stacy to be safer. Therefore,

between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be safer and the “slut” group believed her to be more unsafe.

In the semantic differential scale between inferior and superior, the control group had a mean of 3.40 and the “slut” group had a mean of 3.28 (t = 2.15, p = .032). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates the participants believed Stacy to be more inferior.

Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more superior and the “slut” group believed her to be more inferior.

In the semantic differential scale between successful and unsuccessful, the control group had a mean of 2.44 and the “slut” group had a mean of 2.60 (t = -2.63, p = .009). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates the participants believed Stacy to be more successful. Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more successful and the “slut” group believed her to be more unsuccessful.

In the semantic differential scale between unfortunate and fortunate, the control group had a mean of 3.61 and the “slut” group had a mean of 3.35 (t = 4.24, p < .000). In this pairing, a lower mean demonstrates the participants believed Stacy to be more unfortunate. Therefore, between the test groups, the control group believed Stacy to be more fortunate and the “slut” group believed her to be more unfortunate.

Table 3A T-test on summed items loading on factor one

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper overall Equal variances assumed .007 .932 -2.915 633 .004 -1.31784 .45211 -2.20565 -.43004 Equal variances not -2.919 629.069 .004 -1.31784 .45151 -2.20450 -.43119 assumed

Table 3B Means on summed items loading on factor one

Std. Std. Error Group N Mean Deviation Mean Group 301 46.3588 5.61286 .32352 overall A

Group B 334 47.6766 5.75607 .31496

Table 4A T-test on summed items not loading on factor one

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of Mean Std. Error the Difference

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper overall2 Equal variances assumed 5.361 .021 -2.436 633 .015 -.29787 .12229 -.53801 -.05773 Equal variances not -2.448 632.967 .015 -.29787 .12167 -.53680 -.05894 assumed

Table 4B Means on summed items not loading on factor one

Std. Std. Error Group N Mean Deviation Mean overall2 Group 301 7.3488 1.45873 .08408 A

Group B 334 7.6467 1.60733 .08795

Table 5A T-test on all summed items

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the

Std. Error Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Difference Lower Upper Overall 3 Equal variances assumed .668 .414 -3.468 633 .001 -1.61571 .46588 -2.53056 -.70086

Equal variances not assumed -3.483 632.716 .001 -1.61571 .46387 -2.52663 -.70479

Table 5B Means on all summed items

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Overall 3 Group A 301 53.7076 5.60187 .32289

Group B 334 55.3234 6.08673 .33305

Table 6A T-tests on individual items

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Error Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Difference Lower Upper Hopeful Equal variances assumed 2.528 .112 -3.385 633 .001 -.20903 .06175 -.33030 -.08777 Equal variances not assumed -3.394 631.213 .001 -.20903 .06159 -.32998 -.08809 Unselfish Equal variances assumed .382 .537 2.648 633 .008 .19010 .07179 .04914 .33107 Equal variances not assumed 2.653 630.098 .008 .19010 .07165 .04940 .33081 Safe Equal variances assumed .590 .443 -2.384 633 .017 -.14513 .06087 -.26466 -.02559 Equal variances not assumed -2.389 630.613 .017 -.14513 .06074 -.26440 -.02585 Inferior Equal variances assumed 1.034 .310 2.148 633 .032 .12355 .05751 .01062 .23648 Equal variances not assumed 2.152 629.407 .032 .12355 .05742 .01078 .23632 Pure Equal variances assumed 21.748 .000 -5.892 633 .000 -.35405 .06009 -.47204 -.23606 Equal variances not assumed -5.875 616.948 .000 -.35405 .06027 -.47240 -.23570 Refined Equal variances assumed .198 .657 -4.105 633 .000 -.22769 .05547 -.33662 -.11877 Equal variances not assumed -4.092 616.242 .000 -.22769 .05564 -.33697 -.11842 Morbid Equal variances assumed 5.896 .015 2.658 633 .008 .14942 .05621 .03905 .25980 Equal variances not assumed 2.655 622.802 .008 .14942 .05628 .03891 .25994 Successful Equal variances assumed .000 .986 -2.631 633 .009 -.15994 .06078 -.27930 -.04057 Equal variances not assumed -2.634 628.286 .009 -.15994 .06073 -.27919 -.04068 Corrupt Equal variances assumed .002 .967 2.051 633 .041 .12176 .05935 .00521 .23831 Equal variances not assumed 2.047 619.683 .041 .12176 .05948 .00495 .23857

Dangerous Equal variances assumed .345 .557 1.150 633 .250 .07508 .06527 -.05309 .20325 Equal variances not assumed 1.149 622.788 .251 .07508 .06535 -.05325 .20341 Falling Equal variances assumed 1.692 .194 1.535 633 .125 .10172 .06629 -.02845 .23188 Equal variances not assumed 1.531 618.969 .126 .10172 .06645 -.02877 .23220 Unfortunate Equal variances assumed .207 .649 4.236 633 .000 .26731 .06310 .14340 .39122 Equal variances not assumed 4.230 621.633 .000 .26731 .06320 .14320 .39143 Tough Equal variances assumed 11.737 .001 -1.436 633 .152 -.09583 .06675 -.22692 .03526 Equal variances not assumed -1.449 628.900 .148 -.09583 .06612 -.22567 .03401 Easy Equal variances assumed .109 .741 1.661 633 .097 .09700 .05840 -.01768 .21168 Equal variances not assumed 1.664 630.096 .097 .09700 .05829 -.01746 .21147 Drunk Equal variances assumed .329 .567 -1.164 633 .245 -.06583 .05653 -.17684 .04519 Equal variances not assumed -1.165 627.033 .245 -.06583 .05651 -.17681 .04515 Stable Equal variances assumed 4.128 .043 -.357 633 .721 -.04285 .11989 -.27828 .19258 Equal variances not assumed -.370 475.836 .712 -.04285 .11586 -.27051 .18481 Rash Equal variances assumed 5.030 .025 -.699 633 .485 -.03970 .05676 -.15116 .07177 Equal variances not assumed -.703 632.839 .483 -.03970 .05650 -.15065 .07126 Eccentric Equal variances assumed 3.011 .083 -1.268 633 .205 -.07849 .06192 -.20008 .04310 Equal variances not assumed -1.268 626.096 .205 -.07849 .06192 -.20009 .04311 Naive Equal variances assumed .628 .428 -.094 633 .925 -.00592 .06311 -.12985 .11801 Equal variances not assumed -.094 632.607 .925 -.00592 .06285 -.12934 .11750 Modest Equal variances assumed 3.455 .064 -.916 633 .360 -.10264 .11207 -.32272 .11744

Equal variances not assumed -.951 442.151 .342 -.10264 .10787 -.31465 .10937

Table 6B Means on individual items

Std. Std. Error Group N Mean Deviation Mean Hopeful Group A 301 2.3389 .75594 .04357

Group B 334 2.5479 .79551 .04353 Unselfish Group A 301 3.1362 .88584 .05106

Group B 334 2.9461 .91866 .05027 Safe Group A 301 3.5615 .74858 .04315

Group B 334 3.7066 .78125 .04275 Inferior Group A 301 3.4020 .71264 .04108

Group B 334 3.2784 .73338 .04013 Pure Group A 301 3.5681 .77858 .04488

Group B 334 3.9222 .73517 .04023 Refined Group A 301 3.3621 .72002 .04150

Group B 334 3.5898 .67740 .03707 Morbid Group A 301 3.2093 .71604 .04127

Group B 334 3.0599 .69921 .03826 Successful Group A 301 2.4419 .75770 .04367

Group B 334 2.6018 .77118 .04220 Corrupt Group A 301 2.7475 .76335 .04400

Group B 334 2.6257 .73157 .04003 Dangerous Group A 301 2.5781 .83150 .04793 Group B 334 2.5030 .81188 .04442

Falling Group A 301 3.0598 .85425 .04924

Group B 334 2.9581 .81542 .04462 Unfortunate Group A 301 3.6146 .80684 .04651 Group B 334 3.3473 .78214 .04280 Tough Group A 301 2.5150 .75539 .04354

Group B 334 2.6108 .90941 .04976 Easy Group A 301 2.1030 .72066 .04154 Group B 334 2.0060 .74734 .04089 Drunk Group A 301 1.9701 .70883 .04086

Group B 334 2.0359 .71359 .03905 Stable Group A 301 3.2027 .86917 .05010 Group B 334 3.2455 1.90925 .10447 Rash Group A 301 2.0831 .68050 .03922

Group B 334 2.1228 .74327 .04067 Eccentric Group A 301 2.2359 .77943 .04493

Group B 334 2.3144 .77883 .04262 Naive Group A 301 2.6977 .76046 .04383

Group B 334 2.7036 .82319 .04504 Modest Group A 301 3.3854 .71483 .04120

Group B 334 3.4880 1.82200 .09970

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to identify whether or not the inclusion of the word

“slut” in a description of an average college woman would motive participants to perceive her more negatively than had the word “slut” not been used. This analysis sought to expand research on the Symbolic Interactionism and Muted Group theories as well as provide information that might draw a connection between the labeling of “sluts” and the treatment of women within a society where “purity” and “virginity” are emphasized so obsessively (Garcia, 2009; Valenti, 2010). Importantly, this study also sought to examine the likelihood that participants would perceive a “slut” more negatively regarding characteristics that seemingly have little or no connection to promiscuity.

To investigate the hypotheses, the current study adapted a version of a semantic differential scale (Osgood et al., 1957) that was designed to measure participants’ response to a fictional woman, “Stacy”. Analysis of the data found support for all three hypotheses. The participants did, in fact, appear to be influenced by the addition of the word “slut” in survey B. As H1 predicted, participants who responded using the semantic differential scale in test group B were more likely to negatively evaluate “Stacy” than test group A, whose stimulus prompt did not use the word “slut”. Out of twenty semantic

differential pairings, ten proved to be significant. These pairings were hopeful/hopeless, unselfish/egotistical, safe/unsafe, pure/impure, inferior/superior, refined/vulgar, morbid/wholesome, corrupt/virtuous, unfortunate/fortunate, and unsuccessful/successful.

This study hypothesized that the participants in test group B, the “slut” group, would evaluate their version of Stacy more negatively, and overall the data support this conclusion. It was also hypothesized that in addition to test group B evaluating “Stacy” more negatively over all, they would also assess her more negatively in relation to both promiscuity and to characteristics unrelated to promiscuity (components of the overall assessment). The following discussion will separately address the statistically significant word pairs that were either related or unrelated to promiscuity.

Variables Related to Promiscuity

Various word pairings were chosen for this study’s semantic differential scale in order to address H2 which predicted that test group B, the “slut” group, will be more likely to perceive Stacy more negatively in relation to word pairings directly related to promiscuity. The word pairings that were chosen as part of the semantic differential scale that were significant and related specifically to promiscuity are: pure/impure, refined/vulgar, morbid/wholesome, and corrupt/virtuous. These pairings were chosen due to their more obvious relation to promiscuity. This was done in order to test the differences between two groups’ perceptions of the “slut” and the “non-slut” descriptions related specifically to their evaluation of her sexuality.

These pairings have more predictable results than the other two hypotheses. The word “slut” is not very semantically different in their meaning than the words impure,

vulgar, morbid (as the opposite of wholesome), or corrupt. Predictably, the data demonstrated that test group B, the slut group, did perceive Stacy more negatively and associate her more with the variables impure, vulgar, morbid, and corrupt than the control group (A) did.

These results support H2 which predicted that women who are labeled as “sluts” will face negative perceptions from their peers that specifically apply to their sexuality.

This concept is supported by previous researchers’ assertions that women who engage in sexual activities with many partners or with partners outside of committed relationships are often considered to be “dirty” “deviant” or “tainted” (East et al., 2011; Trautner &

Collett, 2010).

In a Christian values driven society “impurity” is often equated to a lack of morality or virtue (Garcia, 2009; Valenti, 2010). This assumption is supported by the present study’s data, considering the “slut” group (B) was more likely to regard “Stacy” as impure and corrupt. In this instance, it is this author’s opinion that by priming the participants with the word slut, they had already began to imagine “Stacy” to be someone lacking virtue and morality, even if they did not consciously realize they were doing so.

This has meaningful implications for everyday life. Clearly, the word “slut” is powerfully associated with impurity, which research shows is often equated with value or worth in a purity driven society (Garcia, 2009). This is significant because it asserts yet again that when women are perceived as provocative or promiscuous, particularly if they are labeled with a buzzword like “slut”, they can become targets for ridicule, judgment, and sometimes even violence (Garcia).

Variables Unrelated to Promiscuity

Even more interesting than the perceptions made about a “slut” based on word pairings that are related to promiscuity are the perceptions that are not obviously related to promiscuity. Various word pairings were chosen for this study’s semantic differential scale in order to address H3, which predicted that test group B, the “slut” group, would be more likely to perceive Stacy negatively in relation to word pairings that are unrelated to promiscuity. The word pairings that were chosen as part of the semantic differential scale that were significant and did not relate to promiscuity are: hopeful/hopeless, safe/unsafe, unselfish/egotistical, unfortunate/fortunate, inferior/superior, and unsuccessful/successful.

In this instance, the data did support H3 and demonstrate that in five out of the six significant word pairings the “slut” group (B) did perceive “Stacy” more negatively than the control group (A). The results demonstrated that participants’ reactions to more innocuous word pairings that have little or nothing to do with sexuality or promiscuity were still more negative in the “slut” test group (B) than in the control test group (A).

These pairings speak volumes about a world of undocumented stereotypes tied to the word “slut” that seem to be largely ignored by modern day society and research.

The word pairings utilized in this study were designed as measurements of character that would generally be considered to be unrelated to promiscuity. This was done in order to test the likelihood that the “slut” group would still assess “Stacy” negatively even when the characteristics in question had nothing to do with promiscuity or the word “slut”. Essentially, the evaluation of an individual in terms of their likelihood to be successful rather than unsuccessful or hopeless rather than hopeful has no semantic

connection to the evaluation of a person’s sexuality or promiscuity; however, this research supports that there is some sort of perceptive connection between the two.

For instance, if a researcher asked an individual to describe a “slut” and define the characteristics of one, generally they would not independently assume a “slut” (based simply on the meaning of promiscuity) to be unstable, unsuccessful, or hopeless.

Similarly, if a researcher were to ask someone to describe the meaning of the word

“unsuccessful” they would most likely not independently relate it to the word “slut”.

Concurrently, it is interesting that when primed with the word “slut” participants were led to assign negative characteristics to an individual, including “unsuccessful”, that would not commonly be associated with promiscuity. Essentially this demonstrates that there are social stigmas attached to the word “slut” that most people may not even be cognizant they possess.

This assertion is supported by previous research that has examined the power of the word slut. As is asserted in the literature review of this study, Ringrose and Renold

(2012) discovered that “slut” is not only used to refer to the sexual behavior of a woman, but also to refer to women who respondents deemed unintelligent, provocatively dressed, or exhibiting mean or catty behavior. The versatility of this word and its meanings has the capacity to render it a notable weapon of character assassination.

The significant word pairings that are seemingly unrelated to the concept of promiscuity demonstrate that the word “slut” affected more than the participants assumptions about “Stacy’s” sexuality/promiscuity. In fact, the participants who received the description of “Stacy” that included the word “slut” perceived her to be more hopeless, unsafe, inferior, unsuccessful, and unfortunate. Those are impactful

assumptions to make about an individual and their character, and they are characteristics that are not generally associated with purity or the lack thereof.

Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that the word “slut” connotes more than just “a person who has sex with multiple partners”. The word has taken on a new meaning that is a much more serious attack on an individual’s character than is often assumed. While the word slut is often assumed to be a synonym for the word

“promiscuous”, this research suggests that it has a latent social meaning that embodies much more than a simple commentary on an individual’s sex life.

Symbolic Interactionism and Muted Group Theories

The results of this study also support previous research on the Symbolic

Interactionism theory. As is stated in the literature review of this paper, Symbolic

Interaction theory asserts that meaning is socially constructed using the three main principles “meaning”, “language” and “thinking” (Bulmer, 1969). “Meaning” is essentially the way understanding is constructed through interactions between individuals

(Symbolic Interactionist perspective, 2012). The way that meaning is constructed through interaction makes it capricious in nature and allows particular meanings to change depending on the culture or individuals involved.

The results of this study demonstrate that the word “slut” can mean a variety of things depending on who uses it, and, in what context or culture it is being used. For instance, even within a group of college students as homogenous as the present study’s participant sample, the word “slut” led to a variety of perceived meanings, many of them unrelated to the original semantic meaning of the word. These findings support the

Symbolic Interactionism theory because they assert that meaning is fluid, and that meaning shapes our society. For instance, the various meanings of the word “slut” affected the perceptions of these participants, demonstrating the way that meaning shapes the way individuals respond to objects or people (Grayson, 2008). Given that this theory specifics how meaning differs by culture, it would be interesting to see how the results may change if the study were conducted in a different culture.

The second principle of the Symbolic Interaction theory, “language,” asserts that humans define the world they live in through language (Mead, 1934). Essentially, interactions between individuals and their ability to use language to communicate is what makes their world a reality; they construct the world around them by using language to describe it in a particular way. The results of this study and the way the participants were impacted by the word “slut” reflected the impact of language in support of the Symbolic

Interactionism theory.

In the present study, participants developed perceptions about a woman based on nothing else but the language that was used to describe her. The participants were not shown any images or video footage, nor did they know “Stacy” or get a chance to interact with her (which would have been impossible considering she is a fictional woman).

Moreover, the participants had no way of knowing if the way the “friend” or the

“roommate” in the study described “Stacy” was accurate considering they had never met any of the people involved, nor were they even real people. Therefore, in support of the

Symbolic Interactionism theory, participants’ perceptions were altered in regards to Stacy based solely upon the language that was used to describe her.

Likewise, the third principle of the Symbolic Interactionism, “thinking”, discusses the intersection of the other two principles. Meaning and language are both essential to the human ability to “think” and create meaning within their minds (Mead, 1934). The ability to process language and determine meaning through a process called “minding” is arguably the quality that most distinctly sets humans apart from other mammals (Mead).

Because humans use this mental process to take in symbols and determine their meaning, meanings change based on individual and culture differences.

This fluctuation in meaning was demonstrated in the results of this study.

Although the word “slut” literally means “promiscuous” or “unclean”, the results of this study have demonstrated that the understood meaning of the word can mean many different things including hopeless, impure, vulgar, unsuccessful, unfortunate, etc. It is likely that, following the assumptions of the theory, the participants saw the word “slut” and through “minding” developed their own meaning for the word based on past experiences and culture. Significantly, regardless of small individual differences, there seems to be a troubling trend in relation to how the word “slut” is generally perceived.

Statistically, the participants viewed the “slut” more negatively than the “non-slut” which speaks to the way gender and value are viewed culturally and socially within the United

States.

Aside from the Symbolic Interactionism theory, the Muted Group theory was also used as a structural framework for this study. The Muted Group theory, as stated in the literature review, discusses the muting of marginalized groups in society. Ultimately, when a low-power group within society is forced to change their language to fit into the discourse that is set by the high-power group and used publically, the low-power group is

at a disadvantage (Ardener, 1975; Wood, 2005). Within Western culture, women can be considered a muted, low-power group (Wood).

The results of the present study demonstrated that the participants were more likely to negatively perceive the woman labeled as a “slut” than the women who was not labeled as a “slut”. It is this author’s opinion that the word “slut” could act as a muting mechanism for a group that is already marginalized within society. Because the word

“slut” is not only acceptable, but in fact, popular vernacular within U.S. culture, it may be troubling that it has a negative impact on perception. Likewise, it is possible that women in modern culture are being muted due to the lack of a positive word to describe promiscuity or sexuality.

While there appear to be many “positively” construed words to describe male sexuality and promiscuity, there are hundreds of negatively construed words that can be used to describe a promiscuous female and essentially no positive words currently in existence (Stanley, 1977). Generally, the word “slut” is regarded as more causal and carefree within US culture and young adults may occasionally use it to describe promiscuity and promiscuous women in what they may deem a “positive way” (Ringrose

& Renold, 2012). However, the results of this study demonstrate that even if a “friend” uses the word “slut” to describe someone, and even if it may be considered casual or light hearted, it does still negatively impact perception.

So, if women lack a positive term that can be used to express their sexuality or promiscuity, and on of the only words currently used in an attempt to positively talk about promiscuity (slut) is still being construed negatively, then this author believes that

the lack of existing language that can be used to positively discuss female sexuality and promiscuity reaffirms that women are a muted group within society.

Implications for Future Research

The results of this study may be useful for future research that aims to examine the treatment of women who have been the victims of sexual assault, particularly those who have experienced victim blaming. If women who are labeled as “sluts” are perceived by society to be less deserving of respect, the survivors of sexual assault will continue to fight an uphill battle for justice. If the word slut is so impactful that it not only creates perceptions about an individual’s sex-life, but also aspects of her character unrelated to promiscuity, then for a victim of assault to be labeled a “slut” is the nail in the coffin of public approval. In a legal system where juries are asked to rely on their perceptions of an individual in order to make decisions about justice, the impact of this word and it’s relation to slut shaming and victim blaming is simply too important to ignore.

In the future, research could be done to expand the implications of the word in situations where it is applied to someone who has been a victim of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. For instance, using this study’s method, it would be interesting to see how the results would change if it were disclosed to the participants that “Stacy” had recently been assaulted, or, that “Stacy” was currently involved in a legal battle with someone she has accused of assaulting her. However, this type of research might benefit from a more qualitative approach than the quantitative approach used in this study.

Or, if a quantitative approach is used, then it would be interesting to see not only how the participants would respond to the semantic scale that was used here, but also

how they would respond to various survey questions involving an alleged assault. For instance, future research could attempt to measure the participants’ likelihood of believing that “Stacy” was assaulted or their likelihood to victim blame her based on the presence of the word “slut”.

Other ways to expand this study could include broadening or widening the scope of demographics. Researchers could consider widening the study to include a greater variety of ages, races, professions, etc. This might provide an insight into the differences between age groups or races, if there are any. Likewise, the study could be further narrowed to focus on exclusively college students of a certain age range (say, 18-23) or even, high school students.

Likewise, it could be beneficial to include richer media as the format for the description of “Stacy”. It would also be beneficial to see how people respond to a video depicting people interacting with “Stacy” and interactions where she is called a slut, or, potentially an audio tape of interviews describing Stacy. The introduction of visuals to this particular study may introduce a series of new variables that would be difficult to control, such as “Stacy’s” appearance and wardrobe, but if managed effectively it would provide interesting developments.

It would also be interesting to see how the participants would react should they be given more details about “Stacy” in addition to the very basic information that was provided in this study. Or, researchers could also conduct the study with even less information than was included in this study. It would be interesting to see how participants would react to “Stacy” if they know very little or nothing about her other

than she “is a slut”. Both of these adaptations would provide worthwhile additions to what has been investigated in this study.

Finally, future research could potentially change the race or gender of “Stacy” and see how that impacts the participants. For instance, if the participants believed “Stacy” to be a Black, Asian, or Hispanic woman, how would that affect the results of their perceptions? Or, if the participants believed “Stacy” to be male (obviously a name change may be in order) researchers could examine their perceptions about him when he is labeled with the word slut (or a potential male equivalent). Whatever direction future researchers decide to take this study, there is a plethora of options available for potential expansion.

Limitations

Some possible limitations of this study include potential language barriers, a sample of participants that were limited in the range of age and race, the variations that can occur in how participants perceived words used on the semantic differential scale, a small issue involving similar word pairings, and slight variations between survey A and survey B that could be construed as the addition of unrecognized variables.

Language barriers are a potential limitation that could have affected the ability of international students to complete the survey accurately and completely. The word pairings used in the semantic differential scale were, in general, middle to upper level vocabulary words that may not be easily understood by students who are learning English as a second language. Likewise, even some domestic students may have had difficulty recognizing some of the words, depending on their reading level and vocabulary. This is a limitation for obvious reasons, if a student cannot understand the words used in the

semantic differential pairings then it is impossible for them to answer honestly and accurately. In order to fix this issue, future researchers could experiment with surveys presented in different languages, or, they could consider using only very basic vocabulary words.

The participants included in this sample were also limited in their scope of age and race. To some degree, this particular research is possibly more relevant when tested on a younger generation, but a more diverse group of ages could help expand the study.

Likewise, the University of Dayton has a high concentration of Caucasian students, which limited the diversity of the participants. In order to piece together a more accurate sample that is more representative of society at large, more racial diversity should be included in future studies.

Differing perceptions of the vocabulary used on the semantic differential scale is also a possible limitation to this study. As is reiterated throughout this study, language can be abstract and often has multiple different understood meanings within society.

Some of the word pairings used on the semantic differential scale are likely to evoke similar reactions from the majority of the participants, for instance, the pure/impure pairing is fairly difficult to misconstrue. However, other pairings, such as easy/guarded, have a more varied interpretation.

One participant might read that pairing and assume that “easy” means

“promiscuous” and that “guarded” means “prudish”. Another participant may assume that

“easy” means “easy-going” or “laid back” and “guarded” means “cold” or “unfriendly”.

These different interpretations of the word pairings would absolutely affect the participants’ response and their assumption about the negativity or positivity of each

particular word. This could skew their response and affect the data, or at least, the interpretation of the data. Unfortunately, it would be nearly impossible to eliminate this limitation in future studies if future researchers continue to utilize the semantic differential scale. The varied interpretations of words and meaning are inescapable. The only feasible action that could possibly be taken to alleviate this limitation would be to move away from a semantic differential scale using only single words and begin giving the actual definition of particular words as the researcher intends them.

Additionally, a slight issue arose in relation to the word pairings chosen as part of the semantic differential scale. Some of the pairs were edited from their original sets in order to make them easier to understand for the participants taking the survey. However, during this process an oversight was made and the pairings safe/unsafe and the pairing safe/dangerous were both included. These parings are very similar which may have confused some participants, but it does not appear to have adversely affected the results.

Additionally, the words “unsafe” and “dangerous” can imply different semantic meanings depending on the context, so participants may have assumed them to be separate questions and been unconcerned by it.

Finally, some slight variations occurred between survey A and survey B. The surveys are identical other than the addition of the words “crazy” and “flirt/flirty” in survey A. These words were intended to be place holders/replacements for the independent variable “slut/slutty” that is used in survey B, however, it is possible that the addition of these words in survey A could influence the participant as an additional variable, rather than simply a place holder. In future research, it may be better to draft a control survey that does not use a replacement word at all, but rather simply lacks the

word “slut/slutty”. This study would more purely test the difference between the control group with no slut and the independent variable “slut/slutty” if the control group also lacked the possible additional variables of “crazy” and “flirt/flirty”.

Initially, the words “crazy” and “flirt/flirty” were chosen intentionally in order to evoke a similar promiscuous persona in survey A as is presented in survey B. This was done in order to demonstrate to the participants that the “Stacy” in survey A is still the

“type of girl” who is most likely promiscuous, rather than to have her appear as more

“wholesome” than the “Stacy” in survey B. The idea was to have their behaviors and personalities perceived as identical so that the only perceivable difference between the two versions was the actual label “slut”.

However, in an effort to choose words that connote this type of promiscuous lifestyle that are less impactful than the word “slut”, the independent influence of the words “crazy” and “flirt/flirty” was overlooked. Because these words create meaning and perceptions of their own, independent of the word “slut/slutty,” it is possible that they would need to be considered in this study as an independent variable, rather than a control. In the future, researchers should seek a way to convey to the participants that both versions of Stacy are “party girls” who “drink and hook up” without adding any additional words to Survey A as replacements for the word “slut/slutty” in survey B.

Conclusion

The primary goal of this study was to shed light on a societal phenomenon of which many people are unaware. As previous research and the results of this study have demonstrated, there are often covert connotations attached to the word “slut” that have

little or nothing to do with promiscuity or sexuality. And, even those connotations that are not covert have the power to negatively affect the perceptions of an individual in terms of their character and integrity. It has been this author’s personal experience that many people are unware of the various perceptions attached to the word “slut” or the power of language in general.

As countless studies have demonstrated, the words we use construct the world around us. Language does impact perception and the word slut does impact the perceptions of the woman it is assigned to. Even when used in jest or when used with a different intended connotation than is perceived, the word “slut” has the power to imply a host of negative attributes that do, in general, affect the way an individual is perceived.

The present study set out to investigate the effects of labeling and its impact on perceived value and results have demonstrated that there is a statistical connection between the negative language itself and the perceived value of the woman in question. As sexual violence, sexual harassment, victim blaming, and slut shaming are still prevalent issues in our society, studies such as this one will become increasingly more important as we call into question words that have the power to undermine the perceived value and worth of women.

REFERENCES

Ardener, E. (1975), The problem revisited. In E. Lewin, (Ed.), Feminist Anthropology: A

reader (pp. 59-63). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. (2014). “Good

girls”: Gender, social class, and slut discourse on campus. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 77, 100-122.

Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Churchman, P. (2009, June 4). The glass ceiling: Who said that? The Glass Hammer.

Retrieved from: http://theglasshammer.com/2009/04/09/the-glass-ceiling-who-

said-that/

Cowan, R. (May, 2007). Muted group theory: Providing answers and raising questions

concerning workplace bullying. Conference Papers -- National Communication

Association. Chicago, IL.

Daunt, T. (2015). Obama joins documentary trend: Campus sexual violence. Hollywood Reporter, 421, 16.

East, L., Jackson, D., O’Brien, L., & Peters, K. (2011). Stigma and stereotypes: Women

and sexually transmitted infections. Collegian: Journal of the Royal College of

Nursing Australia, 19(1), 15-21.

Eriksson, J., & Humphreys, P. T. (2014). Development of the virginity beliefs scale.

Journal of Sex Research, 51, 107-120.

Garcia, L. (2009). Love at first sex: Latina girls’ meanings of virginity loss and

relationships. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 16, 601 – 621.

Grayson, C. (Nov., 2008). Understanding organizational ontology: A symbolic

interactionism approach to organizational sense-making. Conference Papers –

National Communication Association. San Diego, CA.

Hill, H. (2014). Rape myths and the use of expert psychological evidence. Victoria

University of Wellington Law Review, 45, 471-485.

Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique

insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 517-523.

Jurczak, L. P. (July, 2005). Menage a trois: Understanding through the use of symbolic

interactionism, labeling, and standpoint. Conference Proceedings -- National

Communication Association National Doctoral Honors Seminar. Oklahoma City,

OK.

Keith, T. (2014). White House report lays out plans for combating campus sexual

assault. All Things Considered (NPR).

Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and

prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher

education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

Kramer, C. (1974). Folklinguistics. Psychology Today. 8, 82 – 85.

Lippman, W. (1921). Public opinion. Retrieved from

http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2429/2487430/pdfs/lippmann.p

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self & society from the stand point of a social behaviorist.

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Nicholson, M. E., Min, Qi W., Maney, D., Yuan, J., Mahoney, B. S., & Adame, D. D.

(1998). Alcohol related violence and unwanted sexual activity on the college

campus. American Journal of Health Studies, 14(1), 1-10.

Not alone: Together against sexual assault. Retrieved from: www.NotAlone.gov.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning.

Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois.

Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2012). Slut-shaming, girl power and "sexualisation":

Thinking through the politics of the international SlutWalks with teen girls.

Gender and Education, 24, 333-343.

Ståhl, T., Eek, D., & Kazemi, A. (2010). Rape victim blaming as system justification:

The role of gender and activation of complementary stereotypes. Social Justice

Research, 23, 239-258.

Stanley, J. P. (1977). Paradigmatic woman: The prostitute. In D.L. Shores & C.P. Hines,

(Eds.) Papers in language variation, (pp. 7-17). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of

Alabama.

Strőmwall, S., Landstrőm, L. A., & Alfredsson, H. (2014). Perpetrator characteristics and

blame attributions in a stranger rape situation. European Journal of Psychology

Applied to Legal Context, 6(2), 63-67.

Symbolic Interactionist perspective on linking privacy and identity in social network

sites. (NA, May, 2012). Conference Papers -- International Communication

Association. Phoenix, AZ.

Trautner, M. N., & Collett, J. L. (2010). Students who strip: The benefits of alternate

identities for managing stigma. Symbolic Interaction, 33, 257–79.

Valenti, J. (2010). The purity myth: How America’s obsession with virginity is hurting

young women. Berkley, CA: Seal Press.

White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (2014). Not alone: the

first report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual

Assault.

Wood, J. T. (1992). Telling our stories: Narratives as a basis for theorizing sexual

harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 349-362.

Wood, J. T. (2005). Feminist standpoint theory and muted group theory: Commonalities

and divergences. Women & Language, 28(2), 61-64.

APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS/DESCRIPTION OF “STACY” FOR TEST GROUP A

Test Group A

Please read this description of a college student and then answer the corresponding questions as best you can. There is no additional information available, please do your best to answer the questions with the information provided.

Stacy White is a senior at a University. She lives with three roommates in an apartment on campus. She has two brothers and sister and she is the oldest child in the family. She is involved in a few university clubs and activities and on the weekends she has a babysitting gig for a family nearby that helps her earn a little extra cash. She loves reading and binge watching television series’ on Netflix. On the weekends Stacy enjoys going out with her friends to the local campus bars.

We interviewed one of Stacy’s roommates, this was her response:

Roommate Response: “Oh well you know, Stacy’s a riot. It’s been really fun living with her. We all go out a lot together, hang out and watch movies. Normal stuff I guess? We’re all pretty busy so we don’t have a ton of free time but we have fun together when we can. She is a little wild though, if you know what I mean. I guess it’s not really any of my business. We do always have fun together but I’m just not that crazy.”

We interviewed one of Stacy’s friends, this was her response:

Friend Response: “Oh yeah I love Stacy! We’re in a lot of the same classes and we go to the gym together. She always throws the best parties! I guess it’s because she knows a lot people on campus. Well, you know she’s actually gotten in trouble for that a few times. She’s kind of a flirt. Which you know is fine but we just can’t have everyone knowing. She’s a fun girl we’ve just had to ask her to tone down the flirting when she’s hanging out with us.”

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS/DESCRIPTION OF “STACY” FOR TEST GROUP B

Test Group B

We interviewed one of Stacy’s roommates, this was her response:

Response: “Oh well you know, Stacy’s a riot. It’s been really fun living with her. We all go out a lot together, hang out and watch movies. Normal stuff I guess? We’re all pretty busy so we don’t have a ton of free time but we have fun together when we can. She is a little wild though, kind of a slut, if you know what I mean. I guess it’s not really any of my business. We do always have fun together but I’m just not that slutty.”

We interviewed one of Stacy’s friends, this was her response:

Friend Response: “Oh yeah I love Stacy! We’re in a lot of the same classes and we go to the gym together. She always throws the best parties! I guess it’s because she knows a lot people on campus. Well, you know she’s actually gotten in trouble for that a few times. She’s kind of a slut. Which you know is fine but we just can’t have everyone knowing. She’s a fun girl we’ve just had to ask her to tone down the slutty stuff when she’s hanging out with us.”

APPENDIX C

SEMANTIC SCALE SURVEY/INSTRUCTIONS USED FOR BOTH TEST GROUP A AND B

Questionnaire: Please mark an “X” on the line closest to the word that you think best describes Stacy. Do your best to answer these questions based on the information provided. Please do not leave any blank.

Hopeful ______Hopeless

Unselfish ______Egotistical

Safe ______Unsafe

Inferior ______Superior

Pure ______Impure

Refined ______Vulgar

Morbid ______Wholesome

Successful ______Unsuccessful

Corrupt ______Virtuous

Dangerous ______Safe

Falling ______Rising

Unfortunate ______Fortunate

Tough ______Fragile

Easy ______Guarded

Drunk ______Sober

Stable ______Unstable

Rash ______Cautious

Eccentric ______Conventional

Naive ______Sophisticated

Modest ______Vain

Please fill in the answer below. You do not have to answer if you do not wish to.

What gender do you identify with?

______

What race do you identify with?

______

Are you a U.S. Citizen? What is your Age?

______