Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Sarah R. Edwards, PhD,1 Kathryn A. Bradshaw, MA,1 and Verlin B. Hinsz, PhD2
Abstract
Sexual assault is a problem on many college campuses, and many researchers have conducted studies assessing the
prevalence of sexual assault perpetration and intentions to be coercive. Behaviorally descriptive survey items (i.e., ‘‘Have
you ever coerced somebody to intercourse by holding them down?’’) versus labeling survey items (i.e., ‘‘Have you ever
raped somebody?’’) will yield different responses, in that more men will admit to sexually coercive behaviors and more
women will self-report victimization when behavioral descriptions are used (Koss 1998) instead of labels. Indeed, some
men will endorse items asking whether they have used force to obtain intercourse, but will deny having raped a woman.
There has been little research on differences between individuals to endorse a behaviorally descriptive item versus a labeling
item. The present study uses discriminant function analysis to separate men who do not report intentions to be sexually
coercive, those who endorse behaviorally descriptive intentions but deny it when the word rape is used, and those who
endorse intentions to rape outright. Results indicated that participants can be differentiated into three groups based on scores
from scales on hypermasculinity and hostility toward women. High hostility toward woman and callous sexual attitudes
separated the no intentions group from those who endorsed either intentions to rape or those who endorses only the
behavioral description of rape. The two types of offender groups were distinguishable mostly by varying levels of hostility,
suggesting that men who endorse using force to obtain intercourse on survey items but deny rape on the same may not
experience hostile affect in response to women, but might have dispositions more in line with benevolent sexism.
1
Counseling Psychology and Community Services, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota.
2
Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota.
188
DENYING RAPE BUT ADMITTING USE OF FORCE 189
self-identify as using force to obtain intercourse but denying lamuth 1989a,b). This scale measures self-reported likeli-
any intentions to rape ever, and men who respond affirma- hood to engage in a variety of sexual behaviors ‘‘if nobody
tively to both having intentions to rape and using force in would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences’’
the future. This allows us to test whether there are differ- for the participants. The behaviors that were included were
ences in men who do not identify with the ‘‘rape’’ label on heterosexual intercourse, forcing a female to do something
sexual aggression surveys, although they have committed sexual she does not want to, and rape. We chose to use a
acts that would be defined as rape. Men who admit inten- hypothetical scale like this because we believed that it
tions to force women to have sexual intercourse only, but do would lead to less social desirability bias in this research, as
not believe that this act constitutes rape, might not be pri- well as lessen any concerns participants might have about
marily motivated by a desire to retaliate and overpower divulging information about past crimes. In addition, for the
women. Their behavior could be guided by other factors in purpose of this study, the key points of having labels (rape)
line with stereotypically masculine gender roles such as versus behavioral descriptions of sexual aggression is
having a high desire for sexual activity, viewing sexuality as completely addressed with this scale.
a competition and a way to gain respect among peers, and
lacking consideration for women or viewing them as sexual Marlow–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Participants
objects. Therefore, we hypothesize that men do not endorse also completed the Marlow–Crowne Social Desirability
any intentions for sexual aggression will differ from the Scale in order to account for biases in reporting (Crowne
other two groups of men primarily on a dimension charac- and Marlow 1960). Participants agreed with 10 dichoto-
terized by hostility toward women as the strongest loading mous items designed to assess the respondent’s propensity
factor. Men who openly endorse intentions to rape women to wanting to paint themselves in a favorable light.
versus those who only endorse intentions to use force but
deny rape are hypothesized to differ along a second di- Procedure
mension on which callous sexual attitudes play a more
A male research assistant collected informed consent and
important role. In other words, we expect a pattern of results
administered the survey in a private location. After finishing
showing two significant functions along which we can dif-
the survey, participants dropped the survey into a mailbox.
ferentiate the three groups of men.
Participants were then debriefed by the experimenter. The
debriefing was extensive and provided hotline information,
Materials and Methods
addressed rape myths, social norms campaign, university
Participants and measures policy on sexual assault, and a full presentation aimed at
preventing sexual aggression. This debriefing also included
Eighty-six male college students received extra credit for
resources to obtain free counseling services. Providing an
their participation. All participants were over 18 (M = 21,
educational debriefing is a common practice in research
SD = 3.6) and most were juniors in college. The over-
examining sexual aggression or utilizing sexually aggressive
whelming majority of participants ( > 90%) identified as
materials (Allen et al. 1996), and our debriefing followed all
Caucasian, consistent with the general student make up at
appropriate guidelines.
this university, and all identified as heterosexual, with prior
sexual experiences.
Results
Hostility toward women. The hostility toward women The Marlow–Crown scale was not correlated with any of
scale (Check 1985) assesses hostile, negative, and resentful the measures of interest, indicating that participants did not
feelings participants might hold against women. This scale exhibit any significant bias in reporting. Hence, we were able
consists of 22 items, specifically addressing male hostility to proceed with our analyses as planned. Data of the partici-
against females, such as: ‘‘I feel that many women flirt with pants’ intentions to commit sexual assault are displayed in
men just to tease them and hurt them’’ or ‘‘I am easily Table 1. Table 2 shows the correlations of dispositional var-
angered by women.’’ Judgments were made on a 0 (strongly iables and self-reported intentions to commit sexual assault.
agree) to 6 (strongly disagree) response scale, with higher To investigate whether hostility toward women and cal-
scores indicating more hostility. The scale demonstrated lous sexual attitudes differentiated among participants who
good reliability (a = .87) in the current study. endorsed forced sex but not rape versus those who endorsed
both or neither, a descriptive discriminant function analysis
Hypermasculinity scale. The survey also included the was conducted. We chose this analysis because it is well
callous sexual attitudes subscale from the hypermasculinity suited to describe differences between preexisting groups
scale (Mosher and Sirkin 1984). This scale consists of three along multiple constructs at the same time. Discriminant
subscales: viewing danger as exciting, regarding violence as function analysis attempts to predict group membership
manly, and endorsement of callous sexual attitudes. Only the
callous sexual attitudes subscale was used in this study,
because we were interested specifically in the contribution of Table 1. Frequency of Intentions by Item Wording
callous sexual attitudes to likelihood to commit sexual as-
sault. The subscale consisted of 10 forced choice items. The Yes No
scale demonstrated good reliability in this study (a = 0.86).
Intentions to force a woman 31.7% (n = 26) 68.3% (n = 56)
to sexual intercourse
Attraction to sexual aggression. The survey concluded
Any intentions to rape a woman 13.6% (n = 11) 86.4% (n = 70)
with part of the attraction to sexual aggression scale (Ma-
DENYING RAPE BUT ADMITTING USE OF FORCE 191
Table 2. Correlations of Dispositional Measures Table 3. Structure Matrix and Functions at Group
and Intentions to Commit Sexual Assault Centroids by Function and Dispositional Measure
based on canonical variables created by a given set of pre- used (here: hostility toward women and callous sexual atti-
dictors. This allows the researcher to understand the nature tudes). Function 1 significantly discriminated among groups:
of the differences in groups more clearly by revealing which k = 0.65, v2 (4) = 32.76, p < 0.001. Observing the standardized
variables are important and in which manner they should be canonical function coefficients and structure matrix suggests
combined to optimally describe the distinction between groups. that the first function is very strongly related to hostility toward
Each of the discriminant functions represents a canonical var- women (rs = 0.87), and moderately strongly related to callous
iable that is made up of a unique linear combination of the sexual attitudes (rs = 0.75). Function 2 was also significant:
constructs used (Duarte Silva and Stam 1995). In this study, we k = 0.91, v2 (1) = 7.20, p < 0.01. Function 2 appears to represent
attempted to predict membership in the three groups (reports no moderately strong callous sexual attitudes (rs = 0.66), and a
intentions to be sexually coercive, reports intentions to force a moderate inverse of hostility (rs = - 0.50). Plotting the group
woman to have sex but denies intentions to rape, and reports centroids along the 2 significant dimensions represented by the
intentions to rape a women) based on hostility toward women functions suggests that function 1 differentiates between re-
scores and callous sexual attitudes. In a sense, discriminant spondents who deny any intentions to rape or use force and the
function analysis can be viewed as a reverse multivariate other participants, as seen by the large distance between group
analysis of variance (MANOVA). 1 and groups 2 and 3 along the x axis in Figure 1. Given that
There was one participant who indicated that he would rape a hostility is the attribute most strongly represented on the first
woman, but denied any likelihood to use force to obtain in- canonical variable, with moderately high levels of callous
tercourse. Because we did not know how to make sense of this sexual attitudes also represented, we interpret this as confir-
answer and could not exclude a random error (e.g., careless mation of previous research that suggests men who do not act
marking), this case was dropped from the analysis. Cases with sexually coercive to have lower levels of both hostility toward
missing data for the dispositional measures or intentions were women and callous sexual attitudes compared to sexually co-
also dropped. This left us 73 cases for analysis, which all fell ercive men.
into one of these groups: endorsing no intentions of sexual Inspection of function 2 in Figure 1 suggests that this di-
assault (n = 49), endorsing intentions to use force but denying mension separated all three groups, although most strongly the
intentions to rape a woman (n = 13), and endorsing both ‘‘force’’ group from the ‘‘rape’’ group, as seen by the distance
(n = 10). Statistical guidelines for our chosen analysis suggests between groups on the y axis in figure. Moderately high levels
that the minimum number of cases per group should exceed the of callous sexual attitudes coupled with an inverse of hostility
number of variables to be workable, and 5 observations per suggest that this function represents a unique set of charac-
variable entered into the analysis, although 20 is preferred. For teristics where the predominant disposition is not related to
our 3 groups and 2 variables, we have 73 cases that surpass being angry or violent toward women. Table 3 lists the
these requirements (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996). structure matrix and group centroids.
In discriminant function analysis, each function consists
of a unique linear combination of the predictor variables
Discussion
The present study serves as initial investigation to exam-
ine how respondents who endorse behavioral descriptions of
rape but deny rape when labeled as such outright differ from
those who self-report intentions to rape and those who do
not endorse any sexual coercion. A descriptive discriminant
function analysis was used to reveal which variables should
be combined in what manner to best distinguish between the
groups. As hypothesized, a sizable number of participants
indicated that they might use force to obtain intercourse, but
would not rape a woman. Men who indicate intentions to use
force but deny intentions to rape exhibit a unique disposition
featuring an inverse construct of hostility toward women but
high levels of callous sexual attitudes (Check 1985). Given
that hostility toward women involves resentment, bitterness,
rejection sensitivity, and paranoia about women’s motives,
FIG. 1. Functions at group centroids. we consider the inverse of hostility toward women in men
192 EDWARDS ET AL.
that intend to use force to be indicative of an affable, trust- Understanding the motives and meaning associated with
ing, and nonreactive affect toward women. When combined such rapes is beyond this scope of the present research;
with callous sexual attitudes, we interpret this function as however, future studies could better clarify such motivations
representing personality characteristics that might lend by examining the extent to which other dimensions of
themselves to allowing men to not perceive his actions as sexual aggression predict intentions to use force versus rape.
rape and may even view the forced intercourse as an Further, it is important to note that sexual aggression is a
achievement. The primary motivation in this case could be multidimensional construct, and both hostility toward wo-
sexual gratification, accomplishment, and/or perceived men and hypermasculinity relate to rape myth acceptance
compliance with stereotypical masculine gender norms. The (Forbs et al. 2004; Ryan 2004). Given that our discrimi-
use of force in these cases might be seen as an acceptable nant function analysis points to a construct that objectifies
mean to reach one’s goal, or the woman’s ‘‘no’’ is perceived women but exhibits positive affect toward women, future
as a token resistance consistent with stereotypical gender research should incorporate other measures such as rape
norms. While the ultimate outcome of either act constitutes myth acceptance, the full hypermasculinity scale, or benev-
rape, this pattern of results suggests that there might be olent sexism to achieve a greater dimension on the disposi-
different types of offenders with potential differences in tions contributing to different behavioral manifestations of
underlying motivation, cognition, and/or personality traits. sexual aggression.
These results are informative because knowing ahead of
time that a particular subgrouping of men exhibit higher Conclusions
levels of callous sexual attitudes may suggest that males in
this group are more likely to commit rape without labeling it Our results suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all ap-
as such. Therefore, programming for these men needs to proach to sexual assault prevention. If men who sexually
include a strong educational component focused on clari- assault harbor different motivations to varying degrees,
fying different behaviors that all constitute sexual assault, identifying them ahead of time and targeting interventions
but do not follow the stereotypically imagined scenarios toward groups of men with similar motivations, or better
related to rape. Furthermore, such programming would also even, providing personalized prevention programs, may
have to prompt men to be engaged and open to thinking be more successful. Men who are primarily motivated by
about their own behaviors to avoid having participants in- negative, hostile affect toward women and who conceptu-
ternally distance themselves (i.e., exhibiting an ‘‘I am not alize their own intentions and behaviors as rape are unlikely
that kind of guy who rapes women, this programming is not to benefit from the large group primary prevention efforts
for me’’ attitude) that would preclude men from fully par- done as part of college outreach efforts. However, program-
ticipating and benefitting from the program. ming using a group and norm-based approach appears to be
Males who might assault women without conceptualizing appropriate for men who endorse force but deny rape, as long
their actions as rape might benefit more from psychoedu- as the programming can establish rapport and credibility with
cation and immersion in cultural messages that do not con- participants. Because these men do not view their sexually
done the use of force, but might actually not take in rape aggressive intentions as rape, failing to attend to issues around
prevention messages directly due to not identifying with the beliefs about the stereotypical rapist and not identifying with
role of rapist. If improper beliefs and attitudes were sup- them could weaken the effectiveness of the programming due
planted with acceptable ones, the potential for sexual assaults to not receiving buy in from participants. This would ulti-
might be reduced, and the men could develop mutually mately likely leave the men who could benefit most from
satisfying sexual relationships with women. If hostility, on these prevention efforts disengaged.
the other hand, is a prominent motivator, successful inter-
ventions likely need to include techniques to manage affect, Author Disclosure Statement
manage and/or process anger toward women, and cognitive In the present study, no competing financial interests
restructuring to disconnect negative feelings and women. exist.
These men might need more individual services to allow for
successful processing of their affective bases of sexually References
violent behaviors toward women, and would likely not
benefit from rape awareness and prevention programming Abbey A, Ross LT, McDuffie D, McAuslan P. (1996). Alcohol and
that focuses on norms and definitions of consent. dating risk factors for sexual assault among college women. Psychol
Women Q. 20, 147–169.
Allen M, D’Alessio D, Emmers T, Gebhart L. (1996). The role of
Limitations and Future Directions educational briefing in mitigating effects of experimental exposure
to violent sexually explicit media: A meta-analysis. J Sex Res. 33,
There is likely more than hostility toward women and 135–141.
callous sexual attitudes that distinguishes men who endorse Bachman R, Paternoster R. (1993). A contemporary look at the effects
forced intercourse but not rape from those who admit to rape of rape law reform: How far have we really come? J Criminal Law
on psychological studies. Our study was only a first ex- Criminol. 84, 554–574.
ploration of this topic. Future studies could help account for Beech AR, Ward T, Fisher D. (2006). The identification of sexual and
this by examining more dispositional measures. Given the violent motivations in men who assault women: Implication for
high perpetration of sexual assaults on college campuses treatment. J Interpers Violence. 21, 1635–1653.
(Abbey et al. 1996), coupled with the fact that many studies Bernat JA, Stolp S, Calhoun KS, et al. (1997). Construct validity and
on sexual assault use college men, we felt that a conve- test-retest reliability of a date rape decision-latency measure. J
nience sample of college males was a good place to start. Psychopathol Behav Assess. 19, 315–330.
DENYING RAPE BUT ADMITTING USE OF FORCE 193
Check JV. (1985). The Hostility Toward Women Scale. Unpublished Marshall WL, Moulden H. (2001). Hostility toward women and victim
doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada. empathy in rapists. Sex Abuse. 13, 249–255.
Crowne DP, Marlowe D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability Mosher DL, Sirkin M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality con-
independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 24, 349–354. stellation. J Res Pers. 18, 150–163.
DeGue S, DiLillo D, Scalora M. (2010). Are all perpetrators alike? National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2012). Sexual
Comparing risk factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sex. violence. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-
Abuse. 22, 402–426. datasheet-a.pdf
Donaldson M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory Soc. Parrott DJ, Zeichner A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on phys-
22, 643–657. ical aggression against women. Psychol Men Masculinity. 4, 70.
Duarte Silva AP, Stam A. (1995). Discriminant analysis. In Reading Rando RA, Rogers JR, Brittan-Powell CS. (1998). Gender role conflict
and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. LG Grimm, PR Yarnold, and college men’s sexually aggressive attitudes and behavior. J
eds. (APA, Washington, DC), pp. 277–319. Mental Health Couns. 20, 359–369.
Forbes GB, Adams-Curtis LE, White KB. (2004). First-and second- Ryan KM. (2004). Further evidence for a cognitive component of rape.
generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and Aggress Violent Behav. 9, 579–604.
hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association Suarez-Al-Adam M, Raffaelli M, O’Leary A. (2000). Influence of
with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and abuse and partner hypermasculinity on the sexual behavior of La-
sexual coercion. Violence Against Women. 10, 236–261. tinas. AIDS Educ Prev. 12, 263–274.
Good GE, Hepper MJ, Hillenbrand-Gunn T, et al. (1995). Sexual and Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics
psychological violence: An exploratory study of predictors in col- (Harper Collins, New York, NY).
lege men. J Mens Stud. 4, 59–71. Tatum JL, Foubert JD. (2009). Rape myth acceptance, hypermasculi-
Gudjonsson GH, Petursson H, Skulason S. (1989). Psychiatric evidence: nity, and SAT scores as correlates of moral development: Under-
A study of psychological issues. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 80, 165–169. standing sexually aggressive attitudes in first year college men. J
Koralewski MA, Conger JC. (1992). The assessment of social skills Coll Stud Dev. 50, 195–209.
among sexually coercive college males. J Sex Res. 29, 169–188. Vokey M, Tefft B, Tysiaczny C. (2013). An analysis of hyper-
Koss MP. (1998). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in masculinity in magazine advertisements. Sex Roles. 68, 562–576.
a national sample in higher education. In Rape and Sexual Assault,
Vol. II. AM Burgess, ed. (Garland Press, New York, NY), pp. 3–25.
Littleton HL, Axsom D. (2003). Rape and seduction scripts of uni-
Address correspondence to:
versity students: Implications for rape attributions and unacknowl-
Sarah R. Edwards, PhD
edged rape. Sex Roles 49, 465–475.
Littleton HL, Tabernik H, Canales EJ, et al. (2009). Risky situation or
Counseling Psychology and Community Services
harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women’s bad University of North Dakota
hook-up and rape scripts. Sex Roles. 60, 793–804. Education Building, Room 314
Malamuth NM. (1989a). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part 231 Centennial Dr. STOP 8255
one. J Sex Res. 26, 26–49. Grand Forks, ND 58202-8255
Malamuth NM. (1989b). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part
two. J Sex Res. 26, 324–354. E-mail: sarah.edwards@email.und.edu