CURRENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

[Link]

Volume 10, Number 4

Submitted: March 10, 2004
First Revision: September 30, 2004
Second Revision: October 6, 2004
Third Revision: October 22, 2004
Fourth Revision: November 1, 2004
Accepted: November 1, 2004
Published: November 1, 2004

EXPLAINING NEGATIVE RAPE VICTIM PERCEPTION:

HOMOPHOBIA AND THE MALE RAPE VICTIM

Irina Anderson
University of East London, UK

ABSTRACT

Previous research into rape victim blaming has often neglected to assess attitudes toward
male victims. The present study was designed to redress this imbalance and specifically,
investigate the role of homophobic attitudes in male rape victim perception. Men and women
read a vignette describing an incident of rape and answered two questionnaires that assessed
firstly, homophobic attitudes toward homosexual persons and secondly, their perception of
the rape victim. Based on the literature, I formulated three hypotheses a) males will evaluate
male victims more negatively than females b) males will exhibit higher levels of homophobia
than females and c) high levels of homophobia will predict more negative victim perception,
particularly for male participants. The data supported two of the three hypotheses. Firstly,
men exhibited greater degrees of homophobia than women and secondly, men's homophobic
attitudes were significantly correlated with negative male rape victim perception. The
implications of these findings for the reporting of rape and post-rape adjustment of victims
are discussed.

43
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

It is generally accepted that individuals have a tendency to perceive the victims, as well as or
even instead of the perpetrators of rape in negative terms, and much social psychological
research has been devoted to an examination of factors influencing these perceptions. The
majority of this research has focused on female rape, that is, the rape of women. Two
approaches have dominated the study of blame attributions in sexual violence. The first
approach examines the effect of victim, perpetrator and situation characteristics on negative
attributions in rape, and is often referred to in social psychology as the rape perception
framework (Pollard, 1992; Krahe, 1991). Factors such as the victim's respectability (Luginbuhl
& Mullin, 1981), physical attractiveness (Tieger, 1981, Deitz, Littman & Bentley, 1984),
previous sexual activity (L'Armand & Pepitone, 1982; Cann, Calhoun & Selby, 1979), victim
resistance (VanWie & Gross, 1995; Wyer, Bodenhausen & Gorman, 1985; Yescavage, 1999),
degree of victim intoxication (Richardson & Campbell, 1982; Stormo & Lang, 1997) and what
the victim was wearing at the time of the attack (Edmonds & Cahoon, 1986; Workman &
Freeburg, 1999) have all been found to influence negative attributions in rape. Although these
studies generally demonstrate fairly modest levels of issues such as blame attributed to victims
(Pollard, 1992), it is nevertheless significant that these factors affect judgments about rape in
particular ways so that for example, a divorced, drunk or sexily dressed woman is perceived
more negatively than a woman who is described as sober or conservatively dressed.

The second approach focuses on the characteristics of the participants to explain rape victim
blame. Here, motivational and ego defensive processes are thought to underlie negative
attributions directed at the rape victim. Two central theories in this framework are the Just
World Theory and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis. The Just World Theory (Lerner &
Matthews, 1967; Kleinke & Meyer 1990) states that negative rape victim perception occurs as a
result of overcompensation for a seemingly undeserved act. According to this perspective, one
has a motivational need to believe that the world is a fair place and that behavioral outcomes are
deserved ("people get what they deserve and deserve what they get."), thus maintaining a sense
of control and efficacy over the environment. To believe that unfortunate things happen to
people without any apparent reason would prove chaotic and would subsequently threaten one's
sense of control. Thus, to perceive the victim as deserving of the misfortune helps to restore the
comfortable view of the world as being ordered, fair and just.

According to the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Shaver, 1970; Cann et. al., 1979; Feild,
1978; Kanekar & Vaz, 1988; Thornton, Ryckman & Robbins, 1982; Muller, Caldwell & Hunter,
1994), people increase or reduce blame depending on their perceived similarity with the victim
and the perceived likelihood of similar future victimization befalling them. Defensive
attributions predict negative victim perception to decrease as the similarity of the observer to the
victim increases, this being a defense mechanism to protect the observer from being blamed
themselves if a similar fate should befall him or her in the future.

44
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

Attitudinal characteristics of the observer are also thought to play a part in explaining negative
rape victim perception. Beliefs in traditional gender role stereotyping, sexual conservatism and
sex role orientation have been linked to negative rape victim perception (Spence, Helmreich &
Stapp, 1973; Feild, 1978a and 1978b; Burt, 1980). Studies indicate that participants who
positively endorse statements such as "Telling dirty jokes should be a masculine prerogative," "It
is acceptable for women to have a career but marriage and family should come first" and "It
looks worse for a woman to be drunk than for a man to be drunk" evaluate rape victims more
negatively than those who do not hold such adversarial beliefs (Acock & Ireland, 1983; Coller &
Resick, 1987; Deitz, Blackwell, Daley & Bentley, 1982; Meyerson & Taylor, 1987; Shotland &
Goodstein, 1983).

While knowledge of the processes that contribute to female rape victim blame has accumulated
in recent years, by contrast little is known about the processes governing the perception of male
rape victims. Yet, studies suggest that not only does sexual violence against males occur more
frequently than is popularly believed but that male victims of rape are also likely to be blamed by
others for their own rape as well as the female victims. For example, a number of American rape
crisis centers have documented that between 6 and 20 per cent of treated rape victims are male
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992). More recently, in a survey of 336 victim
support agencies in the United States, 51% reported providing services to male victims sexually
assaulted during adulthood (Isely & Gehrenbeck-Shim, 1997). In a study of college men, 34% of
the sample had experienced coercive sexual contact (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson,
1994). Many welfare organizations however estimate the real figure to be considerably higher,
suggesting that a significant number of men are hidden victims of rape with as many as nine in
ten incidents not formally reported (The Independent, 29/5/95). In general, recent estimates
suggest that while one in five women will have experienced coercive sex during their lifetime
(Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997), one in ten men will have been pressured into sex (Lonsway &
Fitzgerald, 1994). Furthermore, male victims of rape are equally as likely to be viewed
negatively and held responsible for their own rape as are female victims, particularly by male
participants, as has been shown in several rape perception studies (Struckman-Johnson &
Struckman-Johnson, 1992; Smith, Pine a& Hawley, 1988; McCaul, Veltum, Boyechko &
Crawford, 1990). They are also likely to be viewed negatively in the "field" by individuals such
as health workers and the police (Donnelly & Kenyon, 1996). However, compared to female
rape, considerably less research effort has gone into evaluating the reasoning behind male rape
victim blame. Furthermore, while some studies have applied the same theories used to explain
female rape victim blame to instances of male victimization, for instance the Just World Theory
(Whatley & Riggio, 1993) few theories are exclusively concerned with explaining how and why
male rape victims are blamed. The present study was designed to redress this imbalance by
focusing on one possible explanation for negative male rape victim perception, namely,
homophobic beliefs. No previous research has examined the link between homophobia and
negative male rape victim perception.

45
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

An examination of the link between homophobic beliefs and negative male rape victim
evaluation provides one obvious route to uncovering some of the reasons why people should
view male rape victims negatively because male rape is frequently associated with
homosexuality, although this is an erroneous assumption. Despite the fact that studies (Groth &
Burgess, 1980; Isely & Gehrenbeck-Shim, 1997) often report that the offenders and victims of
male rape are mostly heterosexual (figures from Isley et. al.: offenders = 89.5%; victims = 81%)
as opposed to homosexual (offenders = 8%; victims = 16%) or bisexual (offenders = 2.5%;
victims = 3%), male rape is frequently perceived by many to be an assault with homosexual
motives (Stermac, Sheridan, Davidson & Dunn, 1996; Doherty & Anderson, 2004). Thus,
participants are likely to invoke homophobic attitudes when faced with an incident of male rape.
Furthermore, men are more likely to invoke homophobic attitudes than women. In recent
reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, several researchers have concluded that "men appear
to hold more negative attitudes towards homosexuality than do women" (Whitley & Kite, 1995:
151; Kite & Whitley, 1996; Herek, 1986). However, this assertion requires qualification. Based
on empirical data, a more accurate conclusion is that men are more homophobic than women on
some dimensions but not on others. For example, while national opinion polls often find little or
no gender difference in levels of homophobia, small-scale studies usually find the exact opposite,
that is, that men are more homophobic than women. Herek (1986) accounted for this dichotomy
by the fact that national surveys often question attitudes concerning the civil liberties of
homosexuals, whereas small scale studies elicit a strong negative emotional reaction to
homosexuals possessed by many men. Thus, according to Herek, while "males and females
probably hold roughly similar positions on general questions of morality and civil liberties,
males are more homophobic in their emotional reactions to homosexuality" (Herek, 1986: 565).
There are several reasons why men, much more than women, should exhibit a strong emotional
response toward homosexuality, and particularly to homosexual men. Recently advanced
explanations include psychodynamic factors such as the role of defensiveness in homophobia
(where, for example, defensiveness involves an unconscious distortion of reality as a strategy for
avoiding some unacceptable part of the self; Herek, 1986; Kite & Whitley, 1996) and
evolutionary factors such as reproductive success and the maximization of genes passed to
subsequent generations (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). However, the most widely articulated
explanation and one that is most consistent with the current literature on sex differences in
attitudes toward homosexuality refers to Social Role and script theories (Whitley & Kite, 1995;
Herek, 1986). These theories account for men's strong emotional response toward
homosexuality by highlighting the role of cultural pressures exerted on individuals, particularly
in Western societies, to conform to traditional gender roles such as masculinity, femininity and
family roles. This desirability for individuals to be viewed as "normal healthy adults" is
overturned by gay men and lesbians, and gay men and lesbians are disliked in part because of
their perceived sex-role deviance. However, there is a tendency to view male homosexuals as
more different from "normal healthy adults" than lesbians (Whitley and Kite, 1995) and violating
gender role expectations is considered to be more serious for men than for women in Western
society (Herek, 1986; Whitley & Kite, 1995). Researchers have argued that it is these kinds of
pressures that contribute to the finding that men consistently exhibit more negative emotional
reactions to homosexual men than women. Put another way, males appear to reinforce their
"maleness" by attacking gay men, either mentally, verbally, or in the worst cases, physically
(Herek, 1986; Kite & Whitley, 1996; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997).

46
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

STUDY RATIONALE & HYPOTHESES

In this study, I report a between-subjects design used to measure participants' levels of victim
perception after reading a rape scenario concerning either a male or female victim. Although the
focus was primarily on participants' reactions to male victims of rape, female rape was also
examined here for comparison purposes. Participants' level of homophobia was also measured in
order to establish whether homophobia functions as a predictor of victim perception. The main
hypotheses for this study were as follows:

(1) Males will evaluate the male victim more negatively than females
(2) Males will exhibit higher levels of homophobia than females
(3) High levels of homophobia will predict more negative victim evaluations, particularly for
male participants

METHOD
Participants
80 undergraduate psychology students (no. of males = 40, no. of females = 40) took part in this
study in exchange for course credits. Their ages ranged from 19 to 33 years, the mean age being
just over 20 and the median being 19.

Procedure
Participants took away a questionnaire booklet (A copy of the questionnaire booklet complete
with scoring system is available from the author) and returned it to the experimenter once
completed. The booklets were returned anonymously. The booklet contained three main items,
which participants were asked to complete in the following order:-
(1) a questionnaire designed to assess the subject's level of homophobia
(2) a vignette describing a rape incident. For half the subjects the vignette involved a male
victim and for the other half it involved a female victim. In both instances the attacker was male
(3) a questionnaire utilizing several measures to assess rape victim perception

Materials
Homophobia assessment. I utilized the short version of Hansen's (1982) Homosexism scale to
assess the participants' degree of homophobia. Half of the items in the questionnaire were
positively skewed and half were negatively skewed, for example, "Homosexuals are unnatural
and should be made to get help for their problem" or "Homosexuals should have the same legal
rights as heterosexuals." Participants were required to indicate on a five point scale the degree to
which they agreed or disagreed with each statement (strongly agreed, agreed, undecided,
disagreed or strongly disagreed). The range was 15 to 75, with higher scores indicating a more
homophobic response. The scale has a high reliability coefficient (alpha = .96, with a mean of
41.80 and a standard deviation of 14.52) as reported in Hansen (1982). The scale is documented
in Appendix 1. The scale requires participants to respond to each item by selecting one of the
following answers: strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree. For items
phrased in a nonsexist manner (see Appendix 1), the response categories of strongly agree to
strongly disagree were assigned values of 1 to 5. Responses to items phrased in a homosexist
manner were scored in reverse order (i.e., strongly agree = 5 and strongly disagree = 1). All
participants' total score was the sum of the numerical value of responses.

47
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

Attribution of blame assessment. Several items were used to assess overall victim perception.
These items focused on the degree of blame, fault, responsibility and behavior relating to the
victim and perpetrator, the degree of perceived trauma suffered by the victim, whether the
offender should be punished and the extent to which the rape was due to bad luck. Half of the
items were positively skewed (for example, "Gail is to blame for the rape") while the other half
were negatively skewed (for example, "The rape is not Gail's fault."). The other three items
examined. A 5 point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree was used, with lower
scores representing a more negative victim evaluation. The maximum score was 55, while the
minimum was 19, the lower score indicating a more negative victim evaluation. The descriptive
statistics for this measure were a mean of 52.7 and a standard deviation of 4.95. Again, all
participants' total score was the sum of the numerical value of responses

The rape vignettes. Each vignette was 145 words in length and identical except for the
manipulation of victim gender. The male rape vignette included the description that the victim
was forced to have anal sex, whereas it was stated in the female rape vignette that the female
victim was forced to have sex. The following is an example of the female rape vignette used in
the study:

Gail was introduced to Chris at a friend's housewarming party. She stayed chatting to
Chris in the living room for a little while and then went to talk to her friends. At the end
of the party, Gail left to walk home on her own and Chris followed her out. He caught
up with her and said that as they were going the same way, they might as well walk
together. They reached Gail's house first. She opened the front door and turned to say
goodnight when Chris pushed her violently into the hallway and slammed the door shut.
Taken by surprise, Gail was thrown face down on to the stairs. She hit her head while
falling, leaving her only semi-conscious for a few seconds. In that period, Chris
removed Gail's trousers and underwear and proceeded to force her to have sex.

RESULTS

In order to assess the effect of participant and victim gender on the degree of homophobia and
victim blaming, separate 2 x 2 (victim gender versus participant gender) analyses of variance
(ANOVA) were performed. The dependent variables were the homophobia score and a score
representing victim perception. Table 1 contains the means for men's and women's judgments of
homophobia and victim perception in the female and male rape conditions.

Table 1: Mean homophobia and victim perception scores for men and women in female
and male rape incidents
Men Women
Measure Male rape Female rape Male Rape Female rape
Homophobia 32.2 (10.9) 22.6 (8.5) 16.2 (3.8) 20.1 (6.2)
Vic. perception 51.5 (3.7) 53.5 (3.1) 51.8 (8.3) 53.9 (6.1)
NB. Higher scores indicate a more homophobic response. Higher scores indicate more positive
victim perception. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.

48
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

Participant gender was found to have a highly significant effect on the level of homophobia (F =
28.13, p <.0001, Partial Eta-Squared = .3; all statistical tests are reported at a two-tailed level of
analysis). Men (M = 27.4) exhibited higher levels of homophobia than females (M = 18.1). The
second factor of victim gender did not have a significant effect on homophobia (F = 2.73, p =
n.s.). However, there was a significant interaction between the two factors of victim and
participant gender (F= 14.95, p <.0001, Partial Eta-Squared = .2). Male participants exhibited
significantly higher levels of homophobia in the male rape scenario (M = 32.2) than in the
female rape scenario (M = 22.6) while the opposite effect was observed for the female subjects
but to a much smaller degree (means = 16.2 compared to 20.1, for male and female rape
respectively).

The second ANOVA revealed that participant gender did not have a significant effect on victim
perception (F= 0.07, df = 1, p = n.s.). The male participants had a mean of 52.5 while the female
participants had a mean of 52.8. The analysis also found that victim gender did not have a
significant effect although this factor was approaching significance (F = 3.46, df = 1, p = 0.06,
Partial Eta-Squared = .05). The female victim was perceived less negatively than the male, with
scores of 53.7 and 51.7 respectively. The interaction between participant and victim gender
(mean scores: men in female rape condition = 53.5, men in male rape condition = 51.5; women
in female rape condition = 53.9, women in male rape condition = 51.8) also proved to be non
significant (F = 0.00, p = n.s.). Table 1 again illustrates the mean scores for this ANOVA.

To assess whether the degree of homophobia predicted negative victim perception, the scores
were correlated. The only significant correlation existed between men's male rape victim
perception scores and homophobia (Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient, r= -.487, n = 20,
p<.05). The negative correlation between the two measures demonstrates that a higher level of
homophobia resulted in more negative victim perception. Other correlated homophobia and
victim perception scores proved non significant (women's homophobia level and male rape
victim perception, Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient, r= -.192, n = 20, n.s.; women's
homophobia level and female rape victim perception, Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient, r
= -.11, n = 20, n.s.; and men's homophobia level and female rape victim perception, Spearman
Rank Correlation Coefficient, r = -.359, n = 20, n.s.).

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to provide a preliminary investigation into the relationship
between homophobic attitudes and male rape victim perception. Data supported two of the three
hypotheses, namely that male participants would exhibit higher levels of homophobia than
female participants and that high levels of homophobia would predict negative male rape victim
perception, particularly for the male participants. The results of this study however did not
support the hypothesis that males will evaluate the male victim more negatively than females.

49
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

The first hypothesis supported by the present data was that the male participants would exhibit a
greater degree of homophobia than the female participants. This finding is in line with other
literature on gender differences in behavioral and attitudinal factors in sexuality, that is, that
"men appear to hold more negative attitudes towards homosexuality than women" (Whitley &
Kite, 1995: 151). This result also strengthens current arguments in the literature which suggest
that men regard homosexuals as violating their prescribed gender role more than women and
resent this deviation from the norm, especially if they themselves are hyperconforming to the
"ideal" or traditional masculine role (Whitley & Kite, 1995; Herek, 1986). There may also be an
additional factor at work here. An interaction effect between participant and victim gender on
homophobia scores where male participants exhibited significantly higher levels of homophobia
in the male rape scenario than in the female rape scenario while the opposite effect was observed
for the female participants suggests a more generalized fear toward the incident, which appeared
to be higher for individuals presented with a scenario involving a rape victim of the same sex as
them. Thus, in addition to or even instead of homophobia per se, what is elevated in these
scenario is fear toward rape in general. This finding is in line with previous studies, which have
shown that the ever-pervasive fear of sexual violence may cause people to deploy certain
cognitive coping strategies – they may repress the processing and recall of threatening
information about rape (Krahé, 1999) or increase blame assigned to rape victims (Ward, 1995).
Whilst researchers have primarily focused on examining these effects in female participants'
reactions toward female rape, I suggest here that these issues extend to male participants'
reactions to male rape as well.

The hypothesis that a high degree of homophobia would predict negative male victim perception
was also supported for the male participants, whose homophobia scores correlated significantly
with their victim perception scores. Thus, there is some evidence for the suggestion that that
individuals, and particularly males, regard male rape as a homosexual incident and as a result of
this view engage in negative male rape victim perception. An important point to note is that the
victim's sexual orientation was not explicitly specified in any of the stimulus materials used. It
appears that the male participants invoked homophobic attitudes and associated these with the
rape on the basis of the description of the events alone rather than on the basis of any explicit
description of the victim's homosexuality. In light of this, an important issue for researchers to
investigate is the strength of the homophobic attitude that may be invoked if the victim were to
be described as explicitly homosexual. Given that the present findings indicated that possessing
a high level of homophobia resulted in more negative victim perception, one implication is that if
the victim were to be described as a homosexual, this effect would perhaps be even stronger,
leading to all manner of implications for rape victims. Researchers should investigate the types
of inferences and stereotypes that participants in rape perception studies, and particularly in
studies examining male rape make in relation to the information that is explicitly provided for
them, and the effects that these assumptions have on rape victim perception (likewise,
participants' own sexual orientation may also be of relevance).

50
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

Although I investigated these issues on university students who represent a specific cohort of
research participants with particular characteristics, the study nevertheless offers an insight into
how male victims of rape may be viewed by social perceivers. The present findings indicate that
men might respond in a more negative way to the male rape victims than women by holding
more homophobic beliefs and responding to the victim in a more negative manner. Nevertheless,
there is a paucity of research on groups other than university students, such as medical personnel
or the victim's social network members. It is important for rape perception researchers to focus
on these groups as the reactions of these groups are likely to have a direct effect on the victim's
reporting of rape and well-being in the postrape period (Davis & Breslau, 1994; Ward, 1995).
Male rape perception researchers should also focus on investigating the effect of descriptions of
the victim such as the victim's personality and demographic characteristics on negative male
victim evaluations. Past research has indicated that certain characteristics of female victims lead
to increased victim blaming, for example, occupational status, respectability and attractiveness
(e.g., McCaul et al, 1990). It is unknown whether these issues would also apply to male victims
and are therefore important to investigate as these can provide the basis upon which negative
victim perception is determined, and which often carry devastating effects for the rape survivor.

The hypothesis that men will evaluate male victims of rape more negatively than women was not
supported in the present study. Indeed, no significant effects of participant gender on negative
victim perception were observed, for either the male or the female victim. This is an unexpected
result, particularly in the light of previous research where a frequent finding is that men perceive
both female and male victims of rape more negatively than women (e.g., Weisz & Earls, 1995;
Smith et. al., 1988). Female participants did display more positive victim evaluation than males
for each rape scenario - however, this difference was not large enough to be significant. This
unexpected finding could be symptomatic of the experimental design rather than a
straightforward reflection of underlying attitudes toward rape. Indeed, the lack of differences
between participants on this measure may be related to another problem evident in this study,
namely to do with the homophobia measure. The homophobia scores indicate a non-normal
distribution along the homophobia dimension. Even though the procedure was such that required
the homophobia measure to be taken prior to the rape manipulation in the vignettes, and
participants were randomly assigned to conditions, they nevertheless appear to vary
systematically along the homophobia dimensions. One explanation for this is that because
participants were asked to take away the experimental packs and complete the experiment in
their own time (done here to try and increase the participation rate), they opened and carried out
the instructions in the experimental packs in a different order to the one requested by the
experimenter (homophobia measure, rape vignette, victim perception measure). This indicates a
lack of control (regarding the order in which stimuli and measures were presented) in the study
and as such, any discussion concerning inferences about causality in this study can only be
speculative at best. Researchers need to be aware of the implications of asking participants to
complete experimental tasks at home, away from the close scrutiny of the researcher.

51
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

Victims' gender did not have a significant effect on participants' perception of them. Both sets of
participants perceived the female victim less negatively than the male victim but these
differences were not significant. The female participants exhibited the expected pattern of
evaluation, that is, being relatively sympathetic to both the female and to the male victims (Smith
et. al., 1988). However, male participants also perceived both male and female victims
somewhat less negatively than even female participants, which is an unusual finding given
previous research (Whatley and Riggio, 1993; Smith et. al., 1988). The finding that the male
participants did not view the male victim as harshly as in other studies may indicate a degree of
same-sex identification, thus invoking defensive attributions (Shaver, 1970). However, this
explanation is not able to account for similarly less negative victim perception of the female rape
victim. However, one possible explanation for this finding is that men's and women's views are
converging with respect to perceptions of female and male rape victims, a possible outcome of
feminist theorizing on rape that has encouraged individuals to view rape survivors more
sympathetically than before (Rich & Samson, 1990).

In general, these unexpected observations regarding the present participants' rape victim
perception should be investigated further in order to ascertain whether they reflect a real
phenomenon or an artifact of the present study's experimental methodology and design. If the
former is the case, then these findings are encouraging because they may reflect a real shift in
attitudes in relation to previous research (e.g.: Feild, 1978). A lack of significant differences in
perceptions of victims or between men and women may reflect an increasingly tolerant and
liberal society where the implications of negative rape victim perception are widely known,
accepted and acted upon. Individuals may also feel that it is no longer socially acceptable to
view victims of rape in negative terms, consequently hiding their 'true' feelings and providing
answers that are politically correct. Since the issue of whether rape victim perception has really
become less negative or is simply a result of self-presentational or methodological factors is an
important one, researchers in the future need to account for the element of social desirability in
rape perception research before conclusions regarding any real progress in people's views about
rape can be drawn.

Finally, it is important to consider a confound in this study, which, together with a lack of control
in procedure cited above, further renders a cautions interpretation of the present findings. In the
vignettes used to describe the rape scenario, different terminology was used to describe the
female as opposed to the male rape event. In the female rape scenario, the event was described
as the victim being forced to have "sex" whereas in the male rape scenario, the victim was
described as being forced to have "anal sex." Although by including this difference, I was keen
to tap into dominant socio-cultural understandings of rape (i.e., these terms take into account
widely held beliefs about the gendered nature of rape, where female rape is usually thought of as
a penile-vaginal penetrative act, whereas male rape is usually perceived to be a penile-anal
penetrative act; Doherty & Anderson, 2004. I considered that to have described both incidents in
terms of anal penetration would have left participants facing an unexpected and surprising event
description relating to female rape as they are unlikely to come across this description in the
media or elsewhere.

52
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

Conversely, to have described both incidents as forced "sex" may have left many participants
wondering whether the incident described in the male rape scenario was indeed rape and how
exactly this was executed, as participants have been observed to do in other studies, for example,
Anderson, Beattie & Spencer, 2001), this difference between experimental conditions
nevertheless represents a confound in the study. As such, present findings can only be cautiously
interpreted and evaluated given that it is impossible to decide whether it was the experimental
manipulation or the difference in description in the stimulus materials that could have produced
the findings. In general, future researchers need to be aware of the issues surrounding
experimental design and procedure when conducting research on socially sensitive issues such as
sexual violence.

APPENDIX 1. Short-form Homosexism Scale Items (Hansen, 1982)*

(1) Sexual preference should not be a factor in employment opportunity

(2) Homosexuals are just like everyone else, they simply chose an alternative lifestyle
(3) Homosexuals should be isolated from heterosexuals
(4) Homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their sexual preferences
(5) Homosexual acts should be illegal
(6) Homosexuals are a danger to our young people
(7) I would not like to work with a homosexual
(8) Homosexuals should not hold high government offices
(9) Job discrimination against homosexuals is wrong
(10) Homosexuals should not hold leadership positions
(11) Homosexuals do not corrupt the youth of America (changed to UK in the present study)
(12) I would not want a homosexual to live in a house next to mine
(13) If I found out one of my friends was a homosexual, our friendship would be severely damaged
(14) I would never have anything to do with a person if I knew he/she was a homosexual
(15) Apartment complexes should not accept homosexuals as renters
*Following Hansen (1982), items 1, 2, 4, 9 and 11 were phrased in a nonsexist manner.

APPENDIX 2. Questionnaire Items Used to Measure Victim Perception*

(1) Gail is to blame for the rape

(2) The rape is not Chris's fault
(3) Gail's behavior did not cause the rape
(4) The rape is Chris's responsibility
(5) Chris is not to blame for the rape
(6) The rape is not Gail's fault
(7) Chris's behavior is the cause of the rape
(8) The rape was Gail's responsibility
(9) Gail is unlikely to be traumatized by the rape
(10) Chris deserves to be punished
(11) The rape was just due to bad luck of the victim
*Items 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 11 were coded from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Items 3,
4, 6, 7 and 10 were coded from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).

53
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

REFERENCES

Anderson, I., Beattie, G. & Spencer, C. (2001) Can blaming victims of rape be logical?
Attribution theory and discourse analytic perspectives, Human Relations, 54(4):453-475.

Acock, A.C. and Ireland, N.K. (1983) Attribution of blame in rape cases: the impact of norm
violation, gender and sex-role attitude, Sex Roles, 9, 179-192.

Burt, M.R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Cann, A., Calhoun, L. & Selby, J. (1979). Attributing responsibility to the victim of rape:
influence of information regarding past sexual experience. Human Relations, 32, 57-67.

Coller, S.A. and Resick, P.A. (1987) Women's attributions of responsibility for date rape: the
influence of empathy and sex role stereotyping. Violence and Victims, 2, 115-125.

Davis, G. & Breslau, N. (1994) Post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of civilian trauma and
criminal violence. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17, 289-299.

Deitz, S.R., Littman, M. & Bentley, B.J. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: the
influence of observer empathy, victim resistance and victim attractiveness. Sex Roles, 10, 261-
280.

Deitz, S., Blackwell, K., Daley, P. and Bentley, B. (1982) Measurement of empathy toward rape
victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372-384.

Doherty, K.& Anderson, I. (2004). Making sense of male rape: Constructions of gender,
sexuality and experience of rape victims, Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 14 (2), 85-103.

Donnelly, D. and Kenyon, S. (1996). "Honey, we don't do men": Gender stereotypes and the
provision of services to sexually assaulted males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 441-448.

Edmonds, E.M. & Cahoon, D.D. (1986). Attitudes concerning crimes related to clothing worn by
female victims. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 444-446.

Feild, H. (1978) Attitudes toward rape: a comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis
counselors and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 156-179.

Groth, A. and Burgess, A. (1980). Male rape: offenders and victims, American Journal of
Psychiatry, 137, 806-810.

Hansen, G. (1982). Measuring prejudice against homosexuality (Homosexism)) among college

students: a new scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 233-236.

54
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

Herek, G. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563-577.

"Male rape," article appeared in the Independent newspaper ( 29.5.95).

Iseley, P. and Gehrenbeck-Shim, D. (1997). Sexual assault of men in the community, Journal of
Community Psychology, 25, 159-166.

Kanekar, S. & Vaz, L. (1988). Attribution of causal and moral responsibility to a victim of rape.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 37, 35-49.

Kite, M. and Whitley, B. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons,
behaviors, and civil rights: a meta-analysis, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336-
353.

Kleinke, C.L. & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women with high and
low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 343-353.

Krahé, B. (1991). Social psychological issues in the study of rape. In Stroebe, W. & Hewstone,
M. (Ed) European Review of Psychology. John Wiles and Sons Ltd.

Krahé, B. (1999). Repression and coping with the threat of rape. European Journal of
Personality, 13, 2-26.

L'Armand, K. & Pepitone, A. (1982). Judgments of rape: a study of victim-rapist relationship

and victim sexual history. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 134-139.

Lerner, M. & Matthews, G. (1967). Reactions to suffering of others under conditions of indirect
responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 319-325.

Lonsway, K.A. & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1994). Rape Myths: in review. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 18, 133-164.

Luginbuhl, J. & Mullin, C. (1981). Rape and responsibility: how and how much is the victim
blamed? Sex Roles, 7, 547-558.

McCaul, K., Veltum, L., Boyechko, V. and Crawford, J. (1990) Understanding attributions of
victim blame for rape: sex, violence and foreseeability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
20, 1-26.

Meyerson, S. and Taylor, D. (1987) The effects of rape myth pornography on women's attitudes
and the mediating role of sex-role stereotyping. Sex Roles, 17, 321-338.

Muller, R.T., Caldwell, R.A. & Hunter, J.E. (1994). Factors predicting the blaming of victims of
physical child abuse or rape. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 26, 259-279.

55
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

Oliver, M. B. and Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: a meta-analysis,

Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.

Pollard, P. (1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: a review. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307-326.

Rich, R. and Samson, R. (1990). Public perceptions of criminal justice policy: does victimization
make a difference?, Violence and Victims, 5, 109-118.

Richardson, D. & Campbell, J.L. (1982). Alcohol and rape: the effect of alcohol on attributions
of blame for rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 468-476.

Schwartz, M. and DeKeseredy, W. (1997). Sexual Assault on Campus: The Role of Male Peer
Support. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Shaver, K.G. (1970). Defensive attribution: effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility
assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.

Shotland, R. and Goodstein, L. (1983). "Just because she doesn't want to doesn't mean it's rape":
An experimentally based causal model of the perception of rape in a dating situation, Social
Psychology Quarterly, 46, 220-232.

Smith, R., Pine, C. and Hawley, M. (1988). Social cognitions about adult male victims of female
sexual assault, The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 101-112.

Spence, J., Helmeich, R. and Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women
Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219-220.

Stermac, L., Sheridan, P., Davidson, A. and Dunn, S. (1996). Sexual assault of adult males,
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 52-64.

Stormo, K. & Lang, A. (1997). Attributions about acquaintance rape: The role of alcohol and
individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 279-306.

Struckman-Johnson, C. and Struckman-Johnson, D.(1992). Acceptance of male rape myths

among college men and women. Sex Roles, 27, 85-100.

Struckman-Johnson, C. and Struckman-Johnson, D.(1994). Men pressured and forced into sexual
experience, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 93-114.

Thornton, B., Ryckman, R.M. & Robbins, M.A. (1982). The relationships of observer
characteristics to beliefs in the causal responsibility of victims. Human Relations, 35, 231-330.

Tieger, T. (1981). Self-rated likelihood of raping and the social perception of rape. Journal of
Research in Personality, 15, 147-158.

56
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 4) (Anderson)

VanWie, V. & Gross, A. (1995). Females' perception of date rape: An examination of two
contextual variables. Violence Against Women, 1, 351-366.

Ward, C. (1995). Attitudes Toward Rape: Feminist And Social Psychological Perspectives.
London: Sage.

Weisz, M. and Earls, C.M. (1995). The effects of exposure to filmed sexual violence on attitudes
toward rape, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 71-84.

Whatley, M. and Riggio, R.(1993). Gender differences in attributions of blame for male rape
victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 502-11

Whitley, B. and Kite, M. (1995). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: a comment
on Oliver and Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 146-154.

Workman, J.E. & Freeburg, E.W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and
perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261-278.

Wyer, R.S., Bodenhausen, G.V. & Gorman, T.F. (1985). Cognitive mediators of reactions to
rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 324-338.

Yescavage, K. (1999). Teaching women a lesson: Sexually aggressive and sexually

nonaggressive men's perceptions of acquaintance and date rape. Violence Against Women, 5,
796-812.

AUTHOR'S NOTE

I would like to thank Helen Clegg for help with data collection and analysis.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Irina Anderson is Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology at the School of Psychology, University
of East London, UK. E-mail: [Link]@[Link].

57