2,663
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Lost in translation: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of rape myth acceptance

ORCID Icon, , ORCID Icon, & ORCID Icon
Pages 179-197 | Received 02 Apr 2020, Accepted 03 Feb 2021, Published online: 29 Mar 2021
 

Abstract

Rape myths (RMs) are a complex set of cultural beliefs and attitudes that support and condone sexual violence, mainly by shifting blame from the perpetrator to the victim. Much empirical attention has been paid to how RMs perpetuate cultural norms that justify sexually assaultive behaviours, with research demonstrating that individuals who have higher rape myth acceptance (RMA) are less likely to believe victims of sexual assault, report their own assault if victimized, and are themselves at an increased risk for sexual violence perpetration. Though several methods exist for assessing RMA, shifting cultural norms make it increasingly difficult to accurately assess RMA using traditional quantitative methods; existing research shows discrepancies in response patterns between qualitative and quantitative examinations of RMAs. In a mock-jury paradigm, university (n = 86) and community-based participants (n = 82) responded to a fictitious police report of sexual coercion between two romantic partners. Results indicated that although respondents endorsed low levels of RMA on a self-report measure (updated IRMA), their qualitative responses endorsed four distinct RMs, such as “she asked for it,” which attributes responsibility for the assault to the victim. Implications and future directions for research will be discussed.

Acknowledgements

• Thank you to Sara K. Lidstone for her help in the conceptualization of this research study and Brittany Thiessen and Shannah Dutrisac for their feedback on previous drafts of this manuscript

• Results presented at the 37th Annual Research and Treatment Conference for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The materials and data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, AMZ, upon reasonable request.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 199.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.