l
’ ' | ' 'HJ'ql" [“‘:'
1.1 ,M:,;11J"1’1’1 ‘11""11:"""'f 1 1;}‘14'
" " If :I “€11?

      
   

 

. ' 11' - r.’ 1 “"1. \' I | II 11.4”
1 «1. 1 .11 11 11
.1'1‘1'511'...'. " '11?" 5111'.' ”12'1'111' 1 111II“A.11111 '

    
 
  

  

- - "'"I. .1 '-‘"nl :1 ' 1
"5" "Tu 111111-411 1.."11.:'\11111'J"'~'1.111&1;

'1' ' n '1‘1111 ' .Fk": ‘ W1

1 131". 1‘_| 11 . '"'{(11.11".11I1.1!.t\\1"t;§‘1\‘$mfi 1.3%.} 13.11. 1' 1,...

.111': 1" "111. 111 11 1.41111191111- .1 "1 "“713151-11‘1

. ' ' 1 . 1' . . f\‘- ". .' 1 1.;1~‘1.
‘ ‘hfi *3.

. .
1.x"

    

    
  

  
   
   

3t’ ~L:FA ‘jPé-i
“‘3‘”; 1:49? '

. 1
C5-

. 1 1.1'; N‘” 11'. 1111 14‘ 1. (1: 1.513111. '°
1 ~ ”1' 1'."..'1""-"'1 . §""""'.; ‘111"'1'}..'1I1"'.:;'"’}" ‘I’121:1_11_'\“+1"1'..’;."'( fié;*§§t‘f' , .
'1 ' ~.v '1."'.- .1": 11'.1:11\C"‘§$-;'3‘.1'1H111111111-47-11 ".111,
1' 1." ,-, 1 I. ‘ 1 1 — . .1 101% .

        
  
  
 
     
 

    
 
  
 

     
 

 

, l
I". 1 1 '11"1"'" 'T'-' 1' -I\'" "'111 R.”
1 ‘I ‘ 1 1" ‘1‘." I 1'. I" ""41" (I 1:1 L' ,fifijl‘u. 1\I ' h"'I'-'1'1-1,n1
. ' 111‘. ""1 , ‘1'.)11'111113.111K1‘111':.'11'1'.;A'. 1-11.1-;I,1,.1.5'11F“1‘,-111311 1.,
..1” 111 1‘11". 1 ‘ AA. 3... q “(.11. .31)" '};"1"1"-1'5"1'11"1'1't'\11"7"v-‘31-'.'\j:v.-‘§~"'-: .7- ‘1‘ .1
. 111" .1111'1- “'1 "‘1 w 11.111 “0.1.1111 1‘ IzTrag-‘t'.11.1..1193111111“ #-
. 'l I I \ 1 ‘;'\“‘-1‘§ .1 d1. :11 1’1" ‘1' I'D.“ 1,‘ '.1"."."',' 1": '2',l|.‘,\‘:_ . ‘h: j. '.")1.;1. ‘ .fl 1‘ ’1 {1:26}... 3
.‘.. 11- '11'1' 1.11.1115. '1..1~~:11';11111.;1'11'-:--11.11121. 1-1 "-111.11. 111- .'
. . "1 1-‘1 1‘1‘ .21' .1 '111' 1. ".1.'1-"1.‘1’1'1.1'.':4‘1'11'11".1-" 1:; -.'-‘1,'..1‘ " ‘1'”qu 3‘11 «,
1 1 '111‘ 1 1)" I 1' 1h ' .'"").-"""]'1'¢'""H 1.;t1"::__l'.'11411‘u‘ -' '1'... :‘p .“1“. I“\IJ.'1'I; .é I,"
. 'rk ‘ l "’ “a "1 1'1‘.‘I‘ .‘:"Vl1 I ”1"- III'A'I1: I.“
' "' "" ' ' ' 11 1111:""..111"'1%1."1' 111-- 15-1 ””1... 1'

11".:'.'.1;:'v.1 .111” .1"? .. m1-1"'.'~‘..1 . .
‘1 5"""" 11.”.3111'17 'I' fin“. '11_1_'

. 1‘ 1 11111-1 1 '1‘1 ‘ '. 31.111. \‘11'11' . ““111-161311'1. i ”h. '1. .

111'1111 .1 ' 1.111151111.11.11.1151' .I '.1’.1:-:-71. - V‘ "1

111.11: "11'1'1m1'1. .- 1.1. ‘ ‘ .. '1 '1.‘ NW -

"J ' ' “‘4 ’ 4 ..1‘ 11 1' V 1'

I I 1 ' ' ' '

  
 
  
 

1 .1 , , ,1jr.liT'1.'. . 1 - “1&1, 1'31"; ‘13! '
. ‘ 11.1 1‘.” '1-‘ ~ ._ 1 11‘ 1“? 151' ‘ I. ‘ ‘ ‘ ) K'1<\.'“l: 18%” :11‘11. 1% .1 u .‘ .
1 1' " ' ' ‘1' “"1"' .'1 'Iv“'."':"'._‘lv" 1'11'.. (.1 L"): '1" >1." ' "' WE" 0"1’.VI'I'- A” _"" 1,1; ‘ _
.. .. 11.1 . .1" ~1 . '1 1.11-1.1-111.» 111. ~11" 1111; 1.1.. T- 1111"? "'1'” $1111.11. 31111113111"
' '.:l:‘1 0“” “A.
1 1 1].,

igg'yr/W «3.0.20 3.. _

  
  

   

  
  
    
  
   
   
   
   
    

I 11".: ' 11 . 1 1 "1‘
.' ". 1 . 1 '1 r .' .1‘.‘.‘.. 1
'..u. 1"11 11.1 1'1' .. . .1 1..'.1. 1’"; .'.1l..'..11~11‘l;...
1,1, 1 l .. 11111,|,. 11 IuI“ lvv11*,1 1-HI1 ,_
1 . I.1‘|:)v;1 III 1 1., 1 1J’1nh11ll 1'1'1 111“" 1.7 1‘51.“ .1)
' '. .'"l';1" "" ' LL} 1|""'II"'"II .'1'|'I‘ 30"”:4'1 -'_I':'1'. ."1 ""':'L"‘" 'fi '
11‘1111'11‘1u111‘111-sg'1 .1 \. 1":11‘1' 11:11. " “.1191;
"2,1" -,'1‘ "l'1' I. ”I 1' ";‘ "V ':1'1 ‘ '.. 1" I. '11 ‘14,.“ .'”1.
.1 ‘1 I1 "I "1 'I ' ' " "I I "L ' ”3.1%.? \
1 ""('1"'|1‘ ': "' " 11'" . I f; ' '11:: " -" "" .L'"‘:"'fi" "fl
'1 ."I "" 4113' "1 ">1 '1 1"." 11 \\'11'-'1J:I‘. {111 1‘1‘ '.. " I
..1 1 1.1I ‘ 1 1' .1 " .(1‘
" ' 1' ..1‘ 11'! '5' 1 1""..1 "1 1.3111 -.'-' TI" ”5;" 1 ' 1'1" '
"0" - '1' '11 ' 'I A "11"" '3'P’1..""1}1

'1111111 .11 |

'.'.1' ' '.;151"1".;1"11:'"

‘ :1°':?I{"-111'T11:11-' 1'51
1. ‘ ‘fl ‘1".~ 1“ If 1'1

1'5 1.11 .

"I". 'Z '1‘ j." . ' . '. 1 '1 1. 1
I " |' "I " " 1. " 'I' "1' "' '" "I, ‘
1 '1 '5. _; 01"." .| fif""';|1".'. :" "1" ' '1":" :ql'w
1 ‘ ". ..' 1'l U I "\h 1 ' ‘
1.1. '." "" I". '1'" ' """' " 1" 111;" 1' "' "1 "' 3'1' '19: ,3 1'1 \
11.1 :11, .' "'1”... | 11.1'.) 1111'; "' .1""'
' ' «121""1'11- 1 '1111'115' ""131!“ "1'1". 1"” I '."'1." " "" "1"31‘1."'."

1'1 '1'1‘111' ”'111'1'11‘. 1’" '“v'1'1k‘
1'11""h“ ~ .""1 slum!" {In ""1". \' N""}€l'""'1’1 '11! 31*?J1‘4g
1,""' 31:11.}1111-11' ‘1' 1. I"? .11 11M ' .
:1 11'. '1'11'113‘131121’1';5111'"1'31 11' "I 1,1- 11' 111‘ "1'
"1‘1 .1511 ‘11'.'"-""t'31.11' ' " "51'11' '1'." "' " 13"" 11‘11 111' 1'"
L '1 I" "' 1 -"’ 1“ 111111 '15:
1‘... '1' “1' 1‘1f1'.‘1""1 :1'111' '11, i""1,|.:. 1.1' 1 ""'{'1:1"1'""""' 'J- 1'1.
_.19¢:Irv'.~'1'\5".1.!'11‘1'11,11 1 1.1.13 p14111"| 4111111,
,1... 1' 1'1"1""'1'"""'.1" 1'" 1,1."1"":11"1H. {1.3.1‘1
11' 1:.“ 1'11," |{lf1'_',11111} $hlh'11fi'1
.' .11' ""."“"""" ""'1"'1
.I 1 111' 1:31

1" ‘ j."!"‘- "1.1311 111"}, '"""'1"| ""

”I11

 

\lllll\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\lll

 

3 1293 0093
TF'T—CFPS'. |f \
fija’ivezai’iy ,J
in;

 

 

 

i

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FAILURE TO VALIDATE A TYPOLOGY 0F RAPISTS BASED ON
DIFFERENT DEGRESS 0F VIOLENCE INVOLVED

presented by

Larry Kennard Lewis

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .0. degree in Psychology

/,
a
1
7

Major professor

Dr. Albert I. Robin
Datve/

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
“I.“

 

 

 

1 -

us.

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop—to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fifiifisgw

 

 

 

 

.___

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAILURE TO VALIDATE A TYPOLOGY OF RAPISTS BASED ON
DIFFERENT DEGREES OF VIOLENCE INVOLVED

By

Larry Kennard Lewis

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1984

)[li

ABSTRACT

FAILURE TO VALIDATE A TYPOLOGY OF RAPISTS BASED ON
DIFFERENT DEGREES OF VIOLENCE INVOLVED

By

Larry Kennard Lewis

Forty incarcerated rapists were divided into two groups based on
court room reports of the degree of violence exhibited in their sexual
assaults. It was hypothesized that rapists who used an excessive
degree of violence would differ from rapists utilizing a lesser degree
of violence. The groups were compared in terms of their (a) violent
personality traits, (b) criminal histories, (c) attitudes toward
heterosexual relationships, and (d) beliefs in myths about rape; how-
ever, no significant differences were found between these two groups
of rapists on any of these variables. Both groups. in terms of the
assessment devices employed in the study, expressed negative evalua-
tions of violence, positive evaluations of associations with women,
and very little belief in rape myths. Failure to show distinct
differences between the psychological profiles of the two groups
suggested that differing levels of brutality perpetrated by rapists
may not be reflective of differences in their expoused attitudes and
values. One explanation of the results considered the possibility that,
as a rule, rapists were essentially a psychologically homogeneous

population whose levels of brutality were influenced more by chance

Larry Kennard Lewis

factors accompanying the rape scenario as opposed to basic differ-
ences in personalities. .It was proposed that future research explore

a possible link between ego development and sexual aggression.

To God and my family

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research project represents the culmination of a tremendous
amount of hard work, dedication, and personal sacrifice not only by
the author, but by others as well. Their assistance, encouragement,
and support contributed immeasurably to this research endeavor and,
therefore, is deserving of special recognition.

It is to God from Whom all blessings flow that I wish to render
the most honor and praise; truly it was faith in Him which sustained
me from start to finish. As I am grateful for faith in God, I am
thankful for my family's faith in me. Lawrence, Heneree, and Ron
provided that special type of support that can only be derived from a
loving and caring family. Because they did not give up on me, I was
better able not to give up on myself.

Drs. Dozier Thornton and John Hurley are appreciated for their
guidance and editorial skills in the planning of the research project
and the subsequent reporting of the results. As members of my guid-
ance committee and dissertation committee, they insured that the quality
of my educational experience was of the highest caliber.

Special and warm thanks are heartily extended to Drs. Albert
Rabin and Fred Pesetsky who throughout the years have demonstrated a
keen interest in my professional development. As members of my
doctoral committee each has consistently "gone that extra mile" in

insuring the successful completion of this dissertation project.

Their efforts will never be forgotten nor diminished by the passing
of time.

I thank the Michigan Department of Corrections for allowing the
research to be conducted at one of their institutions and I specifi-
cally wish to commend the psychological, administrative, custody, and
secretarial staff sections at the State Prison of Southern Michigan
for their much needed assistance and tolerance during the data col-
lection phase of the project. The M.S.U. Psychology Department's
secretarial staff also receives my warmest appreciation for their
support throughout the course of this undertaking. Special acknowledg-
ments are given to Ms. Suzy Pavick and Mrs. Marge Curtis without
whose assistance this project might still be unfinished.

I wish to thank my co—workers from the 307th Medical Battalion
and the 82nd Airborne Division Mental Health Clinic for allowing me
the time to periodically set aside my military obligations so that I
might pursue my research interests.

My typists, Barbara Robinson and Nancy Heath, deserve an award for
deciphering my handwriting and the professional pride they exhibited
in producing the dissertation.

Finally, my sincerest thanks and heartfelt love goes out to my
extended family and friends who are like family. I am indebted to
Hilton and Bari Thomas, Keith and Wanda Lipscomb, and others who
opened up their homes to me during my trips from Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, to Michigan State. The support of my life-long friends

Paul Fisher, Derrick Jackson, and Halter Dozier in addition to my

iv

special companion Patricia Cooper, served to inspire this writer to

be "he that endureth to the end."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES

INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition of Rape . .
Typologies of Rapists .
Research Efforts,

HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 1 .
Rationale
Hypothesis 2 .
Rationale
Hypothesis 3 .
Rationale
Hypothesis 4 .
Rationale

METHODOLOGY .

Subjects

Procedure .

Materials . .
Semantic Differential .
Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA)
Rape Information Interview

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT).

Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSI)

Treatment of the Data

vi

Page

viii

ix

Page

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Hypothesis 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Hypothesis 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Additional Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . 64

Problems Inherent in the Sample . . . . . . . . 64

Problems Inherent in the Study' 5 Design . . . . . 66

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

vii

Table

10.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

LIST OF TABLES

Demographic Characteristics and Comparisons of Sample
Ethnic Composition of Sample

Members of Sample Who Have Participated in Group
Therapy for Sex Offenders .

Members of Sample Employed at Time of Offense .

Semantic Scales. Directional Scoring, and Factorial
Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANOVA--Semantic Concept of: Beating Up Someone
ANOVA--Semantic Concept of:_ Power over Women .
ANOVA--Semantic Concept of: Rape of a Woman

Mean Number of Previous Arrests in Sample for Violent
and Nonviolent Offenses . . . . . . . .

ANOVA--Previous Arrests in Sample for Violent and
Nonviolent Offenses . . . . . . .

ANOVA--Semantic Concept of: Love of a Woman
ANOVA--Semantic Concept of: Sex with a Woman .
ANOVA--Semantic Concept of: Women

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale Item Comparisons
Motivations for Sexual Assault .

Comparisons of Mean K-Corrected MMPI T-Scores .

viii

Page

24

24
24

27
38
39
4O

41

42
45
47
48
51
59
60

Figure

0301-th

H 1

H-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Semantic Differential Scoring Potency
Semantic Differential Scoring Evaluative
Semantic Differential Scoring Potency
Semantic Differential Scoring Evaluative .
Item Comparison of Rape Myth Acceptance Scale
Comparison of MMPI Profiles . .

MMPI Profiles of K-Corrected Mean T-Scores for Black
and Caucasian Florida Inmates . . . . . . .

MMPI Profile of State Prison of Southern Michigan
Inmates K-Corrected Raw Scores

ix

Page
36
37
44
45
50
62

98

99

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A.

CD

‘l'l m U 0 (D
o o I o 0

Sample Descriptions of Offenses Taken from $5
Pre-Sentence Investigative Report upon Which
Assignments to Groups were Made . .
Consent Form

Semantic Differential

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale

Rape Information Interview

Tabulation of MMPI Two-Point Code of Sample .

Graphing of Group Means on the Individual Semantic
Scales for Each Experimental Concept

MMPI Profiles .

Page

75
77
79
81
85
88

9O
97

INTRODUCTION

Forcible rape, as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
in their annual report of crime in the United States (Uniform Crime
Reports, 1980), "is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and
against her will." According to their 1980 data, there were a total
of 82,088 forcible rapes reported--77% were rapes by force, while the
remaining figure reflected attempts or assaults to commit forcible
rape. The number of reported rapes represented an 8% increase in the
volume of the crime since 1979, and a 45% increase in volume since
1976. The FBI's “crime clock" indicated that one forcible rape
occurred every six minutes in 1980; yet, even this high, reported
incidence of the crime was considered to be a conservative estimate:

Even with the advent of rape crisis centers and an improved

awareness by police dealing with rape victims, forcible rape,

a violent crime against the person, is still recognized as

one of the most underreported of all Index crimes (Uniform
Crime Reports, 1980, p. 15).

 

Bode (1978) noted that estimates of "rapes reported" versus “rapes
committed" ranged from a high of all rapes being reported to a low of
one in every ten being reported. With such estimates, it is quite
possible that nearly a half million or more women were victims of
a sexual assualt in 1980.

The alarming magnitude of the criminal offense of rape, COUpled

with its seemingly steady growth over the years, underscores a need

for concentrated research efforts aimed at acquiring an in-depth
understanding of the offender and his psychodynamics. The present
research project is one attempt to increase the body of knowledge
about the psychological make-up of the rapist with the hope that it
will eventually lead to the development of more effective treatment

paradigms for this class of criminal offenders.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition of Rape

 

Shrier (1981) in explaining the standard legal definition of
rape--"carnal knowledge of a person by force and against that per-
son's will"--stated that two elements were necessary in order for a
sexual act to be considered rape. First, sexual intercourse must
occur, and second, the act must be committed forcibly and without
consent. Penetration, however slight, constitutes carnal knowledge;
while force was defined as either (1) the use of actual physical
force to overcome the victim's resistance, or (2) the threat of
death or grave bodily injury whereby the victim relents out of fear
for their safety and well-being.

Schiff (1978) outlined what he perceived as the four criteria
comprising the traditional legal definition of rape. The first cri-
terion was that the victim be female, adult or child, and not the wife
of the offender. A wife, by virtue of the marriage contract, was con-
sidered to have given her husband sexual access to her body and she
could not retract that consent. A husband could, however, be con-
victed of raping his wife if he held her down while someone else
raped her-~in such an instance, he could be considered an accessory
to the crime. The second criterion for rape was that intercourse take
place without the victim's lawful consent. To give lawful consent,

the victim must have been conscious and “in full possession of her

senses, not asleep, intoxicated, under the influence of drugs, insane,
or feeble-minded." Utilization of force to overcome the victim's
resistance was the third criterion. While more archaic laws required
the woman to produce evidence of resistance, such as bruises, etc.,
gradually allowances were granted whereby a woman could be intimidated
by such an "array of physical force" that, in her judgment, she dare
not resist. The final criterion provided by Schiff (1978) was the
occurrence of penetration, no matter how slight. Emission of seminal
fluid was not necessary, although its presence was corroborating evi-
dence admissible in court.

Leaders in the revision of old rape statutes were the states of
Florida and Michigan. Schiff (1978) noted that the new laws in each
state avoided using the word rape, with Florida opting for the phrase
"involuntary sexual battery" and Michigan adopting the terminology
"criminal sexual conduct.“ The new legislation in Florida, according
to Schiff (1979), expanded upon the traditional definition of what
constituted a rape:

The two most salient points of the new legislation are that,

first, the victim can be of either sex, not only female;

secondly, a crime is committed not only if a penis penetrates

to one degree or another, the female genitalia, but if it

passes into the body opening, such as the anus or mouth.

Furthermore, if an instrument (other than those used "for

bona fide medical purposes"), a bottle, stick, a twig, a

finger, or even a tongue as in cunnilingus, be introduced

into the sexual organ of another without consent, then a

sexual offense has been committed (p. 97).

The rise of the Women's Movement produced a number of feminist

authors studying the historical, political, sociological, and

psychological dynamics and ramifications of rape. In their opening
chapter, Medea and Thompson (1974) stated:
. . Rape is the deprivation of sexual self-determination.

Rape is a man's fantasy, a woman's nightmare. Rape is all

the hatred, contempt, and Oppression of women in this society

concentrated in one act. . . . Rape is not a special, iso-

lated act. It is not an aberration, a deviation from the

norms of sexual and social behavior in this country. Rape

is simply at the end of the continuum of male-aggression,

female-passive patterns. . . . Rape is any sexual intimacy

forced on one person by another (pp. 11-12).
Brownmiller (1975) defined rape as:

If a woman chooses not to have intercourse with a specific

man and the man chooses to proceed against her will, that

is a criminal act of rape (p. 18).
Common to the writings of Medea and Thompson (1974) and Brownmiller
(1975) was the belief that it does not matter who the person may be
(boyfriend, husband); the nature of the relationship (dating, marital,
employee); the external circumstances (party, date, war, hitchhiking);
nor the degree of resistance--if any man, in any way, forces his sexual

intentions upon a woman, then a rape is said to have occurred.

Typolggies of Rapists

The typical American rapist might be the boy next door.

Especially if the boy next door happens to be about 19

years of age and the neighborhood you live in happens to

fit the socioeconomic description of lower class or bears

the appellation of "ghetto." That is what the statistics

show (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 174).

While statistical studies of rape (e.g., Amir, 1971) have pro-
vided a descriptive model of the rapist and his method of Operating,
they, by virture of their design, have not directly addressed the
issue of why_some men rape. 0n the basis of clinical interviews,

observations and psychological testing (in some instances), various

researchers have developed typologies of rapists based upon the offen-
ders' motivations to commit the assault. In their explanatory model,
Cohen et al. (1971b) observed that the act of rape entailed both
sexual and aggressive components. Either a sexual aim was in service
to a dominant aggressive aim or an aggressive aim was subordinate to

a prevailing sexual aim; in some situations, a fusion of the two aims
gave rise to what was termed "sexual sadism."

"Rape-Aggressive Aim" was the label Cohen et al. (1971b) used to
describe the sub-type of rapist who utilized the sexual attack as a
vehicle to humiliate and defile his victim. A clearly savage intent
could be detected from the brutality present and the evidence of sex-
ually mutilating behaviors (e.g., tearing, biting of the genitals or
breasts, violent insertion of objects into the anus, etc.). This
rapist generally attacked females who were total strangers and his
victims appeared to be objects of displacement for his rage. Anger
was reported to be the predominant emotion during the attack.

"Rape-Sexual Aim" encompassed the category of rapist where the
fulfillment of a sexual wish/desire was the prime metivation for the
attack. Excessive violence was absent during the assault and the
rapist would more than likely terminate the attack if his victim
offered a vigorous resistance. Although the victims were strangers,
they had been earlier identified as a target and subsequently stalked.
As opposed to an impulsive act, the rape had been lived and rehearsed
numerous times in the offender's fantasy life.

"Rape-Sex-Aggression Diffusion" described the pattern of assault

where aggression was a necessary stimulus for sexual arousal. Usually,

the victim's resistance was encouraged in order to bring about a level
of excitation that otherwise would be lacking. The affect of anger
did not manifest itself during the attack and aggression ceased once
intercourse was completed. Sadistic aspects of the rapist's psyche
were said to have been projected onto the victim, whereby her struggle
was interpreted as indications of her sexual arousal.

Howells and Wright (1978) delineated two categories of rapists.
In the first group, the author placed those men suffering from problems
of impotence. These men developed feelings of inferiority and sexual
inadequacy which they perceived as being attributable to female domina-
tion. By subjugating the female with an act of forceful degradation,
she-~rather than he--became the weakened, frightened character. The
second category of rapists were depicted as antisocially-oriented men
whose feelings of rejection prompted them to vent their wrath and
exaggerated humiliation against the first available female. The vic-
tim could be anyone and was viewed as being representative of the
original object which incurred the rapist's wrath.

Groth, Burgess, and Holmstrom (1977) saw power and anger-~not
sex--as the key ingredients underlying rape. They remarked;

. in all cases of forcible rape, three components are

present: power, anger, and sexuality. . . . We have

found that either power of anger dominates and that rape,

rather than being primarily an expression of sexual desire,

is, in fact, the use of sex to express issues of power and

anger. Rape, then, is a pseudo-sexual act. . . . It is

sexual behavior in the service of nonsexual needs (p. 1240).

The authors defined two categories of rapists. The first group were

the "power rapists" who sought power and control over their victims.

These offenders were portrayed as feeling inadequate in all areas of
life and rape became their avenue for proving strength and potency.
Prior to the assault, these rapists were pictured as being possessed
by an obsessional fantasy in which their victims initially resist
their advances, but then gratefully submit themselves to the rapists'
sexual appetites. A conscious attempt to hurt the victim was said to
be lacking, with physical aggression being utilized only to gain the
victim's submission. Power rapists could be divided into two sub-
groupings, depending on whether their sexual assault stemmed from a
need for assertion or reassurance. The “power-assertive" rapist was
said to utilize rape as an expression of his dominance, while the
"power-reassurance" rapist utilized the rape to prove to himself that
he was sexually adequate.

The second major category of rapists presented by Groth, Burgess,
and Holmstrom (1977) were the “anger rapists," who used more force
than necessary to subdue their victim. Through the act of rape, they
expressed their hatred and contempt by excessively abusing their vic- .
tims. The intent of the assault was the injury of the victims, on
whom they were believed to have displaced negative affects generated
from problematic relationships with significant women in their lives
(e.g., mother, wife, girlfriend). Depending on whether the rape
experience represented conscious rage or pleasure, these rapists also
could be placed into two sub-groupings. When the motive for rape
appeared to be revenge, with degratation and humiliation as goals,

then the offender was labeled as "anger-retaliation" rapists. Through

the rape, his anger and hostility toward women gained expression. If
the offender derived a sadistic pleasure from hurting and torturing
his victim, then he was described as “anger-excitation" rapist.
Aggression for this rapist was said to be eroticized.

Groth and Burgess (1977) succinctly summarized the motivational
underpinnings of rape when they commented:

Rape is a complex, multi-determined act which, in addition

to expressing anger and asserting control, also serves to

compensate for feelings-of helplessness, to reassure the

offender about his sexual adequacy, to assert his identity,

to defend against homosexual impulses, to deny fear of

women, and retain status among peers, to achieve sexual

gratification, and to discharge frustration. In this

sense, the act of rape is equivalent to the function of

a symptom: it expresses the conflict, defends against

the anxiety, and partially gratifies or discharges the

impulse (p. 404).

Research Efforts

Cohen and Boucher (1972) wrote:

The man-on-the-street is convinced that the sexual criminal

is insane or mentally retarded, that he is brutal and deprived,

immoral and oversexed, a social isolate who spends his time

reading pornography. . . . The common denominator of these

misconceptions appears to be the need to make the sexual

criminal an alien being (p. 57).
Researchers have been able to better distinguish fact from fantasy as
they have investigated the psychological and behavioral functioning
of the rapist. Perdue and Lester (1972) found that rapists being
paroled did not differ significantly from persons convicted of aggres-
sive nonsexual crimes on measure of intelligence (10) and Rorschach
variables. Vera, Bernard, and Holzor (1979) also found that rapists

did not differ significantly in 10 when compared with nonviolent

10

sexual offenders, nonviolent nonsexual offenders, and nonsexual violent
offenders.

Rivlin and Fisher (1971) investigated the psychological needs of
rapists, utilizing the Edward's Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS).
The researchers compared EPPS scores of rapists with those of an
adult normative sample and with a general criminal sample. The results
of the comparison found the rapists, when compared with the adult male
sample, scored higher on intraception, abasement, endurance, and hetero-
sexuality, while scoring lower on autonomy, dominance, and aggression.
The authors interpreted these findings as indicating:

Rapists, compared with normal males, tend to be less aggres-

sive, less independent, and self-motivated, and less self-

assured and dominant. They demonstrate a greater hetero-

sexual need, a greater propensity to analyze introspectively

their own and others' motives, to be more self-critical and

to have a greater need to endure (p. 183).

Wnen compared to the offender sample, rapists scored higher on succor-
ance, abasement, nurturance, and endurance and lower on achievement,
autonomy, change, heterosexuality, and aggression. These results were
analyzed as suggesting that:

Rapists, when compared with adult offenders, tend to be

less achievement oriented, less self-assured and aggres-

sive, less independent and self-directed, to have less

need for change and a greater need to endure, a lower

heterosexual drive, a greater self-criticism and a greater

need to nurture others and to be dependent upon others

(p. 183).

The authors believed that their research was supportive of the proposi-
tion that rape is an act of hostility by a male who perceives himself

as weak, inadequate, and dependent.

11

Utilizing the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI),
Rader (1977) compared the profiles of rapists, exposers, and assault-
ers. The results of the study supported the author's hypothesis that
rapistseu-a group combining sex and violence--would produce the most
disturbed psychological profile. They scored significantly higher
K-corrected raw score means than the exposers on scales F, Hs, D, Hy,
Pd, Pa, and Sc. When compared to the assaulters, the rapists“ raw
scale score means were significantly higher on scales Pd, Pt, and Sc.
These results suggested that the rapists appeared to Show “more
bizarre mentation, somatic concerns, depression, repression, denial,
aggression, anger, hostility, acting-out, and suspiciousness" than the
exposers. The rapists in comparison with the assaulters appeared to
be more hostile, anxious, aggressive, and bizarre in mentation. Rader
(1977) proffered an interpretation of the group profile for the
rapist sample:

They are apt to appear irritable, hostile, angry, and suspi-

cious, perhaps also somewhat depressed and anxious. They

may be seen as unpredictable and peculiar in action and

thought. The rapists are apt to act-out in self-defeating

ways, often in a manner that seems designed to get them

caught. Although acting-out is likely to be their main

defense, they are also apt to project blame and to use repres-

sion and denial. Fear of emotional involvement may be

characteristic, social intelligence is likely to be poor,

and serious difficulties can be expected in the areas of

empathy and communication ability. Inner conflicts about

sexuality and alcohol abuse are likely to be noted (p. 65).

Armentrout and Haver (1978) also utilized the MMPI as they com-
pared rapists of adults, rapists of children, and nonrapist sex
offenders. These authors postulated that if rape were motived by

aggressive aims that were more than or equal to sexual aims, then

12

rapists should appear "more interpersonally hostile and aggressive"
than nonrape offenders. It was also believed that rapists of adults
would have to be more aggressive than rapists of children, due to the
greater resistance that would have to be overcome in subduing an adult
victim. Their data supported the experimental hypothesis with rapists
of adults producing an elevated 8-4 profile, while rapists of children
produced a primed 4-8 profile, and the nonrapist sexual offenders a
4-prime profile. The results were interpreted as indicating that
rapists of adults were more "hostile, resentful, and interpersonally
alienated" than the other offenders in the study.

Thorne and Haupt (1966) assessed attitudes about sex, using the
Sex Inventory, a questionnaire that addresses various aspects of sexu-
ality. Sexual offender samples were found to be conservative and
repressive in their sexual attitudes. Additionally, they manifested
high levels of conflict and frustration in regard to heterosexual
relationships and the expression of sexuality in healthy, socially
acceptable ways. The authors observed that both homicidal offenders
(murderers) and aggravated sex groups (rapists) displayed a sexual
conservatism and conventionality which fit well with:

The standard psychoanalytic interpretation of high sex

drive repressed from consciousness by a strong Super Ego

and resulting in episodes of failure of impulse control

associated with intense conflict and guilt (p. 402).

As part of their study, Howells and Wright (1978) compared the
sexual attitudes of sexual and nonsexual offenders. The researchers,

utilizing the Sex Inventory, found what they felt were "clear dif-

ferences in sexual attitudes" between their subject p0pulations. The

13

sexual offenders expressed a greater dissatisfaction with their sex
lives, more anxiety in reference to sex, difficulties in finding
satisfaction in their sexual contacts, and a higher frequency of
sexual difficulties. Sexual offenders also expressed a concern about
an inability to adequately control strong sexual impulses. Overall,
the sexual offender appeared to be a frustrated individual with poor
sexual relations and an inability to control “deviant“ sexual inclina-
tions.

The use of alcohol in connection with the rape offense has been
studied by Rada (1975), and Bernard, Holzer, and Vera (1979). Through
an analysis of the autobiographies of 77 convicted rapists, Rada (1975)
determined that 50% of the sample were drinking at the time of the
rape, with 43% of this group classified as drinking heavily. 0f the
sample population, 35% were classifeid by Rada as alcoholic, and 14%
of the sample admitted to being alcoholics. That 35% of his sample
could be considered serious problem drinkers highlighted for the
author a need for treatment programs for sexual offenders to be cogni-
zant of addressing some offenders' maladaptive drinking patterns.

Bernard, Holzer, and Vera (1979) also found alcohol use to be
prevalent in sexual assaults, as well as a factor in the social his-
tories of their rape offenders. An interesting discovery gleaned
from the social histories was that the alcoholic rapist had a greater
number of_criminal charges for violence than their nonalcoholic
counterparts.

The rapist's sexual functioning during his attack was one area

of interest for Groth and Burgess (1977). One hundred seventy men

14

convicted of sexual assault were interviewed as part of a diagnostic
evaluation. Information regarding their sexual functioning revealed
that some reported experiencing problems in this area during the rape.
Three types of sexual dysfunction were documented within the Sample.
The most prevalent dysfunction was "erective inadequacy," defined as
either partial or complete failure to achieve and sustain an erection
(impotency). Of the sample, 16% reported some degree of impairment
in establishing and maintaining their erections. "Ejaculatory incom-
petence" (retarded ejaculation) was the second most reported dysfunction
and was characterized by either difficulty or failure to ejaculate
during intercourse. Of the rapists, 15% communicated problems ejacu-
lating. The final and least frequent (3%) dysfunction reported was
"premature ejaculation," either before or immediately upon penetration.
In total, 34% (58 cases) of the rapist sample indicated they had suf-
fered from some form of sexual impairment in connection with the
sexual assault. Dramatizing this finding was the fact that hardly any
of these rapists related any problems in their sexual performance in
the consenting sexual relationships in which they were involved.
Factors which elicit sexual arousal in rapists have been of inter—
est to a number of researchers. Abel, Barlow, Blanchard, and Guild
(1977) measured erections of rapists and nonrapists while audio
descriptions of rape and nonrape scenes were presented. These
researchers found that rapists had erections to both rape and nonrape
depictions of sex, while nonrapists displayed significantly less

erections to the rape scenes. Barbee, Marshall, and Lantheir (1979),

15

improving on the experimental design of Abel et al. (1977), presented
audio descriptions of rape, nonsexual assault, and mutually-consenting
sex to a group of rapists and a group of graduate students. Both
groups displayed arousal to the mutually-consenting sex presentations;
however, rape descriptions were not as arousing to the graduate stu-
dents, although these produced levels of arousal in the rapists com-
parable to their reactions to the mutually-consenting sex scenarios.
Both groups demonstrated low levels of arousal to the nonsexual assault
descriptions. The data showed that the rapists in the study did not
manifest a greater arousal to forced sex as opposed to consenting sex.
The findings of the study led the investigators to conclude that, while
forced or violent sex did not necessarily arouse rapists more than
other forms of sex, violent sex also did not appear to inhibit their

sexual arousal, as it did with the nonoffender population.

HYPOTHESES

Although several researchers have distinguished within the popu-
lation of rapists those who characteristically use excessive force
from those where brutality is minimal or nonexistent (Cohen et al.,
1971; Medea & Thompson, 1974; Groth, Burgess, & Holmstrom, 1977), more
often than not rapists have been treated as a homogeneous group in
research projects (e.g., Fisher & Rivlin, 1971; Perdue & Lester,

1974; Rada, 1975; Abel et al., 1977; Howells & Wright, 1978; Vera,
Barnard, & Holzer, 1979). Such treatment may "average out" significant
differences between categories of rapists, thereby producing mislead-
ing data whenever this combined grouping is compared to nonrapist
samples. While it may be more accurate to compare each category of
rapists separately against nonrapist samples, research must first
establish the validity and reliability of such categories. The present
research project attempted to discern if those rapists whose brutality
clearly exceeded that which was required for the perpetration of the
crime (Greater Violence Rapists) were indeed a psychologically dis-
tinct group from those rapists whose brutality contained only the
degree of coercison necessary to force their victims to acquiesce to

their demands (Lesser Violence Rapists).

16

17

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Greater Violence_Rapists (GV) compared to
Lesser Violence (LV) exhibit more
violent personality characteristics and
attitudes.
Rationale
Groth, Burgess, and Holmstrom's (1977) "anger rape" and Cohen
et al.'s (1971) "rape-aggressive aim" both refer to a sexual assault
characterized by an excessive amount of physical violence. In both
instances, the attack was described as being primarily an aggressive,
destructive act with the goal being the injury of the victim. The 3v
rapist should be distinguishable from the LV rapist, not only by his
excessively violent actions during the rape, but also by a distinct
psychological and emotional make-up expressive of such violent
acting out.
Hypothesis 2: GV rapists compared to LV rapists have a more

extensive criminal history of nonsexual destruc-
tive and nonsexual assaultive crimes.

 

Rationale

TheIGV rapists' propensity for violent behavior should manifest
itself in nonsexual areas of their life outside of the sexual arena.
This violent proclivity should result in their engaging in a number of
antisocial activities (especially assaultive activities) as they seek
to discharge their emotional energies.

Hypothesis 3: LV rapists compared to GV rapists exhibit

more positive attitudes toward heterosexual
relationships.

 

18

Rationale

Cohen et al.'s (1971) "rape-sexual aim" and Groth, Burgess, and
Holmstrom's (1977) "power rape" both describe a rape where the rapist
utilizes only enough force to subdue his victim. The rape is char-
acterized by an obsessional fantasy whereby the rapist believes his
victim, once overpowered, will be so enthralled with his sexual per-
formance that she will enthusiastically respond to him with wild
sexual abandon. The LV rapists should be distinguishable from the CV
rapists, in that their erotic and romantic desires should produce
favorable attitudes towards women whom they need to fulfill their
fantasies.

Hypothesis 4: LV rapists compared to GV rapists exhibit a
greater belief in rape myths (beliefs that

women, at some level of awareness, want to
be raped).

 

Rationale

Whereas anger and hostility may serve as powerful disinhibiting
agents for GV rapists, allowing them to sexually aggress against
females, less angry and less hostile rapists may need some other dis-
inhibitors. By adopting beliefs congruent with their rape fantasies,
the LV rapists are provided with the disinhibition necessary to sexually
assault their victim. By perceiving their victims as desirous of
their attacks (or deserving), the LV rapists can more easily justify
their actions; additionally, if the victim's protestations can be
interpreted as not signaling genuine noncompliance, then the LV rapists

can once again justify continuing their assault, despite the expressed

19

unwillingness of their victims and the inapprOpriateness of their

behavior.

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

Subjects (Ss) were either prisoners being received for processing
and classification in the Michigan Penal System at the Reception and
Guidance Center of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, or inmates
of the institution who had served less than 25 months. All were
rapists who had been convicted of sexually assaulting a female above
the age of 13 that neither lived in their household nor was a relative
of theirs. A sexual assault (rape) was operationally defined in the
study as a sexual act (or acts) in which the victim was forced to
participate against her will by actual use of violence or by the
expressed (or implied) threat of violence. Insertion of any object
into a woman's vagina or anus was considered a sexual act, as well
as insertion of the male genitalia into any orifice of the woman's
body. Finally, any touching of the woman's genitalia was viewed as a
sexual act and such an act was said to have occurred if the man forced
the woman to touch his genitalia. Intercourse was not necessary for
an attack to be classified as a rape/sexual assault (in the study the
terms rape and sexual assault were used interchangeably). Utilizing
the description of the crime as depicted in their accompanying Pre-
Sentence Investigative Reports, the rapists were divided into two
groups based on the degree of violence present in the commission of

the offense that led to their incarceration. One group was labeled

20

21

Greater Violence (GV) and consisted of those rapists who appeared to
use an amount of force which far exceeded that which was necessary

to subdue the victim and gain her compliance. The GV group was com-
parable to the Ranger rapists“ category described by Groth, Burgess,
and Holmstrom (1977), and the "rape-aggressive aim? category outlined
by Cohen et al. (1971). Included in this grouping were those offend-
ers who subjected their victims to sadomasochistic acts, such as
prolonged beatings or sodomy, mutilating acts, and violent insertion
of objects. The second group of §s was labeled Lesser Violence (LV)
and was comprised of those rapists who were described as using the
threat of violence or minimal physical violence to overcome their
victims. The LV group was analogous to the "rape—sexual aim" typology
of Cohen et al. (1971) and the "power rape" typology of Groth, Burgess,
and Holmstrom (1977). Included in the LV classification were those
rapists who verbally threatened great harm, but never carried out

said threat; those who produced a weapon, but never used it; and those
whose violent acts were of low intensity, short duration, and occurred
only at moments of noncompliance. The Experimenter (§)--after review-
ing the Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI)--determined which group a
subject was placed in. (Appendix A provides a sample PSI excerpt
from each group.) All §s were categorized prior to testing, and no.§
was tested who was obviously psychotic, under the influence of mind-
alterning drugs, or mentally retarded. 0f 41 inmates identified, 40
consented to participate in the study. There were 20 §s in each
experimental condition. All §s were compensated $2.50 for their time

and efforts.

22

Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 provide demographic data about the sample.
It is seen that there were no significant differences between the two
groups in relation to: (1) age; (2) academic achievement levels;
(3) yearly income at time of their arrest; (4) length of prison sentence
received for their present offense; (5) ethnic composition; (6) prior
participation in group therapy for sex offenders; and (7) whether

employed at time of offense.

Procedure

Each § identified for inclusion in the study was seen for indi-
vidual testing and interviewed by g. At the time of testing, each S
was told that E was interested in their attitudes/opinions about a
variety of topics. Subjects were also told that the information they
provided could possibly aid in the development of future treatment
programs. All §S were assured of the anonymity of their responses and
were informed that the results of the study would be published in the
form of a doctoral dissertation. A consent form (Appendix B) acknowledg-
ing willingness to participate in the study was then signed and some
biographical information collected, after which testing began.

The Experimenter prefaced each testing session with the offer to
assist S if he came upon any word or phrase which was unfamiliar. The
order of administration of research material was: (1) Semantic Dif-
ferential, (2) Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, and (3) Rape Information
Interview. Once the interview was completed, §_was released.

All other data in the study--arrest records, MMPI, reading and

math levels--were gathered by §_from institutional files.

23

TABLE 1.--Demographic Characteristics and Comparisons of Sample

 

 

. . . Significance
Var1able Greater Violence Lesser Violence of Difference
Age

Mean 28.33 27.58 F = .20
SD 4.06 4.99 p > .05

Reading Level

Mean 8.40 6.77 F = 2.33

SD 3.45 3.27 p > .05
Math Level

Mean 7.35 6.75 F = .33

SD 3.38 3.02 p > .05

Est. Yearly Income

Mean $8,031.30 $8,630.53 F = .04
SD $8,868.16 $9,396.87 p > .05

Minimum Prison Sentence

Mean 7.65 11.22 F = .42
SD 23.63 6.85 p > .05

Maximum Prison Sentence

Mean 19.15 21.0 F
SD 17.97 26.11 p > .05

'8

 

24

Table 2.--Ethnic Composition of Sample

 

 

Greater Violence - Lesser Violence Total
Black 9 13 22
Caucasian 10 7 17
Latino** 1 1

 

*x2 = .519, df = 1, p > .05

**Note: Latino subject not included in X2 analysis.

TABLE 3.--Members of Sample Who Have Participated in Group Therapy

for Sex Offenders

 

 

 

 

 

Greater Violence Lesser Violence Total
Yes Participation 5 2 7
No Participation 15 18 33

*x2 = .692, df = 1, p > .05.

TABLE 4.--Members of Sample Employed at Time of Offense.

Greater Violence Lesser Violence Total
Yes Employed 10 12 22
Not Employed 10 8 18

 

*x2 = .101, df = 1, p > .05.

25

Materials

Semantic Differential

The semantic differential method (Osgood, Succi, & Tannenbaum,
1957) was utilized to determine if the two experimental groups
differed in the meanings they ascribed to a select group of concepts.
The semantic technique consists of a series of bi-polar adjective
scales (i.e., adjectives that are opposite in meaning from one
another) with each adjective pair being separated by seven spaces.
The seven spaces represent the degree to which a concept on stimulus
is defined more by one adjective in a pair than its counterpart. By
assigning a numerical value to each space from 1 to 7, it is possible
to assess the elements of direction and distance. The selection of
one of the seven spaces imparts a judgment of both the quality of
meaning and the intensity of meaning for a rated concept or stimulus.
Osgood et al. (1957) developed 50 such bi-polar scales and following

is an example of a semantic scale:

Good X Bad

(7) (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
In the above example, let us say the concept that was rated was Today's
Weather. Hereitzis seen that the quality of the rating was positive
(in the direction of good) and the intensity of the rating was high
(scored a six). Factor analysis by Osgood et al. (1957) of their 50
descriptive scales yielded three major factors: Evaluative, Potency,

and Activity.

26

In the present study, ten semantic scales representing the evalua-
tive and potency dimensions were used. The scales selected were ten
of 18 used by Pesetsky (1961), who identified adjective pairs which
were understandable at a fifth grade level. The selection of the
semantic scales and the number of scales utilized was dictated by
knowledge that §s would have generally poor reading skills as well as
limited motivation to attend to the experimental task. The evaluative
dimension in the study was operationally defined as a §fs score on a
continuum from positive to negative feelings about a concept. The
potency dimension was operationally defined as a §fs score on a con-
tinuum ranging from a concept having great importance to little impor-
tance for the S, Table 5 shows the ten Semantic Scales, their factor
loadings, and the direction of scoring.

The semantic differential has been employed by many authors as a
research tool in assessing attitudes about a concept or some type of
stimulus. Rabin (1959) and Rabin and Limuaco (1967) used 20 scales
to ascertain the stimulus value of Rorschach cards, while Pesetsky
(1961) used 18 scales to have delinquents and nondelinquents rate
the meaning of the same criminal activity conched within varying
social contexts. In a more recent study, Richardson (1981) utilized
seven scales in his investigation of attitudes of Black clergy and
parishioners toward mental illness and mental health care providers.
The present study had rapists rate six experimental concepts, Six
control concepts, and one practice concept. The six experimental

concepts were as follows: Beating up someone you are angry at,

27

TABLE 5.--Semantic Scales, Directional Scoring, and Factorial

 

 

 

 

Composition
Scored Factor Loadings*

Scale

1 - 7 7 - 1 E P A
Thick - Thin X -.06 .44 -.06
Unfair — Fair X .83 .08 -.07
Light - Heavy X -.36 .62 -.11
Large - Small X .06 .62 .34
Clean - Dirty X .82 -.05 .03
Bad - Good X .88 .05 .09
Weak - Strong X .19 .62 .20
Nice - Awful X .87 -.08 .19
Cruel - Kind X .82 -.IO -.18
Honest - Dishonest X .85 .07 -.02

 

*Osgood et al. (1957).

28

Rape of a woman, Power over women, Women, Sex with a woman, Love of a

woman. The six control concepts of: Men, Spprts, Soap Operas, Drug

 

Dealing, Sh0plifting, and Television were designed to disguise the
instrument so that §s would not immediately discern that its main
purpose was to investigate their attitudes about rape, women, and

aggression. Prison life was the one practice concept for all §s.

 

Each S was given a packet of 13 pages with the ten scales listed
on each page (see Appendix C). At the top of every page, centered in
the middle, in large capital letters, was the concept to be rated.
The first page provided §_with an opportunity to practice rating a
concept under the guidance of E. The experimenter explained how the
rating scheme worked, and allowed each S to question E concerning the
correct procedure. Once §_and §_were comfortable that the task was
fully understood, S then proceeded to rate the remaining 12 concepts.

Each test packet was arranged so that no experimental concept
was followed by another in sequence. On each page of the packet, in
order to avoid positional effects, positive and negative adjectives
were intermingled on both sides of the blanks. A re-examination of
Table 5 shows that all the semantic scales are scored in the same
direction such that "1" refers to low potency or low evaluation and

"7" to high potency or high evaluation.

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA)
The RNA (see Appendix D) was designed by Burt (1980) as an instru-
ment to assess the degree to which a person accepted various myths

about rape. The scale consists of a series of 19 statements to which

29

the respondent indicates the magnitude of_his/her agreement to each
item on a 7-point scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Analy-
sis of the scale by Burt (1980) found it to be highly reliable, pro-
ducing a Cronbach's alpha of .875. In the present study, the RNA was
shortened to 13 items (6 items assessing prejudices were eliminated)
and a 5-point rating scale (greater ease in responding) was employed.
Subsequent analysis bylg of the modified instrument indicated the
instrument remained very reliable, yielding a reliability coefficient
alpha of .837. Each §_had the nature of the rating task explained to
him by §_after which he proceeded to rate three practice statements.
Upon completion of the practice items, S, if there were no questions,
moved on to the RMA. Questions concerning any item were answered by

E.

Rape Information Interview

The rape information interview was essentially a short question-
naire which E_completed according to rapists' responses (see Appen-
dix E). The items focused on such information as the presence of~
sexual interactions prior to the offense, the quality of sexual inter-
actions prior to the offense, the affect present during the offense,
acts which occurred during the rape, the presence of any sexual dys-
functioning, the level of sexual satisfaction following the culmina-
tion of the rape, and the amount of alcohol consumed during the time
period preceeding the assault. The Experimenter introduced the ques-

tionnaire in the following manner:

30

There are several things about your crime which I would like
to know more about. The information you give me will not

go on any record of yours, and, in fact, is not even being
recorded under your name. PleaSe be as straightforward as
possible in the information which you provide. (There was
no time constraint of the questionnaire and Ss were

allowed to elaborate on any item they desired_)

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
InventoryTMMPI)

 

The MMPI, according to Dahlstrom, Welsh, and Dahlstrom (1972):

. . is :1 Standardized inventory designed to elicit a wide
range of self— -descriptions from each test subject and to

provide in quantitative form a set of evaluations of his

personality status and emotional adjustment (p. 3).

A respondent answers either "True," "False,“ or "Cannot Say” to each of
550 affirmative statements. Once scored, a profile is generated which
is depicted ona psychogram. The profile consists of four validity
scales and ten clinical scales. The validity scales, states Anastasi
(1968):

. are not concerned with validity in the technical sense.

In effect, they represent checks on carelessness, misunder-

standing, malingering, and the operation of special response

sets and test-taking attitudes (p. 442).

The four validity scales are labeled: Question Scale (?), Lie Scale
(L), Infrequency Scale (F), and Correction Scale (K).

The ten clinical scales (personality scales) have names, abbre-
viations, and code numbers which are given on the chart on the next
page. Anastasi (1968) indicated that the norms of the original con-
trol sample were reported in standard scores with a mean of 50 and a

standard deviation of ten. When scores are plotted against these

standards, generally any score above 70 (two standard deviations above

31

 

 

Name Abbreviation Code Number
Hypochondriasis Hs 1
Depression 0 2
Hysteria Hy 3
Psychopathic deviate Pd 4
Masculinity-feminity Mf 5
Paranoia Pa 6
Psychasthenia Pt 7
Schizophrenia Sc 8
Hypomania Ma 9
Social introversion Si 0

 

the mean) is suggestive of pathological deviation in that clinical
area.

Interpretations of test results can be based on each scale
viewed separately and/or an analysis of the configuration of scores
which takes into account the inter-relationships between scales.
Dahlstrom, Welsh, and Dahlstrom (1972) reported interpretations of
MMPI profiles based on the high-point pairs of scores (i.e., two
highest scores) from the ten basic clinical scales. In the present
study, each §_had his MMPI scores retrieved from the institutional
testing files with particular interest being paid to §fs two-point

digit code (two highest scores).

32

Persons and Marks (1971) found that, in an inmate sample, 66.7%
of those prisoners with a 4-3 (elevations on Psychopathic-deviate (4)
and Hysteria (3)) MMPI profile type were currently incarcerated for
violent crimes; additionally, 85.4% of those prisoners had a history
of committing violent offenses. In their work, Davis and Sines (1971)
indicated that hostile-aggressive behavior was characteristic of men
who generated the 4-3 profile code. Rader (1977) noted that the
modal code type for rapists in his sample was 4-3 and 4-8 (a tie).
The 4-3 MMPI profile, as suggested by Dahlstrom, Welsh, and Dahlstrom
(1960), "reflects problems in impulse control and social conformity."

The presence of the violent 4-3 profile code was noted for each

§_in the study.

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

The SAT is an educational measurement device consisting of a
battery of sub-tests, designed to assess a variety of academic skills.
In discussing the SAT, Anastasi (1968) remarked:

Foreshadowing many characteristics of modern testing, this

battery provided comparable measures of performance in

different school subjects, evaluated in terms of a single

normative group (p. 15).

Of interest in the present study were the "Grade Equivalent" scores for
Math and Reading, capable of being derived from the test battery.
Retrieved from each inmate'S'hiprocessing testing file were the scores
reflecting their respective math and reading grade levels. These

scores were used to investigate the comparability of the groups with

respect to academic achievement.

33
Pre-Sentence Investigation
Report (PSI)

The PSI is a document prepared for the court, detailing a con-
victed defendant's family, marital, social, academic, employment,
health, and criminal histories. A case worker prepares the report
and it usually is very instrumental in aiding a judge in determ
the nature of the punishment that will be administered during the
sentencing phase of judicial proceedings. In the present study, all
information concerning a §fs arrest record was collected from the

PSI located in his institutional file.

Treatment of the Data

The comparisons between Greater Violence and Lesser Violence
rapists for nominal (category) type variables--ethnicity, employment,
participation in therapy--were conducted through use of the chi-square
technique. For all scale type variables, the Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) technique was utilized, wherein one-way ANOVA'S were calcu-
lated on the data containing one independent variable (i.e., Violence)
and two-way ANOVA's were performed on the data generated from the

incorporation of two independent variables (e.g., Violence x Ethnicity).

RESULTS

The present study focused on rapists who utilized a great degree
of violence in contrast to those rapists utilizing a lesser degree
of violence. Four major hypotheses were tested in an effort to deter-
mine whether the magnitude of violence present in their sexual assaults

were a result of differences in attitudes towards women and aggression.

Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1: Greater Violence Rapists (GV) compared to
Lesser Violence Rapists (LV) exhibit a
greater degree of violent personality
traits and attitudes.

The first general hypothesis was tested, employing two measure-
ment devices--the Minnesota Multiphasic.Personality Inventory (MMPI),
and Semantic Differential. It was postulated that GV rapists would
have a higher incidence of the hostile and aggressive 4-3 MMPI profile
type (highest elevations on psychopathic-deviate and hysteria scales,
respectively). A review of the data found only two instances of the
4-3 profile in the entire sample (and these were both in the LV group),
thereby making further statistical analysis meaningless (see Appen-
dix F).

Three concepts on the Semantic Differential assessed a respond-

ent's affinity for aggressive behavior. The concepts "Beating up

someone you are angry at," "Power over women," and "Rape of a woman"

34

35

were rated on both an evaluation and potency dimension. It was
hypothesized that if GV rapists were of a more violent nature than LV
rapists, then this difference would be reflected in their semantic
ratings. Figures 1 and 2 provide a visual look at the data, while
Tables 6 through 8 show that there were no significant differences
between rapists' categories on either the evaluation or potency dimen-
sions for any of the three concepts (Appendix G presents a graphing
of scores for the individual scales, with those scales grouped
according to the dimension they represented).

The null hypothesis was accepted.

Hypothesis 2

 

Hypothesis 2: Greater Violence Rapists compared to Lesser
Violence Rapists have a more extensive
criminal history of both assaultive and
nonassaultive offenses.

 

It was believed that the violence exhibited in the GV rapists'
attack was part of an extensive pattern of antisocial acting-out
behaviors. The second general hypothesis was investigated by compar-
ing the arrest records of the GV rapists with those of the LV rapists.
Table 9 shows the arrest data for the sample, while Table 10 indicates
there were no significant differences between GV and LV rapists in
their history of arrests for violent, as well as nonviolent offenses.

The null hypothesis was accepted.

High 7
Potency
6
5
4
(D
75
.9.
U
13 3
C
E;
2
1
Low
PotencyO

 

36

-———— = Greater Violence Rapists
---- = Lesser Violence Rapists
(-) = Mean Score

 

 

(4.22)
,os
/ \"xEy (3.82)
(3-50) ” a}; ‘7‘?
671/831) (3.71)
r’
(3.40)
I I I
1 l l
Beating Up Power Over Rape of a
Someone Women Woman

Rated Concept

Figure 1.--Semantic Differential Scoring--Potency.

 

37

 

Positive
Evaluation
7
-———-= Greater Violence Rapists
---- = Lesser Violence Rapists
(-) a Mean Score
6
5
(4.09)
44 A
E / “
.2 / \
:3 _ (3.6 )\
'3 3 ,//// \SN\
5 (2.2g) / \
.’ \\\
2 A, \
,- V... (1.40)
/ A
v (1.35) \.
1 (1.20)
.o L l J
o l '7 I
Negat1ve
Evaluation Beating Up Power Over Rape Of a
Someone Women Woman

Rated Concept

Figure 2.--Semantic Differential Scoring--Evaluative

38

TABLE 6.--Anova--Semantic Concept of: Beating Up Someone.

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Evaluative:
Total 46.42 39
Between Groups 1.41 1 1.41 1.187 p > .05
Within Groups 45.01 38 1.18
Potency:
Total 68.94 39
Between Groups .35 1 .35 .195 p > .05

Within Groups 65.58 38 1.80

 

TABLE 7.--Anova--Semantic Concept of:

39

Power over Women

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Evaluative:
Total 88.16 39
Between Groups 2.34 1 2.34 1.034 p > .05
Within Groups 85.82 38 2.26
Potency:
Total 54.17 39
Between Groups 1.70 1 1.70 1.232 p > .05
Within Groups 52.47 38 1.38

 

40

TABLE 8.--Anova--Semantic Concept pf: Rape of a Woman

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Evaluative:
Total 27.47 39
Between Groups .25 1 .25 .350 p > .05
Within Groups 27.22 38 .72
Potency:
Total 99.67 39
Between Groups .13 1 .13 .048 p > .05

Within Groups 99.55 38 2.62

 

41

TABLE 9. --Mean Number of Previous Arrests in Sample for Violent and

Nonviolent Offenses

 

Greater Violence

Lesser Violence

Total Sample

 

Nonviolent
Mean 3.60
5.0. 3.85
Violent
Mean .94

5.0. 1.26

1.90
2.82

1.40
1.27

2.75
3.44

1.17
1.27

 

42

TABLE 10.--Anova--Previous Arrests in Sample for Violent and Nonviolent

 

 

Offenses

Source SS df MS F p
Nonviolent:

Total 463.50 39

Between groups 28.90 1 28.90 2.527 p > .05

Within groups 434.60 38 11.44
Violent:

Total 61.74 38

Between groups 2.00 1 2.00 1.236 p > .05

Within groups 59.75 37 1.61

 

43

Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3: Lesser Violence Rapists compared to Greater
Violence Rapists exhibit more positive atti-
tudes toward heterosexual relationships.

Lesser Violence Rapists have been purported to be motivated by
an obsessional erotic/romantic fantasy. As a consequence, it was
theorized that their amorous strivings would lead them to express
more positive evaluations than GV rapists on the Semantic concepts of
"Love of a woman," "Sex with a woman," and "Women;" additionally, it
was also theorized that they would affix a more potent rating to these
three concepts. While Figures 3 and 4 allow for a visual perusal of
the data, Tables 11 through 14 Show that there were no significant
differences between groups in either their evaluativecn~potency ratings
of the three concepts. (Appendix G provides a graphing of scores for
the individual scales, with those scales grouped according to the
dimension they represented.) When looking at Figures 3 and 4, it is
interesting to note, however, that there was a definite trend for the
data to support the hypothesis for the concepts "Sex with a woman" and
"Women."

Although the null hypothesis was accepted, it did appear that LV
'Rapists tended to have a higher evaluation of women than GV rapists

and that women were a more important concept to them than GV rapists.

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4: Lesser Violence Rapists compared to Greater
Violence Rapists exhibit a greater belief
in rape myths.

 

High 7
Potency
6
5
m 4
7;
.2
.U
.5
C
E 3
U)
2
1
Low 0
Potency

 

44

 

= Greater Violence
---- = Lesser Violence
(-) = Mean Score

(5.56) (5.56)
. ‘ I I «

    

 

(5.21) \.\
.\‘(4.73)
(4.52)
1 ‘1 1
I I j
Love of A Sex with A
Woman Woman Women

Rated Concept

Figure 3.--Semantic Differential Scoring--Potency

45

 

 

 

 

Positive
Evaluative
7 . -———-= Greater Violence Rapists
---- = Lesser Violence Rapists
' (-) = Mean Score
6.12 6.26
( 1 1.; )
6
\
\o(5.30)
5 ‘N
(5.01)
m 4
73
8
U
25
2
g 3
U)
2
1
N gat’ 0 l I :
e 1ve
Evaluative Loxgmgz A Sefioggfih A Women

Rated Concept

Figure 4.--Semantic Differential Scoring--Evaluative

46

TABLE 11.--Anova--Semantic Concept of: Love of a Woman

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Evaluative:
Total 55.93 38
Between groups .83 1 .83 .557 p > .05
Within groups 55.19 37 1.49
Potency:
Total 78.35 38
Between groups 1.21 1 1.21 .579 p > .05
Within groups 77.14 37 2.08

 

47

TABLE 12.--Anova--Semantic Concept of: Sex with a Woman'

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Evaluative:
Total 40.11 39
Between groups .54 1 .54 .516 p > .05
Within groups 40.66 38 1.06
Potency:
Tbtal 58.94 39
Between groups 2.03 1 2.03 1.352 p > .05

Within groups 56.92 38 1.50

 

48

 

 

Table 13.--Anova--Semantic Concept of: Women
Source SS df MS F p
Evaluative:
Total 87.75 39
Between groups .85 1 .85 .372 p > .05
Within groups 86.90 38 2.29
Potency:
Total 73.87 39
Between groups .45 1 .45 .234 p > .05
Within groups 73.42 38 1.93 1.93

 

49

Greater Violence and Lesser Violence Rapists had to overcome both
taboos prohibiting aggression and sexual assaults before they could
commit their crimes. The GV rapist's anger was considered to be
sufficient enough to allow them to aggress against female targets,
while LV rapists, being less angry, were thought to harbor a belief
system which enabled them to justify/rationalize their actions. It was
hypothesized that such a belief system would embody a number of myths
concerning rape, and LV rapists, as a consequence, would exhibit a
greater endorsement of myths about women and rape than GV rapists.
Figure 5 depicts the item~by-item comparison between both groups on the
Rape Myth Acceptance Scales with Table 14 revealing that there were no
significant differences between the groups on the individual items or
in their overall RMA scores.

The null hypothesis was accepted..

5O

 

 

Rejects

Myth

5

8 Greater Violence Rapists
---- = Lesser Violence Rapists

4

3
(D
8
IS
O.
Q)
U
O
<
q.
0

,_ 2
0
>
d)
_l

1

 

 

Acceptso12345678910111213
Myth Individual Items*

Figure 5.--Item Comparison of Rape Myth Acceptance Scale

*See Appendix for Scale Items.

51

TABLE 14.--Rape Myth Acceptance Scale Item Comparisons

 

 

5m. Items* iiiiiié". iiéiilce 3119313221235.
Go to guy's place

Mean 3.250 3.250 F = O

S.D. 1.372 1.118 p > .05
Any woman can

Mean 3.55 3.80 F = .382

5.0. 1.504 ' 1.005 p > .05
Lie About rape

Mean 2.10 1.95 F = .221

5.0. 1.210 .759 p > .05
Healthy-~can fight off

Mean 2.75 3.35 F = 2.346

5.0. 1.333 1.137 p > .05
No bra

Mean 3.55 3.75 F = .393

S. O. 1.191 .786 p > .05
Mess around

Mean 3.05 3.10 F = .015

S.D. 1.395 1.165 p > .05
Get guy hot

Mean 2.90 3.15 F = .394

5.0. 1.334 1.182 p > .05

TABLE 14.--Continued

52

 

 

scale Items* 3:33:32. 1131523.. 31193131123235.
Thumbing a ride

Mean 3.95 3.65 F = .691

S.D. 1.099 1.183 p > .05
Too good to talk

Mean 4.40 4.25 F = .234

5.0. .940 1.02 p > .05
Secret wish

Mean 3.65 3.30 F = 1.089

S.D. 1.137 .979 p > .05
Consent to one

Mean 4.55 4.30 F = 1.24

S.D. .510 .865 p > .05
Get even

Mean 3.40 3.55 F = .143

5.0. 1.353 1.145 p > .05
Hide pregnancy

Mean 3.80 3.70 F = .071

5.0. 1.24 1.129 p > .05
TOTAL SCORE

Mean 3.454 3.469 F = .005

5.0. .722 .610 p > .05

 

*See Appendix for Scale Items.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Hypothesis 1

 

The first hypothesis predicted the personality of the Greater
Violence Rapist would be more violent than the personality of the
Lesser Violence Rapist. Neither the MMPI nor the Semantic Differen-
tial yielded a significant difference between sub-groups. This lack
of statistical significance was especially surprising, in light of
the fact that there were considerable differences between the condi-
tions in terms of the amount of aggression manifested in their sexual
assaults.

An explanation of the findings may lie in the level of conscious-
ness tapped by the assessment devices utilized in the study. It may
be that a true reading of the rapists‘ personalities can only be
obtained by employing measurements which explore those intrapsychic
levels outside of their conscious control.

Another possibility is the chance that the rape situation unleashes
a violence in the GV rapist that, otherwise, goes unnoticed and unex-
pressed. Such violence could be termed "situation—specific" in the
sense that its occurrence would be extremely rare outside the boundar-
ies of a sexual assault. Even if similar dynamics motivate both the
GV and LV rapists to aggress sexually, once the assault has been
initiated, the GV rapists may experience the activation of an addi-

tional psychological mechanism which propels them to escalating levels

53

54

of violence. Looking at this scenario from another perspective, it
may be that, instead of an activation, there is a de-activation of the
GV rapists' ego controls. The key factor may be that both GV and LV
rapists are sufficiently violent, whereby they are willing to act out
aggressively; however, GV rapists may have greater difficulty in
regulating their aggressiveness once that aggression is allowed

expression.

Hypothesis 2

 

In their effort to discharge pent-up aggressiveness, it was
theorized that the allegedly hostile Greater Violence Rapists would
engage in a greater number of antisocial activities than the suppos-
edly less hostile Lesser Violent Rapists. The failure of the data to
support this position may be attributed to the erroneous assumption
that the aggressiveness of the GV rapist was a more powerful motivator
than those forces, possibly prompting action in the LV rapist. While
the GV rapist, perhaps, acts-out in response to deep-seated hostile
impulses, the LV rapist may be spurred on by overwhelming anxieties
generated from deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and insecurity. The
insecurity of the LV rapist may be just as potent of a stimulus as
aggressiveness is for the GV rapist. Rape, for each group, can then
be viewed as one symptomatic expression of their unresolved psycho-
logical conflicts and, therefore, are indicative of their efforts to
reduce internal tensions. Since both groups are willing to engage in
the tabooed activity of rape to relive their internal pressures, it

is quite likely that they both are egually inclined to participate in

55

other antisocial behaviors as outlets for their conflicts. Stated
more succinctly, anyone capable of raping is capable of engaging in

a wider array of sociopathic pursuits, thus, the lack of statistical
difference between GV and LV rapists, in terms of the number of crimi-
nal endeavors undertaken by each group.

An interesting possibility that was not investigated deals with
the "seriousness" of the antisocial activities and their correlation
with the style of crime. Had there been a scale measuring the serious-
ness of a criminal act (e.g., Murder = 10, Assault with a gun = 8,
Arson = 7, etc.), then maybe differences might have been noted between
CV and LV rapists. Although GV and LV rapists may have been involved
in an equal number of both violent and nonviolent offenses, there is a
chance that GV rapists engaged in acts more lethal (murder vs. simple

assault) and more destructive (breaking and entering vs. larceny).

Hypothesis 3

 

Lesser Violence Rapists' sexual assaults were believed to be
motivated by romantic/erotic fantasies, which should have led them to
express greater positive evaluations than Greater Violence Rapists
on concepts representative of intimacy with women. While LV rapists
did demonstrate a clear appreciation for women, their Semantic scores
were not significantly different from those of CV rapists, who also
rated relations with women favorably. This result suggests that both
GV and LV rapists view interactions with women in a positive light,
with neither group being motivated by a conscious hatred of women.

Apparently, the act of rape and the level of violence present in a

56

rape are occurrences that are independent of the rapist's evaluation
of women. A gap seemingly exists between the rapist's professed
beliefs and his expressed actions. At a consicous level, rapists may
(with all sincerity) expouse concurrence with all the values concern-
ing womanhood inculcated by society, albeit their behavior belies
feelings/attitudes of which they may be truly unaware. Convoluted
logic in concert with defense mechanisms such as denial and rationali-
zation may all serve to delude the rapist into believing he honestly

cares for and respects women.

Hypothesis 4

Numerous myths about rape exist and it was felt that the more a
person believed in these myths, the easier it would be for him to
justify sexually assaulting a female target. The fourth hypothesis
was predicated upon the supposition that Lesser Violence Rapists were
driven by obsessional erotic fantasies derived, in part, from myths
about rape. These rape myths were thought to provide LV rapists the
same impetus to ignore inhibitions against sexual aggression that
anger/hostility supposedly provided Greater Violence Rapists. The
experimental results found neither category of rapists demonstrating a
belief in rape myths; furthermore, the two categories of rapists.did
not differ from each other in their endorsement of rape myths. These
findings may be explained by searching for reasons each group of
rapists might have in discounting myths about rape.

Lesser Violence Rapists, perhaps, completed the Rape Myth Accep-

tance Scale using a response set, where they hid their true feelings

57

behind intellectually appropriate answers. Such a response set would
allow the LV rapists to maintain a facade of social respectability
which safeguards them from having to confront internal feelings of
inadequacy and insecurity. By ostensibly subscribing to the accepted
beliefs of society, the LV rapist can avoid the self-examination
required when one questions why their values differ from those of the
majority.

GV rapists, on the other hand, may be heavily invested in dis-
claiming rape myths because believing in them would detract from the
sadistic pleasure received from violating an unwilling victim. Raping
someone who secretly "wants it" is not nearly as angry/hostile a ges-
ture as raping someone who is horrified of being sexually abused. The
viewpoint represented here is one which sees both GV and LV rapists
minimizing the credence they lend to rape myths, with each category
being motivated to do so for different reasons.

An equally plausible explanation returns to an earlier observa-
tion that a pronounced gap exists between rapists' "professed beliefs
and their expressed behaviors.“ It may.be too ego-threatening for the
rapist to objectively view his own actions; consequently, he hides from

himself via verbal compliance with society's mores and laws.

Additional Findings
The research study employed a questionnaire (see Appendix B) in
an effort to investigate: (a) motivations to sexually assault, (b)
methods of assault, (c) behaviors during assault, (d) presence of

sexual dysfunctions (offenders), and (e) use of alcohol and/or drugs

58

contiguous with the attack. Looking at Table 15, it is seen that 62%
of the sample denied raping their victim, with another 10% claiming
they could not remember what (if anything) occurred. While the
remaining 28% (11 §s) of the sample could recount their offense, any
conclusions derived from such a small subject pool would have been of
highly questionable validity.

As a consequence, statistical analysis of the questionnaire data
was meaningless. Nonetheless, it was interesting to note that six §s
in the Lesser Violence (LV) group blamed some form of substance abuse
as being the motivation for their crime, while none of the Greater
Violence group attributed their assaults to substance abuse. Although
no conclusive statement may be gleaned from such a limited observa-
tion, the data does suggest the possibility that, even though GV and
LV rapists may equally abuse mind-altering substances, LV rapists
have a greater propensity to use this abuse to explain away their
deviant behavior; GV rapists, on the other hand, may be more willing
to accept personal responsibility for their actions. It is conceivable
that aggression against women produces a greater cognitive dissonance
in the less hostile LV rapists, thereby prompting them to rationalize
their aberrant behavior via attribution to some substance.

Albeit, the examination of the 4-3 MMPI profile type proved
fruitless, the chance still remained that significant differences
might exist between Greater and Lesser Violence Rapists on the other
MMPI scales. Table 16 provides a chart of the mean K-corrected MMPI

T-scores and Figure 6 shows a graphing of the mean K-corrected T-scores

59

TABLE 15.--Motivations for Sexual Assault

 

 

General Reason Totala Greater Violence Lesser Violence
Denied Charge 25 (62.5) 14 (35) 11 (27.5)
Substance Abuse-- crfp}~

Can't Remember ..\1

Crime 4 (10) .1 A 3 (7.5) 1 (7.5)
Substance abuse--

Cause of Crime 6 (15) 5), O (9) 6 (15)
Angry at Something/ cigi’f'v’

Someone 2 (5) ~-) ,1) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5)
Previous

Excitation 2 (5) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5)
Compulsion to

Rape 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5) 0 (0)
TOTAL 40 20 20

 

aNumbers in parentheses indicate percentage of total N.

a-..”

p 0* ’2 ‘2 ,1 J. J
99‘5? «wffTTTTT «chTTFflw
1) ‘9‘. «H12 ‘4

60

TABLE 16.-~Comparisons of Mean K-Corrected MMPI T-Scores (N = 37)*

 

 

Greater Lesser Significance
MMPI Scales Violence Violence of Difference
? Question
Mean 41.47 41.00 F = 3.193
5.0. 1.12 O p > .05
L Lie
Mean 52.68 51.55 F = .197
5.0. 8.87 6.28 p > .05
F Infrequency
Mean 66.42 67.88 F = .102
S.D. 12.70 15.23 p > .05
K Correction
Mean 51.52 50.55 F = .089
5.0. 10.27 9.43 p > .05
H Hypochondriasis
Mean 52.05 59.33 F = 2.696
8.0. 13.72 13.21 p > .05
0 Depression
Mean 59.84 62.16 F = .454
S.D. 7.91 12.65 p .05
Hy Hysteria
Mean 50.52 57.16 F = 1.665
S.O. 15.53 15.76 p > .05

61

TABLE 16.--Continued

 

 

Greater Lesser Significance

MMPI Scales Violence Violence of Difference
Pd Psychopathic-deviate

Mean 70.00 74.88 F = 1.451

S.O. 12.49 12.17 p > .05
Mf Masculinity-feminity

Mean 58.68 57.44 F = .212

S.D. 9.31 6.77 p .05
Pa Paranoia

Mean 65.21 66.22 F = .048

5.0. 11.70 16.15 p > .05
Pt Psychasthenia

Mean 59.89 63.44 F = .708

S.D. 11.73 13.88 p .05
Sc Schi20phrenia

Mean 70.15 73.61 F = .421

8.0. 15.75 16.63 p > .05
Ma Hypomania

Mean 65.63 69.05 F = .754

5.0. 9.65 14.04 p > .05
Si Social Introversion

Mean 55.00 53.66 F = .166

5.0. 10.25 9.62 p .05

 

*Three cases missing due to unavailability of data.

3
3‘
\1'
r-a
n“
K

62

MI

6 7 8 9 0
Mo ‘ .ZK SI

 

h-e .— l— o— 0—0
8 33 3 1? 8 8 8 3 8 8 5 '6: 3
111'1-11I-11-I1111.1111I1111111Iali11111111l1111l1111|1111|1111l

U"
U‘
..I

IOII|IIII|IIII'UIIDIII

45- - '

40- 3 '

Z i 3-

      
 
 

- 10_ -
10- ' ~

(I: 8 83 5’
I1111I1111|1|IIIIIIiIiiiiI

8

)

i

' - 20— 3
_ m_ _ H- m?
5- - - - iS—'
- ' 15- - 15;

a
0 III

 

[)3
IICIIIUII

 

o B
I.. I

TorTc 7 L F K

 

H5 , .511

Figure 6.--Comparison of MMPI

D Hy

Pd " All
2 3 4

Mi
5

u-
l

Pc Prglx' SC‘IK MonZK S;
6 7 8 9 0

IIIIIOI'IIII.OIIII11til-IIO'tOIIIIIII|1111'0111'1111‘.. I
8 a a a 3 a 8 a g g g

(1‘
‘J‘

} 15
:—4o

‘|l|"|IIII|I|Ii'I
[)3 8 3

8

I
o

TorTc

-———-Greater Violence Rapists
---- Lesser Violence Rapists

Profiles.

 

63

for both groupS--no significant differences were uncovered. Interest-
ing, however, was the observation that the overall profile configura-
tion depicted in Figure 6 was very Similar to MMPI profile configura-
tions found when testing inmate populations in general (see Appendix
GI and 62). Quite possibly, very little difference may exist between
the personality dynamics of rapists and the general prisoner popula-
tion. It is worth noting that the mean two-point code for both

rapist groups was the 4-8 profile type (highest elevations on
psychopathic-deviate and schizophrenia scales, respectively). The
4-8 profile type was described by Dahlstrom et al. (1972)

Persons with this profile pattern are frequently described

by acquaintances as odd, peculiar, or queer. They are

unpredictable, impulsive, and nonconforming and the term

schizoid personality is frequently applied to them. Their
educational and occupational histories are characterized by
underachievement, marginal adjustment, and uneven perfor-

mance. . . . Crimes committed by persons with this profile

. are often senseless, poorly-planned, and poorly-

executed, and may include some of the most savage and

vicious forms of sexual and homicidal assault (p. 273).

The above description aptly depicted the lifestyles and antisocial
behaviors manifested by the sample. Conceivably, if both GV and LV
rapists possess characterological styles capable of violent attacks,
then differences in their assaults may be attributable more to chance,
rather than intrapsychic variations.

In the original four hypotheses, violence (greater vs. lesser)
was the independent variable. A review of the data indicated there
were no statistical differences between GV and LV rapists with respect
to Race (Black vs. Caucasian); Occupation (employed vs. unemployed);

Arrests for violent offenses (no previous arrests vs. any number of

64

previous arrests); and Arrests for nonviolent offenses (no previous
nonviolent arrests vs. any number of previous nonviolent arrests).
This occurrence made it possible to reanalyze each major hypothesis
with two independent variables. One independent variable continued to
be Violence, which was paired respectively with Ethnicity, Employment,
Violent Arrests, and Nonviolent Arrests. Regrettably, the new analy-
sis failed to yield any meaningful main effects or interactions.
Overall, the present study showed the rapists at the State Prison

of Southern Michigan to be a fairly homogeneous population.

Limitations of the Study

 

There were several factors which, in retrospect, may have affected
the outcomes of the research project. The review of the study's
limitations will be organized into two sections: (1) problems
inherent in the sample, and (2) problems inherent in the study's

design.

Problems Inherent in the Sample

Issues concerning validity and generalizability plague any
research endeavors conducted with a prison population. To begin with,
personal experience has repeatedly underscored the distinct possi-
bility that the crime for which a person is convicted is not always
characteristic of his usual criminal behavior. In the present study,
there were no guarantees nor safeguards that the within offense (crime
engendering incarceration) was in keeping with a rapist's "modus
operandi." While usually only moderately aggressive, a rapist on just

one occasion--for which he was convicted-—may have displayed enough

65

violence to earn a classification as a Greater Violence Rapist. This
same scenario in reverse could find a GV rapist being classified as a
Lesser Violence perpetrator. Each assignment error of this nature
had the impact of masking any potential differences present between
groups.

Social desirability, court appeals, and Finstitutional paranoia"
(mistrust of everyone associated with the prison), were all variables
influencing validity of responses. When inmates arrive at the prison,
a significant number of them have court appeals pending or are in the
process of filing an appeal. Lawyers oftentimes have advised their
clients against discussing any material connected with their case.
This then sets the stage for inmates to either totally deny their
criminal involvements or heavily shade the truth, so that it is con-
sistent with their legal appeals. Despite assurances of confidential-
ity, the prison milieu encourages a distrust of everyone, and §_in the
present project was no exception to this rule. Given such compelling
motivations to render no response or only socially acceptable answers,
and E would have to possess powers of divination in order to judge
whether the data depicted the true sentiments of the sample.

Validity was also affected by the fact that, in many instances, a
great deal of time passes between the commission of a crime, the offend-
er's apprehension and trial, and lastly, his being remanded to a peni-
tentiary. So much can transpire during this time period, whereby an
inmate's response to psychological measures during incarceration may
poorly reflect those attitudes prevalent at the time he committed his

offense. The Investigator in this study can only speculate as to

66

whether the factor of "elapsed time" altered Ss' responses and sup-
pressed findings.

Finally, reasonable questions can be raised concerning whether
data collected from a prison census is generalizable to the total
population of rapists. It can be successfully argued that, for the
most part, it is those rapists at the lower end of the socioeconomic
strata who "matriculate" through the criminal justice system and
graduate to State Penitentiaries. Perhaps the better educated and
more gainfully employed rapists are not caught, and when they are,
they either escape conviction or receive sentences which do not entail
serving time in prisons. Had there been some significant findings,
the lack of a wider cross-section of rapists would have weakened
efforts directed at making statements about rapists in general based
on those conclusions derived from the prison sample.

Problems Inherent in the
Study's Design

 

Flaws and limitations in the research design may have influenced
the results through failure to eliminate or control some potential
confounding variables. First, there was a heavy reliance on recorded
information with no independent verification as to the accuracy of
the data. Crucial material may have gone unreported, merely because
a court investigator considered it unimportant or too time-consuming
to include it in his Pre-Sentence Investigative Report. Conversely,
an embellishment of activities/events to insure a harsh sentence from

the judge also could occur. This dependence on the information

67

gathering and recording skills of others was extended to whether educa-
tional and psychological tests were properly administered, scored, and
recorded. Sloppy and incomplete data collection by others may have
resulted in: (a) incorrect assignment to groups, (b) demographic
differences between groups going undetected, and (c) erroneous por-
trayals of SS on psychological measurements.

In the study, assignment to groups was done by E, Having a
panel of judges do the assignment to groups would have provided
more assurance that each rapist was placed appropriately. The failure
of §_to have such a panel was a serious oversight and introduced a
substantial measure of uncertainty as to the accuracy of the study's
results.

Lack of control for previous time served in jails and prisons may
have compromised the integrity of portions of the data. At the time
of testing, some of the sample were beginning their second or third
prison term; some others had never been to prison, but had extensive
jail time; some had no prior arrest records; while some had been
imprisoned already from one to two years. Oefensiveness in response
sets and propensity for portraying socially desirable attitudes are
possibly a function of the degree of exposure to the penal system
experienced by aIS. Significant differences may have been obscured

by the factor--"time served."

SUMMARY

In cities and towns throughout the United States, people are
becoming virtual prisoners in their own homes. Americans increasingly
are finding that they dare not venture forth from those homes for fear
that they will be mugged or will return to find their residences bur-
glarized. Relative to the number of offenses committed, too few crim-
inals are apprehended, with even fewer reaching the halls of justice,
and fewer still the walls of prisons. Law-abiding citizens are found
walking the streets in fear, while antisocial elements boldly stroll
municipal corridors with impunity. It is in this rising state of
civil anarchy that women must try daily to function and to survive.
Already, many women have painfully discovered that if they are not
accosted on the streets, even their own domiciles do not provide them
sanctuary from the terror and intimidation of violent assaults. Per-
haps one of the most emotionally horrifying and traumatizing of these
assaults is the crime of RAPE, wherein a woman (or a man) experiences
the ultimate disregard of her personal privacy--the violation of her
body. Society, in recognition of its responsibility to its citizens,
has been marshalling its vast array of resources and bringing them
to bear on the issue of rape. Antiquated, gender-biased laws which
hindered prosecution of rapists are being revised or abandoned by the

judicial and legislative arms of government. Law enforcement agencies

68

69

teach classes in rape prevention in almost all communities and most
major police forces have personnel specially trained in handling the
special needs of the rape victim. Hospitals, mental health agencies,
and crisis centers also have personnel and procedures designed spe-
cifically for the victim of sexual assault. The social scientist

also has responded to the challenge through research into the dynamics
of the rapist, his victim, and the rape situation. The present research
project was but one attempt to further expand the growing body of
knowledge about rape.

The goal of the study was to verify that rapists, rather than
being a homogeneous population, were a heterogeneous grouping whose
typologies could be based on the degree of violence present in their
sexual assaults. The degree of force displayed in a rapist's attack
was thought to be a distinguishing feature, indicative of different
characterological make-ups and motivations to sexually aggress. The
data suggested Greater Violence Rapists and Lesser Violence Rapists do
not differ from one another in (1) attitudes towards violence,

(2) criminal histories, (3) attitudes towards heterosexual relation-
ships, and (4) belief in myths about rape. The results further sug-
gested both GV and LV rapists (a) have a low regard for the exercise
of violence, (b) positively value relations with women, (c) eschew
stereotypical beliefs about women and rape, and (d) negatively endorse
the act of rape.

Overall, the findings lead to the conclusion that the rapists
in the study were a homogeneous population in terms of attitudes about

women, rape, and aggression. The fact that these rapists differed in

70

their style of assaults seemingly may be a function of chance (e.g.,
mood, victims resistance, location of attack, etc.) and not variations
in individual psychodynamics. Ellis (1979) noted the major problem
in constructing a meaningful, comprehensive, and viable categoriza-
tion of rapists.

No one has yet come up with a viable hypothesis about the

cause of sex offenses, and it is quite probable that no one

ever will. . . . The very same person may commit a sex

crime on one occasion for one fairly clear-cut reason and

on another occasion, for quite a different reason. On one

occasion, an offender may be refused sex favors by several

women, may feel exceptionally bitter and hostile about

this, and may deliberately go out and rape a strange woman

on the street. At another time, this same offender may

set out to rob an apartment, may accidentally find an

attractive woman in bed, and may rape her because she seems

easily available. On still another occasion, the same man

may meet a woman at a bar, go off to her apartment in order

to talk with her, and get so aroused by the conversation and

the alcohol he ingested, that he may wrongly think that his

hostess wants to have sex with him when she keeps saying

that she does not, and may end up raping her (p. 409).
The development of a classification of rapists that can withstand the
rigors of empirical testing is a monumental task. Undoubtedly, there
exists people with well-defined and consistent reasons for raping,
around which neat, circumscribed categories can be constructed; how-
ever, these individuals are more likely the "exceptions,§ rather than
the "rule." Future research must work harder to discern the "rule"
in an atmosphere divorced from the understandably intense socio-
political disputes surrounding the issue of rape.

As its theoretical base, future research should entertain the idea
that rapists do not differ from one another, nor nonrapits, in terms

of: sexual appetite, feelings of adequacy-inadequacy, repressed anger,

71

need for power, animosity towards women, and capacity for aggression.
The essential distinction that permits and shapes sexual assaults may
be an individual's degree of "ego development." The effect of defi-
cient ego development and mastery is readily observed in the "anti-
social (psychopathic/sociopathic) personality" of which the rapist
nay be a variant.

Rabin (1979), in describing the salient features of the anti-
social personality, discussed their "inadequate conscience or super
ego.“ The defective super ego allowed the sociOpath to engage in
behaviors that ignored the moral prescriptions of society without
experiencing the guilt and remorse such activities should engender.

. . he cheats, lies, steals, does not keep promises . . .

with a defective or inadequate super ego, is not subject

to guilt. . . . The psychopath continues to behave irre-

sponsibly, untruthfully, insincerely, and antisocially

(p. 326).

“Emotional immaturity" was another hall mark of the antisocial
personality wherein Rabin (1979) highlighted the failure of the socio-
path to successfully matriculate from an "egocentric" (total self-.
gratification) to a "sociocentric" (delay of gratification due to the
consideration of other's rights, needs, and feelings) orientation.

he remains immature emotionally. . he can suffer

no delay or postponement and cannot tolerate frustration

when thwarted by the environment, he remains rather child-

ish in this respect . . . he does not usually learn or

profit from past experience, for the capacity for self-

control has never fully developed and the ability to

inhibit behavior is very weak . . . the immediate and

infantile needs are strong and the control apparatus is

weak; the result is that behavior remains governed by the
former and unguided by the latter (pp. 327-328).

72

The antisocial personality was also portrayed by Rabin (1979)
as an individual with a muted capacity to form and maintain genuine,
caring interpersonal relationships. There is a marked inability to
put himself in another's place and see the world from that other's
perspective. Having such limited empathetic skills enables the psy-
chopath to more easily ignore the needs and feelings of others, as
he sets about satisfying his own wants.

The psychopath is concerned with his own needs, and their

gratification and has little concern for those of others.

. . Other pe0ple are important only to the extent that

they can be used to his own end--self-gratification. . . .

There is callousness and insensitivity in relation to

other people (p. 329).

Perhaps, as an antisocial subtype, the rapist has not adequately
developed his higher-order ego controls, whereby he can appropriately
regulate his lower-order drives. Future research may be able to Show
that although most men get "turned on," the mechanisms of conscience,
empathy, frustration tolerance, and self-control are capable of "turn-
ing them off" when responding to libidinal urges would entail harm to
another. In contrast, the rapist either ignores inhibitory messages
discouraging his attack, or he just does not have the psychological
mechanisms in place to transmit such messages.

Future research also may be able to establish the existence of an
inverse relationship between the level of violence in a rape and a
rapist's degree of ego development. While all rapists are aggressive
enough to attack, some rapists apparently are more able to control their

destructive intentions once the barriers prohibiting violence are

relaxed. Here, scientific inquiry may find the gradation of abilities

73

among rapists to modulate their aggressive drives to be a function of
ego strength.

Finally, future research may find it beneficial to further dissect
the relationship between sex and aggression with the thought that
ineffective ego mechanisms that cannot master the one, probably cannot
master the other. Such research may show sexually exploitative behav-
iors to exist wherever aggression is poorly controlled.

Through the analysis of ego development and its relationship with
rape, future research would be focusing less on discovering why_men
rape in favor of mobilizing efforts to identify those mechanisms whose
presence or absence allow one person to sexually assault another. Once
these mechanisms are fully understood, then pro-active intervention
can be initiated at the earliest ages to promote the cultivation of
attitudes and behavior antithetical to rape. Until this is accomplished,
the streets of the world will remain every woman's battleground and her

home a fortress with little defense.

APPENDICES

74

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS OF OFFENSES TAKEN FROM SS
PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT UPON WHICH
ASSIGNMENTS TO GROUPS WERE MADE

75

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS OF OFFENSES TAKEN FROM SS
PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT UPON WHICH
ASSIGNMENTS TO GROUPS WERE MADE

(These are, with Slight modifications, verbatim exerpts.)

Lesser Violence Group

 

"The girls were driven to an apartment in (town) and placed in
separate rooms by the subjects. Subject (A) threatened (one girl)
with a knife and forced her to have sexual intercourse and then com-

mitted conninglingus. He then left the room. . . .

Greater Violence Group

 

"Upon arrival the police met (the victim) and after looking at
her, called an ambulance. The left side of her head was covered with
blood, which was streaming down her neck onto her clothing. . . .
(She) was taken to a hospital where it was thought for a period of
time that she was going to die. . . . When they were able to inter-
view (her), she stated that when she approached the car, (subject)
stated, 'Now, bitch, what did you say to me in the bar.‘ He then
began hitting her with a brick and kicking her. He then dragged her

into the bushes and climbed on her and started to rape her. . .

76

APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM

77

APPENDIX‘B

CONSENT FORM

You have been selected to participate in a research project being
conducted by Larry Lewis. The results of the project will be used
for publication and possible program development. Your answers will
be kept secret and ngbgdy_will be able to find out your responses.
You do not have to participate in the research, and if you do not,
_1'_t_ £1.11 not _i_n a_nyw_ay be used against you. If you do participate,

it will take about 30 minutes of your time and you will receive $2.50.

Please sign below indicating your voluntary consent to participate or

not participate.

I wish / d9_ngt_wish to participate
(circle one)

 

 

(Signature) (Date)

Larry Lewis
Project Director

78

APPENDIX C

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

79

Thick
Unfair
Light
Large
Clean
Bad
Weak
Nice
Cruel

Honest

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLE OF SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
(CONCEPT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

Thin
Fair
Heavy
Small
Dirty
Good
Strong
Awful
Kind

Dishonest

APPENDIX D

RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE SCALE

81

Code #

 

APPENDIX D

RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE SCALE

ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE
(Sample Items)

Prisoners should be allowed to have private visits with their
wives where they can have sex.

 

 

 

I I I I I I
Strongly - Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral D1sagree Disagree

Beer should be allowed in prisons on holidays.

I I I I I I
Strongly . Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral D1sagree Disagree

Prisoners should not be granted paroles.

I I I I I I
Strongly . Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral D1sagree Disagree

82

83 Code #

If a woman goes to a guy's place on the first date, she is letting
him know that she will have sex with him.

 

 

lStronglyJ J l . [Ti Strongly 1
Agree Agree Neutral D1sagree Disagree

Any woman can get raped.

4Strongly 1 l I . I Strongly 1
Agree Agree Neutral D1sagree Disagree

Women sometimes will ie about being raped because they want
attention.

I I I II. I

Agree 11.11151 Disagree 3323.925

Strongly
Agree

If a woman is healthy and she wants to, she can fight off any man
who wants to force her to have sex.

I I I

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Strongly
Agree

When women don't wear a bra, or if they wear short skirts or
tight pants, they are just asking for trouble.

I I I I

Strongly .
Agree Agree Neutral D1sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Most of the time it is the girls who mess around with a lot of
guys that get raped.

I I I I I1 I

Strongly . Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral D1sagree Disagree

It's the girl's fault if a guy forces her to have sex after she
messes around with him and gets him hot.

I I I I I I

Strongly - Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral O1sagree Disagree

10.

11.

12.

13.

84 Code #

 

Women who get raped while thumbing a ride had it coming to them.

 

1St I l l ' I J l
Agggg y Agree Neutral Disagree OIggggez

A woman who thinks she is real fine and too good to talk to
guys on the street needs to be taught a lesson.

I I I I I I

Strongly . StrongTy
Agree Agree Neutral D1sagree Disagree

Most women have a secret wish to be raped, and without thinking
about it, put themselves in a position where they can get raped.

I I

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree

Agree

TStrongly
Disagree

If a woman gets high at a party and sneaks off to a back room to
have sex with a guy she just met, then other guys at the party
should be able to have sex with her too, whether she want to or not.

I I I I I

Agree NeutraI Disagree 33233.3

Strongly
Agree

About how many women do you think make up stories about being
raped just to get back at a guy who made them angry?

I I I I I I
TAlmost ‘About About About Almost
All 3/4 1/2 1/4 None

About how many women do you think make up stories about being
raped because they found out they were pregnant and wanted to
hide the fact they had been sneaking and having sex?

L I I I I I
Almost About About About Almost
All 3/4 1/2 1/4 None

APPENDIX E

RAPE INFORMATION INTERVIEW

85

Code #

APPENDIX E
RAPE INFORMATION INTERVIEW

Before you got busted on this charge, were you having sex with
anyone?

a. Who were you having sex with?

b. How often would you have sex?

c. Did you like the sex you were getting?

d. Were you getting along well with the woman(women) in your
life at the time of your crime?

Have you ever had sex with a man at any time in your life for

money or for free?

a. Does it both you?

b. What sort of things would you do or would you let be done
to you?

Have you ever been busted before for rape?

a. How many times?

b. Have you ever raped anyone, but not gotten caught?

c. How many times?

Can you tell me why you raped this girl?

‘How did you get to her and what sort of things did you do with her?

86

87

Did you have any problems getting a hard-on during the rape?

a.
b.

C.

What was the problem?
Did you have any problems coming?

Have you ever had any problem with your penis working
okay in the past?

What was the problem(s)?

Did you drink or use drugs before you got busted?

a.

How much alcohol/drugs would you use in a week and
what type?

Had you been drinking or using drugs before you raped
the girl?

What and how much?

Can you remember if you decided to rape the girl before or
after you started drinking/taking drugs?

Tell me, what is your opinion of women?

APPENDIX F

TABLULATION 0F MMPI TWO-POINT CODE OF SAMPLE

88

APPENDIX F

TABULATION OF MMPI {NO-POINT CODE OF SAMPLE
N = 37

 

Two-Point Code Greater Violence Lesser Violence Total

 

1-3
1-7
1-8
4-0
4-2
4-3
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
6-2
6-4
6-5
6-9
8-2
8-4
8-6
8-9
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-6
9-8

OHOOHHNNOHHOHWHHOHOOHOHH
HONHOHONo—IOOHOO—Io—INHONHOHOO
HHNHHNNhHHHHHwaI—‘HNHHHHH

 

*Three cases missing due to unavailability of data.

89

Note:

APPENDIX G

GRAPHING OF GROUP MEANS ON THE INDIVIDUAL SEMANTIC
SCALES FOR EACH EXPERIMENTAL CONCEPT

Greater Violence Rapists

Lesser Violence Rapists

90

Fair
Clean
Good
Nice
Kind

Honest

Thick
Heavy
Large

Strong

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

GRAPHING OF SEMANTIC CONCEPT

Beatingiup Someone

Evaluative

 

 

 

91

 

Unfair
Dirty
Bad
Awful
Cruel

Dishonest

Thin
Light
Small
Weak

Fair
Clean
Good
Nice
Kind

Honest

Thick
Heavy
Large

Strong

 

92

GRAPHING OF SEMANTIC CONCEPT

Power Over Women

 

Evaluative

 

 

 

 

Unfair
Dirty
Bad
Awful
Cruel

Dishonest

Thin
Light
Small
Weak

Fair
Clean
Good
Nice
Kind

Honest

Thick
Heavy
Large

Strong

93

GRAPHING OF SEMANTIC CONCEPT

Rape of a Woman

 

Evaluative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfair
Dirty
Bad
Awful
Cruel

Dishonest

Thin
Light
Small
Weak

Fair
Clean
Good_
Nice
Kind

Honest

Thick
Heavy
Large

Strong

 

94

GRAPHING OF SEMANTIC CONCEPT

Love of a Woman

Evaluative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfair
Dirty
Bad
Awful
Cruel

Dishonest

Thin
Light
Small
Weak

Fair

 

Clean
Good
Nice
Kind

Honest

Thick

 

 

Heavy

 

Large

 

Strong

 

95

GRAPHING OF SEMANTIC CONCEPT

Sex with a Woman

 

Evaluative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfair
Dirty
Bad
Awful
Cruel

Dishonest

Thin
Light
Small
Weak

Fair
Clean
Good
Nice
Kind

Honest

Thick
Heavy
Large

Strong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

GRAPHING OF SEMANTIC CONCEPT

Women

Evaluative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Potency

 

 

 

 

 

Unfair
Dirty
Bad
Awful
Cruel

Dishonest

Thin
Light
Small
Weak

APPENDIX H

'MMPI PROFILES

97

APPENDIX H

 

1 a s 4 s 6 7 o 9 o
Torl'c 7 I. r 1: Hrs»: D Hy PdsAK w Pu PHI: Sc-IK vie-.21: s: Tor’ec
113-: F' - ' -‘ ‘ “ ’ " “ "_ ’ ' - “ -“ .’ j-lm
: ' ‘5‘ - ' - :
ns-j ' ' 3 j 30_ 55': - j-ns
: Male - - - - *5- :
“0-: ' 35' ' * 50'. ‘5'. - ' - I ~ i—110
Z ' - - 50- ' - - ‘0- ?
mos-I «a: I _ I - so- - ’ j-ms
3 ' - e— - - - : ”f : '
mo— --—-—40- 25— ~00
: 30- - - ‘ ‘5? ‘ I 35- 79-. -
- - - - _ _ _ t
as : _ 35_ - _ , 45- ‘5_ : : s.
‘ ’ - 65': :

 

 

 

 

_. __.... .'__ _..

 

 

 

 

TorT: e L r x Hs,-s? 15 Hy Pd'AK M! Pa Pc-IK Scent Ma-JK 5: 10,7,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 o

- - - - Black Inmates (N = 157)
Caucasian Inmates (N=292)

 

Figure H-1.--MMPI Profiles of K-Corrected Mean T-Scores for Black
and Caucasian Florida Inmates

Source: Cadow, 1977.

98

99

 

 
 

1 2 a 4 s 6 7 9 9 0
Tbec 7 L HréK D Hy PthK MI Pu PPIK ScflK 3400.25 51 TOITC
120—. - , — - , rm]
I ' ‘5‘ ' _ ' _ :
115-:- ’ ' 3 Z 30_ 55" - j-ns
:Male ' - - - 55- =
110-} 35" ' 5°: ‘5: - ' : f—no
3 - - - so- - _ _ co- -
105—: ‘ ‘°'. : : - so- - ‘ -ws
- - so... -
Z Z ' -100
- - ' 70..
- 35- --
45.. 95- - 33"95
‘ - 65::
- ' 179°
- : : eo-zs
«0- --as
- ‘0' 30- ::
- ' - 55::
- ' 279°
- - ' 50_:'
35.. 35-: : E?”

   
    
 
 

 
 
 
 

.
U‘
l

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

wéi
’ : .- 55
: - =+:-eo
- 20' ' :
25_ 25-. : -_ :- 55
—-—:—-—25.E.:—w
- 20— E t
20- _ IS - 20-: 3' 45
- - 15-2 :—40
,5- “f’ . me E35
- - 1°- : :
- - - 5‘2":-30
IO- - I I
- - r 25
‘ _ 10- z
20- o— - ' ' ~57 :120
o- "0
TorTc L Hs‘bli o Hy Pd°.4k’ w Pa PM): Sc+lK uric 5. Tom
1 2 s 4 s o 7 a 9 0

Figure H-2.--MMPI Profile of State Prison of Southern Michigan Inmates
K-Corrected Raw Scores (N = 300).

Source: Unused data collected by Dr. A. I. Rabin, 1974.

LIST OF REFERENCES

100

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abel, A. G., Barlow, D. H., Blanchard, E., & Guild, D. (1977). The
components of rapists' sexual arousal. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 35, 895-903.

 

 

Amir, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Anastasi, A. (1968). Psychological testing. Toronto: Macmillan
Company.

 

Armentrout, J., & Haver, A. (1978). MMPIs of rapists of adults,
rapists of children and non-rapist sex offenders. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 31, 330-332.

 

 

Barbaree, H. E., Marshall, W. L., & Lanthier, R. D. (1979). Deviant
sexual arousal in rapists. Behavior Research and Therapy, 11,

Barnard, G., Holzer, C., & Vera, H. (1979). A comparison of alco-
holics and non-alcoholics charged with rape. Bulletin American
Academygof Psychiatry and Law, 1, 432-440.

Bode, J. (1978). Fighting back. New York: Macmillan Company.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will._ New York: Simon and
Schuster.

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

Cadow, B. (1977). The MMPI and CPI as measures of a prison treat-
ment program. FCI Research Reports, 2, 1-11.

Cohen, M., & Boucher, R. (1971a). Misunderstandings about sex
criminals. Sexual Behavior (March): 56-62.

Cohen, M., Garofalo, R., Boucher, R., & Seghorn, T. (1971b). The
psychology of rapists. Seminars in Psychiatry, 3, 307-327.

Dahlstrom, W., Welsh, G., & Dahlstrom, L. (1972). An MMPI Handbook.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. '

101

102

Davis, K., & Sines, J. (1971). An antisocial behavior pattern asso-
ciated with a specific MMPI profile. Journal of Consultingyand
Clinical Psychology, §§,229-234.

 

 

Ellis, A. (1979). The sex offender. In H. Toch (Ed.), Psychology of
figime and criminal justice. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and
nston.

 

Groth, A., & Burgess, A. (1977). Sexual dysfunction during rape.
New England Journal of Medicine, 297, 764-766.

Groth, A., Burgess, A., & Holmstrom, L. (1977). Rape: power, anger,
and sexuality. American Journal of Pyschiatry, 134, 1239-1243.

Howells, K., & Wright, E. (1978). The sexual attitudes of aggressive
sexual offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 1g, 170-174.

Medea, A., & Thompson, K. (1974). Against rape. New York: Farrer,
Straws & Giroux.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. V., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). “The.measure-
ment of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

 

Perdue, W., & Lester, D. (1972). Personality characteristics of
rapists. Perceptual and Motor Skills, §§, 514.

Persons, R., & Marks, P. (1971). The violent 4-3 MMPI personality
type. Journal of Consultingyand Clinical Psychology, gg, 189-
196.

Pesetsky, F. (1961). Variability in the meaningof deviant behavior.
Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Vanderbilt University.

Rabin, A. (1959). A contribution to the "meaning" of Rorschach's
inkblots via the semantic differential. Journal of Consulting

Psychology, 23, 368-372.

Rabin, A., & Limuaco, J. (1967). A comparison of the connotative
meaning of Rorschach's inkblots for American and Filipino college
students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1;, 197-203.

Rabin, A. (1979). The antisocial personality--psychopathology and
sociopathy. In H. Toch (Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal
justice. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rada, R. (1975). Alcoholism and forcible rape. American Journal of
Psychiatnya 132, 444-446.

 

Rader, C. (1977). MMPI profile types of exposers, rapists, and
assaulters in a court services population. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 4g, 61-69.

103

Richardson, B. (1981). The attitudes of Black cler and parishion-
ers toward mental illness and mental health_pro essibnals.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Rivlin, E., & Fisher, 6. (1971). Need structure of rapists. British
Journal of Criminology, 11, 182-185.

Schiff, A. (1978). Rape in the United States. Journal of Forensic
Science, 23, 845-851.

Schiff, A. (1979). Statistical trends in rape. Journal of Forensic
Science, 95-106.

Shrier, D. (1981). Rape--myths, misconceptions, facts, and inter-
ventions. Journal of the Medical Society of New Jersey, 18,
668-672.

Thorne, F., 8 Haupt, T. (1966). The objective measurement of sex
attitudes and behavior in adult males. Journal of Clinical

Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. (1980). Federal Bureau of
Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Vera, H., Bernard, 6., & Holzer, C. (1979). The intelligence of
rapists: new data. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 8, 375-377.

IE5

"‘IIIII’IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

31