;:_<;:;-.7_;. 7:55.71 = v .m ‘o.. ..~:. 5:131: . L: , ‘L‘a. - u an... ‘u, .. V IUV navv'n 4 545 :..... .— n- rum—- "23:12.; AU” ;_...v' -‘ 3&5 .s r . '_ ‘x ~ 1 ”Larva”. “ u. ,. r \ fl“ 1 .... .; Add)! a . MIL-ht; v ‘3 -. f: v ' “figs-52???? J ‘ 5:? ’ ' : til? " mi: " v .iuéhggz . ~ ‘i nfinw! up; tiiib‘ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE EFFECT OF GENDER-ROLE ATTITUDES AND RAPE MYTH BELIEFS ON THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF COLLEGE JUDICIAL BOARDS. presented by ROGER L. SERR has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in EDUCATION 0744,) ( Majorj professdr DR. LOUIS F. HEKHUIS Date OCTOBER 6, 1993 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ITY Illlllllllilll‘liwlWill 3 1293 01033 0383 LIBRARY Michigan 5:32am University PLACE N RETURN BOX to move this chockom from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or baton due duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE O ’s'l‘..!l H V Mun-9.1 THE EFFECT OF GENDER-ROLE ATTITUDES AND RAPE MYTH BELIEFS ON THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF COLLEGE JUDICIAL BOARDS BY Roger L. Serr A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1993 F! C.) ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF GENDER-ROLE ATTITUDES AND RAPE MYTH BELIEFS ON THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF COLLEGE JUDICIAL BOARDS BY Roger L. Serr Heterosexual acquaintance rape is a social problem on college campuses. When reported, colleges often respond by adjudicating alleged perpetrators via institutional judicial processes. These processes often include the option of having judicial boards judge the case and render disciplinary sanctions. Critics charge that judicial boards are ill-prepared to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases because members are more influenced by rape myth beliefs and gender-role stereotypes than by the facts of the incident. No studies were found that addressed the criticisms concerning judicial boards adjudicating acquaintance rape cases. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine what effect judicial board members' rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes had on the adjudication of a campus rape case. This investigation focused on the influence of the aforementioned perceptions as they related to the determination of a verdict and subsequent sanctioning (when the assailant was found guilty). The eighty-two subjects represented in this study were drawn from a sample of one-hundred-thirteen student judicial board members representing six independent and nine state-assisted colleges and universities located in Michigan. All the subjects served on primary judicial boards empowered to suspend or recommend suspension for students found guilty of violating conduct standards. All the subjects completed scales measuring gender-role attitudes and rape myth beliefs. Additionally, one-half of the subjects judged an acquaintance rape scenario. The remaining forty-one subjects judged a stranger rape scenario. After reading the scenarios, subjects determined if the male perpetrator was guilty or innocent of rape. Subjects also assigned a judicial sanction when they found the perpetrator guilty. T-tests determined that significant differences existed between males and females related to rape myth belief and traditional gender- role attitudes. Females were more feminist and believed less in rape myths. The sample demonstrated a full spectrum of rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes. However, all subjects selected the guilty verdict regardless of the rape scenario judged, their social belief structure, or their gender. Subjects generally assigned harsher judicial sanctions as well, with only six people assigning sanctions less than suspension or expulsion from the institution. This dissertation is dedicated to my best friend and wife, Konnie Haugen Serr, whose love and support made this journey possible. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation is, in great part, due to the support, encouragement, and contributions of many people. Dr. Louis Hekhuis, my faculty advisor, was very supportive, patient, and encouraging. Dr. Marvin Grandstaff provided insightful commentary, especially in the early stages of this research. Dr. Lee June was very supportive and also provided helpful feedback throughout the process. Dr. Linda Forrest, an excellent scholar, was supportive, provided excellent insight and feedback, and challenged me to scholarly excellence. Dr. Philip Gardner was instrumental in the completion of this dissertation. He provided outstanding research guidance and also made many helpful suggestions concerning the conclusions and implications of this research. He also motivated my thinking and challenged me to scholarly excellence. Above all, he gave unselfishly of his time. Dr. Louis Stamatakos also deserves special acknowledgement. He served as my advisor up until his retirement. I fondly remember the many long discussions we engaged in over the years. He truly is a credit to the academy and remains influential in my professional life. My colleagues (Cindy Helman, Leonard Jones, Dr. Kate Murphy, Kathy Stepanovich, Ina Kimball, Charis Linklater, Shirleyetta Sernick, Dr. Nancy Lange, Dr. Rudy Altamirano) in the Department of Residence Life at Michigan State University were supportive throughout this process. Karen Podolski deserves special acknowledgment for providing invaluable word-processing technical support. The professional/personal support and encouragement of Mary Haas, the Director of Residence Life, was a critical ingredient in the completion of this dissertation --- I am deeply grateful to her! The people most deserving of acknowledgment are my family. Ronnie, my wife, was very supportive and assumed a disproportionate share of the domestic duties and child-rearing responsibilities. Her sacrifices were substantial and words fail to capture the depth of my appreciation for all that she contributed to this journey. Leah, Jared, and Ethan, each in their own way, were very understanding of my frequent absences and busy schedule. Their excitement about my completing the "book” motivated me. I, too, look forward to more family recreational time together, especially fishing. They are great kids! vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST 0’ TABLES seeseeeeeeeeseeesoseesoseaseeeeeseseeseesessssee... CHAPTER 1 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. CHAPTER 2 A. B. F. G. I. J. K. INTRODUCTION OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Background and Theoretical Foundation ................. Statement of the Problem .............................. Purpose of the Study .................................. Need for the Study .................................... Research Questions .................................... Hypotheses ............................................ Methodology ........................................... 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Subjects ....................................... Instrumentation ................................ Data Collection Procedures ..................... Scoring the Data ............................... Data Analysis .................................. Defifiition Of Term“ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000000000000... Limit‘tion‘ Of the StUdy seeesssessssseeeeeeeeeesseeeee Organization of the Study ............................. LITERATURE REVIEW .0.0COO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IntrOdUCtiOfl eeeeeeeeeeseeeeeesseesseeeseeeeeeeeeseesee Definition“ eeeeeeeeeeeeees sssssssss s ssssss seessseeeog. 1. 2. 3. General .0.0COOOOOOOOC0.00000000000000000IOOOOOO 10.981 0.0..0......00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO soc1a1 .0...00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Theoretical Perspective ............................... 1. 2. 3. Evolutionary Theory ............................ Social Learning Theory ......................... Feminiat Theory OO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO Ra” Law .0O...O...COO...O...000......00......000000000 Prevalence Of Ra” O0.0.0.0...0......OOOOOOOOOOOCQCOOOO 1. 2. General OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Higher Education OCO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQ Influence of Alcohol and Other Drugs .................. Gender-Rale Perception 0.00...0.0000000000000000000000. 1. 2. 3. 4. S. Stereotypes .................................... Dating Relationships ........................... Rape Myth Acceptance ........................... Gender-Role Attitudes .......................... Likelihood of Raping ........................... Attribution Of Reawnsibility 0.00000000000COOOOOOOOOOC 1. 2. 3. Theoretical Overview ........................... Attributional Factors .......................... a. Force and Resistance ................... b. Attractiveness ......................... c. Respectability ......................... d. Acquaintanceship ....................... Gender Differences ............................. Jury DBCiIiOD‘HQking eseeeeseeeseeeesseeeseseeeeseeeeee Campus Disciplinary Procedures ........................ smary 0.0.0......O...OOOOOOOOOOOCO0.00000000000000000 vii CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 77 A. Introduction .......................................... 77 1. Statement of the Problem ....................... 77 2. Purpose of the Study ........................... 77 3. Research Questions ............................. 79 4. Hypotheses ..................................... 79 Be SUbjCCtI eeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeee 80 C. Instrumentation ....................................... 83 1. FEM Scale ...................................... 83 2. Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire ............ 85 3. Rape Scenarios ................................. 87 4. Adjudication Questionnaire ..................... 88 5. Demographic Information Form ................... 89 D. Data Collection Procedures ............................ 89 E. Scoring the Data ...................................... 91 F. Data Analysis ......................................... 92 CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . ....... .. 95 A. Introduction .......................................... 95 1. Subjects ....................................... 9S 2. Instrumentation ................................ 96 3. Summary ........................................ 103 B. General Profile of the Sample ......................... 104 1. Gender ......................................... 104 2. Age ............................................ 105 3. Ethnic Origin .................................. 106 4. Faith .......................................... 106 5. Academic Class Standing ........................ 108 6. Academic Major ................................. 108 7. Academic Grade Point Average ................... 109 8. Fraternity or Sorority Membership .............. 109 9. Judicial Board Experience ...................... 109 10. Training ....................................... 111 11. Knowledge of Rape Victims ...................... 111 12. Summary ........... ..... . ..... .................. 113 C. Empirical Analysis ............. ...... ................. 113 1. FEM Scale ...................................... 114 2. ATR Questionnaire (Unified Factor) ............. 115 3. Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 8. Hypothesis 9. Hypothesis 10. Hypothesis 11. Hypothesis ................................... 119 12. Hypothesis 10 .. ..... .. ....... .................. 120 13. Hypothesis ll .................................. 120 D. Descriptive Analysis ......... ............. ............ 120 E. Chapter Summary ....................................... 123 ................................... 117 ................................... 118 ................................... 118 ................................... 118 ................................... 118 ........ ..... ...................... 118 ................................... 119 O...0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOO 119 WQQO‘U'Iwat-i CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 125 A. Introduction .......................................... 125 B. Summary ............................................... 125 1. Theoretical Foundation ......................... 125 2. Statement of the Problem ....................... 127 3. Purpose of the Study ........................... 127 4. Need for the Study ............................. 129 5. Research Questions ............................. 130 6. Research Methodology ........................... 131 a. Subjects ............................... 131 viii b. Instrumentation ........................ 131 c. Research Design ........................ 132 d. Data Analysis .......................... 133 C. Major Findings ........................................ 134 l. Rape Myth Belief ............................... 134 2. Gender-Role Attitudes .......................... 134 3e VCIdict eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 135 ‘e s.nCt1°n. eeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeseeseeoeeeeeeseoeoog. 135 5. Hypotheses ..................................... 137 6. Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 8. Hypothesis 9. Hypothesis 10. Hypothesis 11. Hypothesis 12. Hypothesis 13. Hypothesis 14. Hypothesis ................................... 139 15. Hypothesis 10 .................................. 139 16. amthe.i.11 0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 139 D. Limitations of the Study .............................. 140 1. Limitations Associated With Adjudication Research ....................................... 140 2. Limitations Associated With Social Phenomenon Research ................... ....... .. 140 3. Limitations Associated With Judicial Descriptors .................................... 141 4. Limitations Associated With Case Studies ....... 142 E. Generalizability of the Results ....................... 142 P. Discussion of the Major Findings ...................... 143 1. Pluralistic Ignorance .......................... 144 2. Standard of Evidence ........................... 148 G. Conclusions ........................................... 149 H. Theoretical Implications .............................. 150 1. Practical Implications ................................ 151 J. Recommendations for Further Research .................. 152 K. Concluding Commentary ................................. 153 O O O O O O 0 O I O O I O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 137 O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O 137 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 138 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O 138 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 138 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 138 ................................... 138 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 139 OOQO‘UIfiUNO-i APPENDICES A. Survey Instrument With Acquaintance Rape Scenario ..... 155 8. Survey Instrument With Stranger Rape Scenario ......... 165 C. Survey Instructions ................................... 175 D. Varimax Rotated Factor Structure of ATR Questionnaire ......................................... 178 THE BIBLIOGRAPHY ....... .................................... ...... 181 ix M P_a_g§ 1. Reliability Coefficients for the Revised “TR PRCtorI eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeeee 102 2. Correlation Between the Revised ATR rlCtor. eeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeee 102 3. Comparison of Rape Scenarios By Gender .. .................... 105 4. Mean Age of Respondents By Rape Scenarios .......... ......... 105 5. Comparison of Rape Scenarios By Ethnicity . ..... ...... ....... 106 6. Comparison of Rape Scenarios By Religious Practice O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... 0000000000000000 0 00000 107 7. Comparison of Rape Scenarios By Religious D.v°utn°.. 00.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ......... O 000000 O. 108 8. Comparison of Rape Scenarios By Academic Class . ............. 108 9. Number Hearings Participated In By Rape sceafiriO' OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOO0.0.0... 00000 110 10. Participation in Rape Hearings By Rape Scenarios ..... . ...... 111 11. Received Training About Rape By Rape Scenario . ..... . ...... .. 111 12. Knowledge of Rape Victims By Rape Scenarios ....... ......... . 112 13. Relationship With Rape Victim By Rape Scenario ............. . 112 14. Judicial Verdict By Rape Scenario ......... .............. .... 114 15. Judicial Sanctions By Rape Scenario .................... ..... 114 16. Significance Test of FEM and Gender .. ..... . ...... .. ........ 115 17. Significance Test of FEM and Knowing a Rape Victim Q.Q.0.00.00.00.00000000.0.0.000... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 116 18. Significance Test of FEM and Ethnicity . ............... . ..... 116 19. Significance Test of FEM and Rape Hearing PartiCipfitLOn seeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeseeee see see so eee .. . 116 20. Significance Test of ATR Unified Factor and Gender goggoaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesesesee eeeee 0 see ... 117 21. LIST OF TABLES Significance Test of ATR Unified Factor and Victim Knowledge ................... ..... ......... . 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Correlation Between FEM Scale and ATR Factors ..... .......... Gender Influence On FEM Scale ............................... Gender Influence on Unified Factor .......... ....... ......... Ethnic Influence On FEM Scale ............................... Varimex Rotated Factor Structure of ATR Questionnaire ........................... xi OOOOOOQOOOOOOI 120 121 121 122 178 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 0 n ion Approximately 80 to 90 percent of female rape victims are assaulted by acquaintances (Ageton, 1983; Aizenman and Kelley, 1988; Bailey, 1986; Copenhaver and Grauerholz, 1991; Ross, 1988; National Victim Center, 1992), yet many people still cling to outmoded definitions of rape. For example, the classic definition of rape involves a stranger violently attacking a woman with a weapon outside at night (Burt, 1980). Only recently have people begun to recognize acquaintance rape as a very real phenomenon in American society, especially among women ages 16 to 24 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985b, 1986, 1987, 1991a; Harlow, 1991). This phenomenon is especially apparent on college campuses where researchers have established prevalence rates by using survey techniques designed to overcome the subjective bias associated with rape. Recognizing that rape is one of the most underreported crimes (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1984), researchers adopted the survey approach used by early victimization studies (Bureau of Justice statistics, 1984; Ross, Gidycz, and Wisniewski, 1987; Russell, 1982) to better estimate the occurrence of rape. Secondly, researchers used questionnaires that asked respondents to describe actual behaviors, that were then compared to criterion definitions of rape and sexual assault to establish the levels of sexual aggression occurring (Burkhart and Stanton, 1988; Ross and Leonard, 1984). Kirkpatrick and Kanin (1957) conducted a pioneering study involving 291 female college students that found 21 percent of the women had been offended by a male's forceful attempts at intercourse, and 6 percent were offended by aggressively forceful attempts. Kanin and Parcell (1977) replicated and extended Kirkpatrick and Kanin's (1957) study, finding that 51 percent of the 282 female respondents were offended at some level of erotic intimacy during the academic year. Approximately ‘32 percent of the females who experienced male sexual aggression, where 2 intercourse was the goal, reported that rape had occurred. Bailey (1986) reported that nearly 8 percent of 362 female college students surveyed had been raped, and 17 percent were victims of attempted rape. Approximately 93 percent of these rapes were committed by acquaintances. A sample involving 447 college females found that 15 percent had been raped and 18 percent had experienced an attempted rape while on a date (Wilson and Durrenberger, 1982). Twenty-one percent of 247 female college students sampled reported that they had been physically forced by a dating partner to have sexual intercourse (Sandberg, Jackson, and Petretic-Jackson, 1987). At a large Midwestern university, Copenhaver and Grauerholz (1991) found that almost 25 percent of the 140 females sampled were victims of an attempted rape, and 17 percent of the women had experienced an act of rape. Ninety-five percent of these women were acquainted with their attacker. Miller and Marshall (1987) determined that 27 percent of 323 women had been victims of a date rape while attending college. Based on the results of a deviance survey administered to 563 female college students over a 4-year period, Eskridge (1989) discovered that 21 percent of the women had been raped. From a sample of 204 college females, Aizenman and Kelley (1988) found that 22 percent had been raped by an acquaintance. Ross and Oros (1982) determined from a representative sample of 2,016 female college students that 6 percent had been raped, 6 percent had been forced to participate in anal or oral intercourse because physical force or threats had been used, and 8 percent had sexual intercourse because the man used some degree of physical force. Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) conducted a national survey of 32 diverse institutions of higher education involving 3,187 women, finding that 12 percent of the females had experienced attempted rape and 15 percent had been raped. An examination of surveys has determined men's level of involvement in acquaintance rape situations. For example, Eskridge (1989) found 3 that 7 percent of 836 male college students had forced a female to have sexual intercourse against her will at least once. Ross, et a1. (1987) discovered that 4 percent of 2,972 male students had engaged in rape. Six percent of 300 males reported forcing a female date to engage in sexual activity in the prior year (Yegidis, 1986). Kanin (1967) determined that 26 percent of 341 male undergraduate students used aggressive tactics to obtain intercourse while at college. Twenty percent of 175 (Mosher and Anderson, 1986) and 15 percent of 201 (Rapaport and Burkhart (1984) male college students admitted using force to have sexual intercourse with a female. The use of alcohol and other drugs has been associated with the occurrence of sexual assaults (Cage, 1992). Sixty-six percent of 71 self-disclosed date rapists implicated excessive alcohol consumption as a causal factor in the rape (Kanin, 1984). Mosher and Anderson (1986) found that 19 percent of their sample of male college students had gotten drunk and forced a woman to have sexual intercourse, and 66 percent had used alcohol to get a woman drunk to have sex with her. Ross (1988) in a national sample of over 6,100 college students, found that 73 percent of the offenders and 55 percent of the victims admitted using drugs or alcohol at the time of the sexual victimization. Research involving 155 sexually victimized female college students found that 65 percent of their offenders were moderately to very intoxicated at the time of the assault (Amick and Calhoun, 1987). Ward, Chapman, Cohn, White, and Williams (1991) noted that "a wide range of estimates of the incidence of sexual assault is found in the literature” (p. 65). They state ”this may be due in part to varying methodologies and in part to variations in the definition of the behavior covered by the estimates” (p. 65). Ellis (1989) agreed, writing that the “...estimates are far too varied to be dismissed as resulting from sampling error ... [thus] they appear to reflect major differences in criteria used to identify rape“ (p. 4). Ward et a1. concluded that rape "... is an important social problem on college 4 campuses, even if one uses the 'low' ...” (p. 65) estimates of sexual victimization found by researchers. Ellis (1989) identified 3 contemporary theories to help explain the cause of acquaintance rape: evolutionary theory, social learning theory, and feminist theory. Evolutionary theory emphasizes natural selection processes where conflict occurs between the male biological drive and the female desire to control reproduction. Social learning theory, while very similar to feminist theory, focuses more on cultural mores than on political and socioeconomic exploitation. Feminist theory disagrees with the traditional psychiatric view that rapists are sexual deviants (Check and Malamuth, 1985). Instead, feminist theory "... considers rape to be the result of long and deep- rooted social traditions in which males have dominated nearly all important political and economic activities” (Ellis, 1989, p. 10). This results in an inferior sociopolitical status for women who gain worth and recognition only in relation to men (Morrison, 1980). Thus, "rape is a ritual of power ... [and] ... the symbolic enactment of social and cultural attitudes" (Metzger, 1976, p. 405). Feminist writers (Clark and Lewis, 1977; Griffin, 1975; MacKinnon, 1983; Morrison, 1980; Sanday, 1981; Weis and Borges, 1973) stated that we live in a "rape culture” where rape is viewed as natural because of men's superior position in society. This theory stated that rape is “... a pseudosexual act, a pattern of sexual behavior that is concerned much more with status, hostility, control, and dominance than with sexual pleasure or sexual satisfaction" (Groth and Birnbaum, 1980, p. 21). Sanday (1981) studied rape cross-culturally and concluded that "tape is not an integral part of male nature, but the means by which men programmed [by the culture] for violence express their sexual selves" (pp. 25-26). A visible symbol of the ”rape culture” are rape laws that have been heavily criticized as representative of the sexism that exists in American society (Brownmiller, 1975; Clark and Lewis, 1977; Estrich, 5 1987; Griffin, 1979; MacKinnon, 1983; Medea and Thompson, 1974; Russell, 1975; WOod, 1973). Many of these laws were based on common law that “... is judge-made law rather than law that originates from constitutions or from legislatures or administrative agencies“ (Kaplin, 1989, p. 13). The common law presumed that "unchaste" women are more likely to consent to sexual intercourse and to lie about the event than "chaste" women, that women invite sexual attacks via their behavior, and that a rape victim's credibility must be substantiated to ensure she is telling the truth (Harris, 1976; Tong, 1984). In essence, rape laws act "... to punish men who do not rape appropriately" (Reynolds, 1974, p. 63). Social-political movements, including the passage of the equal rights amendment and crime control reform efforts, aided the passage of rape reform laws by many state legislatures in the 1970s (Loh, 1981). Most notable was the Michigan Criminal Sexual Conduct Statute, adopted in 1974, that was considered a model rape law (Bessmer, 1984; Caringella-MacDonald, 1985; Cobb and Schauer, 1974; Praeger Publishers, 1977; Virginia Law Review, 1975). Although criticized for not being totally sufficient (Cobb and Schauer, 1974; Estrich, 1987; Marsh, Geist, and Caplan, 1982), "the Michigan Sexual Assault Act reflects a major rethinking of the common assumptions about rape" (Cobb and Schauer, 1974, p. 235). The Michigan Statute was considered a model because it codified definitions (Cobb and Schauer, 1974), used sex-neutral terminology (Caringella-MacDonald, 1985; Cobb and Schauer, 1974; Virginia Law Review, 1975), and incorporated 4 degrees of criminal sexual contact (Cobb and Schauer, 1974). The degrees were distinguished by variables related to the occurrence of sexual contact versus sexual penetration and to the amount of force and coercion used. The model law also does not require the victim to resist the attacker, to have testimony corroborated, to prove nonconsent, or to reveal past sexual conduct except in severely limited circumstances. The law presumes nonconsent 6 when the victim is underage or physically or mentally helpless (Cobb and Schauer, 1974). Rape laws define the criteria used to judge guilt and innocence in acquaintance rape situations. While laws attempt to provide objective criteria, attribution theory postulates that judgments concerning blame and responsibility are influenced by the dispositional qualities of an actor and by environmental factors associated with the situation. Thus, objectivity is suspect because both first-hand observation and secondary reports concerning an event are subject to error given the complexity of the social stimuli surrounding the event (Shaver, 1975). For example, Heider (1958) theorized that peOple make attributions based on a combination of ability, exertion, and task difficulty that represents an action sequence used to determine whether behavior was the result of dispositional or environmental causes. Jones and Davis (1965) speculated that actors make choices about courses of action, allowing a perceiver to diagnose an actor's intentions. Kelley (1973) stated that attributions are made according to a 3-dimensional model that looks at the context, persons, and stimulus associated with an event. Additionally, Walster (1966, 1967) theorized that people have a need to live in an orderly world that is predictable and controllable. As such, they assign causal responsibility for an incident to something other than chance, believing that they will avert a similar situation from happening to them. Shaver (1970) suggests that a defensive attribution process operates where less responsibility is assigned to peOple perceived as similar to the perceiver, with conversely more responsibility assigned to circumstances. Lerner (1965, 1970, 1980) postulated that people believe in a "just world” where positive outcomes happen to good people and negative outcomes happen to bad people. Attribution theory is not concerned with the true cause of an event, rather it focuses on understanding how people attribute causation. When judging incidents, people are influenced by cultural assumptions or social stereotypes that obscure the objective facts of a ave h ..“ the. .p ‘4‘. L". 7 situation (Jones and Davis, 1965). This is especially true in acquaintance rape situations where people rely on biased or inaccurate beliefs or assumptions about the nature of rape (Hueston and Burkhart, 1986). Commonly called rape myths (Burt, 1980; Pineau, 1989; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1974), these beliefs rely on false stereotypes concerning the true dynamics of acquaintance rape, often creating a climate hostile to the victim (Burt, 1980). Research conducted by Wilson, Faison, and Britton (1983) involving 250 college students suggests that the level of belief in rape myths influences the definitional boundaries between rape and normal sexual intercourse. As a result, when a situation is not congruent with rape stereotypes people look for other interpretations, often blaming the women for her own rape (Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976). For example, Krulewitz and Payne (1978) found that subjects generally blamed the male assailant more and attributed less responsibility to the female victim as the level of force used by the male increased. Rape victims were found to have more credibility as the level of violence used by the male increased (LaFree, 1980) and when they physically resisted the attack (Howard, 1984a, 1984b; Krulewitz and Nash, 1979; Shotland and Goodstein, 1983). A victim's physical attractiveness also influences attribution of responsibility. Physically attractive women were perceived as more sexually alluring (Dermer and Thiel, 1975), promiscuous (Thornton, 1977), and naive to the affect they have on men (Mazelan, 1980). Women perceived as physically unattractive were believed to provoke their victimization more than attractive women (Seligman, Brickman, and Koulack, 1977; Tieger, 1981). Victims perceived as more respectable according to characteristics such as occupation, marital status, and sexual history received less attribution of blame for their victimization than less respectable victims (Cann, Calhoun, and Selby, 1979; Feldman-Summers and Lindner, 1976; Kanekar and Kolsawalla, 1977; Kerr and Kurtz, 1977; McGraw, 1987; 8 Smith, Heating, Hester, and Mitchell, 1976). McGraw (1987) found that people attributed significantly greater responsibility to the rapist when the assailant and victim were strangers. Acquaintance rape situations are often viewed less seriously than stranger rape cases (Bohmer, 1974; Chappell and Singer, 1977; Kerstetter, 1990; LaFree, 1980; Wilson, 1978). Thornton, Ryckman, and Robbins (1982) found that gender and gender- role attitudes were the 2 primary contributors concerning the amount of perceived victim culpability. Males, as compared to females, viewed rape less seriously (Tieger, 1981), perceived it more as a sexual act (Barnett and Feild, 1977; Bridges and McGrail, 1989), emphasized the personal characteristics of rape victims (Calhoun, Selby, and Warring, 1976), were less punitive toward the assailant (Feldman-Summers and Lindner, 1976; scroggs, 1976; Smith, Keating, Hester, and Mitchell, 1976; Stephan, 1974; Tolor, 1978), and believed that women precipitate their own rape (Cann, Calhoun, and Selby, 1979; Kanekar and Vaz, 1983; Selby, Calhoun, and Brock, 1977; Smith, et al, 1976). Males, especially sexually aggressive men, also had greater belief in general rape myths and held more traditional gender-role attitudes than females (Barnett and Feild, 1977; Dull and Giacopassi, 1987; Garrett—Gooding and Senter, 1987; Horsley, 1988; Jenkins and Dambrot, 1987; Ross and Dinero, 1988; Ross, Leonard, Breezley, and Oros, 1985; McDonald, 1988). Williams (1979) found significant support for a link between gender-role attitudes and assessment of female blame for rape. This conclusion has also been supported by the work of Acock and Ireland (1983), Feild (1978a, 1978b), Feild and Bienen (1980), Howard (1984a), Klemmack and Klemmack (1976), and Shotland and Goodstein (1983). For example, Howard (1984a) found that people with traditional gender-role attitudes attributed more global and characterological blame to female assault victims than to male assault victims. Furthermore, those with more egalitarian gender-role attitudes tended to not differ in their attributions between male and female victims. As 9 Additionally, gender-role ideology and general belief in rape myths have been found to be related (Briers and Malamuth, 1983; Bunting and Reeves, 1983; Check and Malamuth, 1983; Coller and Resick, 1987; Costin, 1985; Fisher, 1986; Kanin, 1984; Malamuth, 1981; Malamuth and Check, 1980; Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh, 1988; Quackenbush, 1987; Seiverd, 1989; Tieger, 1981). Specifically, Check and Malamuth (1983) found that individuals with more stereotyped gender-role beliefs perceived a rape victim as reacting more favorably to her rape than did people subscribing to low gender-role stereotypes. An important finding was that no gender differences emerged from this study, indicating that both males and females judged acquaintance rape victims from the perspective of their gender-role beliefs. People with traditional gender-role orientations were more likely to believe that forced sexual intercourse was normal (Check and Malamuth, 1985; Fisher, 1986; Goodchilds, Zellman, Johnson, and Giarrusso, 1988; Muehlenhard, 1988; Muehlenhard, Friedman, and Thomas, 1985; Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh, 1988; Sandberg, Jackson, and Petretic- Jackson, 1987). Muehlenhard (1988) consistently found that rape justification ratings, across a variety of dating scenarios, were influenced by a person's level of gender-role traditionality. Generally, traditional persons thought rape was more justifiable than did nontraditional persons. Langer, Blank, and Chanowitz (1978) demonstrated that people ignore relevant information when a situation is consistent with their prior expectations. As such, juries often ignore the strict application of the law and respond to the circumstances of each case according to the general stereotypes of society (Brooks and Doob, 1975; DiPerna, 1984; Feild and Bienen, 1980; Frazier and Borgida, 1988; Guinther, 1988; Kalven and Zeisel, 1966; L'Armand and Pepitone, 1982; Williams, 1976). The result may be an arbitrary hearing (Griffitt and Jackson, 1973; Frank, 1949; Simon, 1980; Stephan, 1975), where the victim's gender-role behavior influenced the verdict more than the evidence of the rape case 10 (LaFree, Reskin, and Visher, 1985). As has been previously documented, (a) acquaintance rape is a frequent occurrence on college campuses; (b) gender-role ideology and rape myth beliefs influence the definitional boundaries of rape; and (c) various attributional factors influence judgements of blame and responsibility in acquaintance rape situations, including those of criminal juries. It is these aforementioned points that cause critics (Parrot, 1991a, 1991b) to question the effectiveness of college judicial systems to properly adjudicate acquaintance rape cases. Acquaintance rape incidents that occur on college campuses can be adjudicated in both the criminal court and college disciplinary systems (Adams and Abarbanel, 1988; Parrot, 1991b). While criminal proceedings utilize the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, campus disciplinary systems use the less stringent "by a preponderance“ or "clear and convincing" standards of proof to judge violations of college rules (Long, 1985). College proceedings are generally less formal and often take place in front of faculty and student representatives who serve as regular members of a judicial hearing board (Lancaster, Cooper, and Harman, 1993). The judicial board listens to both sides of the case, decides if campus rules have been violated, and determines a penalty for the guilty party (Adams and Abarbanel, 1988). Stoner and Cerminara (1990) stated that college judicial boards are an important option for judging students who violate campus rules and regulations. However, most college judicial boards are only prepared to adjudicate standard cases like vandalism, alcohol possession, and plagiarism (Collison, 1991; Julian, 1992; Kalette, 1988). As a result, complex cases like acquaintance rape are often poorly adjudicated because judicial board members don't receive proper training about: (a) the laws and policies related to acquaintance rape; (b) the psychological needs of victims and defendants; and (c) the typical patterns associated with acquaintance rapes (Parrot, 1991a). In fact, research conducted by Dannells (1991) concluded that 11 judicial affairs professionals have made few changes in the last 10 years in the methods used to handle student misconduct cases. Thus, in acquaintance rape cases, Parrot (1991b) stated that judicial boards should have a legal expert appointed as the chairperson to ensure that the proceeding are properly conducted consistent with state laws and institutional policies. Furthermore, Parrot (1991b) stated that assailants, if found guilty of acquaintance rape, must be dealt with to the fullest extent permitted by campus policy. This was consistent with recent legal developments in higher education law that suggest colleges must thoroughly investigate and respond to acquaintance rape incidents (Associated Press, 1991; Batson, 1986; Freeman, 1990: Gibbs, 1991; Helms, 1987: Pavela, 1992b; Steiner, 1989; Wagner, 1991). W Heterosexual acquaintance rape is a social problem on college campuses, with approximately 27 percent of college women experiencing rape while on a date (Miller and Marshall, 1987). When reported, colleges often respond by adjudicating alleged perpetrators in acquaintance rape cases via institutional student judicial processes. These processes often include the option of having peer judicial boards hear the facts of the case, determine a verdict, and render discipline sanctions when applicable. Critics charge that judicial boards are ill-prepared to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases because of inadequate training and lack of sensitivity concerning the dynamics of acquaintance rape situations. Furthermore, research involving both actual and mock juries demonstrated that verdicts in acquaintance rape cases were often influenced more by the individual member's levels of belief in rape myths and gender-role stereotypes than by actual facts. 12 W The review of the literature clearly documented that college students, both male and female, believed in traditional gender-role stereotypes (Rosenkranta, et al., 1968) that influenced dating relationships (Muehlenhard, Friedman, and Thomas, 1985) and perceptions concerning a willingness to engage in sexual intercourse (Bostwick, 1990). college students were also found to believe in rape myths (Check and Malamuth, 1985) that influenced the definitional boundaries between rape and normal sexual activity (Wilson, Paison, and Britton, 1983). Furthermore, rape myths were found to be related to views concerning the roles and rights of women in society (Costin, 1985), with students holding traditional views more likely to believe in rape myths and to accept sexual aggression (Greendlinger and Byrne, 1987). Hen with strong gender-role stereotyping beliefs reported a greater belief in rape myths and more likelihood of using aggression in sexual situations (Malamuth, 1981). A review of the literature on attribution demonstrated that people defined a situation as rape according to their stereotypes of rape (Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976). For example, rape was more often defined when the woman resisted (Krulewitz and Nash, 1979) and when she was not acquainted with the rapist (McGraw, 1987). Further research determined that gender and gender-role attitudes were the 2 primary contributors concerning the definition of rape (Thornton, Ryckman, and Robbins, 1982), with males viewing the rape less seriously than females (Calhoun, Selby, and Warring, 1976; Tieger, 1981). The literature clearly and consistently identified the prevalence of rape myth beliefs and gender-role attitudes in the general college population. Also defined was the influence of these beliefs and attitudes on attributions of blame and responsibility in acquaintance rspe situations. Of special note was the consistent results of the studies, over time, from a variety of colleges and universities. 13 Research involving both actual and mock juries demonstrated that verdicts in acquaintance rape cases were often influenced more by the individual member's level of belief in rape myths and gender-role attitudes than by actual facts (LaFree, Reskin, and Visher, 1985). In essence, jury members reflected the stereotypes of society. This was especially relevant when related to the effectiveness of peer judicial boards adjudicating acquaintance rape cases on college campuses. Specifically, given the documented level of rape myth belief and traditional gender-role attitudes in the general college population, were college judicial board members more aware of the influence of rape myths and gender-role attitudes on their judgement of blame and responsibility in rape cases? This was an important question given that judicial board members are trained to impartially judge all cases heard before them. If individual members subscribe to the same beliefs as their peers in terms of rape myth beliefs, Parrot (1991a, 1991b) and other critics may be correct in questioning the competence of judicial boards to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases on campus. Thus, this study was designed to answer the aforementioned question. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to determine what effect college judicial board members' levels of rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes had on the judgement of a male perpetrator's guilt or innocence for committing an act of rape. The rape was depicted by two written scenarios featuring an acquaintance assault and a stranger assault. The study specifically examined the differences between the acquaintance rape and stranger rape situations consistent with the purpose of this study. Each of the two rape scenarios were judged by 50 percent of the subjects. Thus, 50 percent of the judicial board members judged the acquaintance rape scenario. The remaining 50 percent from the sample judged the stranger rape scenario. All subjects completed the PE“ Scale that measured attitudes toward feminism and sexism, the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire, the Adjudication Questionnaire, and the Demographic 14 Information Form. Subjects were enrolled students selected from 15 Michigan colleges and universities, representing 6 independent and 9 state-assisted institutions. All subjects were members of judicial boards empowered by an institution to levy or recommend disciplinary sanctions, including suspension, against other students found guilty, after a hearing, of violating conduct standards. W Pavela (1992a) stated that colleges have a responsibility to resolve acquaintance rape cases based on their obligation to: (a) promote the moral development of students; and (b) protect the safety of people using their premises. Furthermore, Pavela stated that college judicial boards play an important role in fulfilling the college's obligation to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases. Pavela also stated that college judicial boards are composed of qualified individuals, that when guided by a competent advisor are capable of rendering sound judgements in even the most complex cases. Critics, such as Parrot (1991a, 1991b), however question the competence of judicial boards to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases. They question whether judicial boards are adequately trained and advised about acquaintance rape situations to make sound judgements. This question is especially important when one looks at attribution research (Howard, 1984a, 1984b; LaFree, 1980; Smith, et al, 1976: Wilson, et a1, 1983) that indicated acquaintance rape cases are often decided on extra- legal factors based on rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes. Furthermore, much of the attribution research was conducted with college students, thus providing a baseline for inference about how college students attribute blame and responsibility in acquaintance rape situations. Even given the current debate concerning the effectiveness of 15 judicial boards, this author was unable to find published research that determined how actual college judicial boards adjudicate acquaintance rape cases. Ho research was found that measured the level of rape myth belief or the gender-role attitudes of actual judicial board members. rinally, no research was discovered regarding the impact of attitudes and beliefs on either the verdicts or discipline sanctions levied in rape cases. The literature that has been published on this subject generally critiques college judicial programs and/or provided recommendations for policy implementation (Adams and Abarbanel, 1988; Parrot, 1991a, 1991b; Pavela, 1992a). Thus, this research appears to substantially contribute to the literature by providing empirical data concerning the effect of gender-role attitudes and rape myth beliefs on the adjudication of a hypothetical rape case. Depending on the outcome, this research could contribute to the effective advising, selection, and training of judicial board members. summations This investigation was guided by the following questions: 1. What relationship, if any, exists between the verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator and rape myth 7 beliefs across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? 2. What relationship, if any, exists between the verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator and gender-role attitudes across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? 3. What relationship, if any, exists between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief on verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? 16 filflflfihfllfll The following directional hypotheses were tested in this study: 1. As a group, subjects with high level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the not guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. 2. As a group, subjects with low level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. 3. As a group, subjects with high level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. 4. As a group, subjects with low level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. 5. As a group, subjects with sexist beliefs will most frequently select the not guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. 6. As a group, subjects with feminist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. 7. As a group, subjects with sexist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. 8. As a group, subjects with feminist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. 9. Overall, there will be a positive relationship between gender- role attitudes and rape myth belief. 10. Overall, gender-role attitudes will be more influential than rape myth belief in determining the verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. 11. Overall, gender-role attitudes will be more influential than rape myth belief in determining the verdict in the stranger rape mode. 17 511211.951 The subjects of this investigation included 113 judicial board members enrolled as undergraduates for the spring semester of 1993 at 6 independent and 9 state-assisted colleges within the state of Michigan. Eighty-five judicial board members were selected from the state-assisted colleges, with the remaining 28 board members representing the independent institutions. All subjects served on campus judicial boards empowered to suspend or recommend suspension for students found guilty of violating college conduct standards. Wigs The instrument used in this study was comprised of 5 components. Two of the components, the FEM Scale (Smith, Ferree, and Miller, 1975) and the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire (Feild and Bienen, 1980) were used as originally developed. The Acquaintance Rape and Stranger Rape Scenarios were modified, based on the expert advise of the Sexual Assault Safety Program Coordinator at Michigan State University, from the original versions developed by Quackenbush (1987). The Adjudication Questionnaire and the Demographic Information Form were developed by this investigator (See Chapter 3 for additional information on the instrumentation). The FEM Scale is a 20-item scale measuring attitudes toward feminism and traditional gender-role norms. The scale may be more generally conceived of as a measure of sexist attitudes toward women. Respondents answered the questions by using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Independent validation of the scale by Singleton and Christiansen (1977, p. 301) concluded that "... it is the shortest, most reliable measure of sexist or feminist attitudes yet available...” (See Appendix A or 8, Section D, for the complete instrument). ‘5 'i 1‘. 18 The Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire is a 32-item questionnaire composed of 8 latent factors that measures people's multidimensional attitudes about rape. The questionnaire used both positively and negatively phrased questions that respondents answered by using a 6- point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Originally Factor 1, titled ”Women‘s Responsibility In Rape Prevention", was to be used as a measure of rape myth belief. Ross and Leonard (1984, p. 220) stated that “... this factor could be interpreted as a general rape myth factor" (See Appendix A or 8, Section E, for the complete ATR Questionnaire). However, subsequent investigation prompted this researcher to conduct a new principal components factor analysis with varimax rotations (Babbie, 1990) for the ATR Questionnaire. The results identified 6 latent factors. As a result, a new Unified Rape Myth Factor was created for use as the measure of rape myth belief specific to this investigation (See Appendix D for factor presentation; Chapter 4 also provides more detailed information on the creation of the Unified Factor). 1 The Acquaintance Rape and Stranger Rape Scenarios provided identical demographic and situational information through the first 7 paragraphs. The remaining paragraphs of the scenarios were identical in terms of the female's response and the male's actions, the only difference being the stranger or acquainted condition of the alleged rapist. Both scenarios met the legal requirements within the State of Michigan concerning the commission of rape by the male (See Appendix A, Section 8, for the acquaintance rape scenario. See Appendix 8, Section B, for the stranger rape scenario). The Adjudication Questionnaire was utilized to determine whether the respondents judged the alleged male rapist as guilty or innocent of rape. When respondents judged the alleged rapist as guilty, the questionnaire also instructed them to select a disciplinary sanction that most closely approximated their view of appropriate punishment for n 19 the offense. The descriptors explaining the disciplinary sanctions were closely matched with those utilized at 5 of the colleges in the study and in Stoner and Cerminara's (1990) model code (See Appendix A or 8, Section C). The Demographic Information Form collected personal data (e.g. gender, race, type of college attended, etc.) from each subject. Additional questions were asked that discerned each subject's level of exposure to the topic of rape (See Appendix A or 8, Section F). W This investigation utilized a descriptive survey research design (Babble, 1990; Turney and Robb, 1971) that determines the distribution of certain characteristics, traits, attributes, and/or opinions within a sample at a given point in time. The sample for this investigation was students that served on judicial boards empowered to suspend or recommend suspension for students found guilty of violating college rules. A student affairs staff member with judicial responsibilities served as the contact person at each of the participating institutions. The contact person was responsible for administering the survey to the appropriate judicial board members. The subjects' names or addresses were not known by this researcher. Bach contact person was directly mailed in March 1993 the requisite number of survey booklets (See Appendix A and 8), along with a letter explaining the instructions for administering the surveys (See Appendix 0). Each survey booklet contained the same cover page explaining the purpose of the survey. Section A of the booklet contained the general instructions for completing the survey. The remaining sections contained the rape scenarios (one-half of the booklets contained the stranger scenario, one-half contained the acquaintance scenario), the Adjudication Questionnaire, the FEM Scale, the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire, and the Demographic Information Form. E" . 20 W This study utilized 1 instrument comprised of 5 components. The Demographic Information Form and Adjudication Questionnaire provided nominal data that were used as independent variables, requiring only classification. The Rape Scenarios required no scoring. The FEM Scale was a 20-item instrument designed to measure sexist or feminist attitudes. Mo sub-factors were identified in the scale. The instrument utilized a 5-point Likert Scale, scored according to a range from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Questions 15, 16, 19, and 20 were scored in reverse order, where strongly agree - 5 and strongly disagree - l. A high score was consistent with feminist or less traditional gender-role attitudes. The Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire was composed of 8 latent factors. The instrument used a 6-point Likert Scale where 1 8 strongly agree and 6 - strongly disagree. As originally developed by Feild (1978a), a high score was indicative of substantial rape myth belief, as well as possessing anti-victim, pro-rape sentiments. Subsequent modification of the ATR Questionnaire, because a new principal components factor analysis with varimax rotations (Babbie, 1990) was conducted, changed the scoring structure of the ATR Questionnaire. Specifically, items 2, 3, 20, and 22 were recoded so that strongly agree a 6 and strongly disagree - 1. These coding changes altered the direction of the scale. For the purpose of this investigation, a high score on the ATR Unified Rape Myth Factor was suggestive of low rape myth belief (See Chapter 4 for more specific information on the scoring changes associated with this instrument). W All respondents completing and returning the survey booklet were grouped according to whether their survey booklet included the stranger rape or acquaintance rape. The groups were initially compared on the basis of discrete demographic characteristics using chi-square analysis. 21 The groups were also compared according to age, academic grade point average, and months of judicial experience by using a t-test. ANOVA was originally selected to determine what relationship, if any, existed between the judicial verdict, rape mode, and rape myth belief or gender-role attitudes. MAMOVA was to be used to determine what relationship, if any, existed between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief on the judicial verdict. MAMOVA was also to be used to determine what effect, if any, demographic variables had on the relationships between judicial verdict, rape mode, rape myth belief, and gender-role attitudes. Regression was originally selected to determine the relationship, if any, between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief. Multiple regression procedures were to be utilised to gain greater understanding concerning what variables had the greatest impact on the judicial verdicts. The aforementioned procedures were selected with the idea that the subjects participating in this investigation would choose both the guilty and not guilty verdicts. However, the unexpected finding that all subjects judged the male to be guilty of rape limited the statistical analysis to t—tests, chi-squares, and correlation coefficients. A level of significance of (p) .05 (Borg and Call, 1983) was established to determine whether a hypothesis was tenable or must be rejected as false. We ngggig;gngg_;gpg: A type of rape that involves parties who knew each other prior to the assault. The level of acquaintanceship may range from slight recognition to knowing each other very well, including dating relationships involving some level of romantic interest. 22 9911393: Any postsecondary institution of higher education offering courses of study leading to at least a bachelor's degree. £9n§n§§_§§§ng§£glz The rules and regulations of the college that govern the behavior of enrolled students. nilgipling_§§ng§ignz The punishment or penalty given to an enrolled student found guilty by authorized agents of the college, including judicial boards, of violating conduct standards. angg;_3glgx A pattern of behaviors that society both expects and encourages. Gender roles are based on widely shared cultural beliefs about how males and females should behave. Egngggzgg;g_5§§i§ggg§: Affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to the gender-role behaviors of males and females. 91nd:;:£glg_§§g;gg§ypggz Generalizations, based on an attitude structure, concerning the expected gender-role behaviors of males and females that influences the processing of information about individual members of each gender. Inggngng§n§_ggllgg§§: Often referred to as private colleges, these institutions are autonomous from state control and derive their budgets primarily from private donations and tuition. Judicial_flgargz A group authorized by the college to hear cases and levy discipline sanctions when enrolled students allegedly violate conduct standards. Judicial boards typically are selected, trained, and advised by student affairs staff. ‘k. Mun Alh- s- r.- J— 23 ggg;§1§1_gggggg§: The due process requirements and administrative procedures followed by college staff when implementing discipline procedures against enrolled students alleged to have violated college conduct standards. Lggg1_ggggi;gmgn§g_jgg_figpg: Within the state of Michigan, it is considered rape when force is used by the rapist and sexual penetration, defined as the insertion of any object into any body cavity of the victim, occurs. The victim is not required to resist the rapist, nor prove nonconsent. figpg_flyth§: Biased, stereotypical, and inaccurate beliefs about the nature of rape, rape victims, and the rapist that create a hostile climate for rape victims. filfiifl:fi§§i§§g§_§gllggggz Often referred to as public colleges, these institutions derive the majority of their budget from state governments and are viewed as state entities. fisrgng§£_3§pg: Considered the classic rape, it involves a victim and rapist who had no relationship to each other prior to the assault. fingpengign: A discipline sanction requiring an enrolled student found guilty of violating college conduct standards to deactivate his/her enrollment for a pre-determined period of time. WA}: This investigation had the following limitations inherent in the design of this study: a) Studies demonstrate that real juries are less likely to find guilt than mock juries (Diamond and Zeisel, 1974) and are 24 more lenient when judging a college discipline case (Kerr, Herenz, and Herrick as cited in Gerbasi, Suckerman, and Reis, 1977). b) Complex social phenomenon are difficult to define, resulting in an oversimplification that make it difficult to gather accurate measures (Sabbie, 1990). c) Researchers using questionnaires must be aware that subjects may be careless, have faulty perceptions, lack interest, and/or are untruthful when completing the instrument (Turney and Robb, 1971). It is also possible that respondents are expressing attitudes that they have thought little about (Babbie, 1990). d) The use of rape scenarios introduces a number of variables that makes it difficult to generalize beyond the case study being analyzed (Babbie, 1990; LaFree, 1989). Case studies also limit subject exposure to extra-legal variables (defendant/victim characteristics) that influence outcomes of hearings (Gerbasi, Zuckerman, and Reis, 1977). e) All institutions participating in this study used slightly different descriptors to explain their conduct rules and judicial sanctions. As such, the descriptors explaining the judicial sanctions in Section C (Adjudication Questionnaire) of the survey were a compilation. Interpretation of the results assumed that all respondents understood the descriptors before determining a punishment. 0 n zatio 0 he tud This manuscript is organized into 5 chapters. The first chapter delineates the research questions and hypothesis of the study. Chapter 1 also provides a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the value of researching the stated problem. 25 Chapter 2 provides a literature review that is relevant to the stated problem and purpose of the study. This chapter explains rape according to legal, social, and general definitions. A theoretical perspective, with emphasis on feminist theory is provided. A review of rape laws, highlighting the law in Michigan, is presented. The prevalence of rape on college campuses is established. An overview of gender-role stereotypes, attitudes, and rape myth beliefs outlines their prevalence and effect on the attribution of blame and responsibility in acquaintance rape cases. Finally, a review of jury decision-making and college disciplinary procedures is provided. Chapter 3 contains a description of the research methodology. Included is a description of the research subjects, instrumentation, data collection procedures, scoring the data, and data analysis techniques. Chapter 4 provides a presentation and analysis of the research data. This chapter examines the demographics of the samples and provides empirical and descriptive analysis of the data. Chapter 5 presents a summary of the findings, examines the limitations of the study, and discusses the major findings. Also included are the major conclusions of the study, including the implications and recommendations for further research. “I CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW W “The classic 'real' rape, for many people, is a rape by a stranger who uses a weapon--an assault done at night, outside (in a dark alley), with a lot of violence, resistance by the victim, and hence severe wounds and signs of struggle” (Burt, 1991, p.27). While most females are raped by males at night (Amir, 1971, 1975; Harlow, 1991; Rat: and Mazur, 1979), rapes generally occur in the victim's or assailant's home (Ageton, 1983; Bart, 1975; Harlow, 1991; Kanin, 1984; Rats and Mazur, 1979), involve members of the same race (Amir, 1971, 1975; Curtis, 1976; Harlow, 1991), lack strong victim resistance (Amir, 1971, 1975), result from the use of psychological or verbal coercion rather than use of a weapon (Ageton, 1983; Amir, 1971, 1975; Harlow, 1991; Ross, 1988; Krasner, Meyer, and Carroll, 1976; Rapaport and Burkhart, 1984), and don't result in severe injuries (Bownes, O'Gorman, and Sayers, 1991; Harlow, 1991; National Victim Center, 1992; Yegidis, 1986). The majority of the rape victims were acquainted with the assailant (Aizenman and Kelley, 1988; Bailey, 1986; Bart, 1975; Copenhaver and Grauerholz, 1991; Ross, 1988; National Victim Center, 1992; Yegidis, 1986). "The major threat that women face is not the unknown rapist lurking in the bushes at night, but men who women come into contact with on a day-to-day basis” (Bailey, 1986, p.35). Several studies (Aizenman and Kelley, 1988; Garrett-Gooding and Senter, 1987; Kanin, 1957, 1967, 1975, 1984; Kanin and Parcell, 1977; Ross, 1985, 1988; Ross and Dinero, 1988, 1989; Ross and Gidycz, 1985; Ross, Gidycz, and Wisniewski, 1987; Ross and Leonard, 1984; Ross, Leonard, Breezley, and Oros, 1985; Ross and Oros, 1982; Miller and Marshall, 1987; Rapaport and Burkhart, 1984), confirm the prevalence of acquaintance rape on college campuses. According to Gibbs (1991), the classic rape ”accounts for only 1 out of 5 of the attacks" (p. 48) on women. 26 '1 l‘j 27 The remainder of this chapter reviews the literature pertaining to the topic of acquaintance or date rape among students who attend institutions of higher education in the United States The specific focus of this review is on the influence of gender-role stereotypes and rape attitudes on people's attribution of blame and responsibility in acquaintance rape situations. A special emphasis is on the attributional factors that influence the adjudication of acquaintance rape cases in both criminal justice and higher education judicial processes. Also reviewed are the general, legal, and social definitions of rape, emphasizing a feminist perspective. A comprehensive review of the prevalence of acquaintance rape in both society and higher education is provided to demonstrate the seriousness of the problem. A review of rape law is presented as a contrast to the social stereotypes that influence people's attribution of blame and responsibility in acquaintance rape situations. Definitions m1 "Rape definitions may be broad and inclusive or narrow and restrictive. At the inclusive extreme, radical feminists would maintain that all coerced sex is rape, whether the coercion used be physical, psychological, or economic. At the restrictive extreme, many people believe that there is no such thing as rape ...” (Burt and Albin, 1981, p. 213). Hueston and Burkhart (1986, p. 31) state that the definition of rape also varies according to "legal? and "social" definitions. Whatever definition is used, rape in the United States is an offense overwhelmingly heterosexual, perpetrated by men against women (Amir, 1971, 1975; Harlow, 1991; Johnson, 1980; Russell and Howell, 1983) There are references in the literature to three types of rape. Ross and Harvey (1987) provide the following definitions: (a) Stranger rape (classic rape) “involves a victim and offender who have no relationship to each other ..." (p. 11). 9" I". 28 (b) Acquaintance rape "involves parties who knew each other prior to the assault and includes relatives, neighbors, or family friends" (p. 11). (c) Date rape happens "... when sexual intercourse occurs within a relationship superficially appropriate for sexual intimacy but where violence or threat of harm is used by the man, and the woman is not consenting" (p. 11). Further defined, "acquaintance rape refers to assaults committed by anyone not a complete stranger to the victim which could include people she recognized even slightly or knew very well. Date rape is a specific type of acquaintance rape that involves a victim and perpetrator who have some level of romantic relationship between them“ (Ross, 1992, p. 21). According to Ross (1992, p. 22), ”the essential meaning of the word rape is unaffected by the relationship of the parties. Legally, date and acquaintance rape are rape." Roark (1989) concurs, writing that “the relationship of the parties rarely enters into the legal definition ...“ (p.41) of rape. Modern “rape laws are framed in such a way as to cover all rapes, whether perpetrated by strangers or by acquaintances“ (Bohmer, 1991, p.317). Hughes and Sandler (1987) define rape as ' ... an act of violence” (p. 1) that is ”... often an attempt to assert power and anger" (p. 2). Rape, when ”... stripped of its legal baggage ... refers to all forms of physical sexual intimacies in which significant physical force is used or threatened by one of the parties involved contrary to the will of the other" (Ellis, 1989, p. 2). Burgess and Holmstrom (1980) further define stranger rape as a “blitz rape [that] occurs suddenly without warning and without prior interaction between assailant and victim ... Often he selects an anonymous victim and tries to remain anonymous himself." (p. 28). An acquaintance or “confidence rape is more subtle than the blitz rape [because] ... the assailant gains access to the victim under false pretenses, establishes [a] nonthreatening relationship, ... encourages her to trust him, and then he betrays this trustf (Burgess and Holmstrom, 1980, p. 29). K-e 29 Rape may also be viewed as ' ... a pseudosexual act, a pattern of sexual behavior that is concerned much more with status, hostility, control, and dominance than with sexual pleasure or sexual satisfaction“ (Groth and Birnbaum, 1980, p. 21). Patterns of pseudosexual rape have been discerned by Groth (1979), and Groth and Birnbaum (1980), and Wilson (1978). The most commonly cited are those identified by Groth and Birnbaum (1980): (a) Anger rape involves sexuality that "becomes a means of expressing and discharging feeling of pent-up rage ... [and] is characterized by physical brutality" (p. 21). (b) Power rape is motivated by dominance. ”... it is not the offender's intent to harm his victim but to possess her sexually. Sexuality becomes a means of compensating for underlying feelings of inadequacy and serves to express mastery, strength, control, authority and identity” (p. 22). (c) Sadistic rape involves a fusion of ”... both sexuality and aggression ... into a single psychological experience .... Aggression itself is eroticized, and this offender finds the deliberate and intentional sexual abuse of his victim intensely exciting and gratifying” (p. 23). Brownmiller (1975), offering a straightforward definition, stated that ”if a woman chooses not to have intercourse with a specific man and the man chooses to proceed against her will" (p.18), then rape has occurred. L293]. Courts often make decisions that interpret state and federal statutes and/or the rules and regulations of governmental agencies. These decisions, that provide further meaning, are referred to as the common law of the United States. "Common law, in short, is judge-made law rather than law that originates from constitutions or from legislatures or administrative agencies" (Kaplin, 1989, p. 13). The typical common law definition, such as the one used in Alabama, defines rape "... as unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife (intercourse), committed forcibly and without her consent” (Robin, 1977, p. 138). This traditional legal definition of rape encompasses four aspects (Bessmer, 1984; Bstrich, 1987; Richmond, 1980; Robin, 1977; 30 Snelling, 1975; Tong, 1984; Virginia Law Review, 1975): (a) Penetration of the female vagina by the male penis. (b) The male uses force or threat of force against the female. (c) The female victim demonstrates nonconsent. (d) It is an extramarital occurrence. According to Estrich (1987), this traditional or common law definition of rape "... remains the essence of even the most radical reform statutes" (p. 8). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (1989) continues to define rape as "... the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will" (p. 14). The most difficult issues involved in defining rape are determining the amount of actual or threatened force used, especially in acquaintance rape situations that are often ambiguous (Ellis, 1989). Traditional rape laws in the United States have been heavily criticized as a visible symbol of the sexism that exists in society (Brownmiller, 1975; Clark and Lewis, 1977; Estrich, 1987; Griffin, 1979; MacKinnon, 1983; Medea and Thompson, 1974; Russell, 1975; Wood, 1973). As a result, rape law reforms have occurred in many of the states, most notably Michigan (Bessmer, 1984; Caringella-MacDonald, 1985; Chappell, 1984; Cobb and Schauer, 1974; Dean and deBruyn—Kops, 1982; Feild and Bienen, 1980; Galvin, 1985; Largen, 1988; Marsh, Geist, and Caplan, 1982; Polk, 1985; Praeger Publishers, 1977; Robin, 1977; Searles and Berger, 1987; Virginia Law Review, 1975). Further review of the legal system will occur later in this chapter. mm Aside from the legal definitions, most people also define rape using social definitions (Hueston and Burkhart, 1986; Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976; Weis and Borges, 1973). According to Hueston and Burkhart (1986, p. 31), "the social definition of rape--that is, what people in general define as rape--is biased by a set of inaccurate assumptions or beliefs about the nature of rape.” Commonly called rape 31 myths (Burt, 1980; Pineau, 1989; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1974), these assumptions are "... prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists [that] create a climate hostile to rape victims” (Burt, 1980, p. 217). These myths exist because they “... are simpler to understand and easier to accept and, therefore, more satisfying than the reality” (Groth, 1979, p. 11) Several authors have written about rape myths prevelant in society (Barnett and Feild, 1977; Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980; Griffin, 1975; Groth, 1979; Holmberg and MacDonald, 1990; Ross and Harvey, 1987; Krasner, Meyer, and Carroll, 1976; Malamuth, 1981; Medea and Thompson, 1974; Metzer, 1976; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1974; Warshaw, 1988). Examples of rape myths include: (a) All rapists are insane or sex-starved (Burt, 1980; Griffin, 1975). (b) Women secretly want to be raped (Brownmiller, 1975; Griffin, 1975). (c) Women like being raped (Griffin, 1975; Ross and Harvey, 1987). (d) Only ”bad” girls are raped (Burt, 1980; Griffin, 1975; Ross and Harvey, 1987). (e) A woman means “yes" when she says "no“ to sexual intercourse (Griffin, 1975; Ross and Harvey, 1987). (f) Rape victims provoke their own assault, e.g. type of clothes worn (Barnett and Feild, 1977; Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980; Griffin, 1975; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1974). (9) Men can't control their animal instincts (Griffin, 1975; Groth and Birnbaum, 1980; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1975). (h) It's impossible to rape a woman who is unwilling (Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980; Ross and Harvey, 1987; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1974). (i) A married woman can't be raped (Griffin, 1975). (j) Women falsely cry rape to be vindictive or to cover-up their actions (Burt, 1980). (k) The typical rape involves a stranger, occurs in a dark alley and results in injuries (Burt, 1991; Holmberg and MacDonald, 1990; Ross and Harvey, 1987). The existence of these rape myths have been well established by researchers. Rape myths have been found prevelant in groups such as college students (Acock and Ireland, 1983; Barnett and Feild, 1977; 32 Bostwick, 1990; Bunting and Reeves, 1983; Check and Malamuth, 1985; Costin, 1985), criminal justice personnel (Chappell and Singer, 1977; Feild, 1978a; Feild and Bienen, 1980; Halven and Zeisel, 1966; Kerstetter, 1990; LaFree, 1980; McCahill, Meyer, and Fischman, 1979), and in the general population ( Amir, 1971, 1975; Burt, 1980; Burt and Albin, 1981; Costin, 1985; Feild, 1978a; Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976; Williams, 1979). A court observer, after following 25 rape cases through the criminal justice system in Philadelphia, summarized the impact of rape myths as follows: “The stereotypes which are seen in rape cases invariably portray a woman as degraded, oppressed, dependent, and victimized. They either desire assault and humiliation, are spiteful, or desperately in need of attention; they lose all control under threat and are thereby reduced to babbling idiots" (quoted in Krasner, Meyer, and Carroll, 1976, p. 27). Theoretical s c ve In the comprehensive book Thgggigg_Q1_gang_Lnggiggg_in§9_thg Qagggg_g1_§gxgal_5ggrgg§igg, Ellis (1989) identified three contemporary theories to help explain the causes of rape. The three theories, according to Ellis, "... have all been formulated in light of a growing body of research that has also examined the more prevalent, but far less violent forms of rape committed by acquaintances (date rape)” (p. 9). The theories identified by Ellis were evolutionary theory, social learning theory, and feminist theory. This review will concentrate on feminist theory, offering only a very brief overview of evolutionary theory and social learning theory. This decision was made because evolutionary theory lacks relevance and because "social learning theory is similar to feminist theory in several respects; in fact, at times they have been virtually equated“ (Ellis, 1989, p. 13). f” 33 3!Ql!§i£fl££¥.1h22£¥ “The evolutionary theory of rape considers rape to be an act emanating from natural selection pressure for males to be more eager than females for copulatory experiences ..." (Ellis, 1989, p. 16). The emphasis of this theory is on biological reproduction, with the social roles of males and females determined by evolution. For example, "while natural selection may have favored males who were prone to use forceful tactics to inseminate females, natural selection would have also favored females who resisted such tactics” (Ellis, 1989, p. 15). According to evolutionary theory, rape is the result of the conflict that occurs between the male biological drive to reproduce, and the female desire to control the reproductive process. So rnin h o "A major impetus for this theory came from the 1973 Presidential Commission on Pornography and Obscenity” (Ellis, 1989, p. 12). This theory postulates that males learn aggressive behavior toward women. The learning process is influenced by the mass media's portrayal of women, the association of sexuality and violence in our culture, the prevalence of rape myths, and the desensitization of society toward violence (Ellis, 1989). Social learning proponents focus more on cultural mores than political and socioeconomic exploitation (Ellis, 1989). The "... social learning theorists appear more receptive than feminist theorists to the view that rape may often reflect a genuine desire by rapists to have sex with their victims (especially regarding date rape)” (Ellis, 1989, p. 13; see also Ranin, 1984). W Also referred to as "conflict theory” (Rerstetter, 1990; LaFree, 1989, p. 44) or "social control theory" (Ross and Leonard, 1984, p. 228), feminist theory "... considers rape to be the result of long and deep-rooted social traditions in which males have dominated nearly all a“! .e .. C . .9 ‘ s 34 important political and economic activities” (Ellis, 1989, p. 10). Because women are excluded from political decision-making, they are relegated to a status in society that is considered ”inferior" to men. As a result, ”the assumption is that rape is ... expectable, even 'natural,’ as a man's superior will or his 'having his way' with women is natural" (Morrison, 1980, p. 4). Thus, according to Metzger (1976), 'rape is a ritual of power ... but it is also the symbolic enactment of social and cultural attitudes" (p. 405). Feminist theory disagrees with the traditional psychiatric view that rapists are sexual deviants (Check and Malamuth, 1985). Instead, this theory ”... regards rape as a male response to the social inequality between the sexes and the tendency of this inequality to affect the way men and women interact sexually" (Ellis, 1989, p. 10). According to Morrison (1980), "a woman, as man's inferior, finds her rightful place in society by fulfilling his destiny [because] she has no destiny of her own” (p. 4). Furthermore, Morrison (1980) stated that “... women, unrelated to men, have no intrinsic value and find their value ... only in relation to men” (p. 5) and that women are important to men "... as symbols of their power and as prizes of their prowess, thus bringing men status among their fellows ..." (p. 7). Brownmiller (1975), in a comprehensive historical analysis of rape, documents that women were viewed as the property of their father under ancient Babylonia and Mosaic law. When a daughter was raped, her value was placed at fifty pieces of silver, payable to the father by the rapist. The silver was paid as compensation for “... the theft of virginity, an embezzlement of his daughter's fair price on the market" (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 18). When a married woman was raped, however, she was "... considered culpable, adulterous and irrevocably defiled" (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 19), no longer of value to her husband. Lindemann (1984), after researching rape cases in eighteenth- century Massachusetts, concluded that “the pattern is highly suggestive and supports Brownmiller's theory that rape was considered an offense 35 not against a woman so much as against her father or husband" (p. 80; see also Dean and deBruyn-Rops, 1982). As a result, rape laws have historically ”... developed not primarily to protect women who were raped, but to protect the property rights of their husbands or fathers" (LaFree, 1989, p. 46). "In this light, rape, as legally defined, appears more a crime against female monogamy than against female sexuality” (MacKinnon, 1983, p. 647). Feminist writers (Brownmiller, 1975; Burt and Albin, 1981; Clark and Lewis, 1977: Griffin, 1975; MacKinnon, 1983; Metzger, 1976; Morrison, 1980; Russell, 1975; Sanday, 1981; Weis and Borges, 1973) stated that we live in a ”rape culture" that supports rape myths and accepts violence against women. The belief that rape myths influence both individuals and the legal system is central to the feminist position. Ross and Leonard (1984) hypothesized that rape myths, by normalizing the use of force, allows men to avoid defining sexually aggressive actions as rape. Sanday (1981) in a cross-cultural study of rape, concluded that "rape is not an integral part of male nature, but the means by which men programmed (by the culture] for violence express their sexual selves" (pp. 25-26). The following section provides a review of rape law in the United States. Rape is a charge ”... easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, tho' never so innocent" (Hale, 1971, p. 635). A noted British jurist from the late 1600s, Sir Matthew Hale's description of British common law symbolizes the scepticism Western society has toward rape victims. According to Harris (1976), this scepticism shaped the development of rape laws that were premised on the following basic assumptions: (a) "... an unchaste woman is more likely than a chaste one to have consented to any particular sexual 36 enounter' (p. 624). (b) "... the behavior of a rape complainant, whether she is sexually experienced or not, invited ... the sexual attack" (p. 624). (c) ”... unchaste women are untruthful in general and often bring false charges of rape” (p. 626). (d) "distrust of the complainant's credibility has led to an exaggerated insistence on evidence of resistance" (p. 626). (e) "... a jury will sympathize with the alleged victim" (p. 627). Tong (1984) stated that both contemporary and traditional legal thought on the subject of rape views women as 'temptresses' and ”liars" (p. 91). Reynolds (1974) writes that laws against rape act ”... to punish men who do not rape appropriately” (p. 63). These beliefs were supported by the noted legal scholar Wigmore (1935) who wrote: “Sexual offenses against women are justly looked upon by juries with particular abhorrence. On the other hand, there is always the risk of the jury's being misled by an attractive face and a plausible tale of woe. Modern psychiatry has further revealed that types of women are found whose unchaste temperament or diseased imagination leads them to the concoction of false charges of sexual offenses. The psychiatrists tell us that in all cases of such complaints the social history and emotional character of the complainant should be thoroughly investigated and reported on by experts before full credence can be given" (p. 303). Since Wigmore wrote the aforementioned, the United States has experienced several social movements that have influenced the evolution of rape laws. Loh (1981) identified three social-political movements that "... pushed reform bills through state legislatures with uncommon swiftness and political acumen" (p. 34): Model Penal Code (see also Estrich, 1987; Robin, 1977; Virginia Law Review, 1975); Equal Rights Amendment (see also Praeger Publishers, 1977); and the crime control reform movement (see also Bessmer, 1984), from which the Michigan sexual conduct statutes evolved. The New York Penal Law was also viewed as a major model for rape law, serving as a contrast to the Model Penal Code (Virginia Law Review, 1975; see also Bessmer, 1984). The Virginia Law Review (1975) identified four major models of rape law. The Common Law Model relied on the carnal knowledge statutes and C. 6) Is 37 was "... based on a concern with chastity and violation of a woman's virtue" (p. 1501). The Model Penal Code was published in 1962 and was built on the principles of the common law. The emphasis of the Model Penal Code was on “... specifying the minimum amount of coercion or deception necessary ... to classify all culpable conduct” (p. 1501). The New York Penal Law was adopted in 1961 and served as a contrast to the recommendations of the Model Penal Code, adopting very strict corroboration requirements (see also Yale Law Journal, 1972). The fourth major model, the Michigan Criminal Sexual Conduct Statute, adopted in 1974, was viewed as the model rape law (Bessmer, 1984; Caringella-MacDonald, 1985; Chappell, 1984; Cobb and Schauer, 1974; Dean and deBruyn-Rops, 1982; Feild and Bienen, 1980; Galvin, 1985; Largen, 1988; Marsh, Geist, and Caplan, 1982; Polk, 1985; Praeger Publishers, 1977; Robin, 1977; Searles and Berger, 1987; Virginia Law Review, 1975). The Michigan Statute was considered a model because it codified definitions (e.g. sexual contact, sexual penetration, physically helpless) that may help determine a defendant's guilt or innocence (Cobb and Schauer, 1974) and used sex-neutral terminology (Caringella-MacDonald, 1985; Cobb and Schauer, 1974; Virginia Law Review, 1975). In addition, the Statute incorporated four degrees of criminal sexual contact that are distinguished by "... whether sexual penetration, as opposed to contact, occurred and whether certain forceful elements were present in the commission of the crime" (Cobb and Schauer, 1974, p. 221). Forcible elements are determined by amount of force or coercion used, the mental and physical capacity of the victim to give consent, the presence of a weapon, the amount of injury to the victim, the involvement of abetters, and the commission of other felonies (Cobb and Schauer, 1974). Under common law, the female victim was expected to demonstrate clear nonconsent as a key element in determining if a rape occurred (Estrich, 1987; Harris, 1976; Loh, 1981). Part of nonconsent was demonstrating resistance "...high enough to assure that the resistance [m tht CO! 0 f1 38 [was] unfeigned and to indicate with some degree of certainty that the woman's attitude was not one of ambivalence or unconscious compliance and that her complaints [did] not result from moralistic afterthoughts' (Dworkin, 1966, p. 685). The amount of force used against a victim was also viewed as an indication of nonconsent (Harris, 1976; Virginia Law Review, 1975). Penetration of the vagina by the penis was an additional essential element in the common law view of rape (Robin, 1977; Tong, 1984). According to Cobb and Schauer (1974), the model rape law in Michigan "... does not require the victim to resist the actor, nor does it require the victim's testimony to be corroborated. The prosecution is required to prove that force was used, but it does not have to prove the victim's nonconsent..., and [use of] the victim's past sexual conduct to prove consent is severely limited" (p. 223). The Statute focuses on the coercion used by the rapist, not on the victim's state of mind and presumes nonconsent when the victim is underage or physically or mentally helpless (Cobb and Schauer, 1974). The Michigan Sexual Assault Law also limits admissible evidence to the specifics of the case and excludes evidence of the victim's sexual history or reputation, except when the evidence pertains to past sexual relations with the actor and to show the origin of pregnancy, disease, or semen (Cobb and Schauer, 1974). Sexual penetration is defined as insertion of any object, not limited to the penis, into any body cavity of the victim, including the mouth, anus, and vagina (Michigan Public Acts No. 266, 1974; see also BenDor, 1976 for a Common Law-Model Rape Law comparison). While a landmark law, "Michigan's criminal sexual conduct law was clearly a necessary condition for the progress that has been made, but far from a sufficient one" (Marsh, Geist, and Caplan, 1982, p. 119; see also Caringella-MacDonald, 1988). For example, Estrich (1987) stated that Michigan law "...may obscure [rapes] unique indignity" (p. 81), focuses on gender-neutrality when in reality women do not rape men, and 39 opens to debate the question of "... whether rape should be considered sex or violence" (p. 82). The bill also does not limit the felony status of aggravated offenses to forcible felonies, nor does it define minimum sentences (Cobb and Schauer, 1974). Never-the-less, ”the Michigan Sexual Assault Act reflects a major rethinking of the common assumptions about rape" (Cobb and Schauer, 1974, p. 235). Prevalence of gape QQEQIAL The Federal Bureau of Investigation (1980) reported that 71 out of every 100,000 females in the United States were victims of a forcible rape in 1980. This figure represented a 38‘ increase over the number of forcible rapes reported in 1976 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1976). In 1989, 94,504 females were victims of forcible rape, representing a 7 percent increase over reported forcible rapes in 1985 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989). From 1973 to 1982, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1982) showed an increase in reported forcible rapes of 51 percent. In 1989, one rape occurred every 6 minutes in the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989). q The above figures represent only those offenses reported to the police and classified as rape or attempted rape by the legal authorities, thus distorting the true prevalence of the crime (Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo, 1978; Reiff, 1979). In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1984) recognizes forcible rape “... as one of the most underreported of all index crimes" (p. 14). Furthermore, acquaintance rape victims are less likely than victims of a stranger rape to report the crime to police (Williams, 1984).. "To gain more accurate incidence rates, a series of annual National Crime Surveys were instituted in the early 1970's. Under the direction of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and later the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the surveys were carried out by the U. 8. Bureau :25: or a pre‘ I28 40 of the Census (Russell, 1982). The National Crime Surveys asked residents of a standard sampling area to indicate those crimes that they or anyone else in their household had been victims of during the previous 6 months (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984). The survey results were then compared with the official crime statistics for the sampling area to get a better estimate of the prevalence of unreported crime (Ross, Gidycz, and Wisniewski, 1987). In one of the early victimization surveys, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (1974) found that the level of criminal activity in 5 major cities was approximately double the number of offenses recorded by law enforcement agencies. One survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991b) found that female victimization rates changed very little between 1973 (23.9 per 1,000) and 1987 (24.0 per 1,000). Barlow (1991) analyzed National Crime Survey data for the years 1973 through 1987 and found that "women ages 16 to 24 were 3 times more likely to be raped than other women" (p. 8). Similar analysis confirmed that females, ages 16 to 19 have the highest victimization rate per 1,000 people, with females ages 20 to 24 generally having the next highest rate of victimization (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985b, 1986, 1987, 1991a; see also Amir 1971). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (1989) reported that 44 percent of those arrested for forcible rape in 1989 were under age 25, with the most frequent offender being a 16 to 20 year old male (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1976). The National Crime Survey for 1991 yielded a statistically significant increase of 59 percent in the number of reported rapes and attempted rapes---from 130,260 in 1990 to 207,610 in 1991 (Squitieri, 1992). In contrast, a 1988 survey identified a total of 65,540 rape victims, of which 61 percent had been raped by nonstrangers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990). The 1983 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985a) and the 1986 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988) National Crime Surveys discovered that nonstrangers were the rapists in 56 percent and 73 percent of the cases respectively. However, other National Crime 41 Surveys determined that only 50 percent of the reported rapes in 1987 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989), 42 percent in 1985 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1987), and 12 percent in 1979 (McDermott, 1979) involved nonstranger rapists, suggesting methodological problems with the data collection methods. The National Crime Surveys, while more accurate purveyors of victimization rates than the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were believed to still "... underestimate ... the prevalence of rape" (Russell, 1982, p. 81) among females in the United States. For example, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (1972), conducting a follow-up with 620 persons who reported crime victimisation during 1970, discovered that only 84 percent of the rape attacks by strangers were reported to the National Crime Survey researchers. Furthermore, only 54 percent of the rape attacks by assailants known to the victim were disclosed in the original survey. Russell (1982), in an attempt to provide a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of rape, conducted in-person interviews with 930 randomly selected females ages 18 and over in San Francisco. The survey, using the legal definition of rape in California, found that 41 percent of the women reported at least 1 completed or attempted extramarital rape. Only 9.5 percent of the extramarital rape or attempted rape victims reported the incident to the police. The results of this study represented a figure 13 times higher than the number of rapes reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Using a national probability sample of 1,725 adolescents between ages 11 and 17, Ageton (1983) surveyed the same sample each year for 5 years. The research discovered that between 5 and 11 percent (depending on the year) of the adolescent females in the sample experienced at least 1 sexual assault. Eighty percent of the offenders were known to the females, being primarily boyfriends or dates. Ageton (1983, p. 48) found that "most adolescent victims do not report their sexual assault experiences to police because they do not perceive them as legitimate 'E‘.‘ 42 (they do not involve strangers or substantial violence) ..." Believing that both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Crime Survey fail to detect a substantial proportion of rapes, a National Women‘s Study (National Victim Center, 1992) was designed, in part, to gather information on forcible rapes in the United States. The study was a longitudinal survey of a national probability sample of 4,008 American women ages 18 or older. Respondents were interviewed by phone, with 85 percent of the initial sample agreeing to participate in the research project. The National Women's Study found that 13 percent of the women surveyed reported having been victims of at least 1 completed rape, an estimate 5.3 times larger than the 1990 National Crime Survey. Fifty- five percent of the rape victims were between the ages of 11 and 24 at the time of their rape, with 22.2 percent of the victims being between the ages of 18 and 24. Seventy-eight percent of reporting rape victims were assaulted by someone they knew or had seen before. Only 16 percent of the rapes were reported to the police. These findings, if generalized to the population, represent an estimated 683,000 female rape victims in 1990. fiigheg Education Bogal-Allbritten and Allbritten (1985) documented the level of awareness campus officials have concerning the prevalence of courtship violence on college and university campuses. Eighteen percent of 345 Directors of Campus Housing and 30 percent of 228 Counseling Center Directors responding to a mail survey reported knowledge of more than 10 incidents of courtship violence on campus. In a second study, Bogal- Allbritten and Allbritten (1991) found that knowledge of rape incidents was reported by 20 percent of 294 Campus Security Directors, 27 percent of 495 Chief Student Affairs Officers, and 41 percent of 252 Health center Directors. Other sources of data on rape and sexual assault on campuses of 43 higher education include the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Campus Violence Prevention Center. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1980), approximately 268 rapes were reported by institutions of higher education in 1980. In 1985, approximately 228 rapes were reported (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1985) and in 1989, approximately 360 institutions reported approximately 243 rapes (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989). Smith (1988) stated that "... these totals are drastically understated ... [because] only about~;.. 15 percent of the total number of colleges and universities in the United States" (p. 17) report crime data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The schools reporting crime statistics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation also vary from year to year, making comparisons difficult (Cockey, Sherrill, and Cave, 1989). In an effort to gather more accurate data on the prevalence of campus violence, including sexual assault and rape, the Campus Violence Prevention Center (1988) distributed a series of national yearly surveys to approximately 2,700 colleges and universities. The survey results showed that the average number of sexual assaults occurring on each reporting campus was 3.3 in 1986, 3.0 in 1987, and 1.7 in 1988. The 437 institutions responding to the 1990 survey (Campus Violence Prevention Center, 1990) reported occurrences of only 429 sexual assaults and 215 rapes. Sixty—two percent of these rapes and sexual assaults were perpetrated by dates or acquaintances. Official sources do not appear to provide comprehensive data on the prevalence of rape and attempted rape occurring at institutions of higher education in the United States. Thus “in order to develop a more accurate estimate of the magnitude of this problem, researchers have developed measures based on a behaviorally anchored set of questions. This procedure allows a researcher to obtain reports of events via behavioral descriptions, which can then be matched to a criterion definition of rape and thus bypass the subject bias introduced by using rep ta; *2 .s 44 the word rape” (Burkhart and Stanton, 1988, p. 44). Using this procedure allows researchers: (a) to look at an individual's self-rated likelihood of raping under certain conditions; or (b) to determine self- reported incidents of sexual aggression using a continuum approach where rape represents the extreme point (Ross and Leonard, 1984). Gilbert (1991) and Guttman (1990) were critical of the behavioral description approach to measuring sexual aggression. Gilbert (1991) stated that a "rape crisis movement agenda" (p. A14) was operating that distorted the definition of rape and reported false results (see also Hendrix, 1991; Irving, 1991). It was Gilbert's opinion that Bureau of Justice statistics were a more accurate reflection of the prevalence of rape in the United States. Gutmann (1990) cited official rape statistics from three universities as documentation that rape was occurring less than was being reported by researchers using survey methods. Ross (1992), the primary object of Gilbert's criticism, persuasively refuted these critics by pointing out that the definition of rape used in her research was consistent with most legal statutes, that many other researchers have replicated her results, and that women knew they were victimized whether or not they realized they had been legally raped. Ross (1992) also noted that her national survey “... has not provoked any critiques in the professional literature..." (p. 24). Ward, Chapman, Cohn, White, and Williams (1991) noted, however, that "a wide range of estimates of the incidence of sexual assault is found in the literature” (p. 65). They stated "this may be due in part to varying methodologies and in part to variations in the definition of the behavior covered by the estimates” (p. 65). Ellis (1989) agreed that the "... estimates are far too varied to be dismissed as resulting from sampling error....[thus) they appear to reflect major differences in criteria used to identify rape" (p. 4). Never-the-less, Ward et al. concluded that rape "... is an important social problem on college campuses, even if one uses the 'low'..." (p. 65) estimates of sexual C: :3 .-. it! Hi! or. Ki: re; 45 victimisation found by researchers. The problem is especially apparent when one considers that approximately 8.5 million students attend one of the 2,141 pulbic or private 4—year postsecondary institutions in the United States (The Nation, 1992). Kirkpatrick and Kanin (1957) conducted a pioneering study using the survey techniques described by Burkhart and Stanton (1988). The study was designed to determine the patterns of female exploitation occurring on a University campus. Using a sample of 291 female students, Kirkpatrick and Ranin determined that 55.7 percent of the females reported being sexually offended at least once during the academic year at some level of erotic intimacy. More specifically, 20.9 percent were offended by a male's forceful attempts at intercourse and 6.2 percent by aggressively forceful attempts to have sexual intercourse. The offended women experienced an average of 6.3 aggressive episodes each. Further investigation of male sex aggression by Ranin (1957), using a sample of 262 female university students, found that approximately 62 percent of the women reported experiencing offensive male sexual aggression during the prior year. Almost 9 percent of the sample indicated that they had been offended by a male who attempted sexual intercourse by using violence as the means. Fifty-eight percent of the total number of reported offensive episodes were not stimulated by prior sexual foreplay. Kanin and Parcell (1977) replicated and extended the original study completed by Kirkpatrick and Kanin (1957), in part, to determine the impact of societal changes on sexual aggression. Results indicated that almost 51 percent of the 282 female respondents were offended at some level of erotic intimacy during the academic year. Approximately 32 percent of the females who experienced male sexual aggression, where intercourse was the goal, reported that rape had occurred. Fifty-four percent of the intercourse efforts were initiated by the male without previous sexual foreplay. Ranin and Parcell (1977) concluded that "the normative pattern of sexual aggression for males and its frequent 0ch the I25 m (0' It: Cit 46 escalation into offending force, has apparently not been disturbed by the various social movements...“ (p. 75). This supported Rorman and Leslie (1982) who stated that women were victimized at approximately the same rate as in the 1950s, except that the aggressive episodes have focused more toward intercourse. In the book 1_flgyg£_§g11gd_1§_§gpg, Warshaw (1988) cited two other studies demonstrating the prevalence of acquaintance rape on college campuses. At St. Cloud State University research found that 29 percent of the women surveyed reported being physically or psychologically forced to have sexual intercourse. Sixteen percent of the women surveyed at Brown University reported having been raped by an acquaintance, while 11 percent of the men surveyed admitted to having forced a woman to have sexual intercourse (also cited in Sherman, 1985). At Florida State University nearly 8 percent of the 362 females surveyed had been raped, and 17 percent were victims of attempted rape. Approximately 93 percent of these rapes and 81 percent of these attempted rapes were committed by acquaintances (Bailey, 1986). Wilson and Durrenberger (1982) sampled 447 college females and found that 15 percent had been raped and 18 percent had experienced an attempted rape while on a date. Check and Malamuth (1985) cited a study by Byers and Eastman at West Virginia University that found 38 percent of the survey respondents had been victims of forced sexual activity. At the University of Rhode Island, 8.7 percent of the undergraduate females surveyed reported having been sexually assaulted at least once at the University---27 percent had been sexually assaulted at least once in their lives somewhere other than the University (Lott, Reilly, and Howard, 1982). At the University of South Dakota 21 percent of the 247 females sampled reported that they had been physically forced by a dating partner to have sexual intercourse (Sandberg, Jackson, and Petretic- Jackson, 1987). Researchers discovered from a sample of 362 female university students, that 12 percent had been raped and 19 percent had - it! 47 experienced an attempted rape (Baier, Rosenzweig, and Whipple, 1991). Copenhaver and Grauerholz (1991) found that almost one-fourth of the 140 females sampled at a large Midwestern university were victims of an attempted rape, and 17 percent of the women had experienced an act of rape. Ninety-five percent of these women were acquainted with their attacker. Additional research continues to show similar patterns of female victimization. For example, Miller and Marshall (1987) conducted a survey involving 472 men and 323 woman at two large universities. Using the Sexual Experiences Survey developed by Ross and Oros (1982), they concluded that ”if date rape is defined as psychologically or physically forced sexual intercourse, then 27 percent of the women ... indicated that they had been victims of date rape while attending the university; 15 percent of the men indicated that they had victimized women through coercive sex while in dating situations at the university” (pp.44,46). Muehlenhard and Linton (1987) surveyed 341 women and 294 male college students and found that 65.1 percent of the women and 50.9 percent of the men reported involvement in incidents of sexual aggression during college. Based on the results of a deviance survey administered to 836 male and 563 female students in classes at a midwestern university over a 4-year period of time, Eskridge (1989) discovered that 7 percent of the men had forced a female to have sexual intercourse against her will at least once. The Eskridge survey determined that 21 percent of the females had been raped; also discovering an escalating pattern of reported female rape that rose from 10.2 percent of the sample in 1985 to 25.2 percent in 1988. At the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 8.2 percent from a sample of 147 females reported experiencing at least 1 incident of forced unwanted vaginal, oral or anal penetration (Berger, Searles, Salem, and Pierce, 1986). Twenty-two percent of 348 female university students surveyed by Yegidis (1986) reported having been forced to engage in sexual activity by a male. Of the 22 percent, 52 percent had 48 been forced to have either intercourse or oral sex at some point in their lives. Five percent of the 348 person sample had experienced forced intercourse or oral sex during the previous year. From a sample of 204 females at Rutgers University, Aizenman and Kelley (1988) discovered that 22 percent had been involved in a situation defined as acquaintance rape, and 51 percent reported that they had successfully avoided an acquaintance rape. Using Koss and Oros' (1982) Sexual Experiences Survey, Amick and Calhoun (1987) found that 75 percent of the 206 female students sampled reported having been victimized by a male. Ninety-four percent of the victimized females were acquainted with the person that victimized them. Fifty-eight percent of the sample had experienced sexual intercourse against their will. Koss and Oros (1982) developed the Sexual Experiences Survey, a 12 question yes-no style research instrument to find hidden rape victims often missed by official sampling methods. The Sexual Experiences Survey was also designed to measure the level of sexual aggression associated with various degrees of coercion, threat, and force. Additionally, the questions in the Sexual Experiences Survey reflected a continuum of sexual aggression, ranging from intercourse achieved through verbal coercion on one extreme to use of physical force (rape) at the opposite extreme (see also Koss and Gidycz, 1985 for data on reliability and validity). The Sexual Experiences Survey was given by Koss and Oros (1982) to a representative sample of 3,862 university students (1,846 males, 2,016 females). The research determined that 6 percent of the females had been raped, 6.4 percent had been forced to participate in anal or oral intercourse because physical force or threats had been used, and 8.2 percent of the women had sexual intercourse because the man used some degree of physical force. Further analysis by Ross (1985) found that 38 percent of the females reported victimization that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape, with only 4 percent reporting the 71-. h 49 assault to the police. Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) administered the Sexual Experiences Survey to a national sample of 3,187 women and 2,972 men at 32 diverse institutions of higher education in the United States (see also the "Afterward" in Warshaw, 1988 for an explanation of survey methodology). The results of the survey indicated that 12.1 percent of the females had experienced attempted rape and 15.4 percent had been raped. The research also found a rape victimization rate 10—15 times greater than National Crime Survey rates. Ross, Gidycz, and Wisniewski concluded that "at least among students in higher education ... official surveys ... fail to describe the full extent of sexual victimization” (p. 168). Researchers have demonstrated that men self-report involvement in sexually coercive behavior at levels below that reported by women. For example, Ross and Oros (1982) found that only 2.4 percent of the men in their sample reported obtaining sexual acts such as anal or oral intercourse by using threats or force and only 2.7 percent admitted using some physical force to have intercourse with a woman. In their national survey, Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) documented that 3.3 percent of the men reported involvement in attempted rape and 4.4 percent reported engaging in rape. Other researchers have found higher reporting rates for males in terms of using sexual coercion. For example, Yegidis (1986) found that 5.7 percent of a male sample (n-BOO) reported forcing a female date to engage in sexual activity in the prior year. Xanin (1967) found that 26 percent of a sample of 341 male undergraduate college students described the use of aggressive tactics to obtain intercourse since entering college. In a study of 201 male university undergraduate students, Rapaport and Burkhart (1984) discovered that 28 percent of the men reported having used a directly coercive method at least once in the past to obtain sex from a woman. Furthermore, 15 percent admitted to having forced a woman to have intercourse at least once and 12 percent SO acknowledged having physically restrained a woman to gain sexual advantage. flasher and Anderson (1986) found in a sample of 175 men at the University of Connecticut that 13 percent had threatened to use force and 20 percent had used force to have sex with an unwilling woman. Fourteen percent of a sample of 99 men at Alfred University admitted using pressure to have intercourse with a woman (Peterson and Franzese, 1987). According to Boyer (1987), citing a Carnegie Foundation survey, 42 percent of a 1984 national sample of college undergraduates believed alcohol abuse was a problem on their campus. Researchers at the U. S. Department of Education stated that binge drinking was a problem on college campuses, often being associated with the occurrence of sexual assaults (Cage, 1992). Polonko, Parcell, and Teachman, as cited by Bechhofer and Parrot (1991), concluded that the degree of intoxication of a man was the most important factor in determining whether an acquaintance rape occurred. Scully and Marolla (1984) found that around 70 percent of the incarcerated rapists (nsll4) they interviewed told of their use of alcohol or drugs when giving an account of the rape. Muehlenhard and Linton (1987) discovered that heavy drug or alcohol use was the most common on dates where sexual aggression occurred. Approximately 66 percent of 71 self-disclosed date rapists implicated excessive alcohol consumption as a causal factor in the assault (Kanin, 1984). Research involving 155 sexually victimized female students found that 65 percent of their offenders were moderately to very intoxicated, and 58 percent of the females reported they were not intoxicated or were only mildly intoxicated (Amick and Calhoun, 1987). At Bentley College, 373 men reported involvement in 241 acts of sexual assault. Of those men who reported involvement in a rape (n827), 93 percent indicated that they had been drinking or taking drugs when they committed the assault "Q .0 51 (Association of American Colleges, 1990). Twenty-one percent of 486 college women admitted engaging in unwanted sexual intercourse due to their state of intoxication (Muehlenhard and Cook, 1988). Kosher and Anderson (1986) surveyed 175 college men and found that 19 percent had gotten drunk and forced a woman to have sexual intercourse, and 66 percent had used alcohol to get a woman drunk to have sex with her. Seventy percent of the male assailants involved in forced sexual interactions indicated that they were under the influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time (Miller and Marshall, 1987). Makepeace (1981) found that alcohol was a factor in courtship violence when 46 percent of the men (n-99) and 35 percent of the women (n8103) reported being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the episode. Ross (1988) in a national study of over 6,100 college students, found that 73 percent of the offenders and 55 percent of the victims admitted using drugs or alcohol at the time of the sexual victimization. Twenty-five percent of attempted rapes, where violence was used, involved the consumption of alcohol by the male (Kanin, 1957). Abbey (1987) found that misperceptions about sexual intent occurred most at parties where alcohol was freely available. Copenhaver and Grauerholz (1991) and Ward et al. (1991) found that males used drugs or alcohol in around 75 percent of the sexual victimizations that occurred. Hammock and Richardson (cited by Richardson and Hammock, 1991) and Richardson and Campbell (1982) found that rapists were perceived to be less blameworthy and less responsible when drunk as compared to being sober. Both sets of authors also found that female victims were judged to be more responsible for the rape when consuming alcohol than when not. Additional research by George, Gournic, and ucAfee (1988) supported the premise that males judge women who were drinking alcohol differently from those not drinking alcohol. For example, women who drank alcohol were seen as significantly less socially skilled, significantly more aggressive, and significantly more willing to have 52 sex than non-drinking women. A review of the literature concerning alcohol and human sexuality by Crowe and George (1989) found, in part, that alcohol facilitates preexisting inclinations for sexual aggression and acts as a scapegoat to justify aggressive sexual behavior. An example included a study by Briddell, Rimm, Caddy, Xrawitz, Sholis, and Wunderlin (1978) involving 48 undergraduate students that concluded "... alcohol‘s influence on sexually aggressive arousal patterns is mediated by psychological rather than physiological processes" (p. 428). gender-R91; zergeptign §5§£§2§¥R§§ ”The term stereotype is ... a cognitive structural concept, referring to a set of expectations held by the perceiver regarding members of a social group“ (Hamilton, 1979, p. 65). McCauley, Sitt, and Segal (1980, p. 197) "suggest that stereotypes are those generalizations about a class of people that distinguish that class from others...[by using] differential trait attribution or differential prediction based on group membership." According to Hamilton (1979), I'stereotyping is said to occur when a perceiver makes inferences about a person because of that person's membership in some group" (p. 54). Thus "stereotypic schemes conceivably could influence the processing of information about an individual member of a social group .... (by) focusing one's attention on a particular aspect of the person's behavior..., [by] leading the perceiver to interpret certain behaviors in a biased manner..., [and by] resulting in a selective retrieval of information from ... memory“ (Hamilton, 1979, p. 68). Researchers have documented that members of society have generally maintained consistent stereotypes about women and men since the 1940's. Fernberger (1948) found that men and women held the same general opinions concerning gender stereotypes. Fernberger (1948) administered 53 a sex difference test to 271 college students (143 men, 128 women) that found both genders believed men were more intelligent and possessed more all-around superior qualities. The same study determined that both genders perceived women to be less sexually passionate, more sensitive, and more talkative than men. Sherriffs and Jarrett (1953) and Sherriffs and McKee (1957) found general agreement, using forced choice adjective questionnaires, between the mean scores of men and women with respect to their perceptions of the behaviors and characteristics attributed to each gender. A study of 100 (50 male, 50 female) college students by Sheffiffs and McKee (1957) found significant consistency between the genders in how males and females were described. For example, men were described using adjectives such as intelligent, rational, competent, bold, effective, and straightforward: while women were described by adjectives such as warm and concerned. Sherriffs and Jarrett (1953) concluded that “... virtually no behavior or quality escapes inclusion in either a male or female stereotype; and that these stereotypes are substantially the same whether held by men or women" (p. 167). Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman, and Broverman (1968) asked 74 males and 80 females to complete a 122-item stereotype questionnaire three times; the first as they believed a male would answer, secondly as they believed a female would respond, and finally as themselves. The results indicated a significant difference between the stereotypes associated with males and females, with stereotypical masculine characteristics perceived as significantly more socially desirable than stereotypical feminine characteristics. McKee and Sherriffs (1957) also found that both male (n=85) and female (ns93) college students ascribed significantly more favorable adjectives to males, with females ascribing significantly more unfavorable adjectives to themselves. Administering the same questionnaire as Rosenkrantz et al. (1968) to almost 1,000 people, Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosenkrantz (1972, p. 61) concluded that: 54 (a) “A strong consensus about the differing characteristics of men and women exists across groups..." (b) "Characteristics ascribed to men are positively valued more often than characteristics ascribed to women." Positive male traits formed clusters around things such as competence, rationality, and assertion, while positive feminine traits formed clusters reflecting warmth and expressiveness. (c) ”The sex-role definitions are ... accepted to the extent that they are incorporated into the self-concepts of both men and women ... [and] are considered desirable by college students." Ward and Balswick (1978) conducted a content analysis of the responses to several open ended questions by 1,234 high school students in Georgia. They also found that males and females demonstrated a high level of consensus on gender-role stereotypes. The most salient stereotypes for women were related to interpersonal virtues (weak, submissive, physically attractive, sexual, emotional). The stereotypes related to men involved strength, dominance, responsibility, and intelligence. Lunnenborg (1970) found similar results in a study of 532 college students that determined gender stereotypes were prevasive, with men and women having similar stereotypes regarding gender personalities (e.g. men are more intelligent). Deaux (1976) reviewed the attribution theory literature, also finding that men and women hold similiar gender- role stereotypes. W The gender-role stereotypes held by males and females in this culture influence the dating patterns of students. For example, LaPlante, McCormick, and Brannigan (1980) administered a Locus of Control Scale, a Sexual Script Questionnaire, and a Dating Attitudes Questionnaire to 71 male and 116 female unmarried college students to determine the extent to which traditional gender scripts influenced their lives. Using an analysis of variance, the researchers found it significant that students described gender differences consistent with traditional scripts. That is, men use strategies to have sexual intercourse whereas women use strategies to avoid intercourse (see also McCormick, 1979). I.“ U." 55 Goodchilds, Zellman, Johnson, and Giarrusso (1988) read 432 adolescents a series of short vignettes, each involving a male-female encounter, and then asked a series of questions about who was responsible for what happened. The authors concluded that "the findings show significant and consistent sex differences in how adolescent respondents viewed the characteristics of dates and in the meaning they attached to behavioral and situational cues in dating situations. Female respondents saw things in a less sexualized way---how people dress, act, or where they go were less likely to be taken as cues by _a female respondents that the actor desires sexual relations. In I contrast, male adolescents tended to see the motivations of both male and female actors as sexual” (p. 264). Muehlenhard, Friedman, and Thomas (1985) presented 268 male undergraduates with a series of written vignettes that manipulated who initiated the date, where the couple went, and who paid the expenses. The respondents then rated to what extent the female wanted to engage in sex and how justified the man was in proceeding against her wishes. Respondents also completed the Attitudes Toward women Scale (Spence and Helmreich, 1972) that measures attitudes concerning the rights and roles of women in society. Rape was rated significantly more justifiable if the man paid all the dating expenses, if the couple went to the man's apartment rather than to a religious function, and if the woman asked the man out on the date. Traditional men, as determined by the Attitudes toward Women Scale, had higher overall rape justifiability ratings than nontraditional men, although the differences did not reach significance. Never-the-less, Muehlenhard, Friedman, and Thomas (1985) "... argue that it is socially significant that 20 percent of the traditional men, as well as 12.9 percent of the nontraditional men, said rape was at least somewhat justifiable ..." (p. 307) when the woman initiated the date and then agreed to go to the man's apartment. Approximately 48 percent of a sample of 408 college students stated th.‘ m an 0! 56 that sexual activity was expected when a dating partner paid for an expensive dinner and movie (Sandberg, Jackson, and Petretic-Jackson, 1987). Knox and Wilson (1983) found that unwanted pressure to engage in sexual activity was the most frequent dating problem defined by 227 university women. Both Goodchilds et al. (1988) and Kikuchi (as cited by Bechhofer and Parrot, 1991) discovered that both females and males found the use of force to have sex acceptable under a variety of dating circumstances, e.g. he spends alot of money on her, they have dated for a long time, she gets him sexually excited, she was wearing seductive clothing. Muehlenhard and Scardino (1985) surveyed 309 male psychology undergraduate students and determined that perceived intelligence appeared to be more important than initiating a date in terms of influencing men's attributions about sexual activity. Women perceived as less intelligent were seen as less religious, as more casual daters, as less feminist, and as less truthful than perceived intelligent women (see also Kanin, 1975). Muehlenhard and Miller (1988) found no significance when comparing traditional men and nontraditional men's reactions to being asked out for a date by a woman. Another study involving 272 female and 268 male undergraduates (Muehlenhard, 1988) found results very similar to the study conducted by Muehlenhard, Friedman, and Thomas (1985). Additionally, across all situations, men rated the woman in the vignette as more willing to have sexual intercourse than did women respondents. Men also generally believed that rape was more justifiable than did women, especially in circumstances involving who initiated the date and where the couple went on the date. Rape justifiability rating were consistently influenced by the level of traditionality, with 30 percent of the traditional respondents and 15 percent of the nontraditional respondents rating rape as at least somewhat justifiable under certain circumstances. Bostwick (1990) replicated and extended Muehlenhard's (1988) study, finding that the men (n=201) in the sample significantly rated women as tn re: :02 th‘: 34 57 having a greater willingness to have sexual intercourse than did the women (n-257) in the sample. This result was consistent with previous research done by Abbey (1982) and Abbey and Melby (1986) that determined college males view the world in a more sexualized manner than women, and thus were more likely to misinterpret ambiguous behavior on the part of females as willingness to have sexual intercourse. Check and Malamuth (1983) found ”... that sex role socialization processes are most likely to influence behavior within the date or acquaintance-rape situation, as contrasted with the stranger-rape situation" (p. 344). Weis and Borges (1973, p. 86) provided insightful commentary on the dating system and rape: "The stereotypic notions of male and female roles and their relationship to conceptions of masculine and feminine sexuality, coupled with a situation that is fraught with ambiguous expectations, provide the ingredients for systematically socialized actors who can participate in the drama of rape. The dating system, by setting up such situations, accustoms the male to encounters in which he feels some justification and need to demand intimate sex and to approach this goal forcefully." We: Burt and Albin (1981), using data collected from 598 adults 18 and older, concluded “... that the breadth or narrowness of rape definitions depend in part on the rape-supportive attitudes held by the general public“ (p. 226). Burt (1980) stated that these data also confirm ”... the hypothesis that rape myth acceptance forms part of a larger and complexly related attitude structure that includes sex role stereotyping, feelings about sexuality, and acceptance of interpersonal violence" (p. 228). Research conducted by Wilson, Faison, and Britton (1983) involving 250 college students suggested that belief in rape myths influences the definitional boundaries between rape and normal sexual intercourse. To test the thesis that acceptance of rape myths are related to people's views of women's social roles and rights, Costin (1985) modified'two scales: (a) Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire (Feild, 5' ins col Uh: gr: vi! :0: ICI 58 1978a) that measures stereotypes and beliefs about rape; and the (b) Attitudes Toward Women Scale (Spence and Helmreich, 1972). The instruments were administered to a sample that included 432 female college students, 140 male college students, and 114 women and 76 men who were employed in the local community. All correlations for each group were significant, indicating that belief in rape myths and related views of rape were positively correlated with beliefs about women's social roles. Further analysis indicated that men had higher mean scores on both scales than did women. Check and Malamuth (1985) reviewed studies concerning rape myths and concluded that "... evidence was found to support the hypothesis that rape and forced sexuality are widespread and, to a surprising extent, acceptable in North American society; that rape is not exclusively the product of a few bent and twisted minds; that beliefs in rape myths are linked to acts of aggression against women; and that sexual violence in the mass media plays a significant role in the fostering of rape myths ...” (p. 414). Because many researchers investigated the influence of rape myths under artificial conditions, Check and Malamuth (1985) conducted a three phase study to determine whether scales measuring rape myth could predict reactions to fictional and real rape, as well as predict likelihood of raping. After giving the scales developed by Burt (1980) to 71 female and 57 male college students, the researchers concluded that the scales predicted responses to both fictional and real rape. Specifically, it was significant that students with a high level of belief in rape myths stated that raped women desired victimization, had a positive experience, were responsible for their rape and exhibited behavior that contributed to their rape. Research has established that college students have a low level of awareness about rape and are likely to believe common rape myths. For example, Holmberg and MacDonald (1990) asked 96 students about their perceptions of circumstances where rape is most likely to occur. The 59 results indicated that 85 percent of the females stated that a dimly lit parking lot was either the most likely or second most likely place for rape to occur. Conversely, only 17 percent of the females stated that being alone with a date in either party's residence was the most likely place where rape could occur. Forty-two percent of the males, however, stated that a residence was the most likely or second most likely place for reps to occur. The authors of this study, using official university records, found that in reality 79 percent of all reported assaults took place in residence halls. Using a sample of 323 female and 332 male university students, Jenkins and Dambrot (1987) had each student read 3 rape scenarios, plus complete the Sexual Experiences Survey (Ross and Oros, 1982) and Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Burt, 1980). Results indicated that males had a significantly higher acceptance of rape myth than females. Both males and females with high rape myth acceptance were significantly more likely to blame the rape victim for the assault. There was also a significant main effect for males with high rape myth belief who stated that a rape involved little violence and that victims wanted sexual intercourse to happen. Additional research also supports the link between rape myth and sexual assault. Ross, Leonard, Breezley, and Oros (1985) found that men with sexually aggressive experiences accepted gender-role stereotypes, believed in rape myths, saw rape prevention as a woman's responsibility, and viewed the intermingling of sexuality and aggression as normal. This research also determined that men who have threatened or used force for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with female acquaintances, differed from sexually nonaggressive men in their degree of adherence to rape-supportive attitudes. Bunting and Reeves (1983) administered two self-developed scales designed to assess macho personality constructs and rape beliefs to 400 male college students, finding that gender-role ideology and general belief in rape myths were significantly correlated. Using the Bem Sex \n nu r-Oe 60 Role Inventory (Bem, 1974) and a rape questionnaire with 392 junior college students, Tieger (1981) discovered that gender-role stereotyping was causally related to rape attitudes. Hazelan (1980) used a sample of 350 adolescents to investigate the images people hold about rape victims, finding that rape victims were rated as significantly more neurotic and as not having boyfriends. Rape victims in this study were also viewed negatively and believed to have demonstrated behavior that provoked their rape. Barnett and Feild (1977), using a sample of 200 male and 200 female college students, administered the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire (Feild, 1978a) to measure their view of rape. Results indicated substantial gender differences in attitudes toward rape. A significant number of women viewed rape as an exercise in power over women, whereas a significant number of men viewed rape as being motivated by a desire for sex. Other finding reaching significance included: (a) Forty percent of the men, as compared to 18 percent of the women, stated that a woman's degree of resistance should be a major factor in determining if a rape occurred. (b) Thirty-two percent of the men and 8 percent of the women stated that it would do some women good to get raped. (c) Seventeen percent of the men and 7 percent of the women stated that if a woman is going to be raped, she might as well relax and enjoy it. (d) Fifty-nine percent of the men, contrasted with 38 percent of the women, stated that women provoke rape through their appearance or behavior. College students believing in traditional gender-role stereotypes were found, when compared to students with liberal attitudes, to be more apt to excuse an acquaintance rapist's behavior, to be more likely to see the women as provoking her attack (e.g. wearing seductive clothes, going to the offenders home), and to attribute more blame to women in acquaintance rape situations (Seiverd, 1989). Harrison, Downes, and Williams (1991) and Quackenbush (1987) found that college males regarded acquaintance rape less seriously than stranger rape, expressing greater empathy for stranger rape victims and attributing greater responsibility for the rape to acquaintance rape victims. Quackenbush (1987) concluded th I3? m in: UN l’.‘ :0: :0! la. IEI 61 that 'tantmmount to curbing the problem of rape in our society is ... reducing ... generally the acceptance of rape myth" (p. 96). W A survey of the sexual attitudes of 449 university students by Dull and Giacopassi (1987) found two dimensions of equal importance in understanding attitudes toward date rape. The first dimension measured individual attitudes toward dating, sex, and love. The second dimension measured attitudes concerning rape and male versus female responsibility for rape. This research also discovered strong evidence that gender was the most important variable in determining the formation of these attitudes, with males holding stronger attitudes than females that condoned sexual aggression. Quackenbush (1987) conducted research with 90 male university students that supported the premise that gender-role socialization contributes to the development of rape-supportive attitudes. Briere and Malamuth (1983) used the scales developed by Burt (1980) with 352 male college students and determined "... that the antecedents to rape are cultural, socially transmitted attitudes about women, rape, and rapists which are stereotyped and prejudicial, and which serve as psychological releasers for sexual aggression” (p. 321). From a study of 71 self-disclosed date rapists, Kanin (1984) concluded that these men were not sexually deprived, sexually inadequate, or socially and psychologically maladjusted. Most of these rapists were successfully involved in dating and sexual activity but were shown to be products of highly erotic peer group socialization (see also Malamuth, Haber, and Peshbach, 1980). Kanin (1967) also determined from a study of 341 male students that sexually aggressive behavior doesn't confer prestige, but it is supported by other males when viewed as a response to females who don't follow expected gender roles---thus resulting in a form of social control. Both Garrett-Gooding and Senter (1987) and Horsley (1988) found 62 that men have more traditional gender-role conceptions than females. However, traditional students of both genders were more likely to accept forced sex in certain situations as normative behavior (Fisher, 1986). Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh (1988) determined that women at intermediate levels of traditionality believed it more acceptable for men to use force and that women were expected to give token resistance, thus contributing to the dating problems addressed by Weis and Borges (1973). Additionally, Coller and Resick (1987) discovered that women who strongly believed in gender-role stereotypes were significantly more *fl likely to blame a female for her victimization than were women who minimally believed in gender stereotypes. McDonald (1988) cited a study of 300 males conducted by Koralewski and Conger at Purdue University that found sexually aggressive men were more likely than average men to accept violence, hold callous sexual attitudes, and believe that women enjoy being raped. These result were similar to those found by Xoss and Dinero (1988) and Ross, Leonard, Breezley, and Oros (1985). For example, Ross and Dinero (1988) determined from their national sample of 2,972 college men that highly sexually aggressive males were typified by greater hostility toward women, a perception that force and coercion were legitimate ways to gain sexual compliance, and by involvement in peer groups that reinforced sexualized views of women. Some people represent rape as a pseudosexual act, but Kanin (1984) stated that "... with respect to the college rapists ... it is probably more appropriate to stress the sexual dimension" (p. 104). Mahoney, Shively, and Traw (1986) studied 337 college students supporting the view "... that male sexual assault behavior is a function of traditional male socialization since the important predictors are opportunity and hypermaeculinity' (p. 7). This also reflects, in part, the thinking of Kosher and Anderson (1986) who wrote that "common cultural notions of masculinity, emphasizing power, dominance, strength, toughness, competiveness, and aggression, may transform the sexual arena into one 63 in which rape expresses the hypermasculine need for power, dominance, conquest and control“ (pp. 77-78). NEW A review of the literature revealed that an average of 35 percent of the males studied indicated some likelihood of raping a female (Malamuth, 1981). Specifically, Ross (1988) found that 47 percent of self-identified male college student rapists stated that they expected to engage in similar behavior in the future. A study conducted by Check and Malamuth (1983) involving 289 university students found that 30 percent of the men indicated some likelihood of raping after reading a story about a rape. This result was consistent with additional research by Malamuth, Haber, and reshback (1980) that found over one-half of 53 male college students would not rule out the possibility of engaging in rape if they could not be caught. Twenty-eight percent of 352 male students also indicated they might rape or use force if assured they wouldn't be caught (Briers and Malamuth, 1983). Research involving 114 males at SUNY-Albany indicated that a male's likelihood of raping was associated with aggressive tendencies and with rape myth acceptance (Greendlinger and Byrne, 1987). Other research (Check and Malamuth, 1983; Malamuth, 1981; Malamuth and Check, 1980; Malamuth, Haber, and Feshback, 1980) found that males with strong gender-role stereotyping beliefs reported a greater likelihood of raping, believed in rape myths, and were affected by exposure to erotic stories. A t bu o as nsibilit Win A fundamental assumption of attribution theory is that people (perceivers) attempt to identify the causes of observed behaviors in order to find meaning in their social world. These behavioral causes 64 are linked to either the dispositional qualities (e.g. temperament, attitudes) of an actor that assumes the behavior was freely chosen or to environmental factors that assumes situational exigencies beyond the actors control influenced the behavior. Attributions may be derived from either first-hand observation or secondary reports, with both processes subject to error given the complexity of social stimuli that often results in the use of stereotypes as a way to categorize information (Shaver, 1975). Heider (1958) theorized that ordinary or naive people make dispositional attributions based on the use of personal force that is defined by two principal factors: (a) power that is represented by constructs such as ability, temperament, knowledge, skill, and attitudes; and (b) motivation that represents constructs such as intention and exertion. The combination of ability, exertion, and task difficulty represents an action sequence that helps a perceiver determine if a behavior was based on dispositional or environmental considerations. Jones and Davis (1965) speculated that a behavioral act reflects a personal choice on the part of an actor that has multiple effects on the environment or the actor. This emphasis states that an actor has choices between courses of action, allowing a perceiver to diagnose the intentions of the actor based on the perceiver's understanding of the desirability of the action. The assumptions made by the perceiver concerning desirability operates as a hypothesis that biases the inference process. "Thus, cultural assumptions or social stereotypes may obscure the true significance of an action" (p. 227) because of ”the hedonic relevance of an effect ... for the perceiver ...” (p. 237). Kelley (1973) stated that individuals often lack the time and motivation to make multiple observations of an event, relying instead on a single observation. The perceiver derives information from this event using a three-dimensional model that features an interaction between time/modality (context), persons (perceiver), and entities (stimulus). Ala: ref: lbs‘ thy l 9 V pn u: an or: 18! It’.’ 65 Also important to this theory is the role of a causal schema that ”... refers to the way a person thinks about plausible causes in relation to a given effect” (p. 114). Specifically, a schema consists of existing abstract ideas that provides a framework for new bits of information that are analyzed within existing data patterns. Thus, "... the role of a given cause in producing a given effect is discounted if other plausible causes are also present” (p. 113). Attribution theory is not concerned with the true cause of an event, rather it focuses on understanding how people attribute causation. For example, Walster (1966, 1967) stated that people need to live in an orderly world that is predictable and controllable. As such, they assign causal responsibility for an incident to something other than chance, believing they have the ability to avert the same type of disaster from happening to them (see also Shaw and Skolnick, 1971). Shaver (1970) suggested that a defensive attribution process operates, with less responsibility assigned to similar people and conversely more responsibility assigned to circumstances. Blame was more easily assigned when the stimulus person was different from the perceiver (see also Bradley, 1978). Lerner (1965, 1970, 1980) postulated that people believe in a just world where positive outcomes happen to good people and negative outcomes happen to bad people. Perceivers judge both a person's character and behavior to determine what levels of blame and responsibility to assign. We Wong and Weiner (1981) conducted 5 self-probe experiments and concluded that "... we have strong evidence that [the] attributional search [process] primarily is focused on the locus and control dimensions of causality" (pp. 661-662). Kaplan and Miller (1987) and Phares and Wilson (1972) found that the greater the ambiguity surrounding the facts, the more difficult it was to attribute responsibility for an incident. Klemmack and Klemmack (1976) 2V9 It! aha the in: bl Cl 66 determined that people were willing to define a situation as rape when there were clear indications that the victim had no control over the event. Furthermore, when the situation was not congruent with rape stereotypes, the study‘s respondents looked for other interpretations that reflected the view that women are to blame for their own rape. gg;gg_§ng_3ggig§agggx One interpretation that people used to judge the occurrence of rape was the amount of force used by the male and the level of resistance demonstrated by the female. A study by Krulewitz and Payne (1978) involving 118 female and 114 male college students determined that an assault was significantly more likely defined as rape ilfi when the level of force used by the male increased. Subjects generally blamed the male assailant more and attributed less responsibility and ?i~ more respectability to the female victim when force was used. Shotland and Goodstein (1983), Skelton and Burkhart (1980), and Smith (1983) found very similar results concerning the use of force. A review of 124 rape cases also indicated that greater levels of violence increased a rape victim’s credibility with criminal justice personnel (LaFree, 1980). A study of 287 college students by Shotland and Goodstein (1983) discovered they were more likely to believe a rape occurred when the woman protested the male's sexual advances early in the encounter, using both verbal and physical means. Krulewitz and Nash (1979) found that college students (117 females, 112 males) believed a sexual assault was less likely to occur when a women did not offer obvious physical resistance. An analysis of rape trials determined that alleged lack of resistance was commonly used as a defense strategy (Holmstrom and Burgess, 1975). Schultz and DeSavage (1975) found that “... after a certain stage in sexual intimacy a negotiation is reached and the female forfeits her right to change her mind or have second thoughts" (p. 81). Howard (1984a, 1984b) conducted two studies involving 295 college students. The research discovered that greater attribution of blame for sexually assaulted females was made according to characteristics that 'J 67 conform to the gender-role stereotypes for women. For example, women who demonstrated stereotypical behavior associated with submissiveness received more blame for their rape because of their perceived failure to resist. Conversely, increased attribution of blame for sexually assaulted men occurred when the behavior demonstrated during the assault contradicted male gender-role stereotypes, meaning they showed fear or failed to fight. Attzggtiygnggg: Juries make decisions in criminal cases that are influenced by the attractiveness of the defendant (Sigall and Ostrove, 1975). Specifically, physical attractiveness influences criminal sentencing (Barnett and Feild, 1978; Reynolds and Sanders, 1975) and judgements concerning guilt (Efren, 1974). Physically attractive women were perceived as more sexually alluring (Dermer and Thiel, 1975), promiscuous (Thornton, 1977), and naive to the affect they have on men (Hazelan, 1980). Women perceived as unattractive were believed to provoke their victimization more than attractive women (Seligman, Brickman, and Koulack, 1977; Tieger, 1981). figgpggtgbility: Women are accorded respect based on sexual characteristics, the most common being virginity (Barber, 1974: Ranekar and Vaz, 1983; Hazelan, 1980). Jones and Aronson (1973) conducted research that found female virgins were rated as more respectable than married or divorced women. This research further found that the more respected women were attributed the greatest level of blame for their rape. This finding was consistent with the Just World Theory (Lerner, 1965) that postulated when a negative event happened to a good person, the good person must have somehow contributed to the negative circumstances. In contrast, Smith, Heating, Hester, and Mitchell (1976) found that the most respected person (a nun) was attributed significantly less responsibility for the rape. Cann, Calhoun, and Selby (1979), Feldman- Summers and Lindner (1976), Kanekar and Xolsawalla (1977), Kerr and Rurtz (1977), and HcGraw (1987) found similar results, suggesting that 68 women perceived as less respectable according to characteristics such as occupation, marital status, and/or sexual history received greater attribution of blame for their victimization. Hahn, et al. (1977) also failed to replicate Jones and Aronson (1973), concluding that “... it appears likely that rape victims vary in a number of dimensions besides respectability, and these other dimensions may be more important in making attributions of fault. For example, subjects may believe the various victims differ in physical appearance, reason for walking alone at night, mode of resistance to the attacker, and so forth" (p. 106). Pulero and Delara (1976) also state that “... the process may be sex-dependent, with female perceivers affected by the victim's similarity to themselves, and male perceivers affected by the victim's respectability" (p. 557). Aggggintgngggnip: HoGraw (1987) found that people attributed significantly greater responsibility to the rapist when the assailant and victim were strangers. A review of criminal cases in Chicago determined when a rape victim and assailant were acquainted, that criminal justice personnel focused on the party's states of mind (Kerstetter, 1990). LaFree (1980) and Wilson (1978) found that acquaintance rapes were taken less seriously than stranger rapes by police and prosecutors. Chappell and Singer (1977) reviewed rape complaints in New York City and found that police believed acquainted couples only misinterpreted one another, thus believing that a real rape did not occur. While "a prior relationship makes arrest easier ..., [it] ... reduces the strength of the prosecutor's case by allowing a consent defense" (LaFree, 1981, p. 589). Bohmer (1974) found judges less Sympathetic to acquaintance rape victims because they were perceived as precipitating their own rape. Estrich (1987) stated that acquaintance rape cases are downgraded by the legal system because they are viewed as private disputes, may involve a claim of rights, may involve contributory fault, and are viewed as less terrifying than stranger 9's rape roll of I95 69 rapes. W Thornton, Ryckman, and Robbins (1982) found that gender and gender- role attitudes were the two primary contributors concerning the amount of perceived victim culpability. Gender differences were evident in research conducted by Feldman-Summers and Lindner (1976), Scroggs (1976), Stephan (1974), and Tolor (1978) that discovered the length of jail sentences and the determination of guilt were different for males and females judging criminal cases. Hales viewed rape less seriously as a crime than females, with females having a more sympathetic view of rape victims than males (Tieger, 1981). Hales also perceived rape as more of a sexual act, thus attributing it to sexual causes (Bridges and McCrail, 1989). Hales emphasize the personal characteristics of rape victims to a significantly greater degree than females (Calhoun, Selby, and Warring, 1976). Smith, Heating, Hester, and Mitchell (1976) found that females were more punitive toward the assailant than were males, while males judged rape victims as significantly more likely to precipitate their own rape. Additional research by Cann, Calhoun, and Selby (1979), Hanekar and Vaz (1983), and Selby, Calhoun, and Brock (1977), determined that women, as compared to men, perceived rape victims as having less responsibility for their own rape. Krulewitz and Nash (1979) found that women attributed greater responsibility to the victim of a stranger versus an acquaintance rape, while Tetreault and Barnett (1987) found just the opposite result. Research has suggested that gender-role attitudes are the most important determinant concerning attribution of blame. For example, Williams (1979) found significant support for a link between gender-role attitudes and assessment of female blame for rape. This conclusion has been supported by the work of Acock and Ireland (1983), Feild (1978a, 1978b). Feild and Bienen (1980), Howard (1984a), Hlemmack and Hlemmack 70 (1976), and Shotland and Goodstein (1983). Miller, Smith, Ferree, and Taylor (1976) stated that "reactions to victims are not based on a psychological need to perceive the world as just, but are rather dependent upon the political and social context in which the perceiver, the victim, and the victimizer are embedded” (p. 358). “In the United States the criminal justice system perceives the crime of rape as an act against society and thus attempts to redress its social wrong " (Brodyaga, Gates, Singer, Tucker, and White, 1975, p. 113). When redress was delegated to a jury, however, it was common for the jury to ignore the strict application of the law and respond to the circumstances of each case according to the general stereotypes of society (Brooks and Doob, 1975; DiPerna, 1984; Frazier and Borgida, 1988; Guinther, 1988; L'Armand and Pepitone, 1982; Williams, 1976; see especially Feild and Bienen, 1980). The result may be an arbitrary hearing (Frank, 1949; Griffitt and Jackson, 1973; Simon, 1980; Stephan, 1975), where the rape victim and not the assailant was the person placed on trial (Borgida and White, 1978; Russell, 1975). For example, a study involving 360 rape trail jurors determined that the victim's gender-role behavior (e. g. alcohol/drug use, acquaintance with the assailant) influenced verdicts more than the evidence in cases that disputed the occurrence of a sexual assault (LaFree, Reskin, and Visher, 1985). Langer, Blank, and Chanowitz (1978) demonstrated that people ignore relevant information when a situation was consistent with their prior expectations. Wrightsman, Hassin, and Willis (1987, p. 139) stated that “... jurors may very well enter the courtroom biased in their predisposition. If the evidence is mixed or ambiguous, jurors' predispositions could affect their decisions," especially in rape cases (see also Gerbasi, Zuckerman, and Reis, 1977; Reskin and Visher, 1986). In fact, jurors often make their decisions before deliberations (Weld and 11' det vi: th: 30' th 71 and Danzig, 1968; Wishman, 1986). Vidmar (1972) also demonstrated that a jury weighs the consequences of a decision before dispensing individual justice. In their landmark study of juries, Halven and Zeisel (1966) determined that juries have a tendency "... to weigh the conduct of the victim in judging the guilt of the defendant" (p. 243). Juries often looked at an assumption of risk theme to determine the level of blame the woman shared for the alleged rape. In other words, the juries did not limit themselves to the central issue of consent. This study found that juries were four times as willing to convict in aggravated (stranger) rape than in simple (acquaintance) rape cases. sc 0 edures Huch has been written about the changing relationship between institutions of higher education and their students, particularly in terms of liability issues (Batson, 1986; Bhirdo, 1989; Bohmer and Parrot, 1993; Dodd, 198s: rishbein, 1985; Helms, 1987; Haplin, 1985; Redford, 1989; Reidhaar, 1985; Stamatakos, 1990; Szablewicz and Gibbs, 1987). The doctrine of "in loco parentis" was rendered inoperative in the 1960s and was replaced by a variety of other legal models, including constitutional, contractual, fiduciary, and unitary models (Stamatakos, 1990). Szablewicz and Gibbs (1987) argued that the doctrine of "in loco parentis' was experiencing a revitalization. However, other legal scholars (Batson, 1986; Bhirdo, 1989; Dodd, 1985; Stamatakos, 1990) argued that liability issues were more fully defined by the duties and responsibilities inherent in the special relationship between the student and college, which included the issue of 'foreseeability.‘ Helms (1987) found that tort, statutory, property and procedural cases comprised the recent growth in higher education case law. Much of the case law cited by all the aforementioned authors largely dealt with situations of violence (e.g. stranger rape, murder, assault, kidnapping) ha: n; Vi 72 that generally involved issues concerning a "breach of duty“ and “foreseeability' on the part of the college. Courts have also looked at whether it was reasonable for a student to have expected protection from harm when judging liability issues (Steiner, 1989). Law suits filed against colleges in acquaintance rape situations have been based partly on staff and procedural response issues (Bohmer and Parrot, 1993). For example, a former student at Central Michigan University sued the school claiming it failed to properly adjudicate her rape complaint against a student athlete (Associated Press, 1991). At Carleton College 4 women filed suit because the institution allegedly allowed men with known histories of sexual harassment to remain on campus (Gibbs, 1991). A former student at Colgate filed a negligence suit because University officials allegedly failed to investigate her rape case (Freeman, 1990). Similiar allegations have also been made by female students at George Mason, Arizona State, and Ohio State Universities (National Association, 1993). According to Wagner (1991, p. B2), "... if university authorities fail to act quickly enough to remove a student who is a known threat, the victim may suffer retaliation or other students may be injured in the meantime“, thus indicating the importance of a thorough institutional response. To properly protect female students and minimize liability, Batson (1986) stated that colleges must have ”strong and well-publicized policies and judicial procedures to deal with gang and individual rapists” (p. 128; see also Bohmer and Parrot, 1993). Pavela (1992b) wants higher education to set clear standards for student behavior and acknowledge that ultimate authority for discipline resides with the campus administration. Stoner and Cerminara (1990) provided a comprehensive model for a student disciplinary code that followed due process requirements (Blaskey, 1988; Latourette and Hing, 1988: Picozzi, 1987; Swem, 1987) and represented generally the prevailing law. Their model stressed the importance of judicial advisors conducting investigations and the need for having hearing boards composed of [EC th pr: 73 faculty, staff, and students impartially judging cases (Adams and Abarbanel, 1988 and Parrot, 1991a and 1991b also provided recommendations concerning judicial hearing procedures for sexual assault cases). The standard of proof necessary in college discipline cases is less than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal justice proceedings. Campus discipline hearings may use less stringent “by a preponderance" or "clear and convincing" standards of proof to judge student behavior that violates college rules (Bohmer and Parrot, 1993; Long, 1985). It is not considered "double jeopardy" to try a student in both criminal and university judicial processes and it is not unusual for the 2 processes to rule differently on the matter of guilt (Adams. and Abarbanel, 1988; Parrot, 1991b). Parrot (1991b) stated that judicial hearing boards should have a legal expert appointed as the chairperson and that board members should receive special training to deal with acquaintance rape cases. The training should address the laws and policies related to acquaintance rape, the psychological needs of victims and defendants, and the typical acquaintance rape patterns (Parrot 1991a). Pew college hearing boards are well-prepared to hear acquaintance rape cases because most have only been trained to adjudicate vandalism and plagiarism incidents (Collison, 1991; Julian, 1992; Halette, 1988). Although Lancaster, Cooper, and Herman (1993) found that student discipline is emerging as a profession, research conducted by Dannells (1991) concluded that judicial affairs professionals are handling the changing types of student misconduct cases with the same methods used 10 years ago. In conclusion, Parrot (1991b, p. 379) stated that “acquaintance rape and sexual assault cases on campus will not stop until institutions of higher education take this problem seriously. The first step toward its elimination is the development of a campus policy on acquaintance rape and sexual assault, with related sanctions made clear to students.... When a case is reported, the victim must receive support 74 and, if the allegations are proven, the assailant should be dealt with to the fullest extent permitted by the campus policy." In fact, the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1992 requires institutions to develop both prevention programs and procedural responses to deal with sexual assaults (National Association, 1992: Gehring, 1993). Summer! The aforementioned literature review demonstrated the prevalence of acquaintance rape in the United States. Acquaintance rape was especially apparent among college age individuals, with female samples reporting rape victimization rates averaging around 20 percent. The literature supported the feminist contention that acquaintance rape occurs because both genders are socialized to view sexual aggression by males as normal. This was especially true in dating relationships where people interacted according to gender-role stereotypes. Research demonstrated that people's views of rape were influenced by their level of traditionality concerning the roles of males and females in society. Specifically, people who held traditional gender- role beliefs were more likely to believe in rape myths and thus viewed rape as justifiable under certain circumstances. Their level of traditionality also influenced people's perceptions of sexual violence and individual responsibility for acquaintance rape prevention. The level of gender-role traditionality, furthermore, influenced the amount of blame attributed to the people involved in acquaintance rape situations. People with more traditional beliefs blamed females more for the rape, especially when they violated gender-role expectations related to, for example, their level of resistance, use of alcohol, previous sexual experiences, and consent. Research also demonstrated that people rely on rape stereotypes to judge ambiguous acquaintance rape situations, that are often not as clear as stereotypical stranger rape situations. 75 Research with both real and mock juries demonstrated that verdicts in rape cases did not always reflect the strict application of the law. Individual jurors often arrived at decisions using rape myths as the basis, that in effect judged the victim and not the assailant. Furthermore, most of these studies used college students as subjects, showing that belief in rape myths and gender-role stereotypes influenced their judgement in acquaintance rape situations. Studies demonstrated that acquaintance rape is a serious social problem on college campuses. However, many question the commitment of higher education to properly respond to the problem. This concern was reflected in the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 that required all higher education institutions receiving federal funds to develop policies and procedures aimed at both preventing and responding to sexual assault occurrences (NASPA Forum, 1992). Previously, two bills were introduced into the U. S. House of Representatives to ensure that colleges provided assistance to and protection for sexual assault victims (Freeman, 1991; NASPA Forum, 1991; see also Bohmer and Parrot, 1993 for an excellent legislative overview). More recently, the Michigan House of Representatives passed a campus sexual assault victims' bill of rights that required institutions to develop comprehensive sexual assault policies (Michigan Campus Sexual Assault, 1992). The Michigan bill sought to guarantee the rights of sexual assault victims by requiring that victims be treated with dignity (not blamed for their assault), have access to counseling services, have an opportunity to report the assault to criminal justice authorities, and receive the full support and cooperation of institutional personnel. The bill further required that institutional disciplinary proceedings accord the victim the same rights as the accused, that included the right to council and the right to be notified of the outcomes. The scope of the problem, the increased general awareness, the potential for increased reporting, and the possibility of legislative mandates highlight the importance of colleges developing comprehensive 76 acquaintance rape policies and procedures. This may be especially important in the campus judicial affairs arena where effective adjudication requires special awareness of rape laws, understanding of acquaintance rape dynamics, and sensitivity to the involved parties. This author was unable to find any published research related to how actual college judicial boards make decisions in acquaintance rape cases. Thus it appears that research into the criteria used by judicial boards to determine guilt or innocence and subsequent sanctioning is a valuable and missing part of the literature. Of special importance is the influence of an individual board member's attitudes toward gender roles and rape on his/her attributional processes. This type of research may assist colleges, especially judicial affairs functions, in effectively adjudicating acquaintance rape cases. This research has special implications related to the selection, training, and advising of judicial boards. and 522 2'? th th CHAPTER THREE “momma! Madam fitgtgmgn§_gfi_§hg_zggplgmz Heterosexual acquaintance rape is a social problem on college campuses, with approximately 27 percent of college women experiencing rape while on a date (Miller and Marshall, 1987). When reported, colleges often respond by adjudicating alleged perpetrators in acquaintance rape cases via institutional student judicial processes. These processes often include the option of having peer judicial boards hear the facts of the case, determine a verdict, and render discipline sanctions when applicable. Critics charge that judicial boards are ill-prepared to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases because of inadequate training and lack of sensitivity concerning the dynamics of acquaintance rape situations. Furthermore, research involving both actual and mock juries demonstrated that verdicts in acquaintance rape cases were often influenced more by the individual member's levels of belief in rape myths and gender-role stereotypes than by actual facts. Bgng§g_gj_tn§_§§ggy: The review of the literature clearly documented that college students, both male and female, believed in traditional gender-role stereotypes (Rosenkrantz, et al., 1968) that influenced dating relationships (Muehlenhard, Friedman, and Thomas, 1985) and perceptions concerning a willingness to engage in sexual intercourse (Bostwick, 1990). College students were also found to believe in rape myths (Check and Malamuth, 1985) that influenced the definitional boundaries between rape and normal sexual activity (Wilson, Faison, and Britton, 1983). Furthermore, rape myths were found to be related to views concerning the roles and rights of women in society (Costin, 1985), with students holding traditional views more likely to believe in rape myths and to accept sexual aggression (Greendlinger and Byrne, 1987). A review of the literature on attribution demonstrated that people 77 id 78 defined a situation as rape according to their stereotypes of rape (Hlemmack and Hlemmack, 1976). Further research determined that gender and gender-role attitudes were the 2 primary contributors concerning the definition of rape (Thornton, Ryckman, and Robbins, 1982), with males viewing the rape less seriously than females (Calhoun, Selby, and Warring, 1976; Tieger, 1981). Research involving both actual and mock juries demonstrated that verdicts in acquaintance rape cases were often influenced more by the individual member's level of belief in rape myths and gender-role attitudes than by actual facts (LaFree, Reskin, and Visher, 1985). In essence, jury members reflected the stereotypes of society. Thus, an important question was raised. Specifically, given the documented level of rape myth belief and traditional gender-role attitudes in the general college population, were college judicial board members more aware of the influence of rape myths and gender-role attitudes on their judgement of blame and responsibility in rape cases? This was an important question given that judicial board members are trained to impartially judge all cases heard before them. If individual members subscribe to the same beliefs as their peers in terms of rape myth beliefs, Parrot (1991a, 1991b) and other critics may be correct in questioning the competence of judicial boards to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases on campus. Thus, this study was designed to answer the aforementioned question. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to determine what effect college judicial board members' levels of rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes had on the judgement of a male perpetrator's guilt or innocence for committing an act of rape. The rape was depicted by 2 written scenarios featuring an acquaintance assault and a stranger assault. The study specifically examined the differences between the acquaintance rape and stranger rape situations consistent with the purpose of this study. Each of the two rape scenarios were judged by 50 percent of the subjects. Thus, 50 percent of the judicial board members judged the 79 acquaintance rape scenario. The remaining 50 percent from each sample judged the stranger rape scenario. All subjects completed the FEM Scale that measured attitudes toward feminism and sexism, the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire, the Adjudication Questionnaire, and the Demographic Information Form. Begggggn_gggg§igng: This investigation was guided by the following questions: 1. What relationship, if any, exists between the verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator and rape myth beliefs across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? What relationship, if any, exists between the verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator and gender-role attitudes across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? What relationship, if any, exists between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief on verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? flypgtngggg: The following directional hypotheses were tested in this study: 1. As a group, subjects with high level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the not guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. As a group, subjects with low level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. As a group, subjects with high level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. As a group, subjects with low level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. As a group, subjects with sexist beliefs will most frequently 80 select the not guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. 6. As a group, subjects with feminist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. 7. As a group, subjects with sexist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. 8. As a group, subjects with feminist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. 9. Overall, there will be a positive relationship between gender- role attitudes and rape myth belief. 10. Overall, gender-role attitudes will be more influential than rape myth belief in determining the verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. 11. Overall, gender-role attitudes will be more influential than rape myth belief in determining the verdict in the stranger rape mode. The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of the methodology used in this investigation. Specifically addressed are the topics concerned with the subjects, instrumentation, data collection procedures, data scoring, and statistical analysis of the data. Su ts Many colleges have a primary judicial board that adjudicates enrolled students who violate the more serious conduct rules (e.g. rape) of the institution (Lancaster, Cooper, and Harman, 1993). These boards are typically composed of enrolled students, faculty, and staff members. They are empowered by the institution to levy or recommend disciplinary sanctions, including suspension, when they find a student guilty, after a hearing, of violating the college's conduct rules. These boards are ‘almost always advised by student affairs staff members who serve in some calPacity as a judicial affairs officer for the college. Judicial board members are typically selected on an annual basis and receive training {0! in : of tha N! ha'. ASE of C0! of 81 to assist in the performance of their duties. The chief student affairs offices at 13 state-assisted institutions in Michigan were initially contacted via phone in November and December of 1992. The purpose was to determine if they had a judicial system that included a board empowered to hear cases that could result in suspension. Of the 13, only 10 of the institutions were deemed as having the requisites necessary for this study. The remaining 3 state- assisted institutions received no further consideration. The University of Michigan-Dearborn and The University of Michigan-Flint were never contacted during this investigation, as they were viewed as extensions '1 of The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor that does not have a student "1 code of conduct. The chief student affairs offices at 7 independent institutions, all members of the Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association, were initially contacted via phone to assess the structure of their judicial systems. Only 6 of the colleges received further consideration for involvement in this study. A second phone call was made in late February and early March of 1993 to the staff member contact at each of the colleges deemed as having the requisite judicial structure. The purpose was to discuss the specifics of this study and to seek their assistance and cooperation. As a result, 6 independent and 9 state-assisted institutions agreed to cooperate with this research project. Only enrolled students that served on judicial boards empowered to suspend others were selected for this study. In some cases, these boards only recommended suspension to the college's primary judicial affairs officer who made the final decision. The reasons for selecting this sample were: (1) Rape cases are typically viewed as serious and thus are sent to primary judicial boards because suspension is a possible outcome; (2) Primary judicial boards typically adjudicate more serious cases and are more experienced: (3) Primary judicial boards are generally advised by more experienced, higher level student affairs m1 boa: new m aff HE 82 staff members; (4) Students often account for a majority on these boards or are at least represented equally with faculty and staff members; and (5) At institutions where the boards only recommend suspension, the recommendations are usually supported by the judicial affairs officer. Although colleges may have other judicial boards, they are generally not empowered to suspend students because they hear only routine violations of the rules (e.g. alcohol possession). The judicial board members included in this study were identified by a student affairs staff member with judicial responsibilities at each of the respective institutions. Depending upon the institution, the number of enrolled students selected and trained to serve on primary judicial boards ranged from 3 to 20 people. Thus, the investigation was extended to both independent and state-assisted colleges to generate a sample size large enough to have each of the two written rape scenarios judged by at least 30 different judicial board members. According to Borg and Gall (1983) and Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott (1990), a sample size of 30 closely approximates a normal distribution and is preferable. Originally, this investigation included 118 judicial board members enrolled as students for the spring semester of 1993 at 6 independent and 9 state-assisted colleges within the state of Michigan. Eighty-nine of the original judicial board members were selected from the state- assisted colleges, with the remaining 29 original board members representing the independent institutions. However, 5 of the survey packets were never distributed, resulting in a sample of 113 board members. This final sample was composed of 85 board members from state- assisted institutions and 28 board members from independent colleges. Eighty-two judicial board members completed and returned the survey packets. This resulted in a 73 percent overall return rate. Fifty-four percent (n - 15) of the subjects at the independent institutions returned survey packets. Judicial board members at the state-assisted institutions returned 67 survey packets, for a 79 percent return rate. The subjects in this study represented the following institutions: M ‘si: 3"”. -. a7 ._ 83 W W Central Michigan University Adrian College Fastern Michigan University Albion College Ferris State University Alma College Grand Valley State University Hope College Lake Superior State University Kalamazoo College Michigan State University Olivet College Michigan Technological University Oakland University Saginaw Valley State University Law I§fl_§§§133 Originally developed by Smith, Ferree, and Miller T (1975), this instrument was designed to measure attitudes toward feminism. A 57 item scale, later shortened to 48 items, was tested with m 39 undergraduates (28 males, 11 females) at an Ivy League college. The researchers determined that the scale had a .92 reliability. The authors shortened the scale to 27 items and administered it to 100 (52 females, 48 males) Harvard Summer School students. This version of the scale yielded a .90 reliability. The validity of the FEM Scale was also established in this study by finding a strong correlation with 2 scales developed by the authors measuring feminist identification (.629, p<.01) and activism (.392, p<.01). Furthermore, correlations between the FEM Scale and the Rubin-Peplau Just World Scale yielded a significant negative correlation of -.238 (p< .OS), that was predicted because feminist beliefs are not compatible with belief in a just and fair society. Correlations with the Rotter Internality-Externality Scale that measured political efficacy resulted in a non-significant correlation of .048, that was predicted. The differences between the correlations for males and females on the 4 measures and the FEM Scale were not significant. A factor analysis shortened the scale to 20 items. The final version of the FEM Scale demonstrated a .91 reliability. Singleton and Christiansen (1977) conducted an independent validation of the FEM Scale by administering the instrument to 149 84 female and 129 male college students at several institutions in California. These researchers determined that the 20-item scale had a .91 reliability. Furthermore, they found the scale to have convergent validity, establishing a significant .638 (p<.001) correlation with a women's movement identification scale designed by the authors to measure support for feminist activities and involvement. A significant negative correlation with a dogmatism scale (-.506, p<.001) developed by the authors was predicted and verified. Finally, the authors found a negative correlation between the FEM Scale and an anti-black prejudice scale (-.462, p<.001) that they developed to measure a generalized tendency to stereotype. No significant differences between separate “-5.3 he *- correlations for males and females and the 3 scales existed, but males were found to be more sexist and racist than females. They also established the discriminant validity of the scale by giving the scale to 88 feminists (mean - 91.30 ) and 59 anti-feminists (mean e 51.03), finding a significant (p<.001) difference in the mean scores of the 2 groups. Female students (n s 149, mean a 77.24) and male students (n - 129, mean I 66.16) from the original sample scored in between the feminist and anti-feminist groups. In conclusion, Singleton and Christiansen (1977, p. 301) found the FEM Scale to be "... the shortest, most reliable measure of sexist or feminist attitudes yet available ...“ The FEM Scale was selected for this investigation because of the thorough validation that occurred, both by the initial developers as well as by independent investigators. The other primary instrument noted in the literature for measuring attitudes toward gender roles was the Attitudes Toward WOman Scale (Spence and Helmreich, 1972). The ATW Scale was not selected, in part, because a researcher at Kansas State University (personal communication, November, 1992) questioned the validity of the instrument as it related to her research on rape attitudes. This investigator also believed that the FEM Scale demonstrated better face validity than the ATW Scale (See Appendix A or 3.5 It! rev cha up of the 85 8, Section D, for the complete FEM Scale). AttitgQgg_Igg§£g_ggp§_gg§§tigggaigg: Feild (1978a), believing that attitudes toward rape were multidimensional rather than unidimensional, reviewed both the scholarly and popular literature for statements characterizing people's attitudes toward: (a) the act of rape: (b) the rape victim: and (c) the rapist. The review resulted in an initial pool of 75 items representing affective, cognitive, and action components that were reduced to a 37-statement ATR Questionnaire. The ATR Questionnaire was given by Barnett and Feild (1977) to 400 college student (200 men, 200 women). Barnett and Feild used t-tests to compare male and female responses and discovered that 72 percent of the items were significant at either the p<.01 or p<.001 levels, indicating substantial gender differences in attitudes toward rape. Following the administration of the questionnaire, the researchers interviewed selected respondents and modified the questionnaire to include 32 items. Feild (1978a; see also Feild and Bienen, 1980) administered the ATR Questionnaire to 1,448 subjects comprised of 1056 (528 female, 528 male) adult citizens, 254 police officers, 20 committed rapists, and 118 female rape crisis counselors. A factor analysis was conducted with the citizen, police, and rape counselor samples that indicated the presence of the same 8 factors. The congruence coefficients for the factor structures among the 3 sub-groups ranged from .81 to .89 with a mean of .87. When all the subjects were combined and their responses analyzed using varimax rotation, the 8 factors accounted for 50 percent of the variance among the items. According to the researchers, all 8 factors possessed an adequate number of variables with loadings of sufficient magnitude (1.30) to warrant interpretation. The factors identified were: Factor 1: Woman's responsibility in rape prevention. Factor 2: Sex as motivation for rape. Factor 3: Severe punishment for rape. Factor 4: Victim precipitation of rape. re‘. int 3e; wt thi val acl 86 Factor 5: Normality of rapists. Factor 6: Power as motivation for rape. Factor 7: Favorable perception of a woman after rape. Factor 8: Resistance as woman's role during rape. No data were collected at a second point to determine the reliability of the ATR factors. However, the researchers stated that internal consistency of the dimensions of rape were supported because separate factor analysis showed a high degree of similarity across subgroups and because the square root of the estimated commonalities of the factors (the theoretical lower bound of reliability) had a mean value of .62. The researchers acknowledged this low value but found it acceptable given the heterogeneity of the items, the number of factors found, and the items with loadings greater than .30. The discriminant validity of the scale was established by using multivariate and univariate analysis of variance to differentiate the sub-groups within the sample. The MANOVA was significant (F a 44.30, df - 24,4l59, p<.0001) indicating overall difference in the ways the 4 groups viewed all 8 dimensions of rape. Significant differences between groups were also evident in Factor 1, with an F-test score of 26.81 (p<.0001). Factor 1 was defined by items emphasizing a woman's responsibility in preventing her rape. Individuals scoring high on this factor were viewed as having pro-rape attitudes. A review of the items comprising this factor revealed a listing of common rape myths generally defined in the professional literature (see Burt, 1980: Warshaw, 1988). Ross and Leonard (1984, p. 220) concur, writing that "... this factor could be interpreted as a general rape myth factor." Within the citizen sample, men tended to believe to a greater extent than women in rape myths as defined by Factor 1 (r a .17, p<.001). A correlation of citizen responses on Factor 1 of the ATR Questionnaire and the Attitudes Toward Women's Scale (Spence and Helmreich, 1972) yielded a significant negative correlation of -.30 (p< .001 ups for tea! at ide (19 USE de1 87 .001), indicating that gender attitudes correlate with attitudes toward rape (See Appendix A or B, Section E, for the complete scale). Originally, Factor 1 of the ATR Questionnaire was to be utilized for data analysis. However, subsequent investigation prompted this researcher to conduct a new principal components factor analysis with varimax rotations (Babbie, 1990) for the ATR Questionnaire. The results identified 6 latent factors as compared to the 8 differentiated by Feild (1978a). As a result, a new Unified Rape Myth Factor was created for use as the measure of rape myth belief specific to this investigation (See Appendix D for factor presentation; Chapter 4 also provides more detailed information on the creation of the Unified Factor). A review of the literature determined that the ATR Questionnaire (Feild, 1978a) and the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Burt, 1980) were the primary instruments available to measure the level of rape myth belief in subjects. The ATR Questionnaire was selected because: (a) it demonstrated better face validity by incorporating a wider range of rape myths; (b) it used a more comprehensive sample to establish the instrument: and (c) Ross and Leonard (1984) promoted ATR Factor 1 as a measure of rape myth acceptance. Additionally, Burt (1980) incorporated questions into the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale that were differentiated by racial characteristic. This researcher believed the introduction of a racial element compromised the validity of the instrument. Bapg_§ggng;igg: Two written rape scenarios representing acquaintance and stranger rape situations, originally developed by Quackenbush (1987), were modified for the purpose of this investigation. The acquaintance rape scenario was judged by this researcher as representative of acquaintance rape incidents responded to over a 14- year career working with students living in college residence halls. The acquaintance rape scenario was also shown to several full-time staff members in the Department of Residence Life at Michigan State University who viewed it as a typical representation. Both scenarios were reviewed by the Sexual Assault Safety Program '0 Coorl were :dvi in t dcn‘ vor I'm dis ‘Pé Coordinator at Michigan State University. She agreed that the scenarios were typical of a college acquaintance rape situation. Based on her advise, an act of verbal resistance was added to line 2 of paragraph 7 in both scenarios, as she believed a woman would verbally respond (re: don't) earlier than was evident in the original versions. This researcher also modified line 6 of paragraph 7, deleting the word "passionate" as an adjective describing a kiss. Other changes were minor; reflecting style of clothes, name of the movie, use of a compact disc rather than a record, and location (on-campus suite v. off-campus apartment) . The acquaintance rape and stranger rape scenarios provided ,r identical demographic and situational information through the first 7 paragraphs. The remaining paragraphs of the scenarios were identical in terms of the female's response and the male's actions, the only difference being the stranger or acquainted condition of the alleged rapist. Both scenarios met the legal requirements within the State of Michigan concerning the commission of a rape by the male (See Appendix A, Section B, for the acquaintance rape scenario. See Appendix 8, Section B, for the stranger rape scenario). Agjggigggigg_gggg§igng§i£§: The adjudication questionnaire was developed by this researcher to measure the severity of sanction or punishment given to the rapist when viewed as guilty. The questionnaire was composed of 2 questions: (a) Question 1 asked the respondents to determine, after reading a scenario, whether in their opinion the man was guilty or not guilty of rape: (b) Question 2 asked the respondents to select the most appropriate, in their opinion, disciplinary sanction when they believed the man was guilty of rape. The descriptions used to explain the meaning of the disciplinary sanctions listed in Question 2 were derived from written judicial materials obtained from 1 Michigan independent college and 4 state- assisted Michigan colleges. The researcher also relied on 14-years of experience working with judicial systems at 4 state—assisted colleges as the ties: C). dev I95 cor it! fox n] 89 a hearing officer and judicial board advisor. Furthermore, the descriptions were very consistent with those provided by Stoner and Cbrminara's (1990) model disciplinary code (See Appendix A or 3, Section C). QgmQgggpnig_Infig£m§tign_£ggmz The Demographic Information form was developed by this investigator to gather personal data about each respondent. This instrument asked respondents to provide information concerning their gender, age, race, spiritual faith, type of college attended, academic class standing, major, and grade point average. This form also asked for information concerning previous experiences with a rape victim, both personally and within the context of hearing a case as part of judicial responsibilities. Requested information concerning spiritual faith was included because several of the independent colleges in the Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association are affiliated with a religious organization. A Dean of Students at one of the independent institutions stated this would make a difference when comparing his institution with secular colleges (See Appendix A or 3, Section F). Da a o t oc du s This investigation utilized a descriptive survey research design (Babbie, 1990; Turney and Robb, 1971) that determines the distribution of certain characteristics, traits, attributes, and/or opinions within a sample at a given point in time. According to Babbie (1990, p. 52) ... the researcher is concerned not with why the observed distribution exists but merely with what that distribution is....although most surveys ... have the additional objective of making explanatory assertions about the population." Subjects were all student members of judicial boards empowered by the institution to levy or recommend disciplinary sanctions, including suspension. Mo faculty or staff who served on judicial boards were MU 90 included in this study. Subject's names and addresses were not known by this researcher. The institution's contact person was responsible for administering the survey to the appropriate judicial board members. Bach contact person was directly mailed in March 1993 the requisite number of survey booklets (See Appendix A and 8), along with a letter explaining the instructions for administering the surveys (See Appendix C). The instructions emphasized the importance of getting a high return rate, encouraged the administration of the surveys within 2 weeks, and provided a system for distributing the survey booklets so that each version of the survey was given to 50 percent of the participants. F1 Regular follow—up phone calls were placed to each institutional contact ‘ 0 person, that had not returned the survey booklets, to offer assistance rh and encouragement in completing the administration of the surveys. Bach survey booklet contained the same cover page explaining the purpose of the study, the average amount of time to complete the task, the confidential nature of their responses, and the voluntary nature of their participation. The cover letter also informed participants that returning the booklet constituted their informed and voluntary participation in this study. Additionally, participants were informed that they could contact the researcher at the listed address or phone number with any questions or comments. Section A of the booklet contained the general instructions for completing the survey. This section explained to each participant that they would be completing 5 additional sections and urged them to answer all questions honestly. This section also reinforced the confidential and voluntary nature of their responses. Participants were informed that prior to each section, instructions for completing that portion of the booklet were provided. Section B of the booklet featured one of the two rape scenarios, that is, one-half of the subjects received a survey booklet with the stranger scenario (See Appendix B) and one-half received the acquaintance scenario (See Appendix A). Section C, the Adjudication 91 Questionnaire, instructed the subjects to determine, according to only the information provided in the scenario, whether the male was guilty or not guilty of rape. Sections D and 3 featured the FEM Scale and the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire respectively. Section F instructed people to complete the Demographic Information Form. The sections in the survey booklet were ordered in an intentional manner. Specifically, the rape scenarios, followed by the adjudication questionnaire, were placed in front of the FEM Scale and Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire in order to control for the influence the completion of the instruments might exert on the judgement of the male perpetrator. The FEM Scale was placed in front of the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire to control for the emotional reactions people might have toward the word “rape“ used in all of the ATR questions. Thus, this researcher wanted a measure of the participants gender-role attitudes free of any influence associated with the topic of rape. To ensure that the instructions in the booklet were understandable and unambiguous, pilot studies were conducted on February 15 and 24, 1993 with 11 members of 2 residence hall judicial boards. The amount of time needed to complete the survey booklet was monitored. The researcher processed the instructions with each judicial board as a group to determine if people understood the intended meaning and made modifications accordingly. This study utilized 1 instrument comprised of 5 components. The Demographic Information Form and Adjudication Questionnaire provided nominal data that were used as independent variables, requiring only classification. The Rape Scenarios required no scoring. The FEM Scale was a 20-item instrument designed to measure sexist or feminist attitudes. Mo sub-factors were identified in the scale. The instrument utilized a S-point Likert Scale, scored according to a ”I ran dis 8C0 ger fa: ag: di 92 range where: l a strongly agree; 2 8 agree; 3 a no opinion; 4 8 disagree; and 5 8 strongly disagree. Questions 15, 16, 19, and 20 were scored in reverse order, where strongly agree - 5 and strongly disagree - 1. A high score was consistent with feminist or less traditional gender-role attitudes. The Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire was composed of 8 sub- factors. The instrument used a 6-point Likert Scale where: l I strongly agree; 2 8 agree; 3 - slightly agree; 4 = slightly disagree; 5 = disagree; 6 8 strongly disagree. As originally developed by Feild (1978a), a high score was indicative of substantial rape myth belief, as well as possessing anti-victim, pro-rape sentiments. Subsequent modification of the ATR Questionnaire, because a new principal components factor analysis with varimax rotations (Babbie, 1990) was conducted, changed the scoring structure of the ATR Questionnaire. Specifically, items 2, 3, 20, and 22 were recoded so that strongly agree 8 6 and strongly disagree s 1. These coding changes altered the direction of the scale. For the purpose of this investigation, a high score on the ATR Unified Rape Myth Factor was suggestive of low rape myth belief (See Chapter 4 for more specific information on the scoring changes associated with this instrument). Dat s 8 All respondents completing and returning the survey booklet were grouped according to whether their survey booklet included the stranger rape or acquaintance rape scenario. The groups were compared on the basis of gender, race or ethnic background, class standing, religious faith, academic major, judicial training, participation in a rape hearing, and personal knowledge of a rape victim. These comparisons were made using chi-square analysis, that "... is a convenient technique for determining the significance of the difference between the frequencies of occurrence in 2 or more categories ...” (Bartz, 1976, p. 93 297-298) when the data is "discrete” (Babbie, 1990, p. 252). The groups were also compared according to age, academic grade point average, and months of judicial experience. A s-scale, “... the most widely used standard score scale in statistics ..." (Glass and Hopkins, 1984, p. 64) is often used to compare ”continuous" data (Debbie, 1990, p. 252). However the t-test was chosen for this analysis because "the t-distribution ... looks very much like the normal curve...” (Bartz, 1976, p. 248). Additionally, ”... it has become conventional always to use the t-distribution, regardless of sample size. This means that (one) can ignore the z-values ... in favor of a specific t-value which is determined by ... the degrees of freedom in (the) samples” (Darts, 1976, p. 249). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was originally selected to determine what relationship, if any, existed between the judicial verdict, rape mode, and rape myth belief or gender-role attitudes. ANOVA was chosen because it ”... is usually the appropriate method when the groups of observations are created by a categorical independent variable ....[and the desire is to] ... study ... the effect of a categorical variable on a metric (interval) variable (Iversen and Morpoth, 1987, p. 8). ANOVA also is the appropriate method for analysing survey data, however it remains difficult to establish a causal effect (Iversen and Morpoth, 1987). For this study, the judicial verdict was considered the independent variable and the scores on the FEM Scale or Factor 1 of the Attitudes Toward Rape Scale were defined as the dependent variables. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was to be used to determine what relationship, if any, existed between gender-role attitudes and rape myth beliefs on the judicial verdict. MANOVA was originally selected because Bray and Maxwell (1985) state that '... it evaluates mean differences on two or more dependent variables simultaneously” (p. 8) and ”... considers the correlations between the variables" (p. 9). MANOVA was also selected to determine what effect, if any, demographic variables (eg. race, age, gender) had on the Hi 94 relationships between judicial verdict, rape mode, rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes. Regression was originally selected to determine the relationship, if any, between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief. Regression was chosen because it is more effective than AHOVA when comparing one metric variable with another metric variable (Iversen and Norpoth, 1987). Additionally, multiple regression procedures were to be utilized to gain greater understanding concerning what variables had the greatest impact on the judicial verdicts. This decision to use multiple regression was made because Lewis-Beck (1990) stated it “... offers a fuller explanation of the dependent variable .... [and] second the effect of a particular independent variable is made more certain" (p. 47). The aforementioned procedures were selected with the idea that the subjects participating in this investigation would choose both the guilty and not guilty verdicts. However, the unexpected finding that all 82 subjects judged the male to be guilty of rape limited the statistical analyses to t-tests, chi-squares, and correlation coefficients. No further statistical analyses were required. According to Glass and Hopkins (1984), ”a statistical hypothesis is presumed to be either true or false; by using inferential statistical methods the researcher makes a decision ... as to whether the statistical hypothesis ...is tenable or whether it must be rejected as false.” (p. 204). A level of significance (p) of .05 was established for this study, which Borg and Call (1983) determined to be the general standard used in educational research. [(1') CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA W The purpose of this study was to determine what effect college judicial board members' levels of rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes had on the judgement of a male perpetrator's guilt or innocence for committing an act of rape. In this study the differences between acquaintance rape and stranger rape situations were examined. The investigation was guided by the following questions: 1. What relationship, if any, exists between the verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator and rape myth beliefs across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? 2. What relationship, if any, exists between the verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator and gender-role attitudes across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? 3. What relationship, if any, exists between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief on verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? mm; The subjects for this investigation were 113 student judicial board members at 6 independent and 9 state-assisted colleges in the state of Michigan. All the subjects were enrolled during the Spring Semester of 1993 and served on campus judicial boards empowered to suspend or recommend suspension for students found guilty of violating conduct rules. The final sample was composed of 85 board members from state- assisted institutions and 28 board members from independent colleges (300 Chapter 3 for additional information). Eighty-two judicial board members completed and returned the survey packets. This resulted in a 73 percent overall return rate. Fifty-four percent (n - 15) of the subjects at the independent institutions 95 {8' ‘54 :‘5 96 returned survey packets. Judicial board members at the state-assisted institutions returned 67 survey packets for a 79 percent return rate. W The instrument used in this study was comprised of 5 components. Two components, the FEM Scale (Smith, Ferree, and Miller, 1975) and the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire (Feild and Bienen, 1980) were administered in the same format as originally designed. The Acquaintance Rape and Stranger Rape Scenarios were modified, based on the expert advise of the Sexual Assault Safety Program Coordinator at Michigan State University, from the original versions developed by Quackenbush (1987). The Adjudication Questionnaire and the Demographic L Information Form were developed by this investigator (See Chapter 3 for additional information on the instrumentation). The Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire developed by Feild and Bienen (1980) was a 32-item instrument designed to measure people's attitudes toward rape. Based on the responses of 1,448 subjects, a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotations was used to derive 8 latent factors (eigenvalues > 1). A computed coefficient of congruence for each of the group pairings yielded a correlation between the factors that ranged from .81 to .89, with a mean of .87. The factors accounted for 50 percent of the variance among the items. The researchers did not establish scale reliabilities, but determined that the square root of the estimated commonalities of the factors (the theoretical lower bound of reliability) had a mean value of .62. The researchers acknowledged this low value but found it acceptable given the heterogeneity of the items, the number of factors found, and the items with loadings greater than .30. Additionally, Feild (1978a) believed that face validity was implied because the 8 dimensions had been discussed in the literature. The 8 factors identified were: Factor 1: Woman's responsibility in rape prevention. 97 Factor : Sex as motivation for rape. Factor 3: Severe punishment for rape. Factor 4: Victim precipitation of rape. Factor : Normality of rapists. Factor 6: Power as motivation for rape. Factor 7: Favorable perception of a woman after rape. Factor 8: Resistance as woman's role during rape. Feild and Bienen (1980. pp. 60-61) and Feild (1978a, pp. 162-164) presented their rotated factor structure in table form. However, some confusion surrounds the creation of the factors. Specifically, the researchers alluded to, but never clearly stated, that a loading of i .30 was used as the salient point for assigning ATR items to a particular factor (see Feild and Bienen, 1980, p. 58). Additionally, Feild and Bienen (1980) and Feild (1978a) did not clarify the ATR item assignments in the narrative sections of their writings. Furthermore, the table used to present the rotated factor structure was not constructed consistent with the general recommendations for the presentation of such data (Child, 1990, p. 62; Harman. 1976, p. 277). The researchers only included those loadings greater than 1 .09 in their table. As a result, the missing data created a false impression concerning the assignment of the ATR items to a particular factor. In fact, the confusion lead Ross and Leonard (1984) to conclude that Factor 1 of the ATR Questionnaire incorporated 26 of the 32 items, a conclusion not consistent with the principles of factor analysis (see Cattell, 1952). Conflicting information was also presented in terms of interpreting Factor 3 (Severe Punishment for Rape) of the ATR Questionnaire. Specifically, Feild (1978a, p. 161) wrote that "individuals who feel rapists should be severely punished score high on this factor (anti-rape attitude).' However, Feild and Bienen (1980, p. 58) contradicted this by writing ”individuals who feel rapists should be severely punished - would score low on this factor (antirape attitude).' 98 Finally, several of the loadings shown in the table of rotated factors were negative. Yet no mention was made by the researchers of reverse coding the scoring scale to overcome the bipolar nature (Child, 1990) of the factor loadings. This was important because some of the ATR questions were worded in a manner that was inconsistent with the direction of the scoring scale established by Feild and Bienen (1980). All in all, the reader was left to assume the particulars in the absence of specificity. Thornton, Robbins, and Johnson (1981) conducted research involving 173 college undergraduates that utilized the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire. The researchers conducted a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotations on the ATR Questionnaire for their sample. Using a salient criterion of .40 for factor inclusion, they discovered the emergence of only 4 factors: Factor 1: Victim precipitation and responsibility. Factor 2: Negative evaluation of rape. Factor 3: Sexual motivation as reason for rape. Factor 4: Power motivation as reason for rape. Thornton et al. (1981) found that 4 of the ATR items failed to load appreciably on any of the 4 factors. Factor 1 accounted for 56 percent of the variance with an alpha of .89. The second factor accounted for 13 percent of the variance and demonstrated an alpha of .54. Factors 3 and 4 accounted for 12 percent (Alpha 2 .49) and 8 percent (Alpha I .60) of the variance respectively. The researchers concluded that their factor structure may have differed from Feild (1978a) because of sample differences. However, Thornton et al. acknowledged that comparable themes existed between the 2 investigations with regard to rape attitudes. Given the aforementioned, a confirmatory principal components factor analysis with varimax rotations was conducted for the ATR Questionnaire specific to this investigation. The confirmatory analysis yielded a 6 factor rotation (See Appendix D for factor presentation). 99 The following factors emerged: Factor 1: Rape precipitation and responsibility. Factor 2: Rape motivated by sexual desire. Factor 3: Rape as a crime. Factor 4: Normality of rape. Factor 5: Rape as a violent act. Factor 6: Cultural influences on rape. According to Child (1990, p. 39), an item may be included in a factor with loading values of 1 .30 or greater only when the sample size is larger than 100. Samples with fewer than 100 subjects should specify a level of significance similar to correlation coefficients when deciding the salience of the loadings. Thus a loading of .40, defined by Bart: (1976, p. 205) as a moderate correlation, was selected for this investigation as the salience level for inclusion of an item into a factor. As a result, 30 of the 32 items from the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire were included in a factor (#1 and #17 failed to have appreciable loadings and were not included in any of the factors). The ATR items were categorized as follows: Zactgg 1 6) A charge of rape two days after the act has occurred is probably not rape. 7) A woman should be responsible for preventing her own rape. 11) If a woman is going to be raped, she might as well relax and enjoy it. 13) Most women secretly desire to be raped. 14) It would do some women some good to get raped. 15) Women provoke rape by their appearance or behavior. 25) In most cases when a woman was raped, she was asking for it. 27) Rape of a woman by a man she knows can be defined as a “woman who changed her mind afterward." 30) The degree of a woman's resistance should be the major factor in determining if a rape has occurred. 31) A raped woman is a responsible victim, not an innocent one. 100 £££§2£_2 l9) Rape is the expression of an uncontrollable desire for sex. 21) Rape is a sex crime. 23) During a rape, a woman should do everything she can do to resist. 24) Rapists are sexually frustrated individuals. 26) The reason most rapists commit rape is for sex. 32:22.1 18) In order to protect the male, it should be difficult to prove that a rape has occurred. 20) Rape is the worst crime that can be committed. '1 22) All rape is a male exercise in power over women. 4 Factgr 4 rd 3) Rapists are “normal" men. 5) A11 rapists are mentally sick. 10) A raped woman is a less desirable woman. 16) ”Nice” women do not get raped. Iagto; § 2) The reason most rapists commit rape is for the thrill of physical violence. 8) A man who has committed rape should be given at least 30 years in prison. 28) A convicted rapist should be castrated. zggtgr 6 4) In forcible rape, the victim never causes the crime. 9) Women are trained by society to be rape victims. 12) Rape provides the opportunity for many rapists to show their manhood. 29) A woman should not feel guilty following a rape. 32) Rape serves as a way to put or keep women in their "place." The factor analysis performed for this investigation yielded salient negative loadings on items 2 (—.570), 3 (-.573), and 18 (-.724). According to Guertin and Bailey (1970), this phenomena occurs in psychological tests and may be the result of the scoring mechanism. Logically, someone with a feminist orientation and enlightened attitudes the to: tel Th; an: cu Ha 101 toward rape would most likely select a response for items 2 and 3 from the lower end of the scale (SA - 1). Thus it was considered appropriate to reverse code the scoring scale for items 2 and 3 (SA - 6; SD - 1). Reverse scoring item 18 (SA - 6; SD 8 1) was not considered logical because a person with enlightened rape attitudes would most likely select a response from the "Strongly Disagree" end of the continuum. Thus item 18 was scored (SA - 1; SD - 6) as originally devised by Feild and Bienen (1980). Furthermore, items 20 and 22, the remaining items comprising Factor 3, were reviewed for their scoring consistency. It was determined that both items 20 and 22 should be reverse scored (SA - F1 6; SD - 1), as logic suggests that people with low rape myth beliefs would select responses from the lower end (SA) of the continuum. Wu Further review of the ATR items determined that items 4, 9, 12, 29, and 32 could logically be reverse coded (SA - 6; SD 8 1) as well. This logic was also based on the belief that people with progressive views concerning rape would respond to each item at the lower end (SA) of the scale. Closer examination revealed that the aforementioned 5 items were all assigned to Factor 6 and were not disbursed among other factors. Thus any recoding only affected the negative/positive signs. The items assigned to Factor 6 were also not considered strong representations of common rape myths (Burt, 1980; Warshaw, 1988). In sum, the Factor 6 items were not recoded, as they had no direct utility for this investigation. In review, only items 2, 3, 20, and 22 were reverse coded (SA a 6; SD - 1) for this analysis. These coding changes also altered the direction of the scale. In their study, Feild and Bienen (1980) interpreted a high score as indicative of substantial rape myth belief. For the purpose of this investigation, a high score on the ATR was suggestive of low rape myth belief. A reliability check of the 6 latent factors demonstrated the coefficients shown in Table 1 below. Factors 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated the strongest alphas. 123‘5 A. 102 Mean £2 31233 Eastern 1 53.54 5.51 .307 2 13.59 4.57 .593 3 12.35 2.91 .529 4 17.99 3.13 .500 5 10.52 3.03 .413 6 19.39 3.91 .435 Correlations were obtained for the 6 latent factors. The results presented in Table 2 show that Factor 1 was significantly correlated with both Factors 2 and Factor 3. Table 2- Correlation flgtwggn the Revised ATR zggtggg act 1 2 2 1 5 i AIB_£A££2£! 1 1.0000 .2499* .3215** .0276 -.0622 -.0898 2 .2499* 1.0000 -.0027 .2540* .0329 -.1949 3 .3215** -.0027 1.0000 .0939 -.1535 -.0361 4 .0276 .2540* .0939 1.0000 -.1506 -.1397 5 -.0622 .0329 -.1535 -.1506 1.0000 -.0589 6 -.0898 -.1949 -.0361 -.1397 -.0589 1.0000 * Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level Based on the results of the reliability check and factor correlation, a Unified Factor was developed by combining Factors 1, 2, and 3. This was considered appropriate because of the significant correlations of Factor 1 with Factor 2 and Factor 3. The Unified Factor explained 84.1 percent of the variance, with a mean score of 84.48 (SD n 9.17). The alpha for the Unified Factor was .764 which demonstrated strong internal reliability. As a result, it was determined that the Unified Factor would be used as the measure of rape myth belief specific tot Que sub the 103 to this investigation. Finally, 2 cross-tabulations were conducted. The first cross- tabulation was between the scores on the FEM Scale and the ATR Questionnaire prior to recoding any items. It was expected that subjects with more feminist viewpoints (symbolized by a higher score on the FEM Scale) would have more progressive attitudes toward rape and it's causes (symbolized by a lower score on the ATR Questionnaire). Surprisingly, subjects with the highest FEM scores (> 91) tended to score higher on the ATR Questionnaire. Even more important was the fact that no subject within the highest FEM score grouping scored in the lowest quadrant of the ATR scores (< 112). This result was in contradiction to the literature (See Chapter 2) that documented the fact that people believe less in rape myth as their level of feminism increases. A second cross-tabulation was conducted after recoding items 2, 3, 20, and 22 between the scores on the FEM Scale and the Unified Factor. The results were reversed from the first cross-tabulation. That is, subjects with high scores on the Unified Factor (symbolizing low rape myth belief) also scored higher on the FEM Scale (symbolizing feminist attitudes). Thus additional support for recoding ATR items 2, 3, 20, and 22 was apparent. §nmna£x The identification of 6 factors rather than the 8 discovered by Feild and Bienen (1980) may be due to a much smaller sample used in this investigation. This sample was also much more specialized. However, a comparison of the factors identified by Thornton, Robbins, and Johnson (1981), Feild (1978a), and by this investigator suggest a basic underlying similarity. The factor structures identified by the aforementioned researchers also demonstrated construct validity with consistent themes regarding rape attitudes. In particular, all 3 of the previously discussed factor 1n: CC! ui‘ fl 104 analyses contained a "victim responsibility" factor that was grounded in common rape myths. The creation of a Unified Rape Myth Factor by combining Factors 1, 2, and 3 appears justified. The significant correlation of Factor 1 with Factor 2 and Factor 3 yielded a Unified Factor that explained 84.1 percent of the variance. The Unified Factor also demonstrated face validity as it contained a strong representation of rape myths identified in the literature (Burt, 1980; Warshaw, 1988). The Unified Factor contained 10 of the 13 items Thornton et al. (1981) identified in their "victim precipitation and responsibility” factor. Assuming that Feild (1978a) used a salience level of 3 .30 and followed the standard principles of factor analysis, the Unified Factor also contained 8 of the 11 items used in the "women’s responsibility in rape prevention" factor. Additionally, the Unified Factor contained 18 of the 32 items that comprised the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire. In summary, it appears that the Unified Factor is a comprehensive measure of rape myth belief. As such, it will be used as the basis for empirical analysis during this investigation. The following section provides a descriptive overview of the general sample. Also provided are statistical analyses comparing the samples on the demographic variables associated with this study. 92099.: Research suggests that gender differences influence the attribution of blame and responsibility in rape situations (Barnett and Feild, 1977; Bridges and McGrail, 1989; Feldman-Summers and Lindner, 1976; Jenkins and Dambrot, 1987; Tieger, 1981; Tolor, 1978). These differences point to the importance of this variable. Table 3 presents a comparison of the respondents' genders di: It [en 105 differentiated by the rape scenarios. Women comprised 39 percent and men 61 percent of the acquaintance rape scenario. Conversely, the stranger rape scenario was represented by 59 percent females and 41 percent males. The gender of the respondents assigned to the acquaintance rape scenario was not significantly different from those in the stranger rape scenario (chi-square - 3.124, df - 1, p I .077). Scenarios B Gende £20131: Hale 1.95.91 Scenario Acquaintance 16 25 41 Stranger 24 17 41 Total 40 42 82 599 Age was viewed in relationship to the maturation process. As such, it was deemed a variable worthy of examination because of its influence on the development of emotional maturity and attitude/value formation (Astin, 1993; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). Table 4 compares the respondents, by rape scenario, according to their mean age. No significant relationship existed between the two groups on the age variable (t s -.05, df - 80, p - .959). The ages for the overall sample ranged from 18 to 34. MW 3913 SD 55 59.209119 Acquaintance 21.34 2.56 .40 n a 41 Stranger 21.37 1.62 .25 n t 41 106 lthnie.9£iein Astin (1993) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) found that ethnicity was related to the development of a person's sense of identity, values, and interests. Thus, a person's ethnic origin was believed to be an important variable. A comparison of ethnic origin within the scenario groupings is presented in Table 5. Minority respondents totaled 15 percent of the acquaintance scenario and 29 percent of the stranger scenario. Ethnicity was not a significant factor in comparing the two groups for difference (chi-square - 3.588, df - 4, p - .465). Taa1a_5l_s2mnaria2n_2f_Ba2e_§senar129_nx_£thnisitx agguaintange §££9392£ 12531 Ethnisitx African-American 5 8 l3 Hispanic/Chicano 1 2 3 Asian/Pacific Islander - l 1 White/Caucasian 35 29 64 Indian/Native People - l 1 Total 41 41 82 Zaith Several of the independent institutions participating in this study were affiliated with religious organizations. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p. 303) reviewed the literature and concluded that ”...institutional characteristics probably do play a role in the degree to which religious preferences, attitudes, values, and behaviors change during college.” Tables 6 and 7 show the number of respondents that practice a religious faith and their level of devoutness. Overall, 83 percent of the sample practiced a religious faith (signified by selecting "yes”). Thirty-five percent of the overall sample viewed themselves as extremely or strongly devout in their faith. A comparison of the two scenario 107 groups yielded a significant finding at the .01 level in terms of practicing a religious faith (chi-square I 8.613, df I 1, p I .003). A comparison of the groups on level of religious devotion (chi-square I 4.835, df I 4, p I .305) was not significant. Catholicism (34 percent, n I 28) and Protestantism (35 percent, n I 29) were overall the most practiced religions. The Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim religions were each selected 1 percent (n I 1 each) of the time, while the category of "Other” was selected by 11 percent (n I 9) of the overall sample. Sixteen percent (n I 13) of the overall sample did not consider themselves to be religious. Affiliation with a religious denomination (chi-square I 10.938, df I 6, p I .090) was not significant. so s B * Digit Mtt ota 2:233:19 Acquaintance 12 29 41 Stranger 2 39 41 Total 14 68 82 * Chi-square was significant at the .01 level ** No I Did not practice a faith; Yes I Did practice a faith II” Dexeutneaa Extremely Devout 2 5 7 Strongly Devout 5 12 17 Somewhat Devout 11 13 24 Devout 7 8 15 Not Devout 4 1 5 Total 29 39 68 * Only subjects who practiced a religious faith are reflected here We Academic class standing was viewed as both an indication of maturity (age) and collegiate experience. Juniors and Seniors were the most highly represented classes in the overall sample (70 percent), the acquaintance scenario (81 percent), and the stranger scenario (59 percent). No significant difference was found between the groups on this variable (chi-square I 8.839, df I 5, p I .116). Table 8 provides a complete overview. . Co so 0 Scenarios B cad 0291M j DSQQCE §tranggr 195.11 Elan Freshman 4 3 7 Sophomore 4 9 13 Junior 15 9 24 Senior 18 15 33 Graduate - 3 3 Other - 2 2 Total 41 41 82 W Overall, 32 percent (n I 26) of the sample were majoring in the Social Sciences, 22 percent (n I 18) were majoring in Business, 10 I, 109 percent (n I 8) in Arts and Letters, 9 percent (n I 7) in Engineering, 7 percent (n I 6) in Natural Sciences, and 6 percent (n I 5) each in Education and Health Science. Four percent (n I 3) of the sample were undeclared majors, with 3 percent (n I 2) and 1 percent (n I 1) majoring in Agriculture and Human Ecology respectively. One person failed to designate a major course of study. W The cumulative grade point average was viewed as a symbol of academic involvement (Astin, 1993, p. 374) and achievement. Comparisons between the scenario groups did not yield a significant difference in this area (t I .72, df I 80, p I .475). The overall (n I 82) mean grade point average was 3.053 (SD I .458), with the acquaintance scenario group (n I 41) having a mean of 3.089 (SD I .480; SE I .075) and the stranger scenario group (n I 41) having a mean of 3.016 (SD I .438; SE I .068). The grade point averages ranged from 2.20 to a 4.00. t t mb hi Several studies have determined that membership in a fraternity or sorority negatively influences the development of cultural sophistication (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p. 307). Thirty-one percent (n I 25) of the overall sample (n I 82), 34 percent (n I 14) of the acquaintance scenario sample (n I 41), and 27 percent (n I 11) of the stranger sample (n I 41) were members of fraternities or sororities. However, a comparison of the groups on this factor yielded no significance (chi-square I .518, df I 1, p . .472)- We: In order to gain insight into experience, the survey asked how many months the members had served on a judicial board and how many hearing they had participated in. Furthermore, the respondents were asked if they had ever served on a judicial board that adjudicated a campus rape 110 CI... Overall, the mean number of months served on a judicial board was 9.40 (SD I 8.305). When viewed from the perspective of each scenario, the acquaintance sample (n I 40) had served a mean of 8.63 (SD I 7.718; SE I 1.22) months and the stranger sample (n I 38) a mean of 10.21 (SD I 8.911; SE I 1.45) months. This relationship between the two samples was not significant (t I -.84, df I 76, p I .403). The range for this variable was 0 months (several new members were just taking positions) to 36 months. Members had participated in an overall mean of 6.35 (SD I 9.243) hearings during their tenure as judicial board members. Table 9 provides an overview of the mean number of judicial hearings members had participated in. A comparison of the 2 samples did not result in any significance (t I -1.45, df I 76, p I .150). The range for this variable was 0 to 50 hearings. 9 Numbe a n s t c ated n B Egan SD SE 129113212 Acquaintance 4.88 6.43 1.02 n I 40 Stranger 7.90 11.37 1.85 n I 38 Twenty-six percent of the overall sample had participated in a hearing that involved a charge of rape (signified by choosing "yes'). Twenty-four percent of the stranger scenario sample and 28 percent of the acquaintance scenario sample had served as a hearing agent for a rape case. No significant relationship was present between the samples on this variable (chi-square I .205, df I 1, p I .651). Table 10 illustrates this variable. 32* 291* 2.95.91 Marie Acquaintance 28 11 39 Stranger 29 9 38 Total 57 20 77 I Have never participated in a rape hearing Yes I Have participated in a rape hearing Training Respondents were asked if they had ever received any formal training about the topic of rape and/or percent of the overall sample indicated training concerning the aforementioned. within the two samples, with 74 percent hearing rape cases. Eighty that they had never received any This pattern was consistent of the acquaintance scenario and 87 percent of the stranger scenario respondents indicating that they had received no training. A comparison of the groups yielded no significant differences on this variable (chi-square I 2.077, df I 1, p I .150). See Table 11 for additional information. b e ved Ab a B 119* £91“ 1259.1 Marisa Acquaintance 28 10 38 Stranger 33 5 38 Total 61 15 76 * No I Have never received training; Yes I Have received training Wm Sixty-eight percent of the total sample had knowledge of someone 112 who had been raped. This was further delineated by 71 percent of the acquaintance scenario subjects and 65 percent of the stranger scenario respondents having knowledge of a rape victim(s). No significance was present in the comparison between the samples (chi-square I .305, df I 1, p I .581). See Table 12 for details. E2* X£!* IQEBl fissuarig Acquaintance 12 29 41 Stranger 14 26 40 Total 26 55 81 * No I Don't know a rape victim; Yes I Do know a rape victim Table 13 illustrates the relationship the judicial board members had with the rape victim(s) they were knowledgeable of. None of the relationships were significant in terms of a comparison across stranger rape and acquaintance rape samples. Of special note was the fact that 12 percent, all females, of the overall sample had experienced an act of rape against themselves. e e io W th Ra Vict'm 52911131112322 Stranger 2.95.31 N2 Xe: N2 Yes H9 121 Magnetic Relative 37 4 35 5 72 3 Acquaintance 28 13 29 11 g; 2- 3P0". 41 - 40 - 41 Friend 19 22 21 19 40 4 Lover 39 2 33 2 3; 10 I Have Been Raped 37 4 34 6 ail 113 As stated above, none of the victim relationship comparisons were significant. The following is a statistical verification of that fact: Relative: Chi-square I .154, df I 1, p I .694. Acquaintance: Chi-square I .172, df I 1, p I .678 Spouse: Unable to compute given the empty cells Friend: Chi-square I .307, df I 1, p I .579 Lover: Chi-square I .001, df I 1, p I .980 I have been raped: Chi-square I .514, df I 1, p I .473 Summarx The analyses of the demographic variables associated with this study revealed that subjects randomly assigned to the different rape scenarios were similar in terms of gender, age, ethnic origin, level of religious devotion, type of religion practiced, academic standing, academic grade point average, fraternity/sorority membership, judicial board experience, rape awareness training received, and level of personal knowledge about rape victims. The only significant difference between the 2 samples was in the area of practicing a religious faith. The similarity of the two samples on the demographic variables demonstrates that confounding variables did not influence the outcomes associated with the completion of the FEM Scale, the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire, and the Adjudication Questionnaire. 'c An is The judicial verdicts of guilt or innocence selected by each Iubject after reading the rape scenarios were viewed as the independent variables. The scores from the FEM Scale and from the revised ATR rape myth factors were viewed as the dependent variables. Subjects were also asked to assign a judicial sanction to the male when they viewed him as 9011ty of committing an act of rape. Table 14 presents a breakdown of the judicial verdicts by rape scenario. Interestingly, all 82 subjects judged the man as guilty of rape. 114 V a cenar'o £21912; £91152 Not Guilty 293a; Scenarie Acquaintance 41 - 41 Stranger 41 - 41 Total 82 - 82 Judicial sanctions were viewed as a measure of how wrong a subject perceived the rape to be. The available sanctions ranged from a lenient 'No Action” to the more severe "Expulsion/Dismissal". Ninety-three percent of the subjects either selected a sanction of "Suspension" or “Expulsion/Dismissal” from the college. Seven percent, all in the group that read the acquaintance rape scenario, selected the "Probation" sanction. No subject selected the sanctions of "No Action”, ”Warning", or “Censure". Overall, rape was viewed seriously and sanctions assigned accordingly (See Table 15). . ud al a t ons Sce Acggaintgncg Stranger 295;; §anstign§ NO Action - — - Warning/Reprimand - - - Censure — - - Probation 6 - 6 Suspension 15 6 g: leulsion/Dismissal 20 34 Total 41 40 31 IEH_§£als Further analysis involving the FEM Scale was undertaken. Specifically, t-tests of significance were used to compare demographic 115 variables with their scores on the FEM Scale. A significant relationship was found for gender and previous knowledge of someone who has been raped. Significance was approached for the variables of race (African-American and Caucasian) and participation in a judicial hearing involving a rape case. The scores on this scale ranged from 60 to 100, indicating a full spectrum of attitudes toward gender roles. Tables 16, 17, 18, and 19 present a statistical summary of the above. WW Demographic variables were compared according to their scores on the Unified Rape Myth Factor via the use of t-test procedures. A significant relationship was established for the gender variable. Subjects with previous knowledge of a rape victim approached significance in relationship to the Unified Rape Myth Factor. A full spectrum of rape myth belief was apparent, with scores ranging from 53 to 103. Tables 20 and 21 provide a statistical verification of the relationships. e t of d n ean §Q §§ E df 2:92 22319.: Female 85.55 10.47 1.66 ".40 3.43 80 .001* Male 78.01 9.42 1.45 nI42 * Significant at .001 level 116 Tab1e_111_aisaifi2anse_Taaa_2f_IEB_and_aaesing_a_aane_xistim Mean an an t a: .Ereh Baeu.!i£tim No 77.33 10.59 2.03 nI26 -2.31 79 .005* Yes 84.05 9.80 1.32 nISS * Significant at the .01 level M nd t Mean 80 £5 E df 2:22 Ethnisitx Black/AA 75.92 9.31 2.58 nI13 -1.95 75 .055 White 82.01 10.42 1.30 nI64 Table 12, Significance Test of FEM and Rapg Hearing EBEELQLDQELQQ Mean §2 SE 5 91 fret Eartisini No 81.01 10.60 1.40 nI57 -1.78 75 .079 Yes 35.30 9.53 2.14 nI20 117 H113 £2 £3 E 92 BIRD Gender Female 87.74 7.20 1.14 nI4O 3.33 80 .001* Male 81.37 9.83 1.52 nI42 * Significant at the .001 level canc st of A U d Factor an V ct n Bean 5.2 at: t if 21:23 W No 82.02 8.42 1.65 nI26 -1.73 79 .088 Yes 85.75 9.38 1.27 nISS The hypotheses tested for this study are presented and analyzed in the following paragraphs. The analysis is limited by the fact that 100 percent of the subjects selected the guilty verdict in judgement of the male portrayed in the rape scenarios. We; Hypothesis 1 states that as a group, subjects with high level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the not guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was net supported because no subjects selected the not guilty verdict. No further analysis was required. 118 HYEQSDIILI_Z Hypothesis 2 states that as a group, subjects with low level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. However, caution is warranted because guilt was selected by all subjects regardless of their level of rape myth belief. No further analysis was required. W Hypothesis 3 states that as a group, subjects with high level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. However, caution is appropriate because guilt was selected by all subjects irrespective of their level of rape myth belief. No further analysis was required. fl!29£h§£i!.fl Hypothesis 4 states that as a group, subjects with low level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. Caution is advised, however, because guilt was selected by all subjects regardless of their level of rape myth belief. No further analysis was required. W Hypothesis 5 states that as a group, subjects with sexist beliefs will most frequently select the not guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was not supported because no subjects selected the not guilty verdict. No further analysis was required. W Hypothesis 6 states that as a group, subjects with feminist beliefs Will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape 119 mode. This hypothesis was supported. Caution is warranted because guilt was selected by all subjects regardless of their gender-role beliefs. No further analysis was required. W Hypothesis 7 states that as a group, subjects with sexist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. Caution is appropriate because guilt was selected by all subjects irrespective of their gender-role beliefs. No further analysis was required. 522951111113 Hypothesis 8 states that as a group, subjects with feminist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. Caution is advised because guilt was selected by all subjects regardless of their gender-role beliefs. No further analysis was required. W Hypothesis 9 states that overall, there will be a positive relationship between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief. A correlation of the scores on the FEM Scale with the re-configured ATR factor scores yielded significant correlations (See Table 22). This hypothesis was supported. 120 MW Meal: W Factor 1 .5677tt Factor 2 .2471* Factor 3 .4679** Unified .6190** * Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level 31129111211949 Hypothesis 10 states that overall, gender-role attitudes will be more influential than rape myth belief in determining the verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was not supported as all subjects selected the guilty verdict regardless of their level of rape myth belief or gender-role attitudes. No further analysis was required. WILL]. Hypothesis 11 states that overall, gender-role attitudes will be more influential than rape myth belief in determining the verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was not supported as all subjects selected the guilty verdict regardless of their level of rape myth belief or gender-role attitudes. No further analysis was required. We As presented in Tables 16 and 20, gender was found to be a significant factor in level of rape myth belief and attitudes toward women. Specifically, females held significantly more feminist attitudes and believed significantly less in rape myth than did males. Interestingly, 12 percent of the total sample (all females) had Orperienced an act of rape against themselves. Additionally, a correlation between gender and knowing a rape victim yielded a C0 121 coefficient of -.3450 that was significance at the .01 level, pointing to the fact that women know more rape victims than males. The influence of gender on the FEM Scale and the Unified Rape Myth Factor is more clearly demonstrated in Tables 23 and 24 below. Males predominate the lower scores in both instances, whereas females clustered more at the upper end of the scales. As a reminder, the higher the FEM score, the more feminist the attitudes. A higher score on the Unified Factor symbolized lower belief in rape myth. de On F M Sca £212 Female nI42 nI40 I£fl_§22£££ Range 60-73 14(338) 7(18t) Range 74-81 14(338) 8(208) Range 82-92 11(268) 10(258) Range 93-100 3(O7%) 15(38%) 4. G O U d cto Hale 5311.99 8 nI42 n=40 W Range 53-79 17(408) 5(138) Range 80-85 11(26%) 11(288) Range 86-92 10(245) 10(253) Range 93-103 4(105) 14(358) The variables of age, number of months on a judicial board, or the number of hearings participated in were not significant as they related to either the FEM Scale or the Unified Factor. rape hearing was not significant either. Prior participation in a Subject's practice of a religion or level of devoutness was not significant on either the FEM or Unified Factor. Significant variable on either of the scales. Being a member of a fraternity or sorority was not a However, membership in a 122 Greek organization was significantly correlated with knowing a rape victim (p. I .05; .2304). Knowledge of a rape victim was significant in relationship to the FEM Scale (See Table 17). Knowing a rape victim also approached significance in relationship with the Unified Factor (See Table 21). Overall, as presented in Table 12, 68 percent of the sample had personal knowledge of someone who had been raped. When asked to define their relationship to the victim (See Table 13), subjects indicated a significant correlation with the victim being a relative (p - .05; .2431), an acquaintance (p s .01; .4461), or a friend (p s .01; .6961). It was also significant that 10 women identified themselves as rape victims (p - .05: .2580). Academic variables such as class standing, major, or grade point average were not significant in relationship to either the FEM or Unified Scale. Only 20 percent of the sample had ever received training concerning rape dynamics, thus this variable showed no significance in relationship to either of the attitudinal scales. Table 18 outlined the near significant relationship that existed between ethnicity and the FEM Scale. Conversely, there was no significance between ethnicity (African-American/White) and the Unified Rape Myth Factor (t I -.88, df 8 75, p = .382). Table 25 below presents a breakdown of subjects by ethnic classification on the FEM Scale. b . th c enc o FEM {EM Sgoges 60—73 24-8; 82-92 93-100 Igtal Mien-1x Black/AA 4 7 l 1 13 Hispanic - - 2 l 3 Asian — — 1 - 1 White 17 15 17 15 64 Indian - - _ 1 1 Total 21 22 21 18 82 tht fa 123 §ha232r_§ummarx This chapter presented several analyses. First was an analysis of the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire that determined a different factor structure than the one originally developed by Feild and Bienen (1980). As a result, a new rape myth factor called the Unified Factor was developed and utilized for this investigation. Additionally, the scoring of the ATR Questionnaire was modified so that a high score was suggestive of low rape myth belief. The demographic characteristics associated with the 82 subjects were analyzed using t-test or chi-square procedures. The only significant difference between the acquaintance rape and stranger rape groups was in the area of practicing a religious faith. Overall, the samples were similar, with no confounding variables influencing the outcomes of this investigation. All subjects in this investigation selected the guilty verdict when judging the male perpetrator, regardless of the rape scenario they read. Furthermore, subjects generally assigned the harsher judicial sanctions of suspension or expulsion from college. In fact, only 6 people assigned a sanction less than suspension and they all assigned a probationary term to the guilty male. The 100 percent guilt finding by the respondents limited the extent of statistical analyses that could be performed. The FEM Scale was further analyzed using t-test procedures. The results indicated a significant relationship between the FEM Scale and the variables of gender and previous knowledge of a rape victim. Significance was approached between the FEM Scale and the variables of race (African-American/White) and participation in a judicial hearing involving a rape case. A comparison of the demographic variables with the Unified Rape Myth Factor yielded a significant relationship with gender. Subjects with previous knowledge of a rape victim approached significance in 124 relationship to the Unified Factor. Being a member of a fraternity or sorority was significantly correlated with knowing a rape victim. Overall, over 68 percent of the sample personally knew a rape victim. The relationship the subjects had with the victims yielded significance on the variables of relative, acquaintance, and friend. It was also significant that 12 percent of the overall sample, all women, had experienced an act of rape against themselves. Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were supported by the findings of this investigation. However, special caution was warranted because a guilty verdict was selected by all the subjects regardless of the level of rape myth belief, gender-role attitudes, or rape scenario read. Hypothesis 9 did yield a positive, significant correlation between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief. Hypotheses 1, 5, 10, and 11 were not supported by the findings of this investigation. Once again, the fact that subjects selected guilt 100 percent of the time warrants caution in interpretation. In summary, the subjects of this investigation demonstrated the expected range of attitudes. Specifically, a full range of rape myth belief was present. Attitudes toward the roles of women ran a full spectrum. Gender differences were found in terms of both rape myth belief and feminist attitudes. Thus it was expected that differences on the determination of the verdict would be found. This was not the case, as attitudinal variables did not play a role in the determination of the verdict. CHAPTER FIVE summer, mscussxou, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1111;293:1123 This chapter contains a summary of the investigation, including the theoretical foundation, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the investigation, the need for the study, the guiding research questions, and the methodology employed. Also addressed are the major findings, the limitations of the study, and the generalizability of the results. Finally, this chapter presents the conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further research. W911 Approximately 80 to 90 percent of female rape victims are assaulted by acquaintances (Ageton, 1983; Ross, 1988; National Victim Center, 1992). This phenomenon is especially apparent on college campuses where 12 percent of the women had experienced an attempted rape and 15 percent had been raped (Ross, Gidycz, and Wisniewski, 1987). Furthermore, Eskridge (1989) found that 7 percent of male college students had forced a female to have sexual intercourse against her will at least once. Contemporary theories of rape take into account ”... the more prevalent ... forms of rape committed by acquaintances (date rape)" (Ellis, 1989, p. 9). Feminist theory postulates that rapists are not sexual deviants (Check and Malamuth, 1985) and that rape is a result of male dominated social traditions that view women as inferior (Ellis, 1989; Morrison, 1980). This creates a "rape culture” (MacKinnon, 1983) where ' ... hostility, control, and dominance ... ' (Groth and Birnbaum, 1980, p. 21) are the goals. According to feminist theory, a visible symbol of this "rape culture” are rape laws that maintain the status quo and represent the sexism present in society (Brownmiller, 1975; Estrich, 1987). Although 125 126 rape laws have been reformed, beginning with the Michigan Criminal Sexual Conduct Statute (Cobb and Schauer, 1974), they still maintain the vestiges of early common law (Estrich, 1987). This remains an important point given that rape laws attempt to objectively define the criteria used to judge guilt and innocence. Attribution theory (Heider, 1958) postulates that objectivity is suspect regardless of the criteria used to judge a situation. The premise being that first-hand observations and secondary reports of an event are subject to error given the complexity of the social stimuli surrounding the event (Shaver, 1975). This is especially true in acquaintance rape situations where people rely on biased or inaccurate beliefs or assumptions about the nature of rape, commonly called rape myths (Burt, 1980). Research conducted by Wilson, Faison, and Britton (1983) suggested that the level of belief in rape myths influences the definitional boundaries between rape and normal sexual intercourse. Thornton, Ryckman, and Robbins (1982) and Williams (1979) found that gender and gender-role attitudes were the 2 primary contributors concerning the amount of blame attributed to the victim. Additionally, gender-role ideology and general belief in rape myths have been found to be related (Briere and Malamuth, 1983; Check and Malamuth, 1983; Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh, 1988). Langer, Blank, and Chanowitz (1978) demonstrated that people ignore relevant information when a situation is consistent with their prior expectations. As such, hearing bodies often ignore the strict Ipplication of the law and respond to the circumstances of each case according to the general stereotypes of society (Brooks and Doob, 1975: Feild and Bienen, 1980). The result may be an arbitrary hearing where the victim's gender-role behavior influenced the verdict more than the evidence of the rape case (LaFree, Reskin, and Visher, 1985). 127 W Heterosexual acquaintance rape is a social problem on college campuses, with approximately 27 percent of college women experiencing rape while on a date (Miller and Marshall, 1987). When reported, colleges often respond by adjudicating alleged perpetrators in acquaintance rape cases via institutional student judicial processes. These processes often include the option of having peer judicial boards hear the facts of the case, determine a verdict, and render discipline sanctions when applicable. Critics (Parrot, 1991b) charge that judicial boards are ill- prepared to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases because of inadequate training and lack of sensitivity concerning the dynamics of acquaintance rape situations. Furthermore, research involving both actual and mock juries demonstrated that verdicts in acquaintance rape cases were often influenced more by the individual member's levels of belief in rape myths and gender-role stereotypes than by actual facts. tud The review of the literature clearly documented that college students, both male and female, believed in traditional gender-role stereotypes (Rosenkrantz, et al., 1968) that influenced dating relationships (Muehlenhard, Friedman, and Thomas, 1985) and perceptions concerning a willingness to engage in sexual intercourse (Bostwick, 1990). College students were also found to believe in rape myths (Check and Malamuth, 1985) that influenced the definitional boundaries between rape and normal sexual activity (Wilson, Faison, and Britton, 1983). Furthermore, rape myths were found to be related to views concerning the roles and rights of women in society (Costin, 1985), with students holding traditional views more likely to believe in rape myths and to accept sexual aggression (Greendlinger and Byrne, 1987). Men with strong gender-role stereotyping beliefs reported a greater belief in rape myths and more likelihood of using aggression in sexual situations 128 (Malamuth, 1981). A review of the literature on attribution demonstrated that people defined a situation as rape according to their stereotypes of rape (Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976). For example, rape was more often defined when the woman resisted (Krulewitz and Nash, 1979) and when she was not acquainted with the rapist (McGraw, 1987). Further research determined that gender and genderwrole attitudes were the 2 primary contributors concerning the definition of rape (Thornton, Ryckman, and Robbins, 1982), with males viewing the rape less seriously than females (Calhoun, Selby, and Warring, 1976; Tieger, 1981). The literature clearly and consistently identified the prevalence of rape myth beliefs and gender-role attitudes in the general college population. Also defined was the influence of these beliefs and attitudes on attributions of blame and responsibility in acquaintance rape situations. Of special note was the consistent results of the studies, over time, from a variety of colleges and universities. Research involving both actual and mock juries demonstrated that verdicts in acquaintance rape cases were often influenced more by the individual member's level of belief in rape myths and gender-role attitudes than by actual facts (LaFree, Reskin, and Visher, 1985). In essence, jury members reflected the stereotypes of society. This was especially relevant when related to the effectiveness of peer judicial boards adjudicating acquaintance rape cases on college campuses. Specifically, given the documented level of rape myth belief and traditional gender-role attitudes in the general college population, were college judicial board members more aware of the influence of rape myths and gender-role attitudes on their judgement of blame and responsibility in rape cases? This was an important question given that judicial board members are trained to impartially judge all cases heard before them. If individual members subscribe to the same beliefs as their peers in terms of rape myth beliefs, Parrot (1991a, 1991b) and other critics may be ‘9 129 correct in questioning the competence of judicial boards to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases on campus. Thus, this study was designed to answer the aforementioned question. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to determine what effect actual college judicial board members' levels of rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes had on the judgement of a male perpetrator's guilt or innocence for committing an act of rape. The rape was depicted by 2 written scenarios featuring an acquaintance assault and a stranger assault. The study specifically examined the differences between the acquaintance rape and stranger rape situations consistent with the purpose of this study. W922 Pavela (1992a) stated that colleges have a responsibility to resolve acquaintance rape cases based on their obligation to: (a) promote the moral development of students; and (b) protect the safety of people using their premises. Furthermore, Pavela stated that college judicial boards play an important role in fulfilling the college's obligation to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases. Pavela also stated that college judicial boards are composed of qualified individuals, that when guided by a competent advisor are capable of rendering sound judgements in even the most complex cases. Critics, such as Parrot (1991a, 1991b) however question the competence of judicial boards to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases. They question whether judicial boards are adequately trained and advised about acquaintance rape situations to make sound judgements. This question is especially important when one looks at attribution research (Howard, 1984a, 1984b; LaFree, 1980; Smith, et al., 1976; Wilson, et al., 1983) that indicated acquaintance rape cases are often decided on _ extra-legal factors based on rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes. Furthermore, much of the attribution research was conducted with college students, thus providing a baseline for inference about how college students attribute blame and responsibility in acquaintance rape .3 er ‘0 r" 130 situations. Even given the current debate concerning the effectiveness of judicial boards, this author was unable to find published research that determined how actual college judicial boards adjudicate acquaintance rape cases. Ho research was found that measured the level of rape myth belief or the gender-role attitudes of actual judicial board members. Finally, no research was discovered regarding the impact of attitudes and beliefs on either the verdicts or discipline sanctions levied in rape cases. The literature that has been published on this subject generally critiques college judicial programs and/or provided recommendations for policy implementation (Adams and Abarbanel, 1988; Parrot, 1991a, 1991b: Pavela, 1992a). Thus, this research appears to substantially contribute to the literature by providing empirical data concerning the effect of gender-role attitudes and rape myth beliefs on the adjudication of a hypothetical rape case. Depending on the outcome, this research could contribute to the effective advising, selection, and training of judicial board members. Waging: This investigation was guided by the following questions: 1. What relationship, if any, exists between the verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator and rape myth beliefs across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? 2. What relationship, if any, exists between the verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator and gender-role attitudes across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? 3. What relationship, if any, exists between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief on verdicts of guilt or innocence for the male perpetrator across acquaintance rape and stranger rape modes? 131 W fintjggtn: The subjects of this investigation included 113 judicial board members enrolled as undergraduates for the spring semester of 1993 at 6 independent and 9 state-assisted colleges within the state of Michigan. All subjects served on campus judicial boards empowered to suspend or recommend suspension for students found guilty of violating college conduct standards. Eighty-two judicial board members completed and returned the sprvey packets, resulting in a 73 percent overall return rate. Lnnttnmgntntign (See Appendix A or B): This investigation utilised 1 instrument comprised of 5 components. Two of the components, the FEM Scale (Smith, Ferree, and Miller, 1975) and the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire (Feild and Bienen, 1980) were used as originally developed. The Acquaintance Rape and Stranger Rape Scenarios were modified, based on the expert advise of the Sexual Assault Safety Program Coordinator at Michigan State University, from the original versions developed by Quackenbush (1987). The Adjudication Questionnaire and the Demographic Information Form were developed by this investigator. The FEM Scale is a 20-item scale measuring attitudes toward feminism and traditional gender-role norms. The instrument utilized a 5-point Likert Scale, scored according to a range from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Questions 15, 16, 19, and 20 were scored in reverse order. A high score was consistent with feminist or less traditional gender-role attitudes. The Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire is a 32-item questionnaire composed of 8 latent factors that measures people’s multidimensional attitudes about rape. The questionnaire used both positively and negatively phrased questions that respondents answered by using a 6- point Likert Scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (6). Originally, Factor 1 titled “Women's Responsibility In Rape Prevention“, was to be used as a measure of rape myth belief. Ross and (1 132 Leonard (1984, p. 220) stated that “... this factor could be interpreted as a general rape myth factor." As originally developed by Feild (1978a), a high score was indicative of substantial rape myth belief. Subsequent modification of the ATR, based on the identification of 6 latent factors via a confirmatory principal components factor analysis with varimax rotations (Babbie, 1990), changed the scoring structure. Specifically, items 2, 3, 20, and 22 were recoded so that strongly agree - 6 and strongly disagree I 1. Thus a high score on the newly created Unified Rape Myth Factor was suggestive of low rape myth belief (See Appendix D for factor presentation; Chapter 4 also provides more detailed information on the creation of the Unified Factor). The Acquaintance Rape and Stranger Rape Scenarios provided identical demographic and situational information through the first 7 paragraphs. The remaining paragraphs of the scenarios were identical in terms of the female's response and the male's actions, the only difference being the stranger or acquainted condition of the alleged rapist. The Adjudication Questionnaire was utilized to determine whether the respondents judged the alleged male rapist as guilty or innocent of rape. When respondents judged the alleged rapist as guilty, the questionnaire also instructed them to select a disciplinary sanction that most closely approximated their view of appropriate punishment for the offense. The Demographic Information Form collected personal data (e.g. gender, race, type of college attended, etc.) from each subject. Additional questions were asked that discerned each subject's level of exposure to the topic of rape. Entgntgn_2§nignz The chief student affairs offices at 13 state- assisted and 7 independent colleges in Michigan were initially contacted via phone to determine if they had a judicial system that included a board empowered to hear cases that could result in suspension. Ten 133 state-assisted institutions and 6 independent institutions were deemed as having the requisite judicial structure. A second phone call was made approximately 2 months later to the student affairs contact person at the 16 institutions. The purpose was to enlist their support and cooperation in the implementation of this investigation. As a result, 6 independent and 9 state-assisted institutions agreed to cooperate with this research project. Each student affairs contact person at the participating institutions was mailed in March of 1993 the survey booklets for the r judicial board members. The identities of the judicial board members k were unknown to this investigator. The contact people at each college were given instructions about administration and participants were asked ,9 to seal the completed survey packets in a pre-addressed, stamped envelope for return, thus insuring confidentiality. The survey booklets were identical except for the rape scenario. Thus, 50 percent of the participants received a survey packet asking them to judge the guilt of the male within the context of an acquaintance scenario. The remaining 50 percent received a survey packet instructing them to judge the stranger scenario. All participants, regardless of the scenario, completed the FEM Scale, ATR Questionnaire, Demographic Information Form, and the Adjudication Questionnaire. Qntn_nnnlynin: All respondents completing and returning the survey booklets were grouped according to whether their survey booklet included the stranger rape or acquaintance rape scenario. The groups were initially compared on the basis of discrete demographic characteristics using chi-square analysis. The groups were also compared according to age, academic grade point average, and month of judicial experience by using t-test procedures. A level of significance, p. a .05, was established for this study. The analysis of the demographic variables associated with this study revealed that subjects randomly assigned to the different rape 134 scenarios were similar in terms of gender, age, ethnic origin, level of religious devotion, type of religion practiced, academic standing, academic major, academic grade point average, fraternity/sorority membership, judicial board experience, rape awareness training received, and level of personal knowledge about rape victims. The only significant difference between the 2 samples was in the area of practicing a religious faith. The similarity of the 2 samples on the demographic variables demonstrates that confounding variables did not influence the outcomes associated with the completion of the FEM Scale, the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire, and the Adjudication Questionnaire. Mingling; mm The scores on the Unified Rape Myth Factor ranged from a low of 53 to a high of 103, demonstrating a full spectrum of rape myth belief within the sample. A t-test yielded a significant difference between males and females (t s 3.33, df . 80, p = .001). Specifically, females (M - 87.74) in the sample believed significantly less in rape myths than did males (M - 81.37). This result was consistent with the literature (Barnett and Feild, 1977; Ross and Dinero, 1988; Ross, Leonard, Breezley, and Oros, 1985). W The FEM scores ranged from a low of 60 to the highest score of 100, reflecting a variety of gender-role beliefs. A t-test determined that females (M - 85.55) in the sample were significantly (t - 3.43, df - 80, p s .001) more feminist in orientation than were males (M c 78.01). This finding was consistent with the literature (Garrett-Gooding and Senter, 1987; Horsley, 1988). Previous knowledge of a rape victim (t = -2.81, df = 79, p - .006) 135 was also significant. People who knew a rape victim had significantly higher mean scores on the FEM Scale than those who did not know a rape victim (84.05 v. 77.33). 1281121 All 82 subjects of this investigation determined that the male was guilty of rape. Of special note: a) Forty-one subjects judged the acquaintance rape scenario, with the remaining 41 subjects judging the stranger rape scenario. b) Male respondents (n = 25) were more represented in the sample that judged the acquaintance rape scenario than were female respondents (n 8 16). The reverse was true for the respondents that judged the stranger rape scenario, with women (n - 24) more represented than men (n c 17). The findings of this portion of the study are contrary to the vast majority of the literature (See Chapter 2). In general, the literature states that gender (Thornton, Ryckman, and Robbins, 1982; Tieger, 1981), level of belief in rape myths (Krulewitz and Payne, 1978; Mazelan, 1980; Shotland and Goodstein, 1983), type of rape judged (LaFree, 1980; McGraw, 1987), and traditionality of gender-role beliefs (Acock and Ireland, 1983; Williams, 1979) influences the definitional boundaries of rape. None of these variables, nor any of the other demographic variables associated with this investigation, proved to be significant in the selection of the verdict. inseam Six judicial sanctions were available for selection as punishment when the male was viewed as guilty of rape. The sanctions ranged from a minor "No Action" to the more severe ”Expulsion/Dismissal" from the institution: a) No Action: No formal sanction or action is undertaken. 136 b) Warning or Reprimand: An official written statement that expresses disapproval of the conduct. c) Censure: A sanction that indicates that further violations during the specified time period for the censure will result in more severe disciplinary action, including probation, suspension, or expulsion. d) Probation: A sanction that indicates that further violations during the specified time period for the probation will result in more severe disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion. e) Suspension: A sanction that ends a student's enrollment and removes him/her from campus for a specified period of time. f) Expulsion or Dismissal: A sanction that ends a student's enrollment and removes him/her from campus for an indefinite (often permanent) period of time. The literature (LaFree, Reskin, and Visher, 1985) generally I maintains that variables such as level of rape myth belief and gender- role attitudes influences the level of punishment granted. Another prevailing theme is represented by Bohmer and Parrot (1993, p. 191) who believe that ” historically, when hearing boards have found assailants guilty of rape, the defendants have been given very light sentences, such as community service and counseling.” Thus it was reasonable to expect a normal distribution of sanctions, with perhaps a lenient skew. The results were contrary to the aforementioned. Of the 81 subjects that selected a sanction, 54 (67%) chose to expel/dismiss the male from the institution. Twenty-one (26%) of the subjects chose to suspend the male from the college. The remaining 6 (7‘) subjects chose to place the male on probationary status. No sanctions less than probation were selected. Overall, the punishments selected were clearly on the severe end of the spectrum. However, the sanctions assigned in the acquaintance rape situation were more lenient. For example, 34 (63%) of the expulsions represented judgements of the stranger rape condition, while 20 (37‘) were assigned in the acquaintance rape situation. Of the suspensions, 6 (29‘) were in response to the stranger rape and 15 (713) were judgements in the acquainted condition. All 6 probations were for the assailant in the acquaintance rape situation. 137 W Eleven hypotheses were originally developed for testing at the p I .05 level of significance. The hypotheses were directionally stated in accordance with the consistent outcomes found in the literature regarding the influence of gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief. Specifically, the literature stated that a person's gender-role attitudes were related to the level of belief in rape myths and to the amount of blame and responsibility assigned to female rape victims (Ross and Dinero, 1988; Ross, et al., 1985). The level of rape myth belief also influences the definitional boundaries of rape (Wilson, Faison, and Britton, 1983). Furthermore, acquaintance rape situations were often viewed less seriously than stranger rape cases (Bohmer, 1974). Statistical analyses were chosen with the thought that the subjects participating in this investigation would choose both the guilty and not guilty verdicts. Subsequent findings limited the statistical analyses to t-tests, chi-squares, and correlation coefficients. W1 Hypothesis 1 states that as a group, subjects with high level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the not guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was not supported because no subjects selected the not guilty verdict. No further analysis was required. MILL}. Hypothesis 2 states that as a group, subjects with low level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. However, caution is warranted because guilt was selected by all subjects regardless of their level of rape myth belief. No further analysis was required. 138 mm Hypothesis 3 states that as a group, subjects with high level belief in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. However, caution is appropriate because guilt was selected by all subjects irrespective of their level of rape myth belief. No further analysis was required. W Hypothesis 4 states that as a group, subjects with low level belief rd in rape myths will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the E stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. Caution is advised, #- however, because guilt was selected by all subjects regardless of their level of rape myth belief. No further analysis was required. 3229§h££11_§ Hypothesis 5 states that as a group, subjects with sexist beliefs will most frequently select the not guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was not supported because no subjects selected the not guilty verdict. No further analysis was required. mam Hypothesis 6 states that as a group, subjects with feminist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. Caution is warranted because guilt was selected by all subjects regardless of their gender-role beliefs. No further analysis was required. 319251111114 Hypothesis 7 states that as a group, subjects with sexist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. Caution is appropriate because 139 guilt was selected by all subjects irrespective of their gender-role beliefs. No further analysis was required. mail—fl Hypothesis 8 states that as a group, subjects with feminist beliefs will most frequently select the guilty verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was supported. Caution is advised because guilt was selected by all subjects regardless of their gender-role beliefs. No further analysis was required. Mil—2 Hypothesis 9 states that overall, there will be a positive relationship between gender-role attitudes and rape myth belief. A correlation of the scores on the FEM Scale with the Unified Rape Myth Factor yielded a significant correlation (r a .6190. p a .01). This hypothesis was supported. W12 Hypothesis 10 states that overall, gender-role attitudes will be more influential than rape myth belief in determining the verdict in the acquaintance rape mode. This hypothesis was not supported as all subjects selected the guilty verdict regardless of their level of rape myth belief or gender-role attitudes. No further analysis was required. mm}; Hypothesis 11 states that overall, gender-role attitudes will be more influential than rape myth belief in determining the verdict in the stranger rape mode. This hypothesis was not supported as all subjects selected the guilty verdict regardless of their level of rape myth belief or gender-role attitudes. No further analysis was required. 140 W91 This section focuses on factors that might be considered inherent weaknesses in the design of the study. The limiting factors are identified below and should be accounted for when interpreting the results of this study. WWW Diamond and Zeisel (1974) determined that mock juries were more likely to assume a different standard of reasonable doubt than actual juries, thus arriving at guilty verdicts more often. They also found that judges more often agreed with the decisions of mock juries than with real juries, in part because real juries were more cautious in determining a verdict. Kerr, Werenz, and Herrick (as cited in Gerbasi, Zuckerman, and Reis, 1977) found no significant difference between the predeliberation verdicts of mock and real college judicial board members. Kerr et al. also found that group verdicts between mock and real judicial boards did not differ, although real jurors were more lenient. This study also determined that females were generally more lenient than males. The studies above demonstrate that real juries or judicial boards are less likely to find guilt and more lenient in assigning punishment than subjects in mock conditions. Since all the subjects in this investigation were actual judicial board members, one should be aware of the aforementioned tendencies when interpreting results. t d W Soci en on Res ch According to Babbie (1990, p. 119), "... most concepts of interest to social researchers have no real meaning, no ultimate definitions." That is because the concepts are often summaries of complex phenomenon that are only "... oversimplified, inevitably superficial, empirical indicators" (p. 119). Thus Babbie (1990) believes that researchers "... 141 never collect data, they create data" (p. 119) that provides artificial ranking and grouping of the respondents. As a result, one "... can never make accurate measurements [of complex social phenomenon], only useful ones” (Babbie, 1990, p. 120). Further shortcomings are associated with the utilization of questionnaires to gather data. For example, researchers must be aware that “carelessness, faulty memory, faulty perception, and lack of interest [on the part of respondents] may adversely affect the quality of responses. Furthermore, there can be little assurance that all of the respondents will be truthful" (Turney and Robb, 1971, p. 130). Researchers must also consider that "... respondents might express attitudes even though they have never given any thought to the issue ...” (Babbie, 1990, p. 129). The previously addressed limitations are important considerations for interpreting the findings of this investigation. Specifically, the utilization of the FEM Scale and the Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire to determine beliefs about gender roles and rape dynamics warrants caution given the complexity of measuring social phenomenon. However, it must be noted that Check and Malamuth (1985, p. 418) found ”... that scales measuring rape myth acceptance and related attitudes do in fact predict responses to both fictional and real rape descriptions” Thus "... there is cross-situational generalizability with respect to the interrelationships of rape-related perceptions, behaviors, and attitudes." c ted J d c to s All institutions participating in this study used slightly different descriptors to explain their conduct rules and judicial sanctions. As such, the descriptors explaining the judicial sanctions in Section C (Adjudication Questionnaire) of the survey were a compilation. Interpretation of the results assumed that all respondents understood the descriptors before determining a punishment. 142 W The use of rape scenarios has limitations as well. Specifically, Babble (1990, p. 33) believes that ' whereas most research attempts to limit the number of variables considered, the case study seeks to maximize them." As a result, the case study method limits the generalizability of the results beyond the case study being analyzed. LaFree (1989, pp. 153-154) believes "... that simulations, no matter how carefully designed, remain less compelling than real trials - a difference of particular importance in cases involving especially [1 violent, personal crimes like rape.” Case studies also limit subject ;' exposure to extra-legal variables (defendant/victim characteristics) 1 that influence outcomes of hearings (Gerbasi, Zuckerman, and Reis, ' 1977). ab of th Resu ts According to Babbie (1990) the goal of social science research is ” ... to expand the explanatory power of our findings to other forms of behavior and other subsets of the pepulation" (p. 25). Thus, ”... the sample must be 'typical' or representative of that population“ (Turney and Robb, 1971, p. 107). This investigation did not utilize random sampling techniques (Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott, 1990) to draw inferences about a larger population. Rather, the entire papulation of primary judicial board members enrolled at 15 selected higher education institutions in Michigan were surveyed. Primary boards were defined as those empowered to suspend or recommend suspension for students found guilty of violating conduct rules. A 79 percent return rate (n s 67) from board members at state- assisted colleges makes it very likely that the final sample was representative of this population. Less representative was the 54 percent return rate (n = 15) demonstrated by board members enrolled at 143 independent colleges. Overall, a 73 percent return rats (n - 82) makes it appropriate to generalize the results of this investigation as being representative of the primary judicial boards at the participating institutions. The judicial systems used by the 15 participating institutions were fairly typical of those generally defined in the literature (Stoner and Cerminara, 1990). The experience of this investigator over 14 years of working with judicial boards at 4 colleges also suggests that these judicial systems were representative. Unfortunately, no published research exists (to the knowledge of this researcher) concerning the influence of rape myths on the adjudication of acquaintance rape cases by judicial boards. Thus it is difficult to determine, even given the general similarity of many judicial systems, how representative the results of this study are. Although tempting given the aforementioned, the results of this research should not be generalized beyond the stated parameters. The reasons for this conclusion are highlighted as follows: a) All the respondents were drawn from institutions located in Michigan and thus may not be representative of judicial board members attending institutions in other states. While the judicial systems at the institutions represented in this study were relatively similar, they may not be representative of all college judicial systems in the United States. c) The criminal rape laws in states other than Michigan may be different, thus influencing the type of advising and/or training judicial board members receive. b) This investigation had fewer respondents representing independent institutions, making it more difficult to generalize to this type of college. d) D o the a or Fi din The purpose of this section is to offer speculation concerning the outcomes of this research. The speculation should be viewed as circumstantial and is offered to assist the reader with interpreting results and developing potential conclusions. 144 The findings of this investigation were surprising in that all respondents chose the guilty verdict when judging the scenarios. The guilty verdict was selected regardless of: (a) the type of scenario judged; (b) the level of rape myth belief: (c) the attitudes toward gender roles: and (d) the gender of the respondent. No other demographic variables exerted significant influence on the determination of the verdict. Furthermore, the respondents clearly selected judicial sanctions from the severe end of the punishment continuum, indicating disapproval of the act. The aforementioned results were contrary to the general findings of the literature. Thus it seemed clear that a mitigating factor(s) was influencing the outcomes of this research. Further review of the literature generally failed, with 1 notable exception, to offer substantial explanation for the unexpected results. The notable exception was the concept of pluralistic ignorance (Allport, 1924; Katz and Allport, 1931). We: Pluralistic ignorance explains situations where '... members of a group privately reject group norms yet believe that virtually all other group members accept them” (Miller and McFarland, 1987, p. 298). Generally, pluralistic ignorance was postulated as a way to explain "... widespread conformity to social norms in the absence of widespread private support. [The premise is that] for a norm to be perpetuated, it is not necessary for the majority to support it, only for the majority to believe that the majority supports it" (Miller and McFarland, 1987, p. 298). Breed and Ktsanes (1961, p. 383) believe that the concept of pluralistic ignorance encompasses the following elements: 1) ”A distribution of Opinions on an issue exists in any social system, and most members can give an estimate as to the direction or character of this distribution.” 2) "These estimates may be inaccurate, and this we take to be pluralistic ignorance.” 145 3) “The error will tend to favor the older existing beliefs in the system rather than the direction of change." 4) "Pluralistic ignorance is correlated with attitudinal bias: the greater the 'inaccuracy', the greater the bias." 5) “Pluralistic ignorance will be more pronounced in large groups because there is less intercommunication, so that cognitive reorientation will occur more slowly there." According to Miller and McFarland (1987, p. 304), pluralistic ignorance has 3 special consequences. "First, pluralistic ignorance can lead a group to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the inclinations of its members.... A second consequence ... is that its victims may actually adopt an erroneous perception not only of the group but of the situation in which the group finds itself.... A third consequence ... manifests itself in the psychological well-being of the individuals experiencing it.” One of the early investigations confirming the existence of pluralistic ignorance was conducted by Breed and thanes (1961). They conducted 2 studies in the city of New Orleans. The first study involved 224 members of a large protestant church congregation, while the second study included 273 subjects drawn from a cross-section of New Orleans. The studies questioned subjects about the tepic of segregation and determined that people generally ascribed more liberal attitudes to themselves while believing that others were more pro-segregation. O'Gorman (1975) conducted a secondary examination of a 1968 National Election Study involving 1,408 white subjects. The original study asked respondents about their views on racial segregation. Additionally, subjects were asked to estimate other’s views related to segregation. The results clearly demonstrated that segregationists were repeatedly perceived to exist in much greater numbers than was true. O'Gorman (1975) concluded that "... most white Americans grossly exaggerated the extent to which other whites supported racial Segregation" (p. 322). Prentice and Miller (1993) examined the relationship between college students' own attitudes toward alcohol use as compared to their 146 estimates of the attitudes of their peers. A series of 4 separate studies involving a total of 518 students concluded that: a) “... Students' comfort with alcohol use on campus ... manifest the classic characteristics of pluralistic ignorance.... [Generally] undergraduates believe that everybody is more comfortable with drinking than they are themselves” (p. 247). b) "... Men behaved in the way social influence theorists would expect: They changed their own attitudes toward drinking in the direction of the social norm. WOmen, on the other hand, showed no change in attitudes over time” (p. 248). c) "These results provide clear evidence that people who feel (fl deviant from the norm of their social group are inhibited from acting [in a contrary manner)” (p. 251). d) ”In short, students were victims of pluralistic ignorance: . They believed that the private attitudes of other students . were much more consistent with campus norms than were their own" (p. 252). Prentice and Miller (1993) offered several explanations for the discrepancy between students' personal attitudes and those attributed to peers. The first possibility was that "... students might have hoped to convey the impression ... that they were more mature, more progressive, or more enlightened than their peers' (p. 252). A second possibility suggests that subjects are misrepresenting their own views and failing to recognize that others may not be truthful in communicating opinions. Third, "... students may fail to recognize how pronorm their public behavior actually is, mistakenly believing that their private discomfort with alcohol practices is clear from their words and deeds” (p. 253). Finally, "through an accurate reading of a biased distribution of publicly expressed opinions, students may have been led to erroneous perceptions of their peers' attitudes" (p. 253). The aforementioned final point is especially relevant. For example, colleges are becoming more intentional about addressing social issues affecting students. A study conducted by the University of Puget Sound (as cited by Bash, 1993) determined that over 90 percent of liberal arts colleges will include seminars on social issues in fall orientation programs. The fastest growing component of orientation seminars are those dealing with sexual harassment and sexual assault. 147 In fact, a recent national survey (as cited by Bash, 1993) found that 48 percent of the mid-size institutions offered date rape seminars at orientation, a percentage almost double what it was 2 years ago. Colleges are also presenting more on-going programs that address issues of sexuality, especially as they relate to acquaintance rape (Buhrke and Lustgraaf, 1988: Miller, 1988; Orzek, 1983; Pace and Zaugra, 1988: Sandberg, Jackson, and Petretic-Jackson, 1987). According to Miller (1988, p. 554), the goals of these programs are to: a) “To make students aware that the problem of date rape exists and that it can happen to them." b) "To educate them as to the role alcohol and drug use can play in creating an environment for undesirable sexual experiences.” c) "To impress on students that their own health and sexual well-being are their responsibility and that they need to communicate assertively and clearly in the area of sexual relationships.“ d) ”To let students know that if they do encounter a problem, there are places where they can go for help." Colleges have also developed and publicized the existence of Rape Victim Support Services to respond to the needs of rape victims (Holmes and St. Lawrence, 1983; Ross and Harvey, 1987; Orzek, 1983). Mental health and medical personnel on many campus are also more actively involved in efforts to both prevent and respond to rape situations (Burkhart, 1991; Larrabee and McGeorge, 1989; Orzek, 1983; Parrot, 1991c). Furthermore, some college police forces like those at Michigan State University and The Ohio State University issue sexual assault response guarantees that encourage victim reporting. In summary, college students receive constant messages from a variety of college sources about acquaintance rape. The messages generally increase awareness of the phenomena and communicate values that are more feminist or anti-rape. Students also receive messages concerning the topic of acquaintance rape from the media, including television and print sources (Freeman, 1991: Gibbs, 1991; Halette, 1988: Sherman, 1985). The highly publicized acquaintance rape cases of boxer Mike Tyson and medical student William Smith communicated information to 148 students as well. Judicial board members, in addition to exposure to the aforementioned, may be subject to anti-rape messages from a variety of sources. For example, it is possible that judicial board members were influenced by a combination of the following: (a) Judicial board advisors may have communicated anti-rape and feminist values; (b) Exposure to training designed to increase awareness about sexual assault and rape issues: and/or (c) Actual experience hearing a rape case. It is very probable that judicial board members were subjected to a biased information set about rape that influenced their perception of other member's opinions. Thus pluralistic ignorance is a real possibility when explaining why judicial board members selected guilty verdicts, even though a normal distribution of rape myth and gender-role attitudes existed within the sample. Widens: Campus discipline hearings may use less stringent "by a preponderance" or ”clear and convincing” standards of proof to judge student behavior that violates college rules (Bohmer and Parrot, 1993; Long, 1985). According to Bohmer and Parrot (1993, p. 188), "because the rules of evidence are much more flexible on a college campus than in the criminal courts, a simple sexual assault is more likely to result in a guilty verdict in the campus system. Therefore, more assailants may be punished if acquaintance rape cases are heard by the college judicial board or officer rather than (or in addition to) the criminal courts, provided that the college system is well designed and administered.“ The aforementioned was confirmed by a judicial affairs officer at Michigan State University (personal communication, academic year 1992— 93). It was this person's opinion that judicial boards almost always found the male guilty of acquaintance rape when a hearing was held. The premise for this opinion rested with the assertion that only cases with strong evidence were generally pursued by the victims. Also, the 149 judicial officer believed the less stringent standards made it easier to find guilt. In summary, both the concept of pluralistic ignorance and the standards of evidence used in judicial hearings may be explanatory factors for the results of this study. W The following conclusions may be drawn from the results of this investigation. The conclusions are not irrefutable, having been derived within the context of the study’s limitations. Also considered were the speculative factors previously addressed. a) b) C) d) 9) Subjects' gender-role attitudes were not significantly influential in selecting a verdict in either the acquainted or stranger conditions. Subjects' level of rape myth belief was not significantly influential in selecting a verdict in either the acquainted or stranger conditions. In this investigation it was determined that a positive significant correlation existed between subjects' level of rape myth belief and gender role attitudes. This combination, however, did not significantly influence the selection of a verdict in either the acquainted or stranger condition. Males were significantly less feminist and believed significantly more in rape myth than did females. However, gender was not a significant factor in explaining the selection of the verdict in either the acquainted or stranger conditions. The judicial sanctions chosen as punishment were severe, indicating that rape, as portrayed in both conditions, was viewed seriously regardless of gender, gender-role 150 attitudes, or level of rape myth beliefs. W The literature clearly stated that traditional gender-role attitudes correlated positively with belief in rape myths (Briers and Malamuth, 1983; Check and Malamuth, 1983; Costin, 1985; Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh, 1988). Traditional gender—role attitudes were related to increased assignment of female blame for the occurrence of rape (Acock and Ireland, 1983; Coller and Resick, 1987; Howard, 1984a; Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976; Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh, 1988; Shotland and Goodstein, 1983; Williams, 1979). People with traditional gender-role orientations also believed that forced sexual intercourse was normal (Check and Malamuth, 1985; Goodchilds, et al., 1988; Muehlenhard, 1988). Research also suggests that the level of belief in rape myths influences the definitional boundaries between rape and normal sexual intercourse (Cann, Calhoun, and Selby, 1979; Dermer and Thiel, 1975: Howard, 1984a, 1984b; Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976; Krulewitz and Nash, 1979; Krulewitz and Payne, 1978; McGraw, 1987; Shotland and Goodstein, 1983; Skelton and Burkhart, 1980: Thornton, 1977; Tieger, 1981). People were also found to attribute significantly greater responsibility to the rapist when the assailant and victim were strangers (Bohmer, 1974; Chappell and Singer, 1977; McGraw, 1987; Chappell and Singer, 1977; Kerstetter, 1990; LaFree, 1980; Wilson, 1978). Finally, research has determined that gender is a very important variable in determining the formation of gender-role attitudes and rape myth beliefs. Males generally believe in more traditional gender-roles and rape myths, thus making them more prone to using sexual aggression (Briere and Malamuth, 1983; Check and Malamuth, 1983; Dull and Giacopassi, 1987; Fisher, 1986; Garrett-Gooding and Senter, 1987; Greendlinger and Byrne, 1987; Horsley, 1988; Ross and Dinero, 1980; Mahoney, Shively, and Traw, 1986; Malamuth, 1981; Malamuth and Check, 151 1980: Malamuth, Haber, and Peshback, 1980; Quackenbush, 1987). The general trend of the research, as briefly summarized above, is very consistent. Additionally, research has determined that jury members are influenced by their gender-role attitudes and belief in rape myths more than by the actual evidence of a case (Barber, 1974; Bohmer, 1974; Feild, 1978b: Feild and Bienen, 1980; Gerbasi, Zuckerman, and Reis, 1977; Halven and Zeisel, 1966: LaFree, 1980; Larree, 1989: LaFree, Reskin, and Visher, 1985; McCahill, Meyer, and Pischman, 1979; Reskin and Visher, 1986: Scroggs, 1976). _‘ 2.-“"L The results of this study were consistent with the literature. For example, the subjects demonstrated a full spectrum of rape myth belief and gender-role attitudes. Males were significantly different than females in terms of the aforementioned. However, the results also contradicted the literature in that all the subjects found the male assailant guilty (regardless of the type of rape judged) and assigned harsher sanctions as punishment. The theoretical implication, then, is the premise that subjects' rape myth beliefs and gender-role attitudes in and of themselves did not exert significant influence over their judgement of rape cases. Thus, the judicial board members were influenced by other dynamics or factors that were strong enough to overcome the affects of their personal belief systems. The influences were consistent across gender, type of college attended, racial/ethnic status, religion, age, major, grade point average, fraternity/sorority status, judicial board experience, amount of rape awareness training received, and previous knowledge of a rape victim. On a practical level, this research questions the assumption that judicial boards are ill-prepared to adjudicate acquaintance rape cases (Collison, 1991; Julian, 1992; Halette, 1988; Parrot, 1991a, 1991b). In research is needed. 152 fact, the results support Pavela (1992a) who believes that judicial boards are capable of rendering sound judgements when adjudicating acquaintance rape cases. During a telephone conversation with a Dean of Students (personal communication, March/April 1993), it was explained to this investigator that acquaintance rape cases on his campus were never sent to judicial boards. Although judicial boards were a publicized option for students wishing to use the judicial system, the college denied this right when the case was an acquaintance rape. According to the Dean, this was done to protect the victim and because the college did not want to trust The results of this A: m — e. judicial board with this type of decision. investigation questions this practice as it denies consistent application of the procedures and underestimates the capability of the board members. It appears, based on the results of this survey, that judicial boards are capable of rendering sound judgements in acquaintance rape This may be especially true when institutions clearly cases. communicate anti-rape messages to all students, properly train judicial board members, and provide competent judicial board advisors. R c e d o f Further Rese ch The major findings, conclusions, limitations, discussions and implications associated with this investigation suggest that further The following areas are suggested: This investigation should be duplicated using a broader and larger a) sample of primary judicial board members. The new sample should include judicial board members from a variety of institutions located in all the geographic regions of the United States. b) The investigation should include a comparison sample of enrolled students not serving on college judicial boards. The comparison sample should be drawn from the same institutions as the judicial 153 board members. c) The investigation should have judicial board advisors complete the Advisors should be also be surveyed for rape awareness survey instrument. additional information about the college's: programs, rape crisis services, counseling services, orientation programs, acquaintance rape occurrences, and judicial board training, etc. d) Faculty and staff members serving on primary judicial boards should be asked to complete the survey instruments. e) The investigation should consider utilizing a variety of acquaintance rape scenarios written in a manner allowing researchers to control for specific variables, e.g. alcohol consumption, resistance, force, etc. f) Rather than using written scenarios, the use of video tapes featuring competent actors portraying rape situations should be considered. Researchers should consider using both quantitative and In addition to completing a survey 9) qualitative research methods. instrument, structured interviews with select judicial board members may be beneficial. If possible, interviews with victims and assailants who have appeared before judicial boards for adjudication of a rape case would be illuminating. Conc ud c tar The fact that all the This The results of this study were surprising. judicial board members judged the male as guilty was unexpected. was especially true given: (1) the general thrust of the literature; and (2) the results of a pilot study involving 11 residence hall judicial board members at Michigan State University. Specifically, the pilot study yielded a diversity of opinion regarding the guilt of the male in the acquaintance rape situation. 154 The findings of this investigation were encouraging, however, with regard to the competence of judicial boards effectively and fairly adjudicating campus rape cases. Never-the-lsss, the results remain preliminary and suggest the importance of additional research. Until such time, one cannot discount the possibility that these results are not a reflection of reality. That is, concerns about the influence of rape myths and gender-role attitudes on the adjudication of campus rape cases should remain alive and well. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Survey Instrument With Acquaintance Rape Scenario (Format Not a True Facsmile) 155 Dear Judicial Board Member: This survey is being given to judicial board members at many colleges and universities in Michigan. The purpose of this survey is to analyze the decision-making process of campus judicial boards. Specifically, this survey deals with an assault incident, an occurrence that is becoming more common on many campuses today. The insight gained from this survey will benefit judicial board members, like yourself, by contributing to the development of training programs and advising services. Your participation in this study is important, yet voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all. You have the right to refuse to answer any questions. However, I would appreciate your answering all the questions in order to minimize the amount of missing information. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will not be analyzed individually. This survey should take approximately 12-16 minutes to complete. Instructions for completing this survey are located in the next section. If you have any questions about this project or you wish to receive a copy of the results, please contact me at the following address or phone number: Department of Residence Life G-64 Wilson Hall Michigan State University E. Lansing, MI 48825-1208 (517) 336-2492 The return of this survey constitutes your informed and voluntary consent to participate in this research. Thank you for your valuable participation in this project! Sincerely, Roger L. Serr 156 SECTION A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The remainder of this survey contains Sections B through F. Directions for completing each section are provided in the introduction to that particular section. If the directions are not clear, please contact Roger Serr at the previously listed phone number or address. Please answer all questions according to your personal beliefs. It is important to be candid and honest. As a reminder, your individual responses are strictly confidential and will be reported only as part of the larger group of responses. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and you may choose not to answer some questions. Please, however, consider answering all the questions to assist in the analysis of the survey‘s results. After completing this survey, please seal it in the attached pre-addressed, stamped envelope and return it to the person from your institution that administered the survey to you. If you desire, you may return the survey directly to Roger Serr. It is important that you return this completed survey by April 1, 1993. 157 SECTION B Directions: The following is a college dating scenario. Please read the scenario and then proceed to Section C. Lee walked into the lobby ofthe residence hall and picked up the phone. He called Diane’s room. When she answered, he told her he was waiting for her downstairs to take her to the movie. While waiting, he checked himself in the mirror. His S-foot-lo inch, 160—pound frame fit well into the sport jacket and jeans he had donned for the occasion. Diane walked down the steps and over to Lee. Lee smiled and said that he really liked the green dress she had bought last week. She was S-foot-2-inches and weighed 100 pounds. As they walked to the car, Diane said she‘d wanted to see this movie for a long time. As they drove to the theatertheytalked abouttheirmutual friends andthepartylastweekend. Dianeand Leehad mettwo months earlier and had seen each other a couple of times at first, and then every weekend for the past month. They each continue to date others on occasion. Alter parking the car, the couple waited in line, making small talk until the ticket window opened. Lee bought the tickets and they went inside. They were spellbound by the movie; neither talked until the film was over. Alter the movie Lee suggested that they go back to his residence hall suite where they could listen to music, drink some wine, and talk. Diane said ”okay.” Lee’s suite opened onto a landscaped campus courtyard surrounded by many similar suites. Lee and Diane walked slowly through the courtyard, enjoying the night air, glancing toward each other from time to time. When they got to his suite, Lee put on an a compact disc and poured some wine for both of them. They sat on the couch for a while, listening to music and talking. As they were talking their eyes would meet and then both would quickly look away. The fourth time their eyes made contact, Diane and Lee held their gaze and smiled. Lee moved closer to Diane, put his arm around her and gently stroked her shoulder. He kissed her softly. Lee put both arms around Diane and held her close to him. He kissed her again, longer this time, and then opened his mouth slightly so that his tongue touched hers. He continued to kiss her like this for a while. Lee slid his hand inside Diane’s dress and began to fondle her breast; with the other hand he started unbuttoning the dress. Diane removed Lee’s hand from her breast and said ”Please don’t.” Lee continued their mouths were in continuous contact, he stroked her breasts rhythmically and then rubbed the inside of her thighs. Lee kissed Diane's breasts and stomach and touched her genital area. Then he slid her dress completely off and removed her underwear. They continued to kiss each other. The phone rang, Lee answered. Just a wrong number; Lee hung up and returned, sitting next to Diane. With Diane totally naked, Lee leaned against her and pushed her back onto the couch until he was on top of her. Diane said, ”No, Lee, don’t." Ignoring this, Lee responded “It’s okay,“ and quickly unzipped his pants and slid them down. Diane struggled and said, ‘1 don’t want to, let me go!” ”Relax Diane, don’t worry," Lee answered. Diane protested once more, "Don't! Stop!” Lee held Diane and said, ”Don't worry, I'll take care of cvcrything." He stroked her breasts, "Relax, just take it easy,” he said. Lee continued to kiss and fondle Diane. Soon, he penetrated her and intercourse occurred. for-ma and soon managed to finish unbuttoning Diane‘s dress and he slipped it off her shoulders. Kissing her so that 158 SECTION C Directions: Please read the scenario in Section B prior to responding to the following statements. Based only on the information provided in the scenario, please answer Statement 1 as a judicial board member judging the man’s guilt or innocence. Depending upon your response to Statement 1, you may be instructed to respond to Statement 2. (1) I believe the man was (Place a check mark by your one choice): _ Not Guilty of rape. _ Guilty of rape. Please respond to Statement 2 only if you indicated in Statement 1 that the man was guilty of rape. Because you believe the man was guilty of rape, please select one of the following disciplinary sanctions or punishments that best fits the offense. Please read all the descriptions before deciding. (2) I believe the man should receive (Place a check mark by your one choice): No Action - No formal sanction or action is undertaken Warning or Reprimand - An official written statement that expresses disapproval of the conduct. Censure — A sanction that indicates that further violations during the specified time period for the censure will result in more severe disciplinary action, including probation, suspension, or expulsion. Probation - A sanction that indicates that further violations during the specified time period for the probation will result in more severe disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion. Suspension - A sanction that ends a student’s enrollment and removes him/her from campus for a specified period of time. Expulsion or Dismissal - A sanction that ends a student’s enrollment and removes him/her from campus for an indefinite (often permanent) period of time. SECTION D Directions: The following is a list of 20 statements. Please respond to each of the statements by circling the response that most identifies your feelings about the item. Respond to each statement by using the following scale: 1 = Strongly Agree (SA) 2 = Agree (A) 3 = No Opinion (N) 4 == Disagree (D) 5 = Strongly Disagree (SD) \\ rt 159 l. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. It is all right for women to work but men will always be the basic breadwinners. Awomanshouldnotexpecttogotothesameplaces or havethesamefreedom ofactionasaman. Realistically speaking, most progress so far has been madebymenandwecanexpectittocontinuethat way. Awomanshouldbeexpectedtochangehername whenshemarries. Women who join the Women’s Movement are typically frustrated and unattractive people who feel they lose out by the current rules of society. As head of the household, the father should have final authority over his children. Awomanwhorefusestogiveupherjobtomove with her husband would be to blame if the marriage broke up. Profanity sounds worse generally coming from a woman. A woman who refuses to bear children has failed in her duty to her husband. Women are basically more unpredictable than men. The “clinging vine“ wife is justified provided she clings sweetly enough to please her husband. One should never trust a woman’s account of another woman. A working woman who sends her six month old baby toadaycarecenterisabad mother. Women should not be permitted to hold political offices that involve great responsibility. It is desirable that women be appointed to police forces with the same duties as men. Women have the right to compete with men in every sphere of activity. w 160 I Section D, Continued SA A N D SD 17. A woman to be truly womanly should gracefully accept chivalrous attentions from men. 18.1‘heunmarriedmotherismorallyagreaterfailure thantheunmarriedfather. 19. It is absurd to regard obedience as a wifely virtue. 20. Wbtherornottheyrealizeit, mostwomaaare exploited by men. 1 2 3 4 5 161 SECTION E Directions: The following is a list of 32 statements. Please respond to each of the statements by circling the response that most identifies your feelings about the item. Respond to each statement by using the following scale (Please note that this scale differs from that used in Section D): Strongly Agree (SA) Asree (A) Slightly Agree (SLA) Slightly Disagree (SLD) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) Queues—- I II II II II II -I SA A SLA SLD D SD 1. Awomancanberapedagainstherwill. l 2 3 4 5 6 2. Thereasonmostrapistscommitrapeisforthe l 2 3 4 5 6 thrill of physical violence. 3. Rapists are "normal“ men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. In forcible rape, the victim never causes the l 2 3 4 5 6 crime. 5. All rapists are mentally sick. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. A charge of rape two days after the act has 1 2 3 4 5 6 occurred is probably not rape. 7. A woman should be responsible for preventing l 2 3 4 5 6 her own rape. 8. A man who has committed rape should be 1 2 3 4 5 6 given at least 30 years in prison. 9. Women are trained by society to be rape l 2 3 4 5 6 victims. 10. A raped woman is a less desirable woman. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ll. Ifawomanisgoingtoberaped,shemightas 1 2 3 4 well relax and enjoy it. J 162 Section B, Continued SA A SLA SLD D SD 12. Rape provides the Opporttmity for my rapists to 1 2 3 4 5 6 show their manhood. 13. Most women secretly desire to be raped. 1 2 3 4 5 5 14. It would do some women some good to get raped. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Women provoke rape by their appearance or 1 2 3 4 5 6 behavior. 16. "Nice” women do not get raped. l 2 3 4 5 6 17. Most charges of rape are unfounded. l 2 3 4 5 6 18. In order to protect the male, it should be difficult to l 2 3 4 5 6 prove that a rape has occurred. 19. Rape is the expression of an uncontrollable desire for 1 2 3 4 5 6 sex. 20. Rapeis theworst crimethatcanbecommitted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Rape is a sex crime. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. All rape is a male exercise in power over women. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. During a rape, a woman should do everything she can 1 2 3 4 5 6 do to resist. 24. Rapists are sexually frustrated individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25.1nmostcaseswhenawomanwasraped,shewas 1 2 3 4 5 6 asking for it. 26. The reason most rapists commit rape is for sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. Rapeofa woman byamanshe knowscanbedefined l 2 3 4 5 6 as a "woman who changed her mind afterward“. 28. A convicted rapist should be castrated. l 2 3 4 5 6 29. A woman should not feel guilty following a rape. l 2 3 4 5 6 30. The degree of a woman’s resistance should be the l 2 3 4 5 6 major factorindeterminingifarapehasoccurred. 31. A raped woman is a responsible victim, not an 1 2 3 4 5 6 innocent one. 32. Rapeservesasawaytoput orkeep womenintheir l 2 3 4 5 6 IPIIOO'. 1 w» 163 SECTION F Directions: Please complete the following demographic questions by placing a checkmark by the most appropriate response. This information will be used for research purposes only and individual responses will not be reported. All responses are strictly confidential. 1. What is your gender? D Female B Male 2. What is your current age? 3. What is your racial or ethnic origin? CI Black/African American [:1 White/Caucasian CI Hispanic/Chicano/Latino D Indian/Native People U Asian/Pacific Islander C] Other (please specify) 4. Do you practice a religious faith? [:1 Yes D No use: How religiously devout or devoted do you consider yourself? D Extremely devout E] Strongly devout D Somewhat devout D Devout I] Not Devout What spiritual faith do you consider as your religion? Cl Roman Catholic Cl Hindu C] Protestant L—J Muslim D Buddhist D Other (please specify) D Jewish 5. What is your current academic class standing? D Freshman C] Senior D Sophomore [3 Graduate Student [I Junior D Other (please specify) 6. What is your current academic major? 7. What is your current academic Grade Point Average? 8. Areyouamemberofafraternityorsorority? D Yes DNo 164 9. How many months have you served as a member of a campus judicial (discipline) board? 10. How many hearings have you participated in as a judical board member? 11. Have you ever received any formal training as a judicial board member about rape and/or hearing rape cases? D Yes D No 1113: “we check from the following list any topics that were presented as part of the training: D State Laws D Rape Evidence Requirements D College Policies D Victim’s Sexual History/Reputation Standards D Judicial Hearing Procedures D Rape Stereotypes and Myths D Victim Resistance Requirements D Influence of Drugs/Alcohol D Consent/Nonconsent Issues D Acquaintance and/or Stranger Rape Dynamics C] Use of Force Standards D Testimony/Witnesses Corroboration D Gender-Role Stereotypes D Other (please specify) 12. Have you ever participated as a judical board member in a rape case hearing? D Yes D No 13. Have you or anyone you know ever been raped? D Yes D No If you answered yes in Question 13, please check from the following list any that explain your relationship with the victim. D Relative D Lover D Acquaintance D I have been raped D Spouse D Other (please specify) [3 Friend Please place the completed survey in the attached pre—addressed, stamped envelope. The survey may be retumed to the person that administered the survey to you or you may send it directly to: Roger Serr Department of Residence Life G-64 Wilson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48825-1208 The survey should be returned by April 1, 1993. Thank you! APPENDIX B Survey Instrument With Stranger Rape Scenario (Format Not a True Facsmile) 165 Dear Judicial Board Member: This survey is being given to judicial board members at many colleges and universities in Michigan. The purpose of this survey is to analyre the decision-making process of campus judicial boards. Specifically, this survey deals with an assault incident, an occurrence that is becoming more common on many campuses today. The insight gained from this survey will benefit judicial board members, like yourself, by contributing to the development of training programs and advising services. Your participation in this study is important, yet voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all. You have the right to refuse to answer any questions. However, I would appreciate your answering all the questions in order to minimize the amount of missing information. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will not be analyzed individually. This survey should take approximately 12-16 minutes to complete. Instructions for completing this survey are located in the next section. If you have any questions about this project or you wish to receive a copy of the results, please contact me at the following address or phone number: Department of Residence Life G-64 Wilson Hall Michigan State University E. Lansing, MI 48825-1208 (517) 336-2492 The return of this survey constitutes your informed and voluntary consent to participate in this research. Thank you for your valuable participation in this project! Sincerely, Roger L. Serr 166 SECTION A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The remainder of this survey contains Sections B through F. Directions for completing each section are provided in the introduction to that particular section. If the directions are not clear, please contact Roger Serr at the previously listed phone number or address. Please answer all questions according to your personal beliefs. It is important to be candid and honest. As a reminder, your individual responses are strictly confidential and will be reported only as part of the larger group of responses. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and you may choose not to answer some questions. Please, however, consider answering all the questions to assist in the analysis of the survey’s results. After completing this survey, please seal it in the attached pre-addressed, stamped envelope and return it to the person from your institution that administered the survey to you. If you desire, you may return the survey directly to Roger Serr. It is important that you return this completed survey by April 1, 1993. 167 SECTION B Directions: The following is a college dating scenario. Please read the scenario and then proceed to Section C. Jim walked into the lobby of the residence hall and picked up the phone. He called Diane’s room. When she answered, he told her he was waiting for her downstairs to take her to the movie. While waiting, he checked himself in the mirror. His 5-foot-10 inch, l60-pound frame fit well into the sport jacket and jeans he had donned for the occasion. Diane walked down the steps and over to Jim. Jim smiled and said that he really liked the green dress she had bought last week. She was S-foot—Z-inches and weighed 100 pounds. As they walked to the car, Diane said she’d wanted to see this movie for a long time. As they drove to the theatertheytalkedabouttheirmutual friendsandthepartylastweekend. DianeandJimhad mettwo months earlier and had seen each other a couple of times at first, and then every weekend for the past month. They each continue to date others on occasion. Afier parking the car, the couple waited in line, making small talk until the ticket window opened. Jim bought the tickets and they went inside. They were spellbound by the movie; neither talked until the film was over. After the movie Jim suggested that they go back to his residence hall suite where they could listen to music, drink some wine, and talk. Diane said ”okay." Jim’s suite opened onto a landscaped campus courtyard surrounded by many similar suites. Jim and Diane walked slowly through the courtyard, enjoying the night air, glancing toward each other from time to time. When they got to his suite, Jim put on a compact disc and poured some wine for both of them. They sat on the couch for a while, listening to music and talking. As they were talking their eyes would meet and then both would quickly look away. The fourth time their eyes made contact, Diane and Jim held their gaze and smiled. Jim moved closer to Diane, put his arm around her and gently stroked her shoulder. He kissed her softly. Jim put both arms around Diane and held her close to him. He kissed her again, longer this time, and then opened his mouth slightly so that his tongue touched hers. He continued to kiss her like this for a while. Jim slid his hand inside Diane’s dress and began to fondle her breast; with the other hand he started unbuttoning the dress. Diane removed Jim’s hand from her breast and said ”Please don’t." Jim continued and soon managed to finish unbuttoning Diane’s dress and he slipped it off her shoulders. Kissing her so that their mouths were in continuous contact, he stroked her breasts rhythmically and then rubbed the inside of her thighs. Jim kissed Diane’s breasts and stomach and touched her genital area. Then he slid her dress completely off and removed her underwear. They continued to kiss each other. The phone rang, Jim answered. He had to leave the suite, telling Diane, "Wait right here, I'll be back in ten minutes." Jim rushed out of the suite, leaving the door ajar as he left. A moment later, before Diane had time to clothe herself, a man peered through the open door. He must have been walking in the courtyard. The man came toward Diane. With Diane totally naked, the man leaned against her and pushed her back onto the couch until he was on top of her. Diane said, "No, don’t." Ignoring this, the man responded "It’s okay,” and quickly unzipped his pants and slid them down. Diane struggled and said, 'I don’t want to, let me go!" "Relax, don’t worry,” the man answered. Diane protested once more, "Don’t! Stop!" the man held Diane and said, ”Don’t worry, I’ll take care of everything." He stroked her breasts, ”Relax, just take it easy,” he said. The man continued to kiss and fondle Diane. Soon, he penetrated her and intercourse occurred. forms 168 SECTION C Directions: Please read the scenario in Section B prior to responding to the following statements. Based only on the information provided in the scenario, please answer Statement 1 as a judicial board member judging the man’s guilt or innocence. Depending upon your response to Statement 1, you may be instructed to respond to Statement 2. (1) I believe the man was (Place a check mark by your one choice): __ Not Guilty of rape. _ Guilty of rape. Please respond to Statement 2 only if you indicated in Statement 1 that the man was guilty of rape. Because you believe the man was guilty of rape, please select one of the following disciplinary sanctions or punishments that best fits the offense. Please read all the descriptions before deciding. (2) I believe the man should receive (Place a check mark by your one choice): No Action - No formal sanction or action is undertaken Warning or Reprimand - An official written statement that expresses disapproval of the conduct. Censure - A sanction that indicates that further violations during the specified time period for the censure will result in more severe disciplinary action, including probation, suspension, or expulsion. Probation - A sanction that indicates that further violations during the specified time period for the probation will result in more severe disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion. Suspension - A sanction that ends a student’s enrollment and removes him/her from campus for a specified period of time. Expulsion or Dismissal - A sanction that ends a student’s enrollment and removes him/her from campus for an indefinite (often permanent) period of time. SECTION D Directions: The following is a list of 20 statements. Please respond to each of the statements by circling the response that most identifies your feelings about the item. Respond to each statement by using the following scale: Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) No Opinion (N) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) MhUNt-e llll ll II II 169 r—F I l. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. It is all right for women to work but men will always be the basic breadwinners. Awomanshouldnotexpecttogotothesameplaces orhavethesamefreedomofactionasaman. Realisticallyspeaking,mostprogresssofarhasbeen madebymenandwecanexpectittocontinuethat way. Awomanshouldbeexpectedtochangehername whenshennrries. Women who join the Women’s Movement are typically frustrated and unattractive people who feel they lose out by the current rules of society. As head of the household, the father should have final authority over his children. A woman who refuses to give up herjob to move with her husband would be to blame if the marriage broke up. Profanity sounds worse generally coming from a woman. A womn who refuses to bear children has failed in her duty to her husband. Women are basically more unpredictable than men. The ”clinging vine" wife is justified provided she clings sweetly enough to please her husband. One should never trust a woman’s account of another woman. A working wonuin who sends her six month old baby to a daycare center is a bad mother. Women should not be permitted to hold political offices that involve great responsibility. It is desirable that woman be appointed to police forces with the same duties as men. Women have the right to compete with men in every sphere of activity. 170 Section D, Continued SA 17. A woman to be truly womanly should gracefully accept chivalrous attentions from men. 18. The unmarried mother is morally a greater failure than the unmarried father. 20. Whetherornottheyrealizeit, mostwomenare exploited by men. 19. It is absurd to regard obedience as a wifely virtue. I Dirt folk ll II 171 SECTION E Directions: The following is a list of 32 statements. Please respond to each of the statements by circling the response that most identifies your feelings about the item. Respond to each statement by using the following scale (Please note that this scale differs from that used in Section D): Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Slightly Agree (SLA) Slightly Disagree (SLD) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) SA A SLA SLD D SD GM‘UN—s II II II ll II II 1. A woman can be raped against her will. 1 2 3 4 S 6 2. The reason most rapists commit rape is for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 thrill of physical violence. 3. Rapists are I'normnl" men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. In forcible rape, the victim never causes the l 2 3 4 5 6 crime. 5. All rapists are mentally sick. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. A charge of rape two days after the act has 1 2 3 4 5 6 occurred is probably not rape. 7. A woman should be responsible for preventing l 2 3 4 5 6 her own rape. J8. Amanwhohascommittedrapeshouldbe l 2 3 4 5 6 given at least 30 years in prison. 9. Womenaretrainedbysocietytoberape l 2 3 4 5 6 victims. 10. A raped woman is a less desirable woman. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ll. Ifa woman is going to be raped, she might as well relax and enjoy it. 172 Section E, Continued SA A SLA SLD D SD 12. Rape provides the opportunity for many rapists to show 1 2 3 4 5 6 their manhood. 13.Mostwomensecretlydesiretoberaped. l 2 3 4 5 6 14. It would do some women some good to get raped. l 2 3 4 5 6 15. Women provoke rape by their appearance or behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. 'Nice' women do not get raped. l 2 3 4 5 6 17. Most charges of rape are unfounded. l 2 3 4 5 6 18. In order to protect the nmle, it should be difficult to 1 2 3 4 5 6 prove that a rape has occurred. 19. Rape is the expression of an uncontrollable desire for l 2 3 4 5 6 sex. 20. Rapeistheworstcrimethatcanbecommitted. l 2 3 4 5 6 21. Rape is a sex crime. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. All rape is a male exercise in power over women. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. During a rape, a woman should do everything she can 1 2 3 4 5 6 do to resist. 24. Rapists are sexually frustrated individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25.1nmostcaseswhenawomanwasraped,shewas 1 2 3 4 5 6 asking for it. 26. The reason most rapists commit rape is for sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. Rape of a woman by a man she knows can be defined 1 2 3 4 5 6 as a “woman who changed her mind afterward“. 28. A convicted rapist should be castrated. l 2 3 4 5 6 29. A wonum should not feel guilty following a rape. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. The degree of a woman’s resistance should be the 1 2 3 4 5 6 major factor in determining if a rape has occurred. 31. A raped woman is a responsible victim, not an 1 2 3 4 5 6 innocent one. 32.Rapeservesasawaytoputorkeepwomenintheir 1 2 3 4 5 6 I'place". Directions: Please complete the following demographic appropriate rewonse. This information will be used for research purposes only and individual responses 173 SECTION F willnotbereported. Allrewonsesarestrictlyconfidential. l. 2. What is your gmder? B Female D Male What is your current age? What is your racial or ethnic origin? Cl Black/African American Cl White/Caucasian Cl Hispanic/Chicano/Latino CI Indian/Native People . Cl Asian/Pacific Islander [:1 Other (please specify) Do you practice a religious faith? D Yes D No Ines: How religiously devout or devoted do you consider yourself? D Extremely devout D Strongly devout El Somewhat devout D Devout D Not Devout What spiritual faith do you consider as your religion? D Roman Catholic D Hindu D Protestant El Muslim D Buddhist D Other (please specify) Cl Jewish What is your current academic class standing? D Freshman C] Senior [3 Sophomore El Graduate Student D Junior D Other (please specify) What is your current academic major? What is your current academic Grade Point Average? Are you a member of a fraternity or sorority? D Yes E] No questions by placing a checkmark by the most 174 9. How my months have you served as a member of a campus judicial (discipline) board? 10. How many hearings have you participated in as a judical board member? 11. Have you ever received any formal training as a judicial board member about rape and/or hearing rape cases? [:1 Yes C] No m: Please check from the following list any topics that were presented as part of the training: E] State Laws [:1 Rape Evidence Requirements E] College Policies [3 Victim’s Sexual History/Reputation Standards D Judicial Hearing Procedures D Rape Stereotypes and Myths D Victim Resistance Requirements D Influence of Drugs/Alcohol D Consent/Nonconsent Issues D Acquaintance and/or Stranger Rape Dynamics C] Use of Force Standards D Testimony/Witnesses Corroboration D Gender-Role° Stereotypes D Other (please specify) 12. Have you ever participated as a judical board member in a rape case hearing? D Yes D No 13. Have you or anyone you know ever been raped? D Yes D No If you answered yes in Question 13, please check from the following list any that explain your relationship with the victim. U Relative D Lover Cl Acquaintance D Ihave been raped D Spouse D Other (please specify) D Friend Please place the completed survey in the attached pre-addressed, stamped envelope. The survey may be returned to the person that administered the survey to you or you may send it directly to: Roger Serr Department of Residence Life G-64 Wilson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48825-1208 The survey should be returned by April 1, 1993. Thank you! APPENDIX C Survey Instructions 175 March 16. 1993 To: Survey Administrators From: Roger L. Serr Subject: Survey Instructions Thank you for your assistance collecting data concerning the influence of gender-role attitudes and rape stereotypes on the decision-making process of college and university judicial boards. Your willingness to help with this research project is greatly appreciated! As you may recall, this research project involves administering surveys to the student members of the primary judicial boards at each participating institution. Primary judicial boards are defined as those empowered by an institution to levy or recommend disciplinary sanctions, including smpension, after finding a student guilty of violating the institution’s conduct rules. It is very important that student mernhers, and not faculty or staff, are the only people receiving the surveys. The students have the right to decline participation in this study. However, it is very important for data analysis to receive a substantial return of completed surveys. For this reason, any endorsement on your part that encourages people to complete and return the surveys is of great value. In fact, I urge you to have the students either attend a meeting or come to your office to complete the surveys. The following instructions should assist you in the administration of the surveys. It is important that you follow them exactly as outlined. If you have any questions, please call me at (517) 336-2492. Mala: You should have the following in your packet of materials: (a) One copy of a form called the Distribution Record. (b) One copy of a white survey booklet and 1 copy of a light gray survey booklet for your informtion only. Your copies should have “Administrator’s Copy“ written across the top. The survey booklets are exactly the same except for Section B, which features different dating scenarios. (C) Survey booklets in an amount equal to the number of student members serving on the judicial board. Approximately 1/2 of the booklets are white and approximately 1/2 are light gray. Each booklet has a distribution number written in the upper right corner of Page 1. Each booklet consists of 8 pages. (6) Pro-addressed and stamped return envelopes in an amount equal to the number of survey booklets you received. An envelope for returning the Distribution Record is also enclosed. t. t t' It is very important to heed these instructions. (I) (b) (C) 176 Please do not explain to subjects, prior to completing the surveys, the intent of the research beyond what is written in the cover letter on Page 1 of each survey booklet. It is especially important not to inform subjects in advance that the research deals with gender-role and rape issues. Instruct subjects that after completing the survey, they should not discuss the survey with others scheduled to complete the survey at a later time. If you schedule a group meeting to administer the surveys, please ensure that no conversation about the surveys takes place until all the surveys are completed and sealed in the return envelopes. ”H 'VI .: Please follow these instructions exactly as stated. (a) (b) (C) (d) (e) (f) (s) (h) The number in the upper right corner of Page 1 represents the order that the surveys are to be distributed to the subjects. In other words, the first person to take the survey receives a booklet with the number 1 written in the upper right corner, the second person receives a booklet with the number 2, the third person receives booklet number 3, and so on. Please explain to the subjects that the number is for distribution order only, and is not for identification purposes. For confidentiality purposes, please have subjects seal their completed surveys inside the pro-addressed, stamped envelope before returning the surveys to you. Please mail the envelopes with the surveys to me as you receive them. All completed surveys should be returned by April 1, 1993. On Pages 2 and 8 of each of the survey booklets, the subjects are instructed to return completed surveys to you by April 1, 1993. If you wish, please feel free to change this date in order to establish an earlier deadline for return of the completed surveys to you. Subjects are also informed on Pages 2 and 8 that they may send the completed surveys directly to me by April 1, 1993. This is provided as an option to help subjects feel comfortable about the confidentiality of their responses. Please don’t discourage anyone from exercising this option, but any monitoring you can provide to encourage completion and return of the instruments is appreciated. Please ensure that each of the appropriate student judicial board members at your institution are contacted and encouraged to participate in this study. After administering all the surveys, please complete the DISTRIBUTION RECORD and return it to me in the pre-addressed, stamped envelope. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU RETURN THIS FORM. If you need additional survey booklets, please do not hesitate to contact me at the aforementioned phone number. Thanks! 177 DISTRIBUTION RECORD IMPORTANT: Please return this form to Roger L. Serr after administering all the surveys. A pre- addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Please answer the following questions: q (a) What is the name of your institution? (b) How many survey booklets did you distribute to ferrule judicial board members? (c) How many survey booklets did you distribute to male judicial board members? (d) What is the total number of females serving on the judicial board that you surveyed? (e) What is the total number of males serving on the judicial board that you surveyed? Thanks! APPENDIX D Varimax Rotated Factor Structure of ATR Questionnaire -r& b ..-._ —. __.J‘ 178 Neonm. henna. ovomH. mmmmo.t wmmnmu mmMNo.I Hammo.l Mbme.l mNMHo.I mvomo. nmmon. ooomn. new mfidwn. HHono.t wmhho. N@0HH.I mohHH. hmoHo. NmNmo.l NMOOO.I Hdmoo. mmmmo. NObho. NNoHo.I hHomH.I mmumn. roman. HmmOH. mHHNH.I hommm.l cacao. Nawmw. HmmNo. "anew"! meflva. mnvom.l as? mmon0.r bhnmfl.l vMMOH.I ovmfim.l mambo. HOMNN. mummo.l enema. Nahum. HMNmH. nvo¢m. momvN. NMHOH.I sen OHMFH. vmhma. Nmmmo. NHmvo. oomo¢.I boomo.l momoo.t mweoo. mmoon. mnooo.l HmmmN.l mvao. mflooo.t «cu mamquq vmmem. mmm vwooa. whomo. mamofi.l c m . enemw. mmfino. HmNmn.I NvaN. ommeo.t Homoo. cad comma on ou cannon aauouoaa c0503 uaox .ma noosene wane» 30:- 0» nuaamuu acne new huwcauuommo on» nooa>oum Odom .NH u« wanna use xeaou aao3 no venue one common on on madam an :nEO3 n NH .HH c0603 cannuwnou need a an :eEO3 canon 4 .oa nEquoa> omen on 0» uuoaoou ha uneasy» one anO3 .m eonwum an munch on enema us co>wm on oaaonn omen oouuweeoo no: 0:3 cue d .0 each :30 no: ocauco>oum no“ mandacomnou on canons cesoz d .h umnu uoe hannnoum ow oouunooo no: uon on» wound name 039 omen no omunnu t .0 guns magnucue one snowmen aafl .m oaquo on» season uo>oc Ewuoa> on» .omnu oHnAOHOM cH .¢ e08 sansuocs one nunqmum .m concaoa> Heed-and mo Adana» Gnu Man an omen uaaeoo sandman uaoa coaneu 0:8 .N Haw3 no: uneanue canon on can ease: d .a daumulmad 179 omNNN.i oammm.l momma.i Homnn.i ommao. mnmmo. soun3uouue oewfi no: unmanno 0:3 c0903: e an ooeauoo on can nzocx one use n he enaoz n no omnm .hm umwflo. unmoo. honed. mummo.r mwmAMd owned. as. so“ on name unseen unnameu uuoe cannon 0:9 .mm emano.i mmema.- domed. Hema~.r cameo. manned an new menace use one .ummnu nm3 eneo3 n cons ounce #006 CH .mm momefl.i enmea.i «mean. amend. dammed enema. nauseasaecn umunuunnuw haanaxmn one unnamed .em Hemflo. HeeHH.i nenmv.i mmNoN. mdqmwd mHmHH. nuance on on can one mcneuaue>s on canonn cn803 u come» u Deanna .mm oaeeo. mmomo. ommNH.i flddmnd eHeHH.r emeoo. emeos nose nozom cw onwuuuxm mane n nu omen Add .NN mn~fid.i manna. meom~. meneo.i manned meeao. wanna use d on seem .HN «Heofl.i mvmmo.i mommo.i nmnemq enema. om-~.i eccenesoo on :no ans» meduo unuoz on» ma omnm .om mnmao.i meooo.i mefiwo. nommo.i AMANMJ momvo. and you nuance saneaaouueooes no mo cownnoumxo on» ma chem .ma H00NH.I mmomu.l Nmmmo.l m h.l NNMHO.I «Chem. flfluufluoo no: omen n unnu o>oum on uaaowmuao on oasonn an codes on» uoououm ou unuuo an .ma hmhuo.l ancmn. mHNOH.I H0HNM.I mmmmm. Nmmwa. vmucnowca man flank «0 nonunso #00! .hH mmHnH.l mhmvm.l mm . NemOH.I momma. mammv. comma #00 you 06 GOEO3 condzs .wH mmvmo.l QQHGH.I mummo. Hmth.I finned. mmmhm. HOA>¢£0£ HO occeueomme awonu an omen oxo>oum c0803 .ma Homom. HmNho. meHH. Hmdmo. MbNoH. hbhmm. woman 000 on @000 080. c0803 030. on u~ao3 UH .¢H 180 each :0 noncosauew anuzudsu no uouonm uou unmaow> n no omen "m uouoeh omen no huHHeEhoz he uouonh usauu n on omnm um uouoeh nuance Husxon ha uouo>wu08 omnm "N uouonm auaawnancomnmu can cowunuwmwomum omnm "H uouonm §¥ nuouueu owmwuomn ou nucoacmannn Baud hmacmwn nucoaowuuooo oeeaauoocb s m.mn m.m m.m m.m m.o~ m.Hm mocndun> Ho ucmuuom new. nae. oom. own. «me. new. sense wwwwmd Haen~.i mvemo.i mnnno. mmflno.i «meme. reaches name» as cases mung no new 00 >03 n no noeuon omnm .Nm mhmo~.I moawm.i mnemfi.i memNH. «draw. 5 m . oco unmanned an no: seguow> oanwneomnou n on cases women m .Hm . . .i . mHoHH. woman. onuusuoo on: many n ma newcwauouou Hemao vmmma eehea mahoo cw uouonu henna any on canons oucnunanou n.6e803 n no acumen 0:8 .om omen u mewsoaaom . .i .i . H.i mHHNH. mawwm mmmofi mmcmo mceeo came avenue Home no: canoes eases e .mu «ecma.u Hammad cacao. ommem. mmmva. eo~afl. concussed on canoe- unaesu eouowscoo e .em BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality WM. 52. 830-838 . Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology Will: 11. 173-194- Abbey, A., and Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. §g5_Bglgg, lfi, 283-298. Acock, A. C., and Ireland, N. K. (1983). Attribution of blame in rape cases: The impact of norm violation, gender, and sex—role attitude. Sex 30135: A gougngl of figsgagch, 2, 179-193. Adams, A., and Abarbanel, G. (1988). §exggl assault on 95222:: fine; ggllggg§_ggg_gg. Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Hospital Medical Center. Ageton, S. S. (1983). Sexual agggult among adolescentg. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Aizenman, M., and Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. MW. 22. 305-311. Allport, P. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Amick, A. E., and Calhoun, K. S. (1987). Resistance to sexual aggression: Personality, attitudinal, and situational factors. WWW. 1g, 153-163. Amir, M. (1971). £5§§g£§_1g_19;gibl§_g§p§. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Amir, M. (1975). Forcible rape. In L.G. Schultz (Ed.), fiapg_gig§imglggy (pp. 43-58). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Associated Press. (1991, November 9). Bx-CMU student sues in rape case. W. p- 38- Association of American Colleges. (1990). Perceptions of rape. Qn_ggmpgg ELSB Women, 29, 7. Astin, A. W. (1993). flhgt matters in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Babbie, B. (1990). ggvey {eggargn methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Baier, J. L., Rosenzweig, M. 6., and Whipple, E. G. (1991). Patterns of sexual behavior, coercion, and victimization of university students. 181 182 Bailey, J. H. (1986). Every man is a potential rapist. Q;mpgg_§gw Enlargement_igurnal. lfi: 34-35- Barber, R. (1974). Judge and jury attitudes to rape. Aggt;§i11§_§n§_fl§u zsaland.£99rnal.91_£riminelegx. 1. 157-172. Barnett, N. J., and Peild, 8.8. (1977). Sex differences in university Itudfintl' attitudfil toward r8P0~ l22InAl_QI_Q2112§!_§£2Q§n&_£§£§9nn21. u, 93-96e Barnett, N. J., and Feild, M. S. (1978). Character of the defendant and length of sentence in rape and burglary crimes. In§_ggu;n§1_gf_figgi§l BIYEBQIQQY. 1&1. 271-277- Bart, P. B. (1975). Rape doesn't end with a kiss. yiyg, 1;, 39-42, 98— 101. Bash, A. (1993, August 9). Orientations raise serious issues, from crime to drinking. g§A_zggay, p. 2D. Batson, S. W. (1986). Minimizing liability for the college administrator: Female student protection. In T. N. Jones and D. P. Semi-r (Edi-). 52922l_la2_229222_12§§ (pp- 120-128)- Tapek8. KS: National Organization On Legal Problems Of Education. Bartz, a. z. (1976). t behaxigral_2sisnses- Minneapolis. MN: Burgess- Bechhofer, L., and Parrot, A. (1991). What is acquaintance rape? In 8- Parrot and L- Bechhofor (368-). A2gnainsaase_ranei_xhe_hidgen grime (pp. 9-25). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal BenDor, J. (1976). Justice after rape: Legal reform in Michigan. In M. J. Walker and S. L. Brodsky (Eds.), Sexual asgault: The YLQELE and the {spigg (pp. 149-160). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Berger, R. J., Searles, P., Salem, R. G., and Pierce, B.A. (1986). Sexual assault in a college community. Sggiologica; zocgg, 12, 1-26. Bessmer, s. (1984). The laws of rape. New York, NY: Praeger. Bhirdo, K. W. (1989). The liability and responsibility of institutions of higher education for the on-campus victimization of students. In; J9urnal_2f_Q2ll§g2_aed_nnixer§i£x_Lag. lg. 119-135. Blaskey, M. S. (1988). University students' right to retain counsel for disciplinary proceedings- Qalif2raia.fle§£2rn_hau_zexieg. 25. 65-82. Bogal-Allbritten, R. B., and Allbritten, W. L. (1985). The hidden victims: Courtship violence among college students. goggng1_gfi_ggllggg W0 2&1 201-209 Bagel-Allbritten, R., and Allbritten, W. (1991). Courtship violence on campus: A nationwide survey of student affairs professionals. 35525 Journal. 2Q. 312-318- Bohmer, C. (1974). Judicial attitudes toward rape victims. Judicature, §1, 303-307. 183 Bohmer, C. (1991). Acquaintance rape and the law. In A. Parrot and L. Bochhof-r (368-). a2guaintan2a_ransi_2hs_hiflgen_srime (pp- 317-333)- New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Bohmer. 0.. and Parrot. 8- (1993)- aaaual_aaaaul3.92.2amnn§i_1he_nreblem nn§_nnn_nnln§19n. New York, NY: Lexington. Borg. w. 3.. and Gail. M. D. (1983)- Egnsatignal_82§earsni_An Inggngngginn. New York, NY: Longman. Borgida, 3., and White, P. (1978). Social perception of rape victims: The impact of legal reform. LS!_QBQ_HEEAB_EQLAYLQII 1, 339-351. /Bostwick, r. n. (1990). t der . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN. Bownes, I. T., O'Gorman, B. C., and Sayers, A. (1991). Rape - A comparison of stranger and acquaintance assaults. finniging‘_§ninnnnL an§_&h2_Las. :1. 102-109. Boy-r. 8- L- (1987). 92ll2g2a_Ihs_2nQergra92aLe.2:22:ienss.in_amarisa- New York, NY: Harper and Row. Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Jougnnl Q; 2era2aali2x_an§_§22ial_£§x£hgl291. ii. 56-71. Bray, J. R., and Maxwell, S. E. (1985). Multivariate nnnlygig n; znrinngg. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Breed, W., and thanes, T. (1961). Pluralistic ignorance in the process of Opinion formation- 2221i2_92inien_92arte£ix. 25. 382-392. Véridges, J. 8., and McGrail, C. A. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape. §gn_gglgg;_n_gnn£nn1_nfi Research. 21. 273-286. Brodyaga, L., Gates, M., Singer, 8., Tucker, M., and White, R. (1975). Eng; nng LEE viggingg n gnnnrt fog citizens, healt n fngiligigg, nng ggininn1_1nn§1ng_ngnngigg. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Briddell, D. W., Rimm, D. C., Caddy, G. R., Rrawitz, G., Sholis, D., and Wunderlin, R. J. (1978). Effects of alcohol and cognitive set on sexual arousal to deviant stimuli. J22znal_2f_52n9£mal_2§xshelesx. 81. 418-430. Briere, J., and Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Self-reported likelihood of sexually aggressive behavior: Attitudinal versus sexual explanations. 12urnal_2f_Beaaarsn_in_22£§2nalitx. 11. 315-323. Brooks, W. N., and Doob, A. N. (1975). Justice and the jury. gnngnnl_n§ 522111.125231. 11. 171-182- Broverman, I. R., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, P. 3., and Rosenkrantz, P. s. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. leurnal.2f_§22ial_la§ugg. 28. 59-78- Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 184 Buhrke, R. A., and Lustgraaf, M. (1988). Date rape awareness program: A model for educating and consciousness raising. inn;nnl_gj_§nllggg W. 2.2. 478-479. Bunting, A. B., and Reeves, J. B. (1983). Perceived male sex orientation and beliefs about rape. Enginn§_flnnnging, 5, 281-295. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1984). a v (Publication No. NCJ-92820). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1985a). Qgininnl__ig§ininntign_in_§h§ (Publication No. NCJ-96459). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1985b). Inn_g;ing_nj_gnng (Publication No. NCJ-96777). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice stati-tic-.(1986)- Weiss '. gnxxgy_znng;§ (Publication No. NCJ-lO3138). Washington, DC: Bureau of 1 Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1987). i nal v t (Publication No. NCJ-104273). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1988). Qgininnl_gig§imiza§ign_in_§hfi (Publication No. NCJ-lll456). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1989). al v ct (Publication No. NCJ-115524). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1990). g1imingl_212§im11§£12n_1n_£h§ (Publication No. NCJ-122024). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1991a). Cr mina v t m t o the n ted Sta es: 1973-I988 trends (Publication No. NCJ-129392). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1991b). Violent crime in tnn Unitng §§§§§g (Publication No. NCJ-127855). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Burgess, A.W., and Bolmstrom, L.L. (1980). Rape typology and the coping behavior of rape victims. In S.L. McCombie (Ed.), 0 : de v (PP. 27-40). New York, NY: Plenum. Burkhart, B. R. (1991). Conceptual and practical analysis of therapy for acquaintance rape victims. In A. Parrot and L. Bechhofer (Bds.), t (pp. 287-303). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Burkhart, B. R., and Stanton, A. L. (1988). Sexual aggression in ~acquaintance relationships. In G. W. Russell (Ed.), yinlgnng_in Washing (pp- 43-65). New York. NY: PHA- Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. l22£fl§l.2£ W. 3.8. 217-230. 185 Burt, M. R. (1991). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot and 1.. Bechhofer (868-). WM (913- 2640)- New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Burt, M. R., and Albin, R. S. (1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of conviction- W. 1.1. 212-230. Cage, M. C. (1992, September 30). Forty-two percent of college students engage in binge drinking, survey shows. In; ghgoniclg Qt flighgz Mien. p- A30- Calhoun, L. G., Selby, J. W., and Warring, L. J. (1976). Social perception of the victim's causal role in rape: An exploratory examination of four factors. finnnn_331n§19n§, 22, 517-526. Campus Violence Prevention Center. (1988). 9 . Towson, MD: Towson State University, Campus Violence Prevention Center. Campus Violence Prevention Center. (1990). 1990 on . Towson, MD: Towson State University, Campus Violence Prevention Center. Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., and Selby, J. W. (1979). Attributing responsibility to the victim of rape: Influence of information regarding past sexual experience. annan Enlationg, 12, 57-67. Caringella-MacDonald, S. (1985). Sexual assault prosecution: An examination of model rape legislation in Michigan. In C. SchWeber and C. Peinman (Bds.), t cs an Wm (pp. 65-82)- New York. NY: Haworth. Caringella-MacDonald, s. (1988). Marxist and feminist interpretations on the aftermath of rape reforms. Contempggy Cgisis, 12, 125-144. Cattoll. R. 8. (1952)- WWWLE We; . New York, NY: Harper 5 Brothers. Chappell, D. (1984). The impact of rape legislation reform: Some comparative trends. Intggnngignnl Jnngnal of ngen'n §tnging, 1, 70- 80. Chappell, D., and Singer, 8. (1977). Rape in New York City: A study of materials in the police files and its meaning. In D. Chappell, R. Geis, and G. Geis (Bds.), £2:21212.£§22 (pp. 245-271). New York, NY: Columbia University. Check, J. V. P., and Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex-role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. JQHIBAL WW. g. 344-356. Check, J. V. P., and Malamuth, N. (1985). An empirical assessment of 00m feminist hypotho-o- about rape. WWW 33351131. 8. 414-423. Child. 13. (1990). W- London. England: Cassell. Clark, L., and Lewis, D. (1977). ' c o ' . Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Women's Press. 186 Cobb, R. A., and Schauer, N. R. (1974). Michigan's criminal sexual assault law. nnixsraisx_2f_ni2higan_lournal_of_nas_nef2rm. 8. 217-236. Cockey, M., Sherrill, J. M., and Cave, R. B. (1989). Towson State University's research on campus violence. In J. M. Sherrill and D. G. Sioqol (868-). Bsan9nQing_t2_xiolensa_on_eam22a (pp- 17-27)- Sun Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Coller, S. A., and Resick, P. A. (1987). Women's attributions of responsibility for date rape: The influence of empathy and sex-role Itor-otyping- Yielen22_ang_212tima. 2. 115-125. Collison, M. N. (1991, May 15). Increase in reports of sexual assaults strains campus disciplinary systems. Ih§_9h£2n1£1£_£1_fl19h2£ BengaSion. pp- 829-830- Copenhaver, S., and Grauerholz, B. (1991). Sexual victimization among sorority women: Exploring the link between sexual violence and institutional PrlCtiOOB- fiflK_B9l2!i_h_£22£nel_2£_32§§é££hr 2&. 31-41- Costin, P. (1985). Beliefs about rape and women's social roles. Aggniyng of.§eansl.§2naxior. 11. 319-325. Crows, L. C., and George, W. H. (1989). Alcohol and human sexuality: Review and integration- £522h219912al.§ulle§in. 1Q5. 374-386. Curtis, L. A. (1976). Present and future measures of victimization in forcible rape. In M. J. Walker and S. L. Brodsky (Bds.), finnnnl_ nggnnlgg Tng vigtim and thg gaping (pp. 61-68). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Dannells, M. (1991). Changes in student misconduct and institutional response over 10 years. 222raal_2f_Q2llege_§tug§n&_nexelosm§st. :2. 166-170. Dean. c. w., and doBruyn-KOPI. M- (1982)- Ihe_2rime_snd_§h2_£2nssguensss gi_;npg. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Deaux, X. (1976). Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, and R. P. Kidd (Bds.), New Qinggtinnn In W (PP- 335-352). Hillodale. NJ: Lawrence Brlbaum Associates. Dermer, M., and Thiel, D. L. (1975). When beauty may fail. gnngnn1_nj 2era2nalitx_snd_§22ial_£§xshologx. 31. 1168-1176. Diamond, S., and Zeisel, H. A. (1974). A courtroom experiment on juror selection and decision-makino- 2sra2nali£x_eng_§22isl_2axsholegx Bulletin. 1. 276-277- DiPerna, P. (1984). ingign_nn_§;nil. New York, NY: Dembner Books. Dodd, V. J. (1985). The non-contractual nature of the student-university contractual relationship. gnnsns Law Review, g1, 701-731. Dull, R. T., and Giacopassi, D. J. (1987). Demographic correlates of sexual and dating attitudes: A study of date rape. Q;ininn1_gnn;in§ and_flehaxior. 11. 175-193. Dworkin, R. B. (1966). The resistance standard in rape legislation. Stanford_hau_nexiex. 18. 680-689- '\ O. .\ 187 Efren, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgement of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. J a h Muslin. 8. 45-54. Ellis, L. (1989). _ ngggnnninn. New York, NY: Hemisphere. Eskridge, C. W. (1989). The extent of rape among college students: An onpiorntory llnalyoil- W. 12. 32-37- Estrich, S. (1987). finnl_gnnn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1976). MW nniin;n_g;ing_;§pn;§_n_12_§. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1980). Qging_in_§ng_flni;ng_§§n§gg; Qnif2;m_gging_;nng;§nL_12§Q. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1982). MW Qn119:m_§£1mg_;npn;§n‘_12§2. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1984). Qgin§_in_§ng_gn1§§g_§§g§g§; . Washington, DC: U. 5. Government Printing Office. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1985). Qgimg_i__§hg_£ni§g§_§£§§§11 Qnif9;n_n;inn_;npn;§§‘_;2§§. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1989). Qging_in_§n§_gnitgg_§§§t§fii Uni;Q;n_g;inn_;npggngn_;2§2. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Feild, H. S. (1978a). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. gournnl n: W. 2.6.. 156—179. Feild, H. S. (1978b). Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape. an nnd gnnnn thnvior, ;, 73-93. Feild, H. 8., and Bienen, L. B. (1980). : ngygnnlggy_nnn_lnn. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Feldman-Summers, 8., and Lindner, x. (1976). Perceptions of victims and defendants in criminal assault cases. Q£LBiBAL.£E§£122.£BQ.B§h§XLQ§r 1' 135-149e Fernberger, S. W. (1948). Persistence of stereotypes concerning sex cliifforonoooo W. 53.. 97- 01. Fishbein, B. A. (1985). New strings on the ivory tower: The growth of accountability in colleges and universities. QQBIQ§1_21_§QLLBQ§_ABQ Wm. 12. 381-398. Fisher, G. J. (1986). College student attitudes toward forcible date ropo- WM. 1.5.. 457-465- Frank, J. (1949). gnn;§§_nn_§;nil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 188 Frazier, P., and Borgida, B. (1988). Juror common understanding and the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence in court. ' 12, 101-122e Freeman, M. A. (1991). Lawmakers consider education bills. HL§EA_£n£nm, 12, 1, 4. Freeman, P. (1990, December 17). Silent no more. Eggplg, pp. 94-104. Fulero, S. M., and Delara, C. (1976). Rape victims and attributed responsibility: A defensive attribution approach. giggimglggyl_nn WW. 1. 551-563. Galvin, J. (1985). Rape: A decade of reform. Q;ing_nng_gglingn§ngx. 11. 163-168. Garrett-Gooding, J., and Senter, R. (1987). Attitudes and acts of sexual aggression on a university campus. finginlnginnl_1ngni;y, 51, 348-371. Gehring, D. D. (1993). Abreast of the law. EA§£A_£QIHQ. 1;, 5, 9-10. George, W. H., Gournic, S. J., and McAfee, M. P. (1988). Perceptions of postdrinking female sexuality: Effects of gender, beverage choice. and drink payment- W. 1.8. 1295-1317- Gerbasi, R. C., Zuckerman, M., and Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Egygnnlngignl_finllg;in, My 323’345e Gibbs, N. (1991, June 3). When is it rape? Ting, pp. 48-54. Gilbert, N. (1991, June 27). The campus rape scare. fln11_§§;ng§_gnnznnl, p. A14. Glass, G. V., and Hopkins, K. D. (1984). §§n§in§ignl_mg§nggn_in egggntign_nng_pnynnnlngy. Bnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Goodchilds, J. D., Zellman, G. L., Johnson, P. B., and Giarrusso, R. (1988). Adolescents and their perceptions of sexual interactions. In 8- w. Burgess (Edd. W (99- 245-270). New York, NY: Garland. Greendlinger, V., and Byrne, D. (1987). Coercive sexual fantasies of college men as predictors of self-reported likelihood to rape and overt sexual aggression. Thg Jougnnl 9: Sex Rgggngcn, 2;, l-ll. Griffin, S. (1975). Rape: The all-american crime. In L. G. Schultz (Bd.), Rens_Yictim91291 (pp. 19-39). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Griffin. 8. (1979)- Wim- San Francisco. CA: Harper and Row. Griffitt, W., and Jackson, T. (1973). Simulated jury decisions: The influence of jury-defendant attitude similiarity-dissimilarity. finginl W. 1. 1-7- Groth. A: N. (1979)- W. New York, NY: Plenum. Groth, A, N., and Birnbaum, H. J. (1980). The rapist: Motivations for sexual violence. In S. L. McCombie (Bd.), In2_reee_sri§i§_intar2enti2n Wm (pp. 17-26)- New York. NY: Plenum. 189 Guartin. W- H-. and Bailey. J- P- (1970) 1nsr2duction.to_modsrn_factor nnnlygig. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers. Guinther, J. (1988). Ing_jngy_in_nmnginn. New York, NY: Facts On File. Guttman, S. (1990, October). Date rape: Does anyone really know what it in? 2112222. PP- 48-51- Hale, M. (1971). in; niggggy 9: EB: 2133s of gnn cgnnn, Vol, I. London, England: Professional Books. Hamilton, D. L. (1979). A cognitive-attributional analysis of stereotyping. In L. Berkowitz (Ed. ), 1921l1_2£¥£h91232 (pp. 53- -84L New York, NY: Adademic Press. Harlow. 0- W- (1991)- zama1s_xictima_of_ziolsns_crime (Publication N0- NCJ-126826). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Harman, H. H. (1976). HQQ:£B.I§£§2I_ADA1Y§11- Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Harris, L. R. (1976). Toward a consent standard in the law of rape. In; Qni2eraitr_ef_§hica92_iew_zeziew. 51. 613-645- Harrison, P. J., Downes, J., and Williams, M. D. (1991). Date and acquaintance rape: Perceptions and attitude change strategies. QQBEBBL Heider, F. (1958). c o r ona t . New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Helms, L. B. (1987). Patterns of litigation in postsecondary education: A case law atudy- 122rna1_2f_Q211292_ang_flnixereitx_nas. 11. 99-119. Hendrix, x. (1991, July 9). Defining controversy: Professor raises furor by claiming date rape statistics are inflated. Ln§_nngnln§_zim§§, pp. 31-32 e Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., and Garofalo, J. (1978). flinging 9: Eggs snnnl nginn; 5n gnpigigal foundation fog n gneory of ngzgnnnl gig;iminn§i_n. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Holmberg, C. B., and MacDonald, W. L. (1990). Student perceptions of assault and date rape. gnnpus Law gngogcgment Jougnal, 2Q, 16-19. Holmes, M. R., and St. Lawrence, J. S. (1983). Treatment of rape-induced trauma: Proposed behavioral conceptualization and review of the literature. Clinignl gsychology Review, ;, 417-433. Holmstrom, L. L., and Burgess, A. W. (1975). Rape: The victim goes on trail. In I. Drapkin and E. Viano (Eds.), Victimology: A new focng: yglnnn_§ (pp. 31-47). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Horsley, K. R. (1988). D m r d re ious factors a d v t d v . Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas, Arlington. Howard, J. A. (1984a). Societal influences on attribution: Blaming some victims more than others. u n son 1 and Earshologx. 11. 494-505. V Howard, J. A. (1984b). The normal victim: The effects of gender Stereotypes on reactions to victims- §22ia1_zaxcholegx_nsarter12. 11. 270-281. n‘J 190 Hueston, H. R., and Burkhart, B. (1986). Acquaintance rape: Developing a oomprah-n-iva provontion program:- W1. 15' 30—33e Hughes, J. O., and Sandler, B. R. (1987). i§_nnpnnn_§n_ynn? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women. Irving, C. (1991, June 2). Date-rape statistics skewed, professor says. QBLEAQQ_IILEBBQ. P- 17- Iversen, G. R., and Norpoth, H. (1987). Annlyni§_nfi_ynginngg. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jenkins, M. J., and Dambrot, F. H. (1987). The attribution of date rape: Observer's attitudes and sexual experiences and the dating system. MW. 11. 875-895. Johnson, A. G. ( 1980). On the prevalence of rape in the United States. W. 8. 136-146. Jones, C., and Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. gnngnnl_nfi_gn;§nnnli§y W. 28. 415-419. Jones, E. E., and Davis, R. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), MW (1313- 219-266) - New York, NY: Academic Press. Julian, F. H. (1992). Abreast of the law. N5§g§_£n;nn, 12, 7. Hahn, A., Gilbert, L. A., Latta, R. M., Deutsch, C., Hagen, R., Hill, M., McGaughey, T., Ryen, A. H., and Wilson, D. W. (1977L Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim: A failure to replicate or extend. BE2£§§§B£l§i.§.8§§£i££h_1n 89.9mm. 8. 98-107- Kalette, D. (1988, October 9). Schools wrestle with rape, the no. 1 crime- W81. p- 138- Kalven, Jr., H., and Zeisel, H. (1966). xng_nng£ignn_jn£y. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Ranekar, 8., and Kolsawalla, M. B. (1977). Responsibility in relation to respectability. Jou a of S c Ps cholo , l 2, 183-188. Ranekar, 8., and Vaz, L. (1983). Determinants of perceived likelihood of rape and victim's fault. MW. 128. 147- 14s. Ranin, E. J. (1957). Male aggression in dating-courtship relations. The W. .68. 197-204. Kanin, E. J. (1967). Reference groups and sex conduct norm violations. I a, 495-504. Xanin, E. J. (1975). Selected dyadic aspects of male sex aggression. In L. G. Schultz (Ed.), 8521.2128182L2QY (pp. 59-76). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Kanin, E. J. (1984). Date rape: Unofficial criminals and victims. 1W. 8. 95- 108. 'U 191 Kanin, E. J., and Parcell, S. R. (1977). Sexual aggression: A second look at tho offended fanala- WM. 8. 67-76. Kaplin, W. A. (1985). Law on the campus 1960-1985: Years of growth and chalionqo- We. 12. 269-299. Kaplin, W. A. (1939)oIhI_1§H_2£_h1§h1£_£§!£A£128- San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kaplan, M. F., and Miller, L. E. (1987). Reducing the effects of juror bias. In L. S. Wrightsman, S. M. Kassin, and C.E. Willis (Eds.), In MW (99- 114-137)- Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Katz, D., and Allport, F. H. (1931). figng§n§§;_n§§i§ngnn. Syracuse, NY: Craftsman Press. Katz, 8., and Mazur, M. A. (1979L W W New York. NY: John Wiley and Sons: Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. Anngignn mm. 2.8. 107-128. Kerr, N. L., and Kurtz, S. T. (1977). Effects of a victim's suffering and respectability on mock juror judgements: Further evidence on the just world thaory- WW. 8. 42-56. Kerstetter, W. A. (1990). Criminology: Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutorial response to sexual assaults against women. Ihn_gnnznn1 , 51, 267-313. Kirkpatrick, C., and Kanin, E. (1957). Male sex aggression on a university campus. nnngignn §ogiglogical Review, 2;, 52-58. Klemmack, S. H., and Klemmack, D. L. (1976). The social definition of rape. In M. J. Walker and S. L. Brodsky (Eds.), §§§§§1_L§§3§1§1_1h§ 212§1m_§ng_§h§_nnpin§ (pp. 135-147L Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Knox, D., and Wilson, K. (1983). Dating problems of university students. W531: 11. 225-228. Korman, S. K., and Leslie, G. R. (1982). The relationship of feminist ideology and date expense sharing to perceptions of sexual aggression in dating- W. 1.8. 114-129. Rose, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal and situational characteristics. ggygn219gy_2£_flgmgg_gg§£§§£12. 2. 193-212. Rose, M. P. (1988). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education. In A. W. Burgess (3a.), W1 (99- 1-25)- New York. NY: Garland. Rose, M. P. (1992). Rape on campus: Facts and measures. Blnnning_zn; O I 29, 21-28. Rose, M. P., and Dinero, T. E. (1988). Predictors of sexual aggression among a national sample of male college students. finnnn_§nnnnl W! 5.2.8.. 133-147 0 Rose, M. P., and Dinero, T. E. (l989) Discriminant analysis of risk factors for sexual victimization among a national sample of college mm W. .51. 242-250. ‘3 192 Ross, M. P., and Gidycz, C.A. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity- 822rn21_2I_2222212122.:nd_21121221_ 2212821221. 88. 422-423- Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., and Wisniewski, N. (1987).The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Jo o 222.21121221_2212821221. 88. 162-170- Koss, M. P., and Harvey, M. R. (1987). v - o t. Lexington, MA: Stephen Greene. Koss, M. P., and Leonard, K. E. (1984). Sexually aggressive men: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. In N. M. Malamuth and 8. Donneratoin (Ed-.). 22rn22ra281.222.221181_222222212n (pp- 213- 232). New York, NY: Academic. Koss, M. P., Leonard, K. E., Breezley, D. A., and Oros, C. J. (1985). Nonstranger sexual aggression: A discriminant analysis of the psychological characteristics of undetected offenders. §g5_finlnn;_5 gnngnnl of Reseagcn, 11, 981-992. Rose, M. P., and Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization- 821rna1_2f_22n2212in2.222_21ini221_£212h21221. 88. 455-457. Krasner, W., Meyer, L. C., and Carroll, N. E. (1976). Vinnimn_nfi_gnnn (Stock No. 017-024-00683-1). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Krulewitz, J. E., and Nash, J. E. (1979). Effects of rape victim resistance, assault outcome, and sex of observer on attributions about rape. 8212221_2f_22222221121. 81. 557-574- Krulewitz, J. E., and Payne, E. J. (1978). Attributions about rape: Effects of rapist force, observer sex and sex role attitudes. inngnnl 2f.8221122_822121_£212821221. 8. 291-305- LaFree, G. D. (1980). Variables affecting guilty pleas and convictions in rape cases: Toward a social theory of rape processing. 822i21 29:93:: An 1858282219821 Jougnn; 9f Socinl Reseagcn, 58, 833-850. LaFree, G. D. (1981). Official reactions to social problems: Police decisions in sexual assault cases. 822121.22281222. 28, 582-594. LaFree, G. D. (1989). gang nng criminnl jnstice: :ne nocinl nonaggnggign Qt nnnunl nnsaul . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. LaFree, G. D., Reskin, B. F., and Visher, C. A. (1985). Jurors‘ responses to victims' behavior and legal issues in sexual assault traila- 822121.22281222. 82. 389-407. Lancaster, J. M., Cooper, D. L., and Harman, A. E. (1993). Current practices in student disciplinary administration. 88828.8222881. 3Q! 108-119e Langer, E., Blank, A., and Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of placebic information in interpersonal interaction. a e n t c 2212221221. 88. 635-642. 9.1 193 LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N., and Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living the sexual script: College students' views of influence in sexual encounter» 11W. 18. 338-355- Largen, M. A. (1988). Rape law reform. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Bnpg_nng W (919- 271-292). Now York. NY: Garland- L'Armand, K., and Pepitone, A. (1982). Judgments of rape: A study of victim-rapist relationship and victim sexual history. 222898211§Y_ABQ Win. 8. 134-139- Larrabee, M. J., and McGeorge, S. A. (1989). Date rape: Understanding the acquaintance assault phenomenon. 22' 1-16. ev . Latourette, A. W., and King, R. D. (1988). Judicial intervention in the student-university relationship: Due process and contract theories. W191. 88. 199-258. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (1972)- MW - ca e . Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Statistics. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (1974). gginn_in_§ng_nn§ign;n e t. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer's reward and attractiveness. ggn;nn1_n§_£g£ngnnli§y_nng W. 1. 355-360. Lerner, M. J. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In J- Naoaulay and L- Berkowitz (Eda-h WWW (pp. 205-229). New York, NY: Academic Press. Lerner, M. J. (1980)- W gnlnninn. New York, NY: Plenum. Park, CA: Sage. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1990). nppligd neggggsion: An intgodngginn. Newbury Lindemann, B. s. (1984). To ravish and carnally know: Rape in eighteenth-century Nacaachuaotta- 8W ’ .12. 63-82e Loh, W. D. (1981). Q: What has reform of rape legislation wrought? A: Truth in criminal labelling. gnngnnl_gj_§ngin1_1g§nn§, :1, 28-52. Long, N. T. (1985). The standard of proof in student disciplinary cases. W V g 1.2., 71-81e Lott, 8., Reilly, M. E., and Howard, D. R. harassment: A campus community case study. (1982). Sexual assault and 8: W851. 8. 296-319. Lunnenborg, P. W. (1970). Stereotypic aspect in masculinity-femininity manuromant. MW. 88. 113- 113. MacKinnon, C. A. (1983). Feminism, marxism, method, and the state: 8221281. 8. 635-658. Toward feminist jurisprudence- Wham 194 Mahoney, E. R., Shively, M. D., and Traw, M. (1986). Sexual coercion and assault: Male socialization and female risk. finngnl_gggrgign_gng M22212. 1. 2-7- Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. 3 -11C1 - .0. , 1Q, 97- 102. Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. inngnnl_nfi_§nginl IIIHSI. 31. 138-157- Malamuth, N. M., and Check, J. V. P. (1980). Penile tumescence and perceptual responses to rape as a function of victim's perceived roactiona- 822W. 18. 528-547- Malamuth, N. M., Haber, S., and Feshbach, S. (1980). Testing hypotheses regarding rape: Exposure to sexual violence, sex differences, and the normality of rapists. W. 1.4. 121-137. Marsh, J. C., Geist, A., and Caplan, N. (1982). Bnpg_nng_§ng_1imi§§_gfi lnn_gnjggm. Boston, MA: Auburn House. Mazelan, P. M. (1980). Stereotypes and perceptions of the victims of rape: Wren. 8. 121-132. McCahill, T. W., Meyer, L. C., and Fischman, A. M. (1979). 188.2I821m288 gfi_£npg. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. McCauley, C., Stitt, C. L., and Segal, M. (1980). Stereotyping: From prejudice to prediction. 28128219912§1_§2112818. 81, 195-208. McCormick, N. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students' strategies for having and avoiding sexual intercourse. znygnnlngy_nfi 82922.922282211. 8. 194-211- McDermott, M. T. (1979). we t - 91513; (Publication No. SD-VAD-G). Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. McDonald, K. (1988, January 13). Male students who commit date rape found to have callous sexual attitudes. The cngnnicln n: gigngg 8212:2128. p- 835- McGraw, T. M. (1987). t b t 8 ns bi t W: Unpublished master's thesis, Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas. McKee, J. P., and Sherriffs, A. C. (1957). The differential evaluation of males and females. Wins-1. 28. 356-371- Medea, A., and Thompson, K. (1974). Agnin§§_;nng. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Metzger, D. (1976). It is always the woman who is raped. Tnn_nmggignn W. 188. 405-408- Michigan Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights Act. (1992). House Bill No. 5624. Miohigan Public not: NO- 266. (1974)- WWW. 195 Miller, B. (1988). Date rape: Time for a new look at prevention. igngnni 2f_2211222.8212228_82121222222. 22. 553-555. Miller, 8., and Marshall, J. C. (1987). Coercive sex on the university campua- 821rna1_2f_2211222.8222222_£22282221. 28. 38-47. Miller, D. T., and McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. gnginni_gg_£g;ngnnii§y_nng 822121.2212821221. 88. 298-305. Miller, F. D., Smith, E. R., Ferree, M. M., and Taylor, S. E. (1976). Predicting perceptions of victimization. Qgngnni_gfi_nnpiigg_§ggini £212h21221. 8. 352-359. Morrison, C. H. (1980). A cultural perspective on rape. In S. L. McCombie (Ed.), : (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Plenum. Mosher, D. L., and Anderson, R. D. (1986). Macho personality, sexual aggression, and reactions to guided imagery of realistic rape. ' E, 77-94e Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). Misinterpreted dating behavior and the risk of data raPO- 821rna1_2f_822ia1_8ng_21121221_£212821221. 8. 20-37. Muehlenhard, C. L., and Cook, S. W. (1988). Men's self-reports of unwanted sexual activity. Thg Jougnni of Sex geseaggn, 21, 58-72. Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., and Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? Egygngiggy gt flomen anggerly, 2, 297-310. Muehlenhard, C. L., and Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to aox- 821rna1_2f_22r22n81i21.828.822121_2212821221. 81. 872-879. Muehlenhard, C. L., and Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. igngnni .21.2222221122_£212821221. 88. 186-196. Muehlenhard, C. L., and Miller, E. N. (1988). Traditional and nontraditional men's responses to women's dating initiation. 8282112281_828181228122. 12. 385-403- Muehlenhard, C. L., and Scardino, T. J. (1985). What will he think? Men's impressions of women who initiate dates and achieve academically. gongnai g; Counseling Psychoiogy, 22, 560-569. NA8BA_£2282. (1991). Congressman introduces sexual assault bill. Ti, 1' 3e HL§£A_Tg£nn. (1992). Campus safety and security update. 12, 8. National Association for WOmen in Education. (1992). Congress requires campus sexual assault policies. fingnn_flgnnn_gn_gnmpgn, 2, 1. National Association for Women in Education. (1993). Sexual assault. W I 2! 1'2. National Victim Center- (1992)- 8a22_in_8m2ri22i_8_282822_22_282_222122- Arlington, VA: National Victim Center. :0 196 O'Gorman, H. J. (1975). Pluralistic ignorance and white estimates of white rapport for racial leer-cation- 212112.8212121_922222211. 82. 313-330. Orzek, A. M. (1983). Use of rape crisis center services by a university oomnunity- 82urn21_2f.2211222_8222222_£22228821. 28. 465-466. Pace, D., and Zaugra, J. (1988). Model of a date rape workshop for 9011090 campuses. 821rna1.2f_2211222_8822222_22121228222. 22. 371-372- Parrot, A. (1991a). Institutional response: How can acquaintance rape be prevented? In A. Parrot and L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Thg_higg§n_g;imn (pp. 355-367). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Parrot, A. (1991c). Medical community response to acquaintance rape- recommendations. In A. Parrot and L. Bechhofer (Eds.), 823821882883 gnp§i_Tng_nigggn_g£img (pp. 304-316). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Parrot, A. (l99lbL Recommendations for college policies and procedures to deal with acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot and L. Bechhofer (Eds.), : (pp. 368-380). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). fignnggiiggg_njjng;n gnnggnng. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pavela, G. (1992a). Should colleges resolve sexual assault cases? gyntnggis: an and golicy in gigngg Educntion, 5, 276-278. Pavela, G. (1992b, July 29). Today's college students need both freedom and structure. Tng Ongonigie o; fligngr zdncntion, pp. 81-82. Peterson, S. A., and Franzese, B. (1987). Correlates of college men's sexual abuse of women. rn Co 1 tude t so , 22, 223- 228. Phares, E. J., and Wilson, K. G. (1972). Responsibility attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control. gournai o: gersonnii y, 1Q, 392-406. Picozzi, J. M. (1987). University disciplinary process: What's fair, what's due, and what you don't get. The Yaig Law gongnni, 2;, 2132- 2161. Pineau, L. (1989). Date rape: A feminist analysis. Lnnnnng_£niigngnny, g, 217-243. Polk, K. (1985). Rape reform and criminal justice processing. Q;ing_nng 82112212821. 81. 191-205. Praeger Publishers. (1977). W 's r t d h w: T f 282_888_28_28822_12_8- New York. NY: Praeger- Prentice, D. A., and Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm- 821rna1_2f_22r22881121_222_822121_2212821221. 88. 243-256. Quackenbush, R. L. (1987). e e e am andro u - 19110-10-1- - —° II- :3 01 61198 01— 0 0 01-; gnng. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. 197 Rapaport, N., and Burkhart, B. R. (1984). Personality and attitudinal characteristics of sexually coercive college men. EIXEBQLQQII 21: 215-221- Redford, N. B. (1989). Pennsylvania's college and university security information act: The effect of campus security legislation on university liability for campus crime. Qigkigggn_ngg_gggigg, 21, 179- 197. Reidhaar, D. L. (1985). The assault on the citadel: Reflections on a quarter century of change in the relationships between the student and the university- WM. 12. 343- 351. Reiff, a. (1979). b ’s W- New York. NY: Basic Books. Reskin, B. P., and Visher, C. A. (1986). The impacts of evidence and extralegal factors in jurors' decisions. ng_and_§ggig§y_flggigg, 29, 423-438. Reynolds, D. E., and Sanders, N. S. (1975). Effect of defendant attractiveness, age, and injury on severity of sentence given by Iimulat-d juror-o W. 2Q. 149-150. Reynolds, N. (1974). Rape as social control. Catalyst, g, 62-67. Richardson, D., and Campbell, J. (1982). The effect of alcohol on the attributions of blame for rape. t d a m: g: 468’476 0 Richardson, D. R., and Hammock, G. S. (1991). Alcohol and acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot and L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Aggg;ig§gngg_;§pgl_1hg gigggg_g;igg (pp. 83-95). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Richmond, A. E. (1980). Rape law and the judicial process. In S. L. McCombie (Ed.), in e v giggig_gg£g (pp. 79-95). New York, NY: Plenum. Roark, M. L. (1989). Sexual violence. In J. M. Sherrill and D. G. Siegel (Eds.), es nd to v (PP. 41-52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Robin, G. D. (1977). Forcible rape: Institutional sexism in the criminal juntic- system. W. 2.1. 136-153- Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel. 5., Bee, H., Broverman, 1., and Broverman, D. H. (1968). Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. W. 3.2. 287-295. Russell, D. B. H. (1975). i of re : T v ' peggpgggiyg. New York, NY: Stein and Day. Russell, D. E. H. (1982). The prevalence and incidence of forcible rape and attempted rape of females. V o : Inte a , 1, 81-93 Russell, D. E. H., and Howell, N. (1983). The prevalence of rape in the United states reviated. WWW 1921351. 1. 688—695 . \/Sanday, P. R. (1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross- cultural study- W. 17.. 5-27. 198 Sandberg, G., Jackson, T. L., and Petretic-Jackson, P. (1987). College students‘ attitudes regarding sexual coercion and aggression: Developing educational and preventive strategies. ggttaa1_gt_g91;aga Singan§_za£agnnal. 2Q. 302-311- Scheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W., and Ott, L. (1990). llamantaty_aatyay gangling. Boston, MA: PWS-Rent. Schultz, L. G., and DeSavage, J. (1975). Rape and rape attitudes on a college campus. In L. G. Schultz (Ed.), Bapa_yattigglagy (pp. 77-90). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Schwendinger, J. R., and Schwendinger, B. (1974). Rape myths: In legal, theoretical, and everyday practice. Grime_and_égsial_lua§isa. 1, 18- 26. Scroggs, J. R. (1976). Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance. i23rnal.2£.bnpliad_§9£ial Paxshglgsx. Q. 360-368. Scully, D., and Narolla, J. (1984). Convicted rapists' vocabulary of motive: Excuses and justifications. §9cial Ptoblema, Qt, 530-544. Searles, P., and Berger, R. J. (1987). The current status of rape reform legislation: An examination of state statutes. EQEQDL2_BLQBSE_L§! BQPQ££§£. 19. 25-43- Seiverd N- D- (1989) A2guaintaa2a_rana1_Atiribnti2n_gf_blama_aa_a functi- = t'6 I -2: - :12..~ talatfigns hing, agg ago aptance oft intar rparsonaL vioiaaga. Unpublished master' s thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Selby, J. W., Calhoun, L. G., and Brock, T. A. (1977). Sex differences in the social perception of rape victims. sonal 2122121232.:1112111. 1. 412-415. Seligman, C., Brickman, J., and Xoulack, D. (1977). Rape and physical attractiveness: Assigning responsibility to victims. £22:nal.2£ Paragnali_x. 15. 554-563. Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. {Qataa1_gfi EEIEQQQLLtY and Sogial Psychongy, 11, 101-113. Shaver, K. G. (1975). o c at buti . Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. Shaw, J. I., and Skolnick, P. (1971). Attribution of responsibility for a happy accident. 12arnal_2f_2ara2aalitx_aag_§ggial_zaxshglggx. 1Q, 380-383. Sherman, B. (1985, October 23). A new recognition of the realities of date rape- Th2_Nar_12£L_Timaa. pp- C1. 014- Sherriffs, A. C., and Jarrett, R. F. (1953). Sex differences in attitudes about sex differences. Ita_gga;ga1_gfi_£§xtnglggx, 35, 161- 168. Sherriffs, A. C., and chee, J. P. (1957). Qualitative aspects of beliefs about men and women. agatnal_gfi_gatagaa;aty, afi, 451-464. 199 Shotland, R. L., and Goodstein, L. (1983). Just because she doesn't want to doesn't mean it's rape: An experimentally based causal model of the perception of rape in a dating situation. £92131.2!Y2h9199!.93§£§§£11. aa, 220-232. Sigall, M., and Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgement. J22rnal_2f_22r22a2litx.an§.§22ial.2222h2l2gx. 11. 410-414. Simon. R- J- (1980)- Ih2_1nrx1_It2_r212_in_am2212an_2221221- Lexington. MA: Lexington Books. Singleton, R., and Christiansen, J. B. (1977). The construct validation of a shortform attitudes toward feminism scale. figtiglggy_an§_§gttal B2a2ar2h1_An_Intarnati2nal_12urnal. §1o 294-303. Skelton, C. A., and Burkhart, B. R. (1980). Sexual assault: Determinants of victim diacloaure- 2riminal_luasi2a_an2_32haxi2r. 1. 229-236. Smith, E. R., Ferree, M. M., and Miller, P. D. (1975). A short scale of attitudes toward feminism. B22r2222t22122.5222212n_in_§22ial £222h2l222. 2. 51-56. Smith, M. C. (l988).§gping with ttima on campus. New York, NY: Macmillan. Smith, M. J. (1983). 7:. - - : : :- Au: --- 1 9L: . . npublished doctoral dissertation, Arkansas, Fayetteville. 051...;119 61'” Smith, R. 8., Meeting, J. P., Hester, R. R., and Mitchell, H. B. (1976). Role and justice considerations in the attribution of responsibility to a rape victim. Jouraal of Raseaggh it Persogality, 1Q, 346-357. Snelling, H. A. (1975). What is non-consent (in rape)? In L. G. Schultz (Ed.), Bapa_tattamglagy (pp. 157-163). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Spence, J., and Helmreich, R. (1972). The attitudes toward women scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. C o o e e t D222m2222_12_£2x2n21222. 2. 66. Squitieri, T. (1992, April 20). Plague of crime more violent. Q§L_Igaay, p. 1A. Stamatakos, T. C. (1990). The doctrine of in loco parentis, tort liability and the student-college relationship. IQQLQD§_LQ!_122£DQL. 55, 471-490. Steiner, C. (1989). Pursuit of knowledge or pursuit of suspects: Rights, legalities, liabilities. In J. M. Sherrill and D. G. Siegel (Bds.). B2222n2ing_22_xi212222_22_222222 (pp- 65-75)- San Francisco. ca: Jossey-Bass. Stephan, C. (1974). Sex prejudice in jury simulation. Tta_ggttnal_at 2222221221. 22. 305-312. Stephan, C. (1975). Selective characteristics of jurors and litigants: Their influences on juries' verdicts. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), Th2_iurx 222t2a_ia_aa2ri221_a_2riti221_222£2122 (pp. 97-121)- Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. 200 Stoner, B. N., and Cerminara, x. L. (1990). Harnessing the spirit of insubordination: A model student disciplinary code. W. 11. 89-121. Swem, L. L. (1987). Due process rights in student disciplinary matters. W. 11. 359-382 . Szablewicz, J. J., and Gibbs, A. (1987). Colleges' increasing exposure to liability: The new in loco parentis. J I w du , \éetreault, P. A., and Barnett, M. A. (1987). Reactions to stranger and acquaintance rape. W. 12.. 353-358. The Nation- (1992. Anon-t 26)- WW Alum. p- 3- Thornton, B. (1977). Effect of rape victim's attractiveness in a jury Imulation- MW. 1. 666-669. Thornton, 8., Robbins, M. A., and Johnson, J. A. (l981). Social perception of the rape victim's culpability: The influence of respondents’ personal-environmental causal attribution tendencies. , 11, 225-237. Thornton, 3., Ryckman, R. M., and Robbins, M. A. (1982). The relationships of observer characteristics to beliefs in the causal responsibility of victims of sexual assault. gamaa_§alatiang, 1;, 321- 330. Tieger, T. (1981). Self-reported likelihood of raping and the social perception of rape- W. 15. 147-158. Tolor, A. (1978). Women's attitudes toward forcible rape. QQEEBDLSY W. 11. 116-122. Tong, R. (1984). ngaa, 593: and the la . Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld. Turney, B., and Robb, G. (1971). d c tion: c n. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden. Vidmar, N. (1972). Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors. J urna t , 22, 211-218. w. (1975). Recent statutory developments in the definition of forcible rape. t1, 1500-1543. Wagner, E. N. (1991, August 7). Campus victims of date rape should consider civil lawsuits as alternatives to criminal charges or colleoee' proceduree- WW. 9- 82- Walster, B. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. WW. 1. 73-79. Walster, E. (1967). Second-guessing important events. flaman_fialatign§, 29, 239-250. Ward, D., and Balswick, J. (1978). Strong men and virtuous women: A content analysis of sex roles stereotypes. Bati£12_§9§1219912§1 IEELW' ll, 45-6Se 201 Ward, 8. N., Chapman, R., Cohn, E., White, 8., and Williams, R. (1991). Acquaintance rape and the college social scene. ' fl, 65-71e Warshaw, R. (1988). 1.92122_221122_it_r222. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Weis, M., and Borges, S. S. (1973). Victimology and rape: The case of the legitimate victim W221. 2. 71-115. Weld, M. P., and Danzig, E. R. (1968). A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), 1ha_agt;alggy_gfi lag (pp. 83-93). San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Wigmore, J. M. (1935). ' o the w c . Brooklyn, NY: The Foundation Press. b/fiWilliams, J. B. (1979). Sex role stereotypes, women's liberation and rape: A cross-cultural analysis of attitudes. agatglagital_§ympgaitm, 25' 61-97e Williams, R. M. (1976). The effects of victim characteristics on the disposition of violent crimes. In W. P. McDonald (Ed.), gttmthal WM (pp. 177-213)- Beverly Hills. CA: Sage- Williams, L. S. (1984). The classic rape: When do victims report? £22111 2:221:11. 3.1. 460-467- .\ Wilson, R., Faison, R., and Britton, G. M. (1983). Cultural aspects of male sex aggression. Q21ian2_£2h2112r. 5, 241-255. Wilson, P. R. (1978). Tha_gthat_aaga_91_tapa. St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland. Wilson, W., and Durrenberger, R. (1882). Comparison of rape and attempted rape victima- W. 5.9. 198- Wishman, s. (1986). Aa222m1_2f_2_12r1- New York, NY: Times Books. Wong, P. T. P., and Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask ”why" questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. 222rnal_2£_£2222aalitx_ang W. 52. 650-663. Wood, P. L. (1973). The victim in a forcible rape case: A feminist View. W. 11.. 335-354. Wrightsman, L. s., Kassin, S. M., and Willis, C. E. (1987). 12.222.1211 hog: CQDtEQVQEQLEQ Lh the cogtttagh. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. . (1972). The rape corroboration requirement: Repeal not reform. t1, 1365-1391. Yegidis, B. (1986). Date rape and other forced sexual encounters among college students. Se duc on and h , 12, 51-54. MICHIGAN sms UNIV. LIBRARIES \I|}|WImllll”IWWI“MlH‘WWIWIIII‘IHHI 31293010330383