THESts Date 0-7639 lllllllllllllllllllllllllll‘llllllllllllllllllll 31293 0139 96 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Family Paradigms and Their Effect on Reporting Date Rape presented by Karen Thea triandson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters—— degree in .mmmmication Major professor 7/25/95 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State Unlverslty PLACE II RETURN BOX to roman this checkout from your ncord. TO AVOTD FINES return on or before date duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE : , APR '03 19991 m. I ' "J‘s ‘ 3} Efé 7‘9.) r vd .‘ar'h ' MAGIEZ FAMILY PARADIGMS AND THEIR EFFECT ON REPORTING DATE RAPE By Karen Thea Erlandson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication Arts and Sciences 1995 ABSTRACT FAMILY PARADIGMS AND THEIR EFFECT ON REPORTING DATE RAPE By Karen Thea Erlandson Decades of research has been conducted on date rape. It has focused on all areas from the victim, the perpetrator, jury reactions and judgements, and more. On reviewing the mass of literature, a hole began to emerge. There seems to be an entire area that has been largely neglected; namely, why is rape so underreported? While some studies provide suggestions, or conjecture to attempt to answer this, it appears that few, if any, studies focus solely on this aspect and direct specific questions to victims who chose to remain silent. The present study was designed to fill this hole by A) asking victims of date rape what factors they believed influenced their decision to report the rape or not, B) determining if family type of the victim influences the decision to report and C) determining if family type influences the reasons cited by the victims to report or not. Data will be collected from 2-300 students at a large midwestern University. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my mom, dad, Debbie, Kris, Stephanie, and all of my other friends who supported me and helped me through the last two years. I love you all. I would also like to thank my committee for all of their help and guidance. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Factors That May Have an Effect on Reporting . Family Paradigms Paradigm, Regime and Process Types of Paradigms Rationale and Hypotheses Research Questions Research Participants Procedures Independant Measures Dependant Measures Preliminary Analysis Tests of Research Questions and Hypothesis Subsidiary Analysis Discussion Implications for Further Study List of References iv l-‘OOOOflNt-d 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 33 Figure 1 Figure 2 LIST OF FIGURES Introduction Rape is the most underreported (and most frequently occurring) violent crime in the US. (FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1989). Several studies generate fairly consistent statistics showing report rates around 10% (Warshaw, 1988; FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1989; Madigan and Gamble, 1989). However, few have explored why this report rate is so low and even fewer have utilized direct methods such as asking victims themselves why they decided not to report. Only one such study could be found in which teenagers were asked why they chose not to tell their parents about their sexual assault. In the remainder of the studies, reasons given for the lack of reporting were based on statements made during other interview questions and analysis of victim treatment in various settings (Warshaw, 1988,; Madigan & Gamble, 1989,; Koss & Harvey, 1991,; Bass & Thornton, 1983). Several studies have attempted to find a common set of characteristics that would set victims apart from non-victims, but no such set has been found. Victims appear to be heterogeneous as a group, they are from all ages, races and socioeconomic status' (Warshaw, 1988; Madigan & Gamble, 1989). Theflstudiesithgilggk at victim characteristics, however, ignore a potentially powerful predictorofépel’sons 993,911,985 anddECiSion makingznamely, support networks such as the family. Research in family and child ecology documents the fact that family plays a significant role in shaping one's attitude about rape and sexuality (Constantine, 1986). Family also plays a major role in one's decision making. 2 Because the decision to report rape isQased,,inflpartonattitudes towardssex and decisignwmaking, and giventhat family WPQE?“ important determinant of attitudes towards sex and decision making, study. The following paper will investigate this relationship. first; this paper will address some of the..suggestedreasonsmfpr 121.915.- 9f {99er ratethat arefcilndiniheiiteratttre. Next. relevant research concerning family type will be discussed, and a scale designed to measure family type will be introduced. Pigtail)? a rationale will be provided for why the variables discussed will relate in the predigteggway, and specific research questions and hypotheses will be posed. \ /Factors That May Have an Effect on Rep_orting. ill} Not able to label the experience as rape. From the literature which does address the issue of reporting, several, theories have been 99939992 to wllxtllerepert rates eraselgw- Some researchers suggest that many victims do not know what has happened to them was rape (Warshaw, 1988). In the book, I Never Called It Rape, it was found that of the women surveyed in this study only twenty ru- seven percent of them whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims (Warshaw, 1988). It is reasonable to conclude that if one does not know what they have experienced is a crime, they would have no logical reason to pursue a police report. Studies have also shown that misconceptions about what rape is may affect women's ability to label their experience as rape. For example, it is commonly thought that rape occurs in dangerous 3 surroundings and can be committed only by a stranger. Many people assume as well that rapists have psychopathic personalities (Warshaw, 1988; Madigan & Gamble, 1989; Burt 1990; Koss & Harvey, 1991). If a women who is raped on a date believes these myths, it would be hard for her to accept that her experience with a "respectable" man was a rape. Q Fear of harsh and unfair treatment. A victim's fear that she would suffer some kind of negative consequence as a result of reporting was suggested by many researchers as a reason why women do not report.(Warshaw, 1988; Madigan & Gamble, 1989; McCaul et. al., 1990; Koss & Harvey, 1991; Bass & Thornton 1983). This variable included fear of not being believed, fear of being blamed, fear the perpetrator will try to get even, fear of the trial process, and fear of the futility of reporting. The first fear may be the fear of not being believed. Warshaw submitted this was the greatest fear of rape survivors (Warshaw, 1988). She came to this conclusion as a result of her own experiences, and from interviews with other rape survivors who mentioned they were afraid no one would believe them. 1110th believed can heel very negative experience- for. aweman. If the police do not believe her, her case will not be tried in court. If her friends do not believe her, they may think she is trying to be vicious to one of their peers and treat her with disdain. If her parents do not believe her, they will find out she is sexually active; a fact she may not otherwise have wanted them to know (Madigan & Gamble, 1989). Another fear a victim may have is not only not being believed, but actually being blamed for what happened. Often when a women 4 reports a rape she is met with attitudes such as, "How did you get yourself into this mess honey?", "What did you expect dear?", and "You were teasing him, how could he help being excited? (Madigan & Gamble, 1989)" Victim's fears in this area may not be unfounded. Third party assessment studies have shown that people often do not believe a rape occurred, and may assign blame to the victim when there has been a degree of victim "misconduct". Different kinds of perceived misconduct include hitchhiking, drinking, and seductive clothing. Other factors, such as victims delay in reporting, a prior relationship with the perpetrator, and absence of a weapon all were found to be associated with more assignment of blame on the victim (Warshaw, 1988). Another study showed that forseeability and some degree of pleasure was cause for blame to be assigned to the victim ( McCaul et.a1., 1990). A look at a highly publicized trial, the New Bedford Rape trial, shows how serious blaming the victim can become. A women was gang raped at a bar, and by the end of the trial, some of the jurors thought she should stand trial for corrupting the boys who raped her (Koss & Harvey, 1991). Women already typically feel guilty and ashamed after a sexual violation, being blamed by the people who are supposed to help may seem like too much of a risk and too painful for the victim (Bass & Thornton, 1983). Many women also fear that the perpetrator will come after them to get even for their reporting. Police cannot offer much protection for victims who report, often providing only an occasional drive by the victim's home (Madigan & Gamble, 1989). Many women, since they knew their attacker, live close by and must see 5 their attacker all the time. If she has reported him, seeing him can become very uncomfortable and often dangerous (Warshaw, 1988). Many women also fear the trial process. Trying to establish the victim as a seductress and a bad person is a common strategy for many defense attorneys. Details of her sexual past either with the perpetrator or others may become public. People in the community may turn against her and she may be ridiculed by her peers (Warshaw, 1988). Some women also may fear the futility of reporting. She may go through the whole ordeal of a trial and chances are good she will lose her case. Only two out of one hundred cases gets a conviction (Madigan & Gamble, 1989). If a women fears that reporting the rape will not lead to a conviction, she may not see the advantages of telling her story and having a voice as outweighing the disadvantages of enduring a hard trial with the possibility of losing her case. 6) Self-blame. A third factor that seems to have an effect on report rates was self-blame. Most women feel some sense of self- blame after a sexual assault has occurred (Koss & Harvey, 1990). “A“ small amount of self-blame can be very useful in a women' s ‘V'w-lr—lJ-r“ " > ”n ”M wmf.‘ - a” recovery. To illustrate this point, suppose a women goes into a man' s 253(52111 alone and is raped. If she feels she is responsible for this rape because she went into his apartment, this is a behavior she can change. If she can change that behavior she can feel secure that this crime will not happen again. However, if she feels that there was nothing different she could have done to prevent this crime from being committed against her, the crime becomes a random act. A random act can happen again and she will feel no sense of control. It ,.-/ i / ‘1“ \ 6 is when this self-blame is taken to an extreme that it becomes a problem. If a women feels she is totally respon51ble for what 1..- «"C v l ‘m ~“-\'. happened we will see stronger self-blame and presumablv a ‘x'flfm mefi’ (1635.93.55 in likel1hood to report. Often the same factors that affect police and jury judgments of blame also affect a women's attribution of blame. Recall that victim misconduct, delay in reporting, prior relationship with perpetrator, absence of weapon, degree of enjoyment and forseeability were all factors that lead to attribution of blame to the victim ( Warshaw, 1988; McCaul et.al. 1990). Many women also hold these beliefs. Therefore, if the victim had been drinking, if she accompanied the perpetrator willingly to his apartment and enjoyed kissing him, she may feel responsible for what happened. She may think, "I shouldn't have been alone in his apartment", "I should have been able to control him" and similar reasoning. Healthy self-blame, however, would be followed by comments such as, " but that doesn' t mean he WM. run-w MM wwo‘v'qfw )W had the right to'gomwhat he gig}; Several other studies demonstrated that women often feel responsible for what has happened (Warshaw, 1988, Madigan & Gamble, 1989; Koss & Harvey, 1991; Bass & Thornton, 1983). f ' Although Jhese variables, not labeling theexperienceasrape, fe_a..r...Qf,h.arsh andunfair treatment, and Self-blamellflysanP§fiteé in th§._ll§§F3tP.lT€...in relation thacls QixethiiIig, this research¢§P§h§Yesg 1 “there” may be one moreimmrtantmcqnsidetawfigh. These factors may” indeed negatively affect reporting, but it is possible that a women may report feeling afraid she will be treated negatively, and still chose to report the incident. What makes the women who will report ”WWW-F. «I WM- d.~_ to police despitg£99.15?PIQQEHLQQIQ-I139.._YYQIII§D..W.99I€POIT the 7 same fears and decide not to report? This study suggests that the victims' family type will have an important impact on her decision. To clarify this belief, a brief review of the literature on families which is relevant to this study will be discussed next. Family Paradigms. lmszétetgldokmatreporting139938 a Communicatlglfliféfllfil it is t1§£§$§fll3iig.Qetettmine how and where peopledevelop'their compnnigationpattems. Families of origin have an immense influence on how we communicate and what wecommunicate about. A family's desires, expectations and goals all have an effect on an individual's actions and choices (Constantine, 1986). Therefore, families may have an influence on whether or not a woman chooses to report a date rape, so it is logical to examine the family's role in developing communication patterns. There are several different theories that attempt to explain family functioning. This paper will utilize the paradigmatic approach to families developed by Constantine in Family Paradigms, (1986). Paradigmatic theory was constructed by Constantine as an attempt to unify several existing theories in family study. He calls this approach Unified Family Theory. His work incorporates work done by researchers such as David Reiss, and Kantor and Lehr. Constantine states, " Family paradigms provide an integrative framework for ordering and understanding the diversity of ways that families and family therapists construe and organize their collective experience" ( 1993). It is this integrative framework that will be used in this paper. The following section of this paper will 8 describe paradigmatic theory as proposed by Constantine and provide a brief description of four types of paradigms. Paradigm, Regime and Process A paradigm is a world view. It is an image shared by the family of what a family is and how it perceives its environment (Constantine, 1986). We can not see a paradigm. What we can see are observable, redundant, repeated patterns or mechanisms that seem to regulate behavior. This set of mechanisms is what Constantine calls a regime. The behavior and interaction that is regulated is process. As Constantine puts it, " Paradigms are reflected in process through regimes, the regulatory mechanisms that generate and sustain patterned collective behavior (1986, pg.16)." A paradigm, than, is a world view and research such as Constantine's suggest there are four such world views. Types of Paradigms Three of the four original paradigms were first recognized by Kantor and lehr(1975), they were termed Open, Closed and Random Paradigms. later a fourth paradigm, Synchronous, was added to the original three. The paradigms differ along two continuums; adaptability and cohesion. These are the same continuums proposed by Olsen et. al. as part of their circumplex model of families (1979). Adaptability refers to how families deal with change over time. It is a continuum that ranges from chaotic to rigid. Rigid families show few signs of flexibility and oppose change, while chaotic families may be too quick to change and have little stability. 9 Cohesion refers to how close or bonded a family is. It is a continuum that ranges from enmeshed to disengaged. Extremely enmeshed families may be so wrapped up in the family they never meet individual goals, while disengaged families may have no sense of connection with family members (Galvin&Brommel, 1991). When you cross these two continuums to form an axis, four quadrants are formed. These four quadrants make up the four paradigms. The following figure should help illustrate this idea. chaotic A I d | a RANDOM I OPEN p I t I a I b < > i disengaged I enmeshed l I i I t SYNCH. I CLOSED y I rigid Cohesion Figure 1 The above figure plots Constantine's four paradigms (open, closed, random and synchronous) onto Olsen's model. The closed paradigm, as an example, is equivalent to Olsen's enmeshed-rigid type family. Constantine considers the extremes of the continuum to be disabled forms of each particular family type. Enabled forms, or healthy functioning families, appear closer to the center. Constantine also labeled enabled forms along both the adaptability and cohesion continuums, so, between chaotic and rigid 10 lay flexible and structured respectively. Along the adaptability continuum lay separate and connected respectively. These labels allow for reference to enabled, or healthy forms, of families who would be plotted closer to the center. For example, a family plotted as shown on the graph that follows where the enabled labels have been added in parentheses would be considered connected/ flexible. Connected/ flexible is the enabled form of the Open paradigm. A chaotic(flexible) d I a Random | Open p I t I a l * b < > i disengaged(separa te) I enmeshed( connected) I I i I t Synch. I Closed y | rigid (structured) Cohesion Figure 2 The Closed Paradigm. The closed paradigm is based on tradition and stability. Because stability is tantamount in closed families, change is discouraged. Closed families are very enmeshed and typically the needs of the family outweigh the needs of the individual. Following strict rules and honoring traditions play a big part in the lifestyle of closed families. They believe that if it worked in the past, it will work now. Problems are typically solved by sticking with the rules that worked in the past and were established 11 by a head of the family. This paradigm is considered structured- connected in its enabled form and is consistent with the rigid- enmeshed quadrant of Olsen and colleagues model (Imig, 1991 ). The Open Paradigm. The open paradigm is consistent with the chaotic-enmeshed quadrant of Olsen's model. Enabled forms of this family type will be more flexible-connected. Open families value the individual and family needs equally. Although they are not dependent on stability, change is good only if it can improve effectiveness for completing a goal. Open families are flexible with the amount of enmeshment or disengagement it experiences and can change as needed. These types of families are likely to solve problems in a "democratic" way, hoping to work things out together as a group. Flexibility and balance are key ideas to this type of family (Imig, 1991). The Random Paradigm. The random paradigm is similar to Olsen's chaotic-disengaged quadrant. In its enabled form it would be a flexible-seperate family. The individual is most important and is supported by the group when it shows autonomy. These families prefer new ways of solving problems and change is considered a good thing. Novelty and creativity are the tools used by random families to cope with life (Imig, 1991). The Synchronous Paradigm. The synchronous paradigm is guided by harmony, peace and collective understanding. It best fits with the rigid-disengaged quadrant of Olsen's model. Enabled synchronous families will be structured-seperate. Conflict would be rare in an ideal synchronous family because all members "just know" what to do and everyone understands each other. Neither the group or individual is considered more important (Imig, 1991). 12 Many families are a combination of one or more of these types. So, for example, a family could exhibit predominantly Closed tendencies, but have a few characteristics that appear to be Random. With a basic understanding of paradigms and the different types of paradigms provided, the proposed relationship between the family types and how they could influence a woman's decision to report a date rape can be explicated. The closed paradigm in particular will be assessed for its influence on reporting date rape. Rationale and Hypotheses Change plays an important part in family life. How flexible or rigid a family is in the face of change can determine how well a family adjusts when unexpected events disrupt daily life (Constantine, 1986). The date rape of a family member has great potential for disruption of daily life. The victim may need more emotional support than usual from family members. She may need greater economical support if she requires therapy. The family may have to change dramatically to meet these needs. Change is not the only potential for disruption. Many families have strict views about sex and what is and is not appropriate behavior for family members. Certain aspects of the rape may be out of line with family values. For example, the family may view drinking by the women as inappropriate behavior. If she consented to other sexual activities, like kissing and fondling, these behaviors too may not fit with the family values. If either of these behaviors occurred, the woman may not be perceived as deserving of the family's support. Reaction to change and violating family values should be played out differently in each of the four paradigms. 13 The Open Paradigm. Open paradigms stress adaptability. When a rape occurs, the victim may experience more dependence on the family than usual, and open families should be able to handle the change. Open systems should be able to shift between dependence and independence as needed. Open systems encourage free expression of thoughts, ideas and igeling; Open families expect full disclosure and openness from all members. If disclosure is an important aspect to open family functioning, a victim should feel safe disclosing her rape to the family. Open families always try to work things out as a group to meet group and individual needs, so victims should be supported in an open family (Constantine, 1986). It is therefore hypothesized that .vmsw.t..~‘--A experiencetdthefamily. ThEYISHFREEXQF may not however, nu. -~4¢-. 'WM4W5—J inforai.h§.pg.lice-.or anthoritieselieytihe attaCk- The case for wan-5,. win-,4... reporting to pglice, or notrepgn.matdm._limce WJJW- Another aspect of Open families is their reliance on information seeking. This type of system actively searches for information that would aide in problem solving. If a victim was raped then, it may be logical to assume she would seek information about what has happened to her, how various organizations deal with victims, what are the legal ramifications involved with her decision and any other relevant information. If after this information search has been completed and the victim is not convinced that her complaint would be handled in a manner she finds suitable, she may decide not to report the incident and to receive support from other sources more conducive to her recovery. However, from the other direction, if this search yields information suggesting she will receive support and 14 retribution for her attack, she may decide reporting the crime would be the best decision. Another factor might affect this decision as well. Earlier, it was stated that a paradigm is also a world view and in part determines how a family interacts with and interprets its environment (Constantine, 1986). If a victim is inclined to extend this view of the family to the larger environment, she may report the rape. If the environment is viewed from an open perspective, open family members may assume that authorities would handle a date rape situation similarly to the way the family handles it. Thus, if a women generalizes this belief to the larger environment, she should be inclined to report a date rape to the police. However, if she does not generalize her world view beyond the family and views the larger environment as quite distinct and separate from her family, she may not report the incident. The Random Paradigm. The random paradigm thrives on change and creative solutions. The individual is more important than the group and if a conflict arises between group and individual needs, the group needs must give way to the individual. Although it may appear that members of random families fly off in all directions and never act in a group, this is not true. Random families are a group, but need, "spontaneous cooperation and general individual good will for collaborative ventures (Constantine, 1986)." It would seem then, that if a member of this family experienced a date rape, they could count on group support, and creative responses to the change incurred. ‘ However, because of the intense independence in these families, members may feel they should solve their problems on 15 their own. If this were true, the victim may not share the experience with her family. Based on the random viewpoint, a victim may tell the family based on the assumption that the individual is most important. She may not tell the family as well though based on the belief that people should solve their own problems. Whethermornml..§Il.€..yVill *“CMM report the crimetepolicealso.is-hard.tp..pte.tl.itt- This is where combination family types may have an impact. It was mentioned earlier that many families exhibit characteristics from one or more paradigms. It is hypothesized here that if a Random family is combined with an Open family, it would be likely to display some behaviors similar to Open families. This would mean that if a member of a Random/ Open family was trying to decide whether or not to report a date rape, she would follow a similar decision making process as described for the Open family. Based on this process, she may, or may not, report to police. It is further hypothesized that if a victim was from a Random/ Closed family, she would exhibit similar decision making as seen in the Closed family. This process will be discussed later. The Synchronous Paradigm. Synchronous families value group harmony and singularity of mind of all group members. Expectations of family members are high, and it is assumed everyone " just knows" what everyone else is thinking. Mind reading is almost expected in these types of families. Differences, if they exist, are minimized or denied as they would cause conflict. One is either the same and a member of the group, or different and therefore not a member of the group (Constantine, 1986) 16 If a women in this type of family experienced a date rape, she may feel no need to tell any family members. They should just know what she has been through. The victim may also feel like the rape makes her different from the rest of the group, and being different is discouraged in a synchronous group. She may, therefore, not discuss the rape so as not to be excluded from the group. As well as feeling alienated from her family group, the victim may also feel alienated from the larger group of the community. Since police and other authorities are part of the larger group, she may not feel comfortable disclosing the rape to them. Alienation may not be the only deterrent to reporting. Because of the potential for reliance on mind reading in this type of family, a victim may feel everyone should just know what she has been through. If she assumes people just know, she may feel there is no reason to tell the family. As with Random families, combination of family type may effect synchronous families as well. As suggested with Random families, if a synchronous family is combined with and Open family, it is hypothesized that it will exhibit some open characteristics with regard to reporting. If it is synchronous/ closed it will exhibit closed characteristics. The previous section was a brief description of each the open, random and synchronous paradigms relation to reporting date rape. Closed families will be discussed next in greater detail. The closed family will be emphasized for several reasons. First, many family therapists believe there are more of these types of families in the US. than any other paradigm. Second, it is my hypothesis that members of closed families will be highly represented in the groups of women who chose not to report date rape. 17 The Closed Paradigm. The closed family discourages change. Stability is very important and is achieved by adhering to tradition. Established rules that worked in the past are considered tried and true and deviation from the standard is not encouraged. In closed families, the individual is not as important as the group and the group needs. Members are expected to sacrifice individual needs for the family. Closed families are usually organized in a hierarchy with the father as the principal decision maker. Roles in the family are strictly adhered to. Parenting is authoritarian and restrictive. Obedience is insisted upon. Children are seen as needing to be shaped and molded to conform to parental expectations. Because of their great potential for disruption, sexual and aggressive impulses in children are especially controlled and monitored (Constantine, 1986). Information in this system is tightly controlled and regulated as it could disrupt the system and cause change. Closed families are more likely than any other to have secrets and topics that are just not discussed (Constantine, 1986). In our culture, traditional families view sex as a taboo topic, so sex is most likely rarely talked about in closed families. The more closed a system is, the more likely it is to deny information that is potentially disruptive. Boundaries are well established in closed families and typically strictly maintained. It is usually clear to everyone who is a member of the family and who is an outsider. This is well illustrated by the fact that many closed families have fences around their homes. To protect the stability of the system information from and to the outside is heavily controlled. 18 Closed families use an authoritarian mode of parenting, emphasize obedience, keep secrets and taboo topics, repress aggressive and sexual impulses, and strictly maintain boundaries separating the family from the outside. Often, certain featuresof a date rape violate the family's norms. It isbecause of this that I thethesizgthet,ys.men who come from. predominantlythsed fawmdiliestwilinQLLelliamilXmembersaboutmetape. Often, being in situation where a woman is alone with a man is a violation of family norms. Large numbers of date rape cases involve the use of alcohol, almost certainly an activity against the family rules. Since sex is rarely discussed, a woman in this situation would have little reason to feel comfortable discussing a date rape with her family. It is hard to predict if closed family members would report to police or not. There is a case for both arguments and they are equally compelling. Closed families have great respect for established rules and for authorities. Rape is a crime and crimes are supposed to be reported. Not reporting the rape would'be preventing the authorities from doing their job. Because of this reliance on established rules, the victim may report the incident. From the other direction, although closed families respect authority, they only respect authority they trust. If a women does not trust police because of her fear of harsh and unfair treatment or fear of being blamed, she may not report the rape. In addition, because family issues are rarely discussed outside the family, a victim of date rape may be so accustOmed to keeping things inside the family that she would not tell the police. A trial would expose her and her family to the general public in a negative light. She may 19 feel she has to sacrifice her need of reporting to meet the family's need for privacy. Research Questions As discussed previously, not labeling the experience as rape, fear of harsh and unfair treatment, and self-blame may be factors that influence a woman's decision to report rape. However, it has . been suggested that family type is also an important factor. Given the preceding discussion concerning family type and report rates, a number of possibilities arise. First, while it is believed that members of open families will report a date rape to the family, it is uncertain if the victim would report the incident to the police. Compelling arguments can be made for either case. Open families rely on information seeking when trying to work through a crisis. If this information search leads a victim to believe she will be supported by police and may receive justice, she will be likely to report the incident to the police. If, however, the information search leads her to feel she will be treated unfairly in some way or that the perpetrator will likely not be punished, she may decide against reporting. This leads to the following research question. Research Question 1: What will be the influence of open families on a victims decision to report a date rape? Next, while it is believed that members of closed families will not report a date rape to family members, it is unclear if the victim would report the incident to the police. Arguments can be made for both sides. 20 Closed families have great respect for established rules and for authorities. If a victim views her rape as a crime and that crimes must be reported to the authorities, than she will most likely tell the police about her rape. On the other hand, while members from closed families respect authority in general, they only respect authority figures that they trust. If a women feels the police may blame her or treat her badly in other ways, she might not disclose the rape to them. This leads to research question two. Research Question 2: What will be the influence of closed families on a victim's decision to report a date rape? Third, it is unclear whether or not a member of a random family will report a rape to their family. It is also unclear if a member of a random family will report the rape to the police. This leads to the third research question. Research Question 3: What will be the influence of random families on a victim's decision to report a date rape to the police? Fourth, it is uncertain if members of a synchronous family will report a rape to either family members or the police. This leads to research question four. Research Question 4: What will be the influence of synchronous families on a victim's decision to report a date rape to the police? Research Question Five: Is there a relationship between family type and disclosure of a date rape. Finally, this paper would like to explore the link between reporting to families and reporting to police. This leads to hypothesis one. 21 Hypothesis 1: Women from closed families will be less likely to disclose a date rape to a family members than members of other family types. Determination of what type of family a person is from and comparison of women who did report with women who did not should reveal a pattern showing the relationship between a family paradigm and the reporting of rape. Dr. Imig of Michigan State University has developed a scale that can aid in this investigation. Research Participants The sample was made up of one hundred and twenty two undergraduates (96 women, 23 men) enrolled in the introductory communication class at a large midwestern university. The survey was offered to all students as a take home project for which they could earn extra credit. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 26 years (M: 19.58, SD: 1.59). Procedryres Respondents were told that the purpose of the study was to explore the occurrence of unwanted sexual experiences. They were warned that some of the questions were of a personal nature, and were assured that responses would be completely anonymous. They were encouraged to be as honest and open as possible. Respondents completed a survey comprised of two parts. Part one of the survey consisted of a series of open ended questions regarding instances of sexual assault. Part two of the survey was a questionnaire comprised of items from the Family Regime Assessment Scale (Imig, 1992). Respondents who were interested in completing the survey 22 were were given one as they left class. Respondents were given one week to complete the survey and return to the drop off location. Independent Measures Family type was measured with a modified version of Imig's (1992) Family Regime Assessment Scale. The scale was based on the Multiattribute Utility Technology (MAUT). The MAUT is an interval approach to organizing data. The original FRAS consisted of several components that were not necessary for the evaluation of the research questions in this study. Because these items were time consuming and not applicable to this study, they were deleted. The scale used consisted of ten questions, each containing four responses representing a different family type. The respondent was instructed to place a ten by the response that best represented his/ her family. For the remaining items, the respondents were to assign a numerical value of 0-9 depending on how much like their family each statement was. Any number, excluding 10, could be repeated. Once all the data had been collected, the FRAS portion of the scale was coded in accordance with Dr. Imig's instructions. In order to achieve as many "pure" types as possible, i.e., not compound types of two or more, for example, closed/ random. any response that was awarded a ten was coded as a ten, and all other responses were recorded as a 0. This procedure produced nine different family types for this study. They were, (1) closed, (2) random, (3) open, (4) synchronous, (12) closed-random, (13) closed-open, (14) closed- synchronous, (23) random-open, and (34) open-synchronous. The number preceding the family type was the code used for analysis. Compound families, such as the last five types were a result of a 23 respondent being assigned two tens from the FRAS as opposed to one which was the case in a "pure" type. For example the closed-random family type scored a ten for both the closed aspect and the random aspect, whereas the closed family type scored a ten for the closed aspect only. More compound family types may have been possible, but the nine types listed were the only types that showed up in this study. Dependent Meiaggfizs Given that one goal of the study wastofletermineif respondents disclpsed their unwanted sexual experience to anyone, theywere asked, after describing the event, "Did you tell anyone about this?" Respondents responded with either a "yes" or a "no". There were 86 "yes" responses and 33 "no" responses. Another goal of the study was to determine to whom respondents disclosed the unwanted sexual experience. In order to determine this, they were asked immediately after, "Did you tell anyone about this?", "If so, who? (eg., friend; boyfriend, family member, roommate,” crisis center) ." Rom. “q\,h,.,_._1..-~ c Once all of the surveys had been collected, the researcher recorded all of the responses that appeared in the surveys. After all possible responses were accounted for, they were assigned a coding score. This procedure created six possible categories for who the respondent disclosed to. The categories reported by respondents were. Elem, fairiilyirherpper, roommate, pelice. crisisgeitter, W, and bpyfriegd. Crisis center and psychologist were . combined due to their similarity to form one compound coding category. These six categories were the only responses provided in 24 the data. Seventy-nine subjects reported disclosure to a friend, sixteen subjects reported disclosure to a family member, six subjects reported disclosure to a roommate, two subjects reported disclosure to a crisis center or psychologist, nine subjects reported disclosure to a boyfriend, and one subject reported disclosure to the police. Finally, this study was interested in ascgrtaining what factors ”4d -rm" expgjepcg. In order to ascertain this, respondents answered the question, "What factors influenced this decision?" The coding procedure for this part of the survey was the same as the procedure previously described. After a list was compiled, the researcher combined similar responses together. For example, responses such as, " I needed to tell someone", "I had to tell someone", and " I had to talk to someone about it" were grouped as the category, "had to tell someone". Other responses grouped in this category included any statement that indicated a cathartic type response (ie., "I always talk to my friends"). After collapsing all of the statements into the appropriate category, the were assigned, a coding number. In total there were 16 possible categories for factors that inflgenced thegecision to disclose: had to tell someone, drinking, ‘ , find out if pregnant, afraid, Wantedtgfprget, protect myself, not important enough, previous sexual, contact, my fault, person I toldwas there, warn a friend, no on€,_,n€ededioknow, fear pf Mbeingflblamed/ not believed. Preliminag Analysis Preliminary analysis suggests that there are at least two significant problems that may have influenced the outcome of the 25 study. First, although low report rates were expected from the evidence in previous literature (Madigan & Gamble, 1898, Koss & Harvey, 1991), this study did not approach the expected 5-10% report rates as found in other studies. Only one of the 122 subject reported her unwanted sexual experience to the police. In her case the perpetrator had been stalking her for some time before the incident and therefore, the police had already been involved long before the rape occurred. Because only .008% of the sample reported to the police, it was impossible to conduct any meaningful analysis which involved reporting date rape to the police. Second, an unanticipated self report bias occurred. There were fewer subjects that could be classified as closed family members than expected. The literature suggests that closed families are highly represented in this culture (Constantine, 1986), however, closed family members were not very prevalent in this study leaving an underrepresented cell in this data. Because only 6% of the subjects in this study were classified as closed family members, it was impossible to conduct any meaningful analysis concerned with closed families. The lack of representation of closed family members may stem from the fact that as closed family members, they are careful with whom they share information with and tend not to discuss topics that are considered taboo with anyone. Tests of Research (hiestions and Hypothesis Research questions 1-4 were concerned with family types effect on reporting unwanted sexual experiences to the police. These questions could not be answered by these data due to the fact that 26 only one subject reported her unwanted sexual experience to the police. Research question five examined the relationship between family type and disclosure. To test this, a one way ANOVA was performed with family type as the principal independent measure and disclosure as the dependant measure. No two groups were significantly different at the .05 level, F(8, 101): .4162. Hypothesis 1 was tested with a one way ANOVA with family type as the principal independent measure and disclosure to family members the dependant measure. No two groups were significantly different at the .05 level, F(8,101)= .5272. Therefore hypothesis 1 did not receive support. Subsidiary Analysis Because the cell size for closed families was small, the researcher attempted to make the cell size bigger by including all family members who had some compound combination involving closed families. After combining these subjects to the original eight closed family members, there were a total of twenty four closed family members. An ANOVA was then performed with family type as the principal independent measure and disclosure to a family member as the dependant measure. No two groups were significantly different at the .05 level, F(2,86)= .1054. Still using this pool of twenty four closed families, a final ANOVA was performed with family type as the principal independent measure and disclosure as the dependant measure. No two groups were significantly different at the .05 level, F(2,86)= .3196. Discussion The goal of this study was to determine if family type influences disclosure of unwanted sexual experiences. The researcher was interested in the disclosure to police, as well as an idea of to whom, if anyone, victims are disclosing. The analysis of these data suggest that W may not be an accurate predigor ofdisclosupe, There are at least four possible reasons as to why these data did not uncover a relationship between these variables: the variables might be too Eggpligatetito see,res_ult$._f£9msa-.simple direct causal model, the variables relationship could be masked by mediating variables, there could be a problem with the measurement instruments, and there could be problems with the sample. The first possibility for the lack of findings is that family type is too rich and complex to be a gjgectypredictonof,decisiontofl report a (Latwpe. It may have been the case that while family paradigms are excellent in gaining useful general classifications for use in family therapy and other helping professionals (Constantine, 1989), they may be less useful for predicting specific behaviors associated with the disclosure of unwanted sexual experiences in the way that was anticipated. This study attempted to fit subjects into four "pure" types without compound family types. Although families outside the laboratory usually exhibit a complex mixture of one or more family types, this study was trying to determine if the general classification schemas of each pure family type could predict specific behaviors. It appears from the data, that to collapsing subjects into four family types loses valuable information about the subject that might have 27 28 been obtained from other information. Trying to conduct an analysis comparing "pure" family types to decision to report appears not to be useful. Each family type and compound type has its own set of factors that make up the decision making process. An open family combined with a closed family type may be quite different from an open family type combined with a random family type. These differences would not have been detected in this study. It appears that the decision making process itself and not the actual decision that is effected by family type. This leads to the second reason why results were not as expected. Another possible reason results did not turn out as expected may be because there are mediating variables involved. The argument that was set forth by the researcher suggested that there were mediating factors involved in the connection between family type and disclosure. However, the researcher treated the relationship as a direct causal model. Due to this error in interpretation, the researcher did not test for the mediating factors in this study. The effect of family type may have been masked by the mediated relationship between the variables. The mediating variables involved were different according to family type. For example, with open families, the victim may first conduct an information search consisting of finding out if what happened to her qualified as rape, how local authorities treat rape victims, how the trial process works, and how her personal safety would be protected. Once this information search has been conducted, the victim might than move to the second stage of the decision making process: a positive verdict or a negative one. A 29 positive verdict might lead to a victim deciding to report the incident to the police, a negative verdict might lead the victim to decide not to report the incident. Closed families had a different set of mediating variables. The first step is determining if the family the victim comes from respects authority. If the victims family believes in upholding the law, and that anyone who breaks the law needs to be punished, then the victim might move to step two. The next step in the decision making process might be ascertaining whether or not the local police can be trusted or not. This decision may be based on whether or not the victim perceives the police will act in her best interest. If the victim believes that the police are trustworthy she may decide to report. If she believes that they are not trustworthy she may decide not to report. It is uncertain from the literature what factors might effect synchronous and random families and this study did little to clarify this area. The third reason for the lack of findings could be a response bias due to the measurement format employed. The researcher used open ended questions to provide the maximum amount of freedom in responses for the subjects. Perhaps the open ended format was too free, and subjects were not prompted to answer specific questions which concerned the researcher. The fourth possible reason for the lack of results is low power in the independent measure for detecting small to moderate effect sizes. The tests employed provide statistical power to only detect large effect sizes. There was trend in the data that was worthy of note however. Of the eight closed family members, none of them told their families 30 about the unwanted sexual experience. This was expected from the literature, and with more than eight cases significance may have been found. The problem with testing for effects of closed families is that closed families are more likely than any other family type not to fill out the survey. They were the smallest group out of the nine suggesting that the assessment that closed family members are less likely to fill out disclosive surveys may be true. The problems just discussed suggest some possible changes for a future study. The first change would be in the survey format. Rather than open ended questions, it might be more useful to utilize some sort of scaleuowr‘gwhgecgklistapproach. The mediating variables may include more variables than suggested from the literature or from this study. Before another study was conducted it would be wise to attempt to discover some of these variables. One way the researcher would suggest in order to ascertain these variables would be to hold focus groups with victims to determine what variables need to have a scale constructed around them. The focus group should stress various parts of the process involved with arriving at the decision to report or not, not the decision itself. It would be helpful to determine the family type of each member of the discussion group. Members for these groups might be recruited from crisis centers as these victims already show a tendency toward discussing their date rape. Once items were constructed into an appropriate scale it should be pretested to make sure it is targeting the proper variables. Before widespread distribution of the scale is done, the researcher would suggest distributing the FRAS to a group with potentially high numbers of closed families. This would let the researcher know 31 ahead of time the size of the closed cell and she/ he could make the necessary adjustments. Implications for Further Study Although the data in this study did not provide support for the researchers hypothesis and research questions, the study was not insignificant. Sometimes the lack of findings itself is a significant finding. Despite the lack of findings, this study is important for three reasons. First, this study seemed to show that an Open ended format may not be the most useful in trying to find out specific information regarding the disclosure of unwanted sexual experiences. Researchers who plan to study similar themes in the future may gain insight from this study and decide on a different approach. The second reason this study is important is that it suggests that the relationship between family type and disclosing an unwanted sexual experience may not be a direct causal relationship. For people attempting to use family paradigms as predictors of specific reporting behaviors, this could be important information. This study suggests that there are possibly several mediating variables connecting family type to disclosing unwanted sexual experiences. If these mediating variables can be discovered, it could help researchers understand why so few women are reporting unwanted sexual experiences. If W_why so few women are rm we may beagle to change it. Finally, this study bears to light the importance of studying this topic and the difficulties encountered by any researcher attempting to find problems in order to produce change. So many women are 32 affected by date rape, and yet, as this study attests to, so few are speaking out and reporting it. It is important that more women report date rape. Potential rapists need to see perpetrators of date “I...“ ‘um‘.’\ h-‘“R-V"Mh1\\_fi“h\~.nk \ ‘m Inns» MOM \‘_ .,_.. rape punisllssisgihatthey maxthinls-twice.peterssgmmjiiiflg a rape themselves. If a perpetrator believes nothing will happen to ~mM"-“ him as a result of his crime, what is the motivation not to commit it? When there is a system of justice where thousands of people are being violated but no one is pursuing their legal rights it suggests that something may be wrong somewhere in the system. In order to make any changes, the root of the problem must first be found. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES ass, E., Thornton, L. (19813,). I Never Told Anyone. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. ,‘g'W/Briero, J., & Malamuth, NM. (1983). Self-reported likelihood of sexually aggressive behavior: Attitudinal versus sexual ‘ explanations. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 315-323. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will: Meng women and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2), 217- 230. Byers, E.S., & lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples' disagreement over the desired level of intimacy. Journal of Sex Research, _2_, 15-29 Calhoun, LG., Selby, J.W., & Warring, LJ. (1976). Social perception of the victim's causal role in rape: An exploratory examination of four factors. Human Relations, 29, 5 1 7-526. Clark, L., & Lewis, D. (1977). Rape: The price of coercive sexuality. Toronto, Canada: The Women's Press. Constantine, L., (1993). The structure of family paradigms: An analytical model of family variation. journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 1, 39-70 Constantine, L., (1986). Family Paradigms: The practice of theog; in family therapy. New York: The Guilford Press. Costin, F., & Schwarz, N. (1987). Beliefs about rape and women's social roles. Iournal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 46-56 33 34 Ferguson, P.A., Duthie, D.A., & Graf, R.G. ( 1987). Attribution of responsibility to rapist and victim: The influence of victim‘s attractiveness and rape-related information. Iournal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 243-250. Fischer, G]. (1987). Hispanic and majority student attitudes towards forcible date rape as a function of differences in attitudes towards women. Sex Roles, _1_7, 93-101. Galvin, K. & Brommel, B., (1991). Family Communication: Cohesion and Changg. New York: Harper Collins Godfrey, B.W., & Lowe, GA (1975). Devaluation of innocent victims: An attribution analysis within the just world paradigm. Journal of Personality and Soci_al Psychology, 3_1_, 944-95 1. Imig, D., (1992). Operating paradigmatic family therapy:The family regime assessment scale (FRAS). Family Science Review. _5_, 2 1 7-2 34. Imig, D., (1991, November). Family stress: Paradigms and perceptions. National Council on Family Relations. Denver, CO Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self- blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 32, 1798-1809. Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of victim. Iournal of Personalipv and Social Psychology, _2_6, 415-419 Kahn, a., Gilbert, L.A., Latta, R.M., Deutsch, C., Hagen, R., Hill, M., McGaughey, T., Ryen, A.H., & Wilson, D.W. (1977). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of victim: A failure to replicate or extend. Representative Research in Social Psychology, _8, 98-107. Kanekar, S., Kolsawalla, MB. (1977). Responsibility in relation to respectability. Iournal of Social Psychology, 1_0_2_, 183-188 LN U1 Kanekar, S., & Vaz, L. (1983). Determinants of perceived likelihood of rape and victim's fault. Iournal of Social Psychology, _1_2_0(1), 147-148 Kantor, D., & Lehr, W., (1975). Inside the Family: Toward a Theory of Family Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Kerr, N.L., & Kurtz, ST. (1977). Effects of a victim's suffering and respectability on mock juror judgements: Further evidence on the just world theory. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 8, 42-56 “Koss, M.P., & Harvey, MP. (1991). The Rape Victim. Newbury Park: Sage. ‘~/ Madigan, L, & Gamble, N. (1989). The Second Rape: New York. Lexington Books. " /Mccau1, K.D., Veltum, 1.0., Boyechko, v., & Crawford, J. (1990). Understanding attributions of victim blame for rape: Sex, violence, and foreseeability. Iournal of Applied Social Psychology, A), 1-26. Warshaw, R. (1988). I Never Called It Ram. New York: Harper Perennial. "llllllllllllllllllllllf