Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 76, Issue 1–2, pp 110–120 | Cite as

Objectification and System Justification Impact Rape Avoidance Behaviors

  • Leanna J. Papp
  • Mindy J. ErchullEmail author
Original Article
  • 1.2k Downloads

Abstract

There is little recent research on women’s adoption of rape avoidance behaviors, and there has been no known investigation into how adoption of these behaviors relates to various system justification beliefs or experiences of sexual objectification. We surveyed 294 U.S. women aged 18 to 40 to assess experiences of objectification, belief in a just world, gender-specific system justification, benevolent sexism, rape myth acceptance, and engagement in rape avoidance behaviors. Belief in a just world, gender-specific system justification, and benevolent sexism were conceptualized and analyzed as a “system justification” latent factor due to similarities between constructs regarding how they influence worldview, particularly regarding fairness and relations between dominant and subordinate groups. Our hypothesized model had good fit to the data and illustrated that experiencing objectification was related to increased rape myth acceptance and system justification, which, in turn, were related to implementation of rape avoidance behaviors. Further, system justification was significantly positively related to rape myth acceptance. Results show the continued importance of understanding the role of objectification in the endorsement of rape myths and assessments of societal fairness, as well as how women’s attitudes about society may ultimately affect their assessment of rape myths and their personal behavior. This research provides new information and groundwork for researchers developing rape education programming in addition to those interested in the complex relationship between women’s experiences and behavioral outcomes.

Keywords

Sexual objectification System justification Belief in a just world Benevolent sexism Rape myth acceptance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a Psi Chi/Council of Undergraduate Research Summer Research Grant awarded to the authors.

References

  1. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of strangers and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html.
  3. Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. doi: 10.1037/a0022615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beneke, T. (1982). Men on rape: What they have to say about sexual violence. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York, NY: Bantam/Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  6. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Calogero, R. M. (2013). Objects don’t object: Evidence that self-objectification disrupts women’s social activism. Psychological Science, 24, 312–318. doi: 10.1177/0956797612452574.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Calogero, R. M., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 211–228. doi: 10.1037/a0021864.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., Corman, L., Hamit, S., Lyons, O. B., & Weinberg, A. (2010). The manifestation of gender microaggressions. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 193-216). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Carmody, D. C., & Washington, L. M. (2001). Rape myth acceptance among college women: The impact of race and prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 424–436. doi: 10.1177/088626001016005003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapleau, K. M., & Oswald, D. L. (2014). A system justification view of sexual violence: Legitimizing gender inequality and reduced moral outrage are connected to greater rape myth acceptance. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 15, 204–218. doi: 10.1080/15299732.2014.867573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connelly, K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism appealing? Associations with system justification and life satisfaction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 432–443. doi: 10.1177/0361684312456369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aguiar, P. (2007). Victim’s innocence, social categorization, and the threat to the belief in a just world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 31–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the Personal Belief in a Just World Scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12, 79–98. doi: 10.1023/A:1022091609047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Judicibus, M., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Blaming the target of sexual harassment: Impact of gender role, sexist attitudes, and work role. Sex Roles, 44, 401–417. doi: 10.1023/A:1011926027920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DuBow, F., McCabe, E., & Kaplan, G. (1979). Reactions to crime: A critical review of the literature. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/61954NCJRS.pdf.Google Scholar
  19. Eyssel, F., & Bohner, G. (2011). Schema effects of rape myth acceptance on judgments of guilt and blame in rape cases: The role of perceived entitlement to judge. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1579–1605. doi: 10.1177/0886260510370593.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fatima, I., & Suhail, K. (2010). Belief in a just world and subjective well-being: Mothers of normal and Down syndrome children. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 461–468. doi: 10.1080/00207591003774519.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2013). Reporting rape in 2013: Summary reporting system (SRS) user manual and technical specification. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/recent-program-updates/reporting-rape-in-2013.
  22. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fonow, M. M., Richardson, L., & Wemmerus, V. A. (1992). Feminist rape education: Does it work? Gender and Society, 6, 108–121. doi: 10.1177/089124392006001007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fraser, C. (2015). From “ladies first” to “asking for it”: Benevolent sexism in the maintenance of rape culture. California Law Review, 103, 141–204. doi: 10.15779/Z38MV66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334. doi: 10.1177/01461672972312009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.56.2.109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility towards men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41, 177–185. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griffin, S. (1979). Rape, the power of consciousness. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  33. Hafer, C. L., & Choma, B. L. (2009). Belief in a just world, perceived fairness, and justification of the status quo. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 107–125). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hammond, M. D., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). Why are benevolent sexists happier? Sex Roles, 65, 332–343. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0017-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hayes, R. M., Lorenz, K., & Bell, K. A. (2013). Victim blaming others: Rape myth acceptance and the just world belief. Feminist Criminology, 8, 202–220. doi: 10.1177/1557085113484788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hennes, E. P., Nam, H. H., Stern, C., & Jost, J. T. (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic, existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30, 669-688. doi: 10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herman, D. (1989). The rape culture. In J. Freedman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (pp. 20–44). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  38. Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., Van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy. Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 173–203). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kay, A. C., & Friesen, J. (2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364. doi: 10.1177/0963721411422059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 176–189. doi:  10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x
  46. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lerner, M. J. (1997). What does the belief in a just world protect us from: The dread of death or the fear of undeserved suffering? Psychological Inquiry, 8, 29–32. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0801_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 203–210. doi: 10.1037/h0023562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lonsway, K. A. (1996). Preventing acquaintance rape through education: What do we know? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 299–265. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00469.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Makin, D. A., & Morczek, A. L. (2015). The dark side of internet searches: A macro level assessment of rape culture. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 9, 1–23. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.22057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McKibbin, W. F., Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., Bates, V. M., Starratt, V. G., & Miner, E. J. (2009). Development and initial psychometric assessment of the rape avoidance inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 336–340. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller, P., & Biele, N. (1993). Twenty years later: The unfinished revolution. In E. F. Buchwald (Ed.), Transforming a rape culture (pp. 47–54). Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
  55. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  56. Nadal, K. L. (2010). Gender microaggressions: Implications for mental health. In M. Paludi (Ed.), Feminism and women’s rights worldwide (Vol. 2, pp. 155–175). Praeger: Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
  57. O’Donovan, A., Devilly, G. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2007). Antecedents to women’s fear of rape. Behaviour Change, 24, 135–145. doi: 10.1375/bech.24.3.135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Otto, K., Boos, A., Dalbert, C., Schöps, D., & Hoyer, J. (2006). Posttraumatic symptoms, depression, and anxiety of flood victims: The impact of the belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1075–1084. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paul, T. (2011). Space, gender, and fear of crime: Some explorations from Kolkata. Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 411–435. doi: 10.1177/097185241101500305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois rape myth acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Planty, M., Langton, L., Krebs, C., Berzofsky, M., & Smiley-McDonald, H. (2013). Female victims of sexual violence (pp. 1994–2010). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf.Google Scholar
  62. Pollitt, K. (1985, December 12). Hers: In many public spaces, women are on sufferance. The New York Times, pp. C2.Google Scholar
  63. Riger, S., & Gordon, M. T. (1981). The fear of rape: A study in social control. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 71–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01071.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Riger, S., Gordon, M. T., & LeBailly, R. K. (1982). Coping with urban crime: Women’s use of precautionary behaviors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 369–386. doi: 10.1007/BF00893977.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Yalcın, Z. S., & Glick, P. (2007). Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empathy as predictors of Turkish students’ attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 57, 889–895. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9313-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scott, H. (2003). Stranger danger: Explaining women’s fear of crime. Western Criminology Review, 4, 203–214.Google Scholar
  67. Shepherd, M., Erchull, M. J., Rosner, A., Taubenberger, L., Forsyth Queen, E., & McKee, J. (2011). “I’ll get that for you”: The relationship between benevolent sexism and body self-perceptions. Sex Roles, 64, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9859-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Strömwall, L. A., Alfredsson, H., & Landström, S. (2013). Rape victim and perpetrator blame and the just world hypothesis: The influence of victim gender and age. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19, 207–217. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2012.683455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ullman, S. (2007). A 10-year update of “Review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 411–429. doi: 10.1177/0093854806297117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ullman, S. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ullman, S. (2014). Reflections on researching rape resistance. Violence Against Women, 20, 343–350. doi: 10.1177/1077801214526308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Valentine, G. (1989). The geography of women’s fear. Area, 21, 385–390.Google Scholar
  74. Valentine, G. (1992). Images of danger: Women’s sources of information about the spatial distribution of male violence. Area, 24, 22–29.Google Scholar
  75. Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 73–79. doi: 10.1037/h0022733.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Warr, M. (1985). Fear of rape among urban women. Social Problems, 32, 238–250. doi: 10.1525/sp.1985.32.3.03a00060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Websdale, N. S. (1999). Predators: The social construction of “stranger-danger” in Washington state as a form of patriarchal ideology. In J. Ferrell & N. S. Websdale (Eds.), Making trouble: Cultural constructions of crime, deviance, and control (pp. 91–114). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Mary WashingtonFredericksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological ScienceUniversity of Mary WashingtonFredericksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations