Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–15 | Cite as

On the Prowl: Examining the Impact of Men-as-Predators and Women-as-Prey Metaphors on Attitudes that Perpetuate Sexual Violence

  • Jarrod Bock
  • Melissa Burkley
Original Article

Abstract

A common metaphor used to describe heterosexual relationships frames men as predators and women as prey. The present work assessed potential consequences of these metaphoric portrayals. Participants read a heterosexual dating scenario that did or did not metaphorically frame the situation in predator and prey terms. Using a U.S. college undergraduate sample of 120 women and 82 men in Study 1, exposure to these metaphors led to greater rape myth acceptance among men (but not among women). Using a broader sample of 76 women and 72 men via MTurk, Study 2 replicated these results and also found metaphor exposure led to greater rape myth acceptance and rape proclivity. Furthermore, a mediation analysis indicated that men exposed to these metaphors were more likely to accept rape myths, which in turn predicted their self-reported greater rape proclivity. Such results demonstrate the harmful outcomes that can result from describing romantic interactions where men are the predators and women are the prey.

Keywords

Animalization Dehumanization Metaphors Predator Prey Sexual aggression Rape myth acceptance 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, in any part of the research process.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_929_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

References

  1. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111–125.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, R. (1981). “Pricks” and “chicks”: A plea for “persons.” In R. Baker & F. Elliston (Eds.), Philosophy and sex (pp. 45–64). New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in Personality, 9(4), 253–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(75)90001-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-Tal, D., & Hammack, P. L. (2012). Conflict, delegitimization, and violence. In L. R. Tropp & L. R. Tropp (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747672.013.0003.Google Scholar
  5. Bartneck, C., Duenser, A., Moltchanova, E., & Zawieska, K. (2015). Comparing the similarity of responses received from studies in Amazon’s mechanical Turk to studies conducted online and with direct recruitment. PLoS One, 10(4), e0121595.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121595.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bock, J., Burkley, M., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2017). Hunting for you: Examining individual differences in implicit associations of women as prey and men as predators (Unpublished master’s thesis). Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
  8. Bohner, G., Reinhard, M.-A., Rutz, S., Sturm, S., Kerschbaum, B., & Effler, D. (1998). Rape myths as neutralizing cognitions: Evidence for a causal impact of anti-victim attitudes on men's self-reported likelihood of raping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(2), 257–268.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199803/04)28:2<257::AID-EJSP871>3.0.CO;2-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burt, M. R. (1978). Attitudes supportive of rape in American culture. In House Committee on Science and Technology; Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning, Analysis and Cooperation; Research Into Violent Behavior: Sexual Assaults (Eds.), Hearing, 95 th Congress, 2nd session, January 10–12, 1978 (pp. 277–322). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  10. Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 804–818.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3), 540–551.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21497.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Crump, M. J., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon's mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS One, 8(3), e57410.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–253). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert, M. (1987). The holocaust: A history of the Jews of Europe during the second world war. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 277–298.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M. J., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 292–316.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldenberg, J. L., Heflick, N., Vaes, J., Motyl, M., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Of mice and men, and objectified women: A terror management account of infrahumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209340569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Halliday, M. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  25. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Sun, P. (2011). Beastly: What makes animal metaphors offensive? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30(3), 311–325.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11407168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2014). Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 225–229.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson, L. E., & Gaertner, L. (2010). Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their differential use by right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in support of war. Aggressive Behavior, 36(4), 238–250.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kang, M. E. (1997). The portrayal of women’s images in magazine advertisements: Goffman’s gender analysis revisited. Sex Roles, 37(11–12), 979–996.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1421–1427.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02462.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020970.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths. In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(2), 133–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maass, M., Arcuri, L., & Suitner, C. (2014). Shaping intergroup relations through language. In T. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 157–176). New York: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838639.013.036.Google Scholar
  37. Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 138–157.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01075.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malamuth, N. M. (1989). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part one. Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), 26–49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maroon 5. (2014). Animals. On V [CD]. Santa Monica, CA: Interscope Records.Google Scholar
  40. McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35(2), 71–81.  https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40–48.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Montemurro, B., & Siefken, J. M. (2014). Cougars on the prowl? New perceptions of older women's sexuality. Journal of Aging Studies, 28, 35–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2013.11.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Nilsen, A. P. (1996). Of ladybugs and billygoats: What animal species tell about human perceptions of gender. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(4), 257–271.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1104_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ortner, S. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture? In M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, culture, and society (pp. 68–87). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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(1), 27–68.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., Caldwell, D., & DeLuca, L. (1992). Tolerance for sexual harassment related to self-reported sexual victimization. Gender and Society, 6(1), 122–138.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089124392006001008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reynolds, C., & Haslam, N. (2011). Evidence for an association between women and nature: An analysis of media images and mental representations. Ecopsychology, 3(1), 59–64.  https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2010.0014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson, M. D., Bair, J. L., Liu, T., Scott, M. J., & Penzel, I. B. (2017). Of tooth and claw: Predator self-identifications mediate gender differences in interpersonal arrogance. Sex Roles, 77(3–4), 272–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0706-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rodríguez, I. L. (2009). Of women, bitches, chickens and vixens: Animal metaphors for women in English and Spanish. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación/Culture, Language and Representation, 7, 77–100.Google Scholar
  51. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles' contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28(9–10), 499–509.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rouse, S. V. (2015). A reliability analysis of mechanical Turk data. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 304–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(6), 493–517.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 734–746.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212436401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Sanghani, R. (2014). Maroon 5, stop trivializing stalking. Women aren’t “prey.” Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11138129/Maroon-5-stop-trivialising-stalking.-Women-arent-prey.html.
  56. Talebinejad, M. R., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2005). A cross-cultural study of animal metaphors: When owls are not wise! Metaphor and Symbol, 20(2), 133–150.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2002_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6(2), e16782.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED434980.pdf.
  59. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice & Center for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  60. Vaes, J., Paladino, P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 774–785.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310.  https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations