Abstract
Rape victim blame contributes to unreported incidents of sexual assault and failure to support victims (Ahrens in American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3-4), 263-274, 2006). The present study investigated the relationship between religiosity, religious priming, and rape victim blame. Using an online Qualtrics panel, 247 U.S. participants were randomly assigned to either a neutral prime or a religious prime. They then read a short vignette of an acquaintance rape scenario and answered questions regarding perceptions of victim blame, victim credibility, benevolent and hostile sexism, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, and Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA). Results revealed that the religious prime reduced victim blame for highly religious participants but not among participants scoring lower in religiosity. The results confirmed that religiosity was positively correlated with both victim blame and RMA. The data also confirmed previous findings that men scored higher on blame than women and that higher religiosity correlated with higher victim blame. Additionally, RMA mediated the relationship between religiosity and rape victim blame. The results of this study could prove valuable in settings where sexual assault demands action from specifically religious individuals or institutions (e.g., jurors on a rape case in a highly-religious region or religious universities trying to confront the high prevalence of sexual assault on campus).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
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, 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111.
Ahrens, C. E. (2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reactions on the disclosure of rape. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3–4), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9069-9.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised religious fundamentalism scale: The short and sweet of it. International Journal for The Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_4.
Anderson, K., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297233008.
Angelone, D. J., Mitchell, D., & Pilafova, A. (2007). Club drug use and intentionality in perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles, 57, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9262-9.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Sommers, S. R. (2016). Social psychology (9th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230.
Bryant, A. N. (2006). Assessing the gender climate of an evangelical student subculture in the United States. Gender and Education, 18, 613–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250600980170.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217.
Carey, K. B., Durney, S. E., Shepardson, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2015). Incapacitated and forcible rape of college women: Prevalence across the first year. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(6), 678–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.02.018.
Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women and men supports rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9196-2.
Davies, M., Gilston, J., & Rogers, P. (2012). Examining the relationship between male rape myth acceptance, female rape myth acceptance, victim blame, homophobia, gender roles, and ambivalent sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(14), 2807–2823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512438281.
DeBono, A., Shariff, A. F., Poole, S., & Muraven, M. (2017). Forgive us our trespasses: Priming a forgiving (but not a punishing) god increases unethical behavior. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9(Suppl 1), S1–S10. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000105.
Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..
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.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. In J. Dixon, M. Levine, J. Dixon, & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 70–88). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haggard, M. C., Kaelen, R., Saroglou, V., Klein, O., & Rowatt, W. C. (2018). Religion’s role in the illusion of gender equality: Supraliminal and subliminal religious priming increases benevolent sexism. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(4), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000196.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hockett, J. M., Smith, S. J., Klausing, C. D., & Saucier, D. A. (2016). Rape myth consistency and gender differences in perceiving rape victims: A meta-analysis. Violence Against Women, 22(2), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215607359.
Hunt, M. O. (2000). Status, religion, and the “belief in a just world”: Comparing African Americans, Latinos, and whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341246.
Johnson, K. A., Memon, R., Alladin, A., Cohen, A. B., & Okun, M. A. (2015). Who helps the Samaritan? The influence of religious vs. secular primes on spontaneous helping of members of religious outgroups. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 15(1–2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342147.
Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University religion index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078.
Landström, S., Strömwall, L. A., & Alfredsson, H. (2016). Blame attributions in sexual crimes: Effects of belief in a just world and victim behavior. Nordic Psychology, 68(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2015.1026921.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
Lidzy, S. D. (2005). Gender role expectations of students at a Christian university: Cultural notions of masculinity and femininity. Christian Higher Education, 4, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363750500182638.
Littleton, H., Grills-Taquechel, A., & Axsom, D. (2009). Impaired and incapacitated rape victims: Assault characteristics and post-assault experiences. Violence and Victims, 24(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.4.439.
Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E. A., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313485718.
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.
Monson, C. M., Byrd, G. R., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). To have and to hold: Perceptions of marital rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(3), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626096011003007.
Navarro, J. C., & Tewksbury, R. (2017). Mythbusters: Examining rape myth acceptance among U.S. university students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(4), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2017.1289094.
Navarro, J. C., & Tewksbury, R. (2019). National comparisons of rape myth acceptance predictors between nonathletes and athletes from multi-institutional settings. Sexual Abuse, 31(5), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217732790.
Orchowski, L. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2015). Psychological consequences associated with positive and negative responses to disclosure of sexual assault among college women: A prospective study. Violence Against Women, 21(7), 803–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215584068.
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.
Qi, S. J., Starfelt, L. C., & White, K. M. (2016). Attributions of responsibility, blame and justifiability to a perpetrator and victim in an acquaintance rape scenario: The influence of marijuana intoxication. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2015.1025868.
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). (2018). Scope of the problem: Statistics. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from https://rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem.
Sakalli-Uğurlu, N., Sila Yalçin, Z., & Glick, P. (2007). Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empathy as predictors of Turkish students' attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 57(11–12), 889–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9313-2.
Schumann, K., McGregor, I., Nash, K. A., & Ross, M. (2014). Religious magnanimity: Reminding people of their religious belief system reduces hostility after threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 432–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036739.
Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God is watching you: Priming god concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science, 18, 803–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01983.x.
Shariff, A. F., Willard, A. K., Andersen, T., & Norenzayan, A. (2016). Religious priming: A meta-analysis with a focus on prosociality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314568811.
Sheldon, J. P., & Parent, S. L. (2002). Clergy's attitudes and attributions of blame toward female rape victims. Violence Against Women, 8(2), 233–256 10.1177%2F10778010222183026.
Simonson, K., & Subich, L. M. (1999). Rape perceptions as a function of gender-role traditionality and victim-perpetrator association. Sex Roles, 40(7–8), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018844231555.
Sperry, K., & Siegel, J. T. (2013). Victim responsibility, credibility, and verdict in a simulated rape case: Application of Weiner’s attribution model. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02022.x.
Ståhl, T., Eek, D., & Kazemi, A. (2010). Rape victim blaming as system justification: The role of gender and activation of complementary stereotypes. Social Justice Research, 23(4), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0117-0.
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(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2012.683455.
Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2010–2035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354503.
Tong, E. M. W., & Teo, A. Q. H. (2018). The influence of religious concepts on the effects of blame appraisals on negative emotions. Cognition, 177, 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.012.
Ullman, S. E., & Peter-Hagene, L. (2014). Social reactions to sexual assault disclosure, coping, perceived control, and PTSD symptoms in sexual assault victims. Journal of Community Psychology, 42(4), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21624.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Welch, R. D., Davis, D. E., Green, J. D., & Worthington Jr., E. L. (2012). Priming virtue: Forgiveness and justice elicit divergent moral judgments among religious individuals. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5), 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.707228.
Van Tongeren, D. R., McIntosh, D. N., Raad, J., & Pae, J. (2013). The existential function of intrinsic religiousness: Moderation of effects of priming religion on intercultural tolerance and afterlife anxiety. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52, 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12053.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Newbound, H., & Johnson, E. (2016). The interactive effects of religiosity and priming religion following recall of a values violation. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 23(2–3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2015.1130001.
Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47(5–6), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021342912248.
Wenger, A. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2006). The effects of victim’s substance use and relationship closeness on mock jurors’ judgments in an acquaintance rape case. Sex Roles, 54(7–8), 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9014-2.
Whatley, M. A. (2005). The effect of participant sex, victim dress, and traditional attitudes on causal judgments for marital rape victims. Journal of Family Violence, 20(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3655-8.
Workman, J. E., & Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41(3–4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018858313267.
Yamawaki, N., & Tschanz, B. T. (2005). Rape perception differences between Japanese and American college students: On the mediating influence of gender role traditionality. Sex Roles, 52(5–6), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-2680-7.
Zoga, D. (2017, October 20). TX Congresswoman weighs in on Harvey Weinstein controversy. Retrieved may 26, 2018, from https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Texas-congresswoman-weighs-in-on-Harvey-Weinstein-Controversy-451520423.Html.
Acknowledgements
The present research was supported by an Undergraduate Research and Creative Opportunity (URCO) grant awarded to the first author by the Office of Research at Utah State University. We also wish to acknowledge Dr. Sarah Schwartz, director of the Statistical Consulting Studio at Utah State University, who provided important guidance and expertise on the mediation and moderation analyses and reporting that greatly improved this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The study was approved by Institutional Review Board and participants were given a Letter of Information prior to their participation and continued to the survey only if agreeing to be in the study. There are no potential conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 17 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heath, E.G., Sperry, K. A Religious Paradox: Can Priming Ideas of God Reduce Rape Victim Blame?. Sex Roles 84, 196–207 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01163-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01163-9
Keywords
- Victim blame
- Religiosity
- Religious fundamentalism
- Priming
- Rape myth acceptance
- Ambivalent sexism
- Sexual assault