1. An Implicit Measure of Victim/Perpetrator Responsibility: The Effect of Reputation Maria Crossman, Danielle DiFranco, Allyssa Lanza, Karinne Brobst (Professor Ellen Cohn, Faculty Sponsor) Introduction Purpose Method Discussion Ben-David, S., & Schneider, O. (2005). Rape perceptions, gender role attitudes, and victim- perpetrator acquaintance. Sex Roles, 53(5), 385-399. Check, J., & Malamuth, N. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 344- 356. Cohn, E.S., Goforth, E., & Brown, T. (2006 under review). Eye of the beholder:...Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Davies, M., Pollard, P., & Archer, J. (2006). Effects of perpetrator gender and victim sexuality on blame toward male victims of sexual assault. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(3), 275-291. Ford, T., Liwag-McLamb, M., & Foley, L. (1998) Perceptions of rape based on sex and sexual orientation of victim. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 13(2), 253-263. Lee, J., Pomeroy, E., Yoo, S., Rheinboldt, K., (2005). Attitudes toward rape: A comparison between Asian and Caucasian college students. Violence Against Women, 11(2), 177-196. McDonald, T., & Kline, L. (2004). Perceptions of appropriate punishment for committing date rape: Male college students recommend lenient punishments. College Student Journal, 38(1), 44 56. Nagel, B., Matsuo, H., McIntyre, K., & Morrison, N. (2005). Attitudes toward victims of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 725-737. Osman, S. (2003). Predicting men's rape perceptions based on the belief that ‘no‘ really means ‘yes'. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(4), 683-692. Viki, G. (2006) Hostile sexism, type of rape, and self-reported rape proclivity within a sample of Zimbabwean males. Violence Against Women, 12(8), 789-800. Analysis of covariance was conducted with reputation (good, bad), partner (victim, offender), and sex as the independent variables and physical distance as the dependent variable with Illinois rape myth and hostile and benevolent sexism as covariates. Men placed their chairs significantly farther apart (M= 30.92) than females (M=26.18), F (1, 62)= 10.84, p≤.002. Participants put their chairs significantly farther away from perpetrators (M= 34.48) than victims (M= 26.98), F (1, 62)= 10.28, p≤.002. IRMS was a significant predictor of distance between chairs, F (1, 62)= 13.68, p≤.001. Due to a tendency of the interaction of sex X partner X reputation (F (1, 62)= 3.13, p≤.082), separate analyses of covariance were conducted for men and women. Results Future Directions Perpetrator was always held more responsible than the victim as demonstrated by more distance between the chairs when the partner was a perpetrator. Women were affected by the reputation of the victim, not the perpetrator. Responsibility was much greater when the victim had a bad reputation instead of a good reputation. Women held the perpetrator equally responsible regardless of his reputation. Men were not affected by the reputation of the victim or perpetrator. Instead they assigned equal responsibility to good and bad reputation victims and perpetrators. They held the perpetrator more responsible than the victim. Rape myth predicted responsibility. The more participants believed in rape myths, the less they held victims and perpetrators responsible. Rape is widely misunderstood because most people tend to fear being raped by a stranger yet most victims are raped by an acquaintance. ( Check & Malamuth, 1983). It was found that the victim is blamed more when they are raped by someone they know rather than a stranger (Ben-David & Schneider, 2005). Researchers need to focus on studying how the reputation of the victim and the perpetrator affects people’s attitudes about rape. (Cohn, Goforth, & Brown, 2006). Are men or women more likely to hold the victims accountable for the rape based on their reputation? The first direction is to investigate the complexity of reputation. For example, what happens when someone has good and bad characteristics? Which ones affect distance? A second direction is to investigate age differences on the task. For example, would elderly subjects do the task differently than middle age subjects? A third direction is to examine cohort effects. Would first year students in 2007 do the task differently than first year students in 2000? A fourth direction is to examine cultural differences. Would African-American students do the task differently from Hispanic-American students? References Table 1 Table 2 To determine if the victim’s reputation will affect the amount of responsibility attributed to the female victim and the male perpetrator To determine if the perpetrator’s reputation will affect the amount of responsibility attributed to the female victim and the male perpetrator To determine if men and women are affected differently by victim and perpetrator’s reputation and assign responsibility differently. Participants 72 undergraduate students from psychology courses Mean age of sample: 19.31 (SD=1.25) Class: over 55.8 % first year students Procedure Students were asked to prepare to interview someone from their university that was a rape victim or an accused rape perpetrator. The interviewee was further described with a good or a bad reputation. The student was then asked to set up (put physical distance between) two chairs that were intended for the interview and fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire included scales measuring the amount of blame the student attributed to the interviewee, rape myth acceptance and the students’ opinion of the interviewee. When data from men and women were analyzed separately, it was found that there were a partner and reputation interaction for women (F (1, 62)= 4.00, p≤.05) with women moving their chairs closer for good reputation victim (M= 20.66) than a bad reputation victim (M=28.93). partner effect for men ((F(1,62)=10.62, p<.003) with men moving their chairs closer for victims (M=26.98) than perpetrators (M=34.48).