Rape Acceptance

Rape Myth Acceptance in College Students: How Far Have We Come Date: 1999 Author: Shelly Schaefer Hinck, Richard W. Thomas Publication: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research While the acceptance of rape myths has been found to be a crucial factor in explanatory models of rape behavior (Berkowitz, 1992; Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980), current researchers have found that responses to rape myth scales may reflect ceiling effects limiting the ability of the scales to differentiate those individuals who subscribe to rape supportive attitudes from those who do not (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; Schaefer & Nelson, 1993). The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of rape myth acceptance in college students and the factors which differentiate acceptance vs nonacceptance of rape myths. This paper reviews the literature concerning rape myths, examines college students' acceptance of rape myths via two rape myth scales, and offers suggestions for future research on rape myths and rape prevention programs. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Research involving rape myths has found that individuals' acceptance of rape myths and rape-supportive attitudes is correlated with increased sex role stereotyping, stronger adherence to adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater acceptance of interpersonal violence within relationships (Burt, 1980). Koss, Leonard, Beezly, & Oros (1985), in a seminal study of undetected, self-reported acquaintance rapists, found that an individual's propensity to rape (to engage in sexually assaultive, abusive, or coercive behavior in order to procure sexual intercourse) was significantly related to the degree to which they subscribed to several rape-supportive attitudes (e.g., acceptance of rape myths, adherence to traditional views of female/male sexuality, perception of sexual aggression as normal). The explanatory power of these belief systems has been replicated continually in numerous studies (c.f., Bridges, 1991; Canterbury, Grossman, & Lloyd, 1993; Harrison, Downes, & Williams, 1991; Holcomb, Holcomb, Sondag, & Williams, 1991). Rape myths have also been linked to an individual's definition of rape; the more an individual accepts rape myths as truth, the more restrictive the definition of rape (Burt, 1981). This may help explain why few men tend to view their coercive behavior as rape. Lisak and Roth (1990) found that none of the men who had admitted to engaging in forced sexual intercourse or forced oral sex labeled their acts as rape. Moreover, research has indicated that there is a connection between acceptance of rape myths and the likelihood of using sexual force (Briere & Malamuth, 1983). Individuals' acceptance of rape-supportive attitudes, as well as their sex-role stereotyping (traditional or liberal), has also been found to impact how they perceive date rape. For example, Coller & Resick (1987) found that women in the high sex-role stereotyping group blamed the victim more for her victimization, felt the victim led the perpetrator on,

and attributed more responsibility to the victim for her situation than did women in the low sex-role stereotyping group. Check and Malamuth (1983) and Muehlenhard (1988) also found a positive correlation between sex-typed orientation (traditional or liberal) and acceptance of rape myths. In both studies, traditional subjects supported more rape myths and were more likely to perceive the rape victim as being blameworthy. This may be due to the fact that high sex-role stereotyped individuals perceive date rape in particular as being at the extreme point on a continuum of in-role sexual behaviors. Rape justifiability is often decided by power factors inherent in a dating situation, such as who pays for the date, where the couple goes, and who initiates the dates. Unwanted sexual intercourse was rated as more justifiable if the couple went to the man's apartment, if the woman asked the man out and if the man paid all dating expenses (Muehlenhard, Friedman, & Thomas, 1985). Further support for the correlation between rape justifiability and dating practices was found in Muehlenhard's 1988 study. For both sexes, rape justifiability ratings were highest when the man paid for the date, the woman asked the man out for the date, and the date occurred in the man's apartment. Additionally, men's ratings of rape justifiability were found to be consistently higher than the women's. Traditional persons, especially traditional men, rated the justifiability of the rape as more acceptable than nontraditional persons. Bostwick & Delucia (1992), in a replication of the Muehlenhard study, indicated that while who asked and who paid for the date impacted subjects' views as to how willing the woman was to have sex and how willing the man was to have sex, it did not affect subjects' views of rape justifiability. Subjects indicated that the man was not justified in forcing the woman to have sexual intercourse without her consent. This result was inconsistent with Muehlenhard's findings. Holcomb, Holcomb, Sondag, & Williams (1991) found results similar to both Muehlenhard and Bostwick & Delucia. Sexually aggressive males and males who agreed more with rape myths were less likely to perceive the scenarios as rape, blamed the victim more, perceived the victim as desiring intercourse and viewed the assailants' behavior as less violent. The dating situation (planned date with monetary investment, a planned dutch-treat date and an unplanned pick-up date) did not affect their attitudes towards the rape situation. The dating situation did impact females' perceptions of the rape scenarios. In the pick-up scenario, females perceived the situation as rape more than the scenario depicting a monetary investment. Holcomb et al. argue that changes in the expectations and rules of the sexual script must be changed if date rape is to be prevented. In an effort to decrease people's acceptance of rape myths, an increasing number of rape awareness and prevention programs, classes, and lectures are being offered. These programs usually have been successful in challenging rape myth acceptance. For example, Lee (1987) exposed 24 undergraduate men to a program that included: 1) a review of myths and facts about rape; 2) an experiential victim-empathy exercise; 3) a guided fantasy about responding to a potential date rape; and 4) an open discussion. He found that participants' attitudes about rape did change; after the program, participants were less accepting of rape myths. In a study focusing on improving sorority women's knowledge about the definition and components of acquaintance rape, Kamm, Mayfield, Tait, & Yonker (1991) found that the women's knowledge about acquaintance rape did increase; however, the increase was small. This was due to a ceiling effect; the scores on

the pretest were so high that it left little room for improvement. Harrison et al. (1991) investigated the dimensions of students' attitudes to acquaintance rape and date rape and the effect of a program to change them. They found that men showed improvement from the pretest to the post test on both the victim blaming scale and a survey assessing their factual knowledge about acquaintance rape. Women, however did not change as much on either the victim blaming scale or the survey assessing their factual knowledge since women's scores were so high to begin with, indicating a possible ceiling effect. While the number of rape awareness and prevention programs, classes, and lectures being offered is increasing, researchers have still found that the acceptance of rape myths exists, and that men tend to exhibit stronger acceptance of these myths. Holcomb et al. (1991) found that in a sample of 407 males, one in four male subjects agreed with such statements as: rape was often provoked by the victim; any woman could prevent rape if she really wanted to; and women frequently cried rape falsely. Muehlenhard & Linton (1987) found that 79% of the college males in her study replied that raping a woman is justifiable if the woman was perceived as being a tease or "loose." In a study of high school students, Muehlenhard, Friedman & Thomas (1985) found that 54% of the males thought that rape was justified if a girl "led them on." Blumberg and Lester (1991) found that high school males believed more strongly than did both high school females and college males in myths about rape. Assigning more blame to the victims of rape was associated with belief in rape myths for both high school males and females. Schaeffer and Nelson (1993) found that males who lived in co-ed dormitories were less accepting of rape myths than residents of single-sex housing or fraternities. However, fraternity-house residents did not differ significantly from single-sex residence hall residents in regard to rape myth acceptance. Schaeffer and Nelson (1993) also failed to find an effect of education concerning rape on rape myth acceptance. Exploring why there was a lack of change in attitudes towards rape and rape victims is an important area to examine. Perhaps research that explores specific factors that help justify an individual's perception that a rape has not occurred in conjunction with different types of rape awareness programs is needed. Given the significance of the rape myth concept to the study of and intervention into rape on the college campus, we advanced the following hypotheses and research question. The first hypothesis we offer is that college students will express an overall disagreement with statements reflecting rape myths. The second hypothesis refects the effect of gender on rape myth acceptance; specifically we suggest that women, more than men, will more strongly disagree with rape myth statements. The third hypothesis we propose is that college students who have attended a rape awareness seminar will hold a higher degree of rape "intolerant" attitudes. Finally, in order to better understand the acceptance and nonacceptance of rape myths, we ask the following research question, what factors differentiate "tolerant" vs "intolerant" attitudes toward rape? METHODS Participants

Data were collected in the Spring semester of 1995 from 158 undergraduate students attending a midsize central midwest university. Participants were students enrolled in undergraduate courses which drew populations from a variety of disciplines across campus. Participants were given credit for their voluntary participation in the study. Data were collected outside of the classroom, and all procedures were in compliance with Federal Guidelines concerning the use of Human Subjects. Of the 158 participants, 53% (n = 85) were female and 47% (n = 73) were male. Ethnicity data revealed that 95% of the participants identified themselves as Caucasian, 2% as African-American, 1% as Hispanic, and 2% as "other." The majority of respondents were freshmen (75%); 17% were sophomores, 5% were juniors, and 3% were seniors. The median age of the group was 18 years (M = 19.25, SD = 2.35). Ten percent of the respondents reported belonging to a social fraternity or sorority, and 23% of the entire group indicated that they were members of one or more other campus group. Procedures A questionnaire was employed to address the research questions.(2) Relevant to the present study, respondents first were asked to provide demographic data (e.g., gender, class rank, age, race, organizational memberships) and to indicate whether or not they had ever attended a rape awareness workshop.(3) Participants then were provided with two measures of their attitudes toward/beliefs about rape. The first measure was the Harrison, Downes, and Williams' (1991) Revised Attitude Toward Rape Scale (ATR). This scale, derived in part from Field's (1978) and Barnett and Field's (1977) ATR scale, consisted of 14 rape-oriented statements reflecting two underlying factors: (1) victim blaming and denial, and (2) perceptions of factual information.(4) The second measure was Holcomb, Holcomb, Sondag, and Williams' (1991) Rape Attitude and Perception Questionnaire (RAP). This scale srcinally consisted of 22 statements concerning rape.(5) Two of the items from the srcinal scale, which focused on behaviors rather than beliefs, were omitted in the present study. These 34 questions were randomly ordered and respondents were asked to indicate, on a 6-point Likert-type scale, the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement.(6) RESULTS Acceptance of Rape-Oriented Statements We began the analysis by examining participants' responses to each of the rape myth scales separately (see Tables I and II). Overall, participants responded to each of the rape myth scales in the hypothesized direction. Specifically, respondents reported a general disagreement with rape-supportive statements on both the Revised Attitude Toward Rape Scale (M = 4.75, SD = 0.56) and the Rape Attitude and Perception Scale (M = 4.93, SD = 0.47), providing initial support for [H.sup.1] that there is a general nonacceptance of rape-oriented statements in today's college students. In order to empirically test [H.sup.1], we computed the overall frequencies [TABULAR

DATA FOR TABLE I OMITTED] [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE II OMITTED] for the agree and disagree response categories for each of the two scales.(7) Chi square analysis revealed a significant preference for disagree (nonacceptance) responses for both the ATR ([X.sup.2] = 634.36, df = 2, p [less than] .001) and the RAP ([X.sup.2] = 1423.2, df = 2, p [less than] .001), reflecting a strong tendency for college students to disagree with rape supportive beliefs and attitudes. Next, we examined the impact of gender and attendance at a rape awareness seminar on acceptance of rape attitudes (see Tables III and IV). As discussed above, these factors have been seen as critical in understanding students' adherence to rape-supportive statements; previous research has consistently found that men and individuals who have not been exposed to the existence of rape myths and rape supportive beliefs more strongly subscribe to these belief systems. MANOVA, with gender and workshop attendance as the independent variables and the two rape myth scales as the dependent variables, revealed significant main effects for both gender (F = 12.90, df = 2, 145, p [less than] .001) and seminar attendance (F = 3.89, df = 2, 145, p [less than] .05) in the hypothesized direction. No interaction between these variables emerged. Subsequent univariate F-tests produced significant main effects for gender on both the ATR (F = 25.94, df = 1, 146, p [less than] .001) and the RAP (F = 12.03, df = 1,146, p [less than] .001). However, for seminar attendance, a significant main effect accrued only for the RAP (F = 7.82, [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE III OMITTED] [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE IV OMITTED] df = 1, 146, p [less than] .01). These results provide support for [H.sup.2] and [H.sup.3]; although college students tend to report disagreement with rape-oriented statements, men and individuals who have not attended a rape awareness workshop disagree less strongly with rape-oriented statements than do women and individuals who have attended some type of rape awareness workshop. In order to further understand these results and to ascertain students' general responses to the rape-oriented statements, we combined their responses from the ATR and the RAP into a single rape belief acceptance scale (RBA).(8) As hypothesized, students' responses indicated an overall disagreement with rape belief statements (M = 4.86; SD = 0.47), with significantly more individuals rejecting these beliefs than accepting them ([X.sup.2] = 2167.68, df = 2, p [less than] .001). ANOVA of the relationship between gender and workshop attendance and the RBA produced significant main effects for both gender (F = 21.11 (1,146) p [less than] .000) and seminar attendance (F = 6.33 (1,146) p [less than] .05); no interaction occurred between the variables. In general, then, these results provide additional support for both [H.sup.2] and [H.sup.3]. This trend was especially strong with respect to gender; ANOVA of each of the 34 statements revealed that men and women differed significantly and in the predicted direction on 62% (21) of the rape belief statements. In contrast, participants in a rape awareness workshop significantly differed in their responses from nonparticipants on only 29% (10) of the rape belief statements. Analysis of the specific statements produced three significant interactions. Responses to the statement, "In a woman, submissiveness equals femininity," did not differ across

gender or seminar attendance. However, a significant interaction effect occurred (F = 4.23 (1,148) p = .042); attendance of a rape awareness workshop increased women's disagreement with this score (M = 4.79 vs 5.00), but not as greatly as it did men's (M = 4.40 vs 5.06). A second interaction effect occurred with the statement "Rapists are motivated by an overwhelming, unfulfilled sexual desire" (F = 14.58 (1,152) p = .017). Women who had not attended a rape awareness workshop disagreed significantly less with this statement (M = 3.11) than did women who had attended a workshop (M = 3.81). In contrast, men who had not attended a rape awareness workshop disagreed significantly more with this statement (M = 3.81) than did men who had attended a workshop (M = 3.06). For some reason, workshop attendance had a completely opposite effect for men and women with respect to this belief. The only other statement which produced an interaction effect was: "Many people have sex to feel close to someone, not just because they're aroused" (F = 8.86 (1,153) p = .011). Women who had participated in a workshop agreed less strongly with this statement than did women who had not (M = 4.08 vs 3.85, respectively). However, men who had participated in a workshop agreed more strongly with this statement than did men who had not (M = 4.24 vs 3.38, respectively). Rape Myth Profile In order to identify those statements which differentiated high RBA from low RBA and address [RQ.sup.1], we submitted participants' responses to all 34 rape-oriented statements, along with the variables of gender and seminar attendance, to a stepwise discriminant analysis (see Table V). By using the median score of the RBA scale (Mdn = 4.87), we defined scores above the median as "high" RBA and scores below the median as "low" RBA. The method of minimizing Wilk's lambda was used for inclusion of statements, and the criterion of p [less than] .001 was set. The results of the discriminant analysis produced a single function discriminating the two groups with respect to 19 statements and seminar participation (see Table VI). The Wilk's lambda of .26, with approximate X2 = 188.14 (df = 20, p [less than] .001) indicated that the two groups differed significantly. The canonical correlation [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE V OMITTED] of .86 suggested a strong degree of association between the two groups and the discriminant function. One hundred percent of the variance in the function was accounted for by group membership. When these 21 variables were used to reclassify subjects into the two groups, 96.1% of the high RBAs and 97.3% of the low RBAs were correctly classified, resulting in an overall correct classification of 96.67%.

Table VI. Discriminant Classification of Rape Myth Statements Predicted Group Actual Group N High RMA Low RMA High RMA 76 73 (96.1%) 3 (3.9%) Low RMA 74 2 (2.7%) 72 (97.3%) Specifically, the analysis identified 19 rape-supportive statements which significantly differentiated individuals with a "strong" rejection of rape belief statements from

individuals with a "less strong" rejection of rape belief statements. In addition, attendance at a rape awareness seminar emerged as a significant component in affecting these belief systems. It seems then, that even though individuals disagree with these statements, the degree of their disagreement (and possibly their adherence to rape-supportive attitudes) potentially reflects different underlying belief and attitude structures. Inspection of the 19 statements suggested that they paralleled many of the central factors housed within rape attitude scales, including blame of the victim or denial (e.g., Some women provoke rape by their appearance or behavior), adherence to sex-role stereotypes (e.g., In a woman, submissiveness equals femininity), justification for rape (e.g., If a woman is heavily intoxicated, it is OK to have sex with her), misinformation about rape ("Nice" women don't get raped), and communication/relationship factors (If a woman says "no" to having sex, she means "no."). In order to empirically identify the underlying factor structure of these statements, we submitted them to a factor analysis.(9) This analysis produced seven factors accounting for 59.4% of the variance. The first factor, which accounted for 17.7% of the variance, was composed of three statements (Some women provoke rape by their appearance or behavior; Women frequently accuse men of rape to get back at them; The degree of a woman's resistance should be the major factor in determining if a rape has occurred). The second factor, which accounted for 8.8% of the variance, was composed of three statements (If a woman says "no" to having sex, she means 'no***;' A report of rape 2 days after the act has occurred is probably a false report; A man can control his behavior no matter how attracted he feels toward someone). The third factor, which accounted for 8.0% of the variance, was composed of three statements (Rapists are motivated by an overwhelming, unfulfilled sexual desire; Most victims of rape do not know their attacker; In a woman, submissiveness equals femininity). The fourth factor, which accounted for 6.9% of the variance, was composed of two statements (In a man, aggressiveness equals masculinity; If a woman is heavily intoxicated, it is OK to have sex with her.). The fifth factor, which accounted for 6.4% of the variance, was composed of three statements (Many people have sex to feel close to someone, not just because they're aroused; Deep down, a woman likes to be whistled at on the street; Victims of rape rarely report the crime). The sixth factor, which accounted for 5.9% of the variance, was composed of three statements (It is best that men initiate dates; Some women may enjoy being raped; Rape will never happen to me). The seventh factor, which accounted for 5.6% of the variance, was composed of two statements (When a woman says love she means love, when a man says love he means sex; A prostitute can be raped.)

DISCUSSION The central purpose of this study was to examine the current state of rape myth acceptance in college students and the factors which differentiated acceptance vs nonacceptance of rape myths. Research tells us that individuals who engage in sexually aggressive behavior, particularly rape, subscribe to belief and attitude systems that are markedly different from those who refrain from sexually aggressive behavior. Burt (1980) offered that adversarial sexual beliefs, beliefs that "sexual relationships are fundamentally exploitative, that each party is too manipulative, sly, cheating, opaque to the other's understanding, and not to be trusted" are linked to rape myth acceptance.

Additionally, negative and stereotypical attitudes toward women have been found to be associated with rape myth acceptance (see Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). However, the central question remains, do the rape myth scales empirically capture the cognitive differences that exist between individuals who engage in sexually aggressive behavior and those who do not? On the surface, the results of this study would suggest no. Respondents consistently disagreed with each of the rape-supportive statements presented to them. However, this pattern does not negate the value of rape myth scales. The analyses presented in this study suggest that significant differences accrue in the degree to which individuals disagree with these statements. This variation in responses suggests that different belief structures do exist, and manifest themselves in the strength of an individual's response. The results of the discriminant analysis suggest that specific factors such as victim blame, sex role expectations, misinformation, and communication/relationship skills contribute to an individual's potential to subscribe to rape-supportive attitudes. The results also suggest that gender and attendance at a rape prevention workshop may impact rape myth acceptance. The findings indicate that men and individuals who have not been exposed to rape awareness information disagree less strongly with these statements than women and individuals who have been exposed to rape awareness information. However it should be noted that the type of workshop the subjects attended is not known. Research linking sex with rape myth acceptance has consistently found that men are more likely to accept rape myths than women (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). The relationship between attendance at rape workshops and rape myth acceptance however is not as clear. This inconsistency may be due to differences among the workshops. Who presents the information (male/female faculty member or male/female peer), how the information is presented (lecture, discussion, videotapes, etc), and to whom the information is presented (all male audience, all female audience, male & female audience) may account for the variations in results. Future research linking the variations in rape prevention workshops with the nonacceptance of rape myths is needed. The implications of these findings are two fold. First, efforts must be made to redesign rape myth scales. Definitional inconsistencies and poorly phrased statements and phrases limit our understanding of rape myths, limit our ability to explain specific results, and limit our ability to generalize beyond a particular research experiment. Changes within rape myth statements would allow researchers to access the belief and attitude structures with greater precision. The second implication of these findings concerns the focus of rape awareness workshops. Many workshops focus exclusively on increasing individual's awareness of the problem of rape and the different factors which precipitate sexual aggression (including belief and attitude systems). Although we applaud these efforts, in themselves, we feel they are not enough. Emphasis must be given not only to increasing the awareness of individuals about the problem of rape, but also to the internalization and enactment of the belief and attitude structures advanced in the workshops. In other words, rape prevention programs must find ways to impact the communication patterns and behavior patterns of college students in their everyday interactions. Lonsway (1996) notes

that a new area for researchers lies in the exploration of "how rape education leads to desirable outcomes. For example, how do rape myth presentations lead to successful attitude change? Which myths are easiest or most beneficial to change? Which presentation method can lead to the most powerful change outcomes?" (p. 259). We offer that more educators need to acknowledge that different audiences may be impacted by different presentational styles. Research offers that men respond best to film and visual stimuli with sexual themes (Check & Malamuth, 1981), presentations that are less verbal and didactic (Borden, Karr, & Caldwell-Colbert, 1988) and more visually oriented workshops (Harrison, Downes, & Williams, 1991). Earle (1996) offers that the most effective program in changing attitudes is single sex, small interactive groups, with discussion rather than lecture as the primary information vehicle, while Holcomb & Schaefer (1995) indicate that by using mixed gender workshops, the likelihood of alienating men by blaming and "bashing" men as well as blaming women for miscommunication is reduced. Clearly, more research is needed; simply presenting information is useless if it cannot be used to persuade college students either to avoid situations in which rape could occur or to more effectively and competently deal with sexually aggressive behavior when faced with it. Finally, it is important to note the limitations of the study. First, while the participants in the study reflected a fairly equal distribution of men and women, the difference in the ethnicity of the subjects was limited. Approximately 95% of the participants were Caucasian. Lonsway (1996) offers that socioeconomic and cultural variables may impact rape vulnerability, which in turn may be linked to rape myth acceptance. Research has indicated that African-American students and Hispanic students were more accepting of rape myths than Caucasian students. However, it should be noted that currently the research has not consistently established a relationship between racial and ethnic identity and the acceptance of rape myths. Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994) suggest that cultural history, religious tradition, and sex role expectations may be better predictors of rape myth acceptance than race. Additionally, the fact that all subjects are college students also limits the generalizations that can be made concerning the research. Variables such as occupation, knowledge about and awareness of rape, and age are all variables that have been found to influence rape myth acceptance, although in some instances indirectly. While student populations are certainly important to study in terms of rape myth acceptance, examining other populations may yield valuable information about rape, rape myth acceptance, and ultimately rape prevention programs and their effectiveness. 2 The questionnaire addressed several areas relevant to participants' dating behaviors and perceptions of rape. The data reported here reflect only portion of this larger study. 3 Only participants' attendance at a workshop was elicited. Participants were not asked about the content or format of this workshop. Although content and formats of workshops vary considerably, the literature indicates that rape-oriented beliefs and rape myths are a consistent component of such workshops. 4 Original psychometric analysis of these scales reported alpha reliability estimates of .77 for the victim blaming or denial factor and .64 for the perceptions of factual information

factor. 5 Psychometric analysis of these scales reported an alpha reliability coefficient of .86. A multidisciplinary panel of experts reviewed the survey instrument to estimate its content validity, face validity, and readibility. The instrument was tested a second time and the Chronbach alpha reliability coefficient was .77. 6 In the srcinal studies, a 5-point Likert-type scale was used. We employed a 6-point scale to clearly differentiate agreement from disagreement. 7 Specifically, for each scale, we determined the number of responses which indicated agreement and disagreement and summed these across statements. With 158 participants, 2212 responses were possible for the ATR and 3160 responses were possible for the RAP. These frequencies were then submitted to Chi square analysis. 8 Characteristics of the two scales suggested this move. Many of the statements included in each of the scale appeared quite similar, and the two scales exhibited only a moderate degree of association (r = .59). In addition, we were unable to replicate the underlying factor structure of the ATR. Finally, the combination of the ATR and the RAP increased the internal reliability, as computed by Chronbach's Alpha, from .70 and .73 (respectively) to .83. 9 Factors were created through varimax rotation. The Scree criterion was employed to define item inclusion. REFERENCES Barnett, N.J., & Field, H. S. (1977). Sex differences in university students' attitudes toward rape. Journal of College Student Personnel, 18, 93-96. Berkowitz, A. (1992). College men as perpetrators of acquaintance rape and sexual assault: A review of recent research. Journal of American College Health, 40, 175-181. Blumberg, M. L., & Lester, D. (1991). High school and college students' attitudes toward rape. Adolescence, 26, 727-729. Bordon, L. A., Karr, S. K., & Caldwell-Colbert, A. T. (1988). Effects of a university rape prevention program on attitudes and empathy toward rape. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 132-138. Bostwick, T. D., & Delucia, J. L. (1992). Effects of gender and specific eating behavior on perceptions of sex willingness and data rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 14-25. Bridges, J. S. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex role expectations and rape-supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24, 291-307.

Briere, J., & Malamuth, N. M. (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: Men, women and rape. New York: Bantam Books. Buchwald, E., Fletcher, P., & Roth, M. (1993). Transforming a rape culture. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1995). Criminal victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230. Burt, M. R. (1991). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.). Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime. New York: Wiley. Cantebury, R. J., Grossman, S. J., & Lloyd, E. (1993). Drinking behaviors and lifetime incidents of date rape among high school graduates upon entering college. College Student Development, 27, 75-84. Check, J. P., & Malamuth, M. M. (1983). Sex-role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 344-356. Coller, S. A., & Resick, P. A. (1987). Women's attributions of responsibility for date rape: The influence of empathy and sex-role stereotyping. Violence and Victims, 2, 115-125. Earle, J. P. (1996). Acquaintance rape workshops: Their effectiveness in changing the attitudes of first year college men. NASPA Journal, 34, 2-15. Field, H. S. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 156-179. Gray, M.D., Lesser, D., Quinn, & Bounds, C. (1987). The effectiveness of personalizing acquaintance rape prevention: Programs on perception of vulnerability and on reducing risk-taking behavior. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 217-220. Harrison, P. J., Downes, J., & Williams, M. D. (1991). Date and acquaintance rape: Perceptions and attitude change strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 131-139.

Holcomb, D. R., Holcomb, L. C., Sondag, K. A., & Williams, N. (1991). Attitudes about date rape: Gender differences among college students. College Student Journal, 25, 434-439. Holcomb, D. R., & Schaefer, R. W. (1995). Enhancing dating attitudes through peer education as a date rape prevention strategy. The Peer Facilitator Quarterly, 12, 16-20. Kahn, A. S., Mathie, V. A., & Torgler, C. (1994). Rape scripts and rape acknowledgment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 53-66. Koss, M.P., Leonard, K. E., Beezley, D. A., & Oros, C. J. (1985). Nonstranger sexual aggression: A discriminant analysis of the psychological characteristics of undetected offenders. Sex Roles, 12, 981-992. Lee, L. (1987). Rape prevention: Experimental training for men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 100-101. Lisak, D., & Roth, S. (1990). Motives and psychodynamics of self-reported, unincarcerated rapists. American Journal of Orthopsychiatric, 60, 268. Lively, K. (1996, April 26). "Drug arrests rise again," The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. A37-A49. Lonsway, L. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164. Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 20-37. Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men's attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 287-309. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186-196. National Crime Victimization Survey Report. (1992). Criminal victimization in the United States, NCJ-139563. Schaeffer, A. M., & Nelson, E. S. (1993). Rape-supportive attitudes: Effects of on-campus residence and education. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 175-179.