College Students' Attitudes Toward Rape Victims

全文

(1)bvert or escape male. :e attempts at creati- .. ~ver a wholly oppres . lives for themselves.. J. of Women and Gender Studies, No.1. Pp. 195-216, January 1990. Taipei: Women's Research Program,. Population Studies Center, NTU. . COLLEGE STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARD RAPE VICTIMSt. esses, Taboo. Jeaw-Mei Chen * Phylis Lan Lin **. According to the FBI, 87,340 rapes were reported in the United States in 1985. Since rapes are under-reported, the actual number is estimated to be at least five times higher (FBI, 1986). In recent years, the rates have risen so high that authorities have estimated that a rape occurs in the U.S. once every six minutes. One in every ten women might be raped in her lifetime in America. Because the age and degree of physical at tractiveness of rape victims are wide-ranging, rape is a problem shared by all females (Williams, 1984; Kilpatrick, et al. 1985; Kilpatrick, Veronen, and Best, 1984;Johnson, 1980; Koss, Gidycxz, and Wisniewsic, 1987). There is some evidence that a person's attitudes toward women's rights and roles in society are related to one's views about rape. Field (1978) found that peo ple who view women in traditional roles are likely to blame rape victims. Attitudes to ward rape victim~ been shown to influence a jury. Brozan (1985) found that both male and female jurors -treated the rape victim who seemed chaste or conventional in her style more seriously. Recent studies have pointed out that exposure to porno graphy affects attitudes toward rape victims (Malamuth and Check, 1981; Malamuth and Donnerstein, 1982; Check and Malamuth, 1983). Wyer, et al. (1985), in their expe rimental research, also revealed that portrayals of women as sex objects increased male subjects' beliefs that the victim was responsible for the incident .. Many studies on the topic of rape have dealt with the rapist. Anger, aggressive-. t This paper was presented at the 1989 American Sociological Association annual meeting, San. * **. Francisco, California. Professor, Department of Psychology, National Cheng-Chi University Professor, Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Indianapolis.. 195.

(2) 196 ness, low self-esteem, lack of self-control, the tendency to be stimulated by abnormal sexual acts and nudity, and the belief in "rape myths" are some typical characteristics of rapists (Chen, 1986; Abel, et aI., 1977; Atwood and Howell, 1976; Clark and Lewis, 1977; Williams and Holmes, 1981; and Scully and Marolla, 1985). Clark and Lewis (1977) discovered that rapists, more than the public at large, believed rape myths such as, "Women like to be raped," and "Women get pleasure from being raped". Gager and Schus (1976) found the phrases that rapists most often said to victims included, "It is what you've wanted, isn't it?" and after the rape, "You really liked it, didn't you?" This distorted cognition leads to recidivism (Scully and Marolla, 1982). Burt's study (1980) found that general public hold many simllar misconceptions about rape as ra pists did. He found that almost three quarters of the. people surveyed believed that women had an unconscious rape wish. As a result, people tended to hold the victim res ponsible for the rape. Aside from studying characteristics of rapists, attribution studies were found to be important indicators in the whole process of stigmatizing victims. Jones and Aronson's (1973) study of attitudes toward rape victims determined that married women and virgins were considered to be more at fault than divorcees based on the public's belief that a "respectable" person will not be raped unless the person misbehaves. This misconduct ultimately leads to rape, and therefore victims should be blamed. A great deal of attributional processes are influenced by societal and cultural definitions (Seligmann, 1984; Russell, 1982; and L'Armand, Pepitone, and Shanmugam, 1981). Sandy (1981) examined the social-cultural context of rape in 156 societies and suggested that rape is part of a cultural configuration which includes interpersonal vio lence, male dominance, and sexual separation. Thus, one can predict that the higher the degree of sex-role stereotype, the higher will be the degree of victimization. Situational factors also affect the attribution of the causes of rapes. Calhoun et al. (1976) found that the more rape occurred in a given area, the less the victims were blamed. Because the public expects victims to struggle with their attackers, if no signs of struggle exist, the victims are highly criticized (Krulewitz and Wash, 1979). Field (1978) found that "public officers" and the "public" agreed with the "rapists" that victims should take responsibility. The study further revealed that "female counselors," being females, were the only ones who showed some acceptance of the victims. In conclusion, attribution studies demonstrate a very large tendency for victims to be. blamed by the p: oppression of soc they are sick, po pathize with then Lin, 1988). The c victims to self-bla havioral" and "cn victims and great 1987 ; Janoff-BuIll. But why pea sis might provide which victims we] jects tended to d~ fortunes. Lerner i good people, whil someone, he or sh they want to beli trollable and unT me," and theref, Frieze (1983) usc prior to victimiz: (1975) found tha. were able to con1 victims for not tr blames people (vi is just. This socie were bad girls be Hurt, 1977; and 1 The present just world and se rape cases and th,. ginal study, by th~ study, both publi der differences in.

(3) 197. timulated by abnormal typical characteristics 1976; Clark and Lewis, )85). Clark and Lewis lieved rape myths such ing raped". Gager and rictims included, "It is liked it, didn't you?" I, 1982). Burt's study ions about rape as ra urveyed believed that· :0 hold the victim res ~. tudies were found to Jones and Aronson's married women and Dn the public's belief n misbehaves. This )e blamed.. :ocietal and cultural le, and Shanmugam,. in 156 societies and es interpersonal vio dict that the higher ctimization.. ·apes. Calhoun et al. ~ss the victims were ttackers, if no signs Wash, 1979). Field l the "rapists" that 'emale counselors," of the victims. In for victims to be. blamed by the pUblic. The "blaming of the victim" provides a justification for the oppression of society's victims. If people themselves are responsible for the fact that they are sick, poor, disabled, or raped, there is little need for the rest of us to sym pathize with them (Ryan, 1971; Howard, 1984; Chen and Tu, 1984; Ratliff, Chen and Lin, 1988). The consequences of blaming victims are quite clear. They inevitably lead victims to self-blame and fear of filing reports. Victims were often trapped in both "be havioral" and "characteristic" blame. Self-blame and other blame further stigmatized victims and greatly hindered their coping and adjusting mechanisms (Chen and Lin, 1987; Janoff-Bullman, 1979; Miller and Porter, 1983). But why people blame the victims? Lerner's (1970 & 1980) "just world" hypothe sis might provide an explanation. Lerner (1965) ran several laboratory experiments in which victims were picked at random to be given electric shock. It was found that sub jects tended to denigrate them, as if the victims were morally responsible for their mis fortunes. Lerner interprets that we all believe in a just world. Good things happen to good people, while bad things pappen only to bad people. If something bad happens to someone, he or she must be a bad person. People believe in a just world mainly because they want to believe that the world is controllable and predictable rather than uncon trollable and unpredictable. Thus, "bad things won't happen to a good person like me," and therefore, the victim himself/herself is responsible. Janoff-Bullman and Frieze (1983) used the term "illusion of invulnerability" to describe the notion that prior to victimization most individuals think that "it can't happen to me." Langer (1975) found that even in the case of pure chance, people tended to believe that they were able to control the situation. Based on this illusion, the public tended to accuse victims for not trying to control the situation. To protect this sense of control, society blames people (victims) for the bad things that happen to them. Therefore, the world is just. This societal tendency to believe in a just world has led victims to feel that they .were bad girls because they were raped (Burt, 1980; Field, 1978; Brownmiller , 1975; Hurt, 1977; and Thornton, 1984). The present study was designed to investigate how college students' beliefs in a just world and sex-role stereotyping are related to their attribution of responsibility in rape cases and their attitudes toward rape victims. This study was derived from an ori ginal study, by the present researchers, in Taiwan in 1985 (Chen and Lin, 1987). In that study, both public and college samples were drawn. For both studies, comparing gen der differences in attitudes toward rape victims and beliefs in a just world seems to be a.

(4) 198 logical cross-sectional design. Therefore, the focus of the present research was also placed upon the comparative study on gender differences. A third research report was prepared separately. The focus, then, was on a cross-cultural comparative study. The key purposes of the present study were to understand: 1. college students' view of a "just world" and their acceptance of sex-role stereotyping. 2. college students' attitudes toward rape victims and the views on the impor tant factors which trigger rape incidents. 3. how an individual's attitudes toward rape victims are related to his/her belief in a just world, acceptance of sex-role stereotypes, and views on factors attributing to rape incidents, and 4. whether gender might be related to these attitudes.. METHODOLOGY Subjects Two hundred and sixty-six students from four universities and colleges in Indiana (both public and private) answered the survey questionnaire in 1987. The sample in cluded 101 (38.3%) male and 163 (61.3%) female respondents (2 missing data). The majority (55.5%) were ages 10 to 19, and 33.2% of the respondents were in the 20 to 29 category.. was back translated some of the wording Peplau's), the double to Eriglish) prove to I. A seven-point 1 disagree" with score: JWS used a six-point more the subject dis just"), the higher the recorded. Therefore, lief in a "just world.". In order to undl done on the scores 0 lue > 1) were derive( 0.36) contained four factor," (factor loadi ciated with the idea tors and other meas\; between the belief in Sex Role Stereotype. Instruments and Analysis The design of the research instruments is described by the following: The Just World Scale (JWS). The JWS was originally designed by Rubin and Peplau (1975) and was tested by Rubin at Boston University and Oklahoma University. The internal consistencies (KR-20) were 0.80 and 0.81, and several pilot studies proved to have high scale reliability. Ma and Smith (1985) modified and translated the JWS to the Chinese language and then tested it on 1091 students at two universities in Taiwan. The original JWS has 20 items (Items 1-20), 9 being "unjust" and 11 being "just," whereas the present study used a 23-item scale with 10 "unjust" and 13 "just" it~ms. The results revealed high validity, and the between-item reUability was high also. For the purpose of a future cross-cultural analysis, the Chinese translation of the JWS for the present study was tested on 233 students in Taiwan in 1985. The JWS for the present survey. The SRSS, desil tance of sex-role ste Coefficient was 0.80 muth (1983) and wa reich's (1972) sex-ro gative items, was me: sex-role stereotype.. Factor analysis were found to have, to "traditional fema female" factor (Tablt.

(5) t research was also research report was parative study. The eptance of sex-role. riews on the imp or. ted to his /her belief lctors attributing to. I colleges in Indiana. )87. The sample in missing data). The ts were in the 20 to. following: The Just I Pep1au (1975) and rsity. The internal proved to have high JWS to the Chinese 'aiwan. The original "just," whereas the 'items. The results ;0. For the purpose WS for the present r the present survey. was back translated independently from the Chinese scale for accuracy. Although some of the wordings are slightly different from those in the original JWS (Rubin's & Pep1au's), the double back translations (from English to Chinese to English to Chinese to Eriglish) prove to be adherent to the original scale. A seven-point Likert scale was used varying from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" with scores ranging from 1 to 7 (Note: the original Rubin and Pep1au's JWS used a six-point scale). For the positive items ("just"), the higher the score, the more the subject disagreed with the statement, whereas for the negative items ("un just"), the higher the score, the higher was the degree of agreement. These items were recorded. Therefore, the higher the score, the lower was the individua1's degree of be lief in a "just world." In order to understand the dimension of the JWS, a Principle Factor Analysis was done on the scores of each item. By using varimax method, two factors (with Eigenva 1ue> 1) were derived from the analysis. Factor 1, "Unjust Factor," (factor loading> 0.36) contained four items clustered around the idea of an unjust world. Factor 2, "Just factor," (factor loading> 0.43) was composed of three items which seemed to be asso ciated with the idea of a just world (Table 1). The correlation between these two fac tors and other measurements allows researchers to further understand the relationship between the belief in a just world and attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Role Stereotype Scale (SRSS) The SRSS, designed by Burt (1980), is aimed at measuring an individual's accep~ tance of sex-role stereotypes. The scale includes nine items, and its Cronbach Alpha Coefficient was 0.80 (Burt, 1980). The scale reliability was tested by Check and Ma1a muth (1983) and was found to be highly correlated (r= -.73) with Speme and He1m reich's (1972) sex-role stereotype scale. The scale, including seven positive and two ne gative items, was measured by the Likert method with a higher score indicating a lower sex-role stereotype. Factor analysis was conducted from the results of the present study. Eight items were found to have a factor loading larger than 0.42, and those items were all related to "traditional female behaviors." Therefore, the dimension was termed "traditional fema1e""factor (Table 2)..

(6) 200 Table I. Gender and the Means for the JWS, Unjust Factor, and Just Factor. Just World Scale 1. I feel that many people in the world. have a false reputation. 2. In general, this is a fair world. 3. Luck always brings fortune. 4. Those who drive carefully and those who drive without care have the same probability of being hurt in a car accident. 5. Many criminals are judged innocent in court. 6. If you study hard, you will receive good grades. 7. If you take care of your health, you are very unlikely to have a heart attack. 8. Those candidates who insist on holding onto their principles in an election are usually the losers. 9. Innocent people are seldom put into jail. 10. In a race, many althletes are not caught when they violate a regulation. 11. A person will get what he (or she) deserves. 12. Parents always find good excuses to punish their children. 13. Those who do good deeds are usually not known and do not receive just rewards. 14. Although bad persons might have held the power in the history of mankind, good persons will eventually regain control. 15. In all occupations, those who work hard always get promoted. 16. Parents often neglect their children's wishes. 17. In our court system, it is difficult to find a fair judge. 18. One should blame himself (or herself) for his (or her) misfortunes. 19. Criminals always pay for their actions. 20. Innocent people are always the victims 21. The rich should be heavily taxed. 22. Most people do not have the motivation to cheat. 23. In a disordered world, criminals should be severely punished. Total JWS Unjust Factor Just Factor *P<.05; **p<'OI; and***p<'OOI Unjust factor includes items 1,2,5, and 17. Just factor includes items 11, 14, and 19.. Male mean SD. Table 2. Se. Female mean SD. Pooled variance. estimate. t. P ns. ns ns. "Traditional Femal, 4.76 4.13 3.00. 1.32 1.35 1.14. 5.01 4.30 3.20. 1.20 1.28 0.94. -1.58 -0.99 -1.56. 3.14 4.59. 1.72 1.34. 3.58 4.74. 0.68 0.12. -2.02 -0.97. * ns. 3.20. 1.41. 3.29. 0.39. -0.48. ns. 3.55. 1.41. 3.65. 0.13. -0.66. ns. 3.71 4.00. 1.26 1.40. 3.67 4.24. 0.03 0.19. 0.25 -1.43. ns ns. 3.96 3.68. 1.29 1.34. 4.09 3.98. 0.04 0.43. -0.95 -1.73. ns ns. 4.77. 1.05. 4.75. 0.06. 0.12. ns. 3.84. 1.26. 3.81. 0.25. 0.19. ns. 3.73. 1.21. 3.67. 0.08. 0.40. ns. 4.79 3.83. 1.10 1.26. 4.85 3.72. 1.02 1.14. -0.51 0.76. ns ns. 3.09. 1.21. 3.45. 1.08. -2.46. **. 4.10 5.01 3.14 4.13. 1.35 1.24 1.04 1.59. 4.29 4.99 3.56 4.05. 0.27 1.32 1.07 1.24. -1.12 0.16 -3.15 0.48. ns ns *** ns. 4.81. 1.19. 4.75. 1.17. 0.38. ns. 4.75. 1.17. 3.36. 1.19. -1.23. ns. 3.91 4.14 4.15. 1.27. 4.04 4.37 4.21. 0.37. -2.67 -2.25 -0.56. ** *. ns. 2. A girl must be a gets married. 3. It is wrong for ~ remain single. 4. In public places not refute her h 6. It is much wors, get drunk than : 7. There is nothinl single girl going 8. When a girl wan something, it is for her to use h than to use abil 9. When a man's g insulted, he she Total (Traditionall SRSS *p<.05; **p<.OI;. Attitudes Toward F. The items in psychology majors (1980) Rape Myth dents Scale were a item analysis, 29 i was then used in tl victim as my girl fri applied to the six 1.

(7) 201 Id Just Factor. I. Table 2. Sex-Role Stereotype Scale and the "Traditional Female Role" Factor Mean Scores. Pooled variance estimate t P. Male "Traditional Female Role" Factor. ~o ~8. -1.58 -0.99 -1.56. ns ns ns. ,8 2. -2.02 -0.97. ns. 9. -0048. ns. 3. -0.66. ns. 14. *. 3 9. 0.25 -1.43. ns ns. 4 3. -0.95 -1.73. ns ns . 5. 0.12. ns. 0.19 . ns. 0040. ns. -0.51 0.76 . ns ns. -2046. **. -1.12 0.16 -3.15. ns ns. ***. 0048. ns . 0.38 . ns. -1.23. ns. -2.67 -2.25 -0.56. ** *. ns . Female. Mean SD. Mean SD. t. P. 5.26. 4.99. 1.45. ns. 5.68. 5.98. -2.11. ns. 4.59. 5.26. -3.36. **. 5.27. 5.50. -1.28. hs. 5.22. 5.19. 0.17. ns. 2. A girl must be a virgin when she gets married. 3. It is wrong for a woman to remain single. 4. In public places, a wife should not refute her husband. 6. It is much worse for a woman to get drunk than for a man to do so. 7. There is nothing wrong with a single girl going to a bar. 8. When a girl wants to obtain something, it is much better for her to use her attraction than to use ability. 9. When a man's girl friend gets insulted, he should fight back.. 5.38. 6.15. -5.18. **. 3.63. 4.15. -2.78. ***. Total (Traditional Female Role Factor). 5.07. 5.38. -3.05. **. SRSS. 4.87. 5.15. -2.86-. **. *p<.05; **p<.OI; and ***p<'OOI Attitudes Toward Rape Victims Scale (ATRVS) The items in the scale used in the present study were first generated by senior psychology majors at the National Cheng-Chi University. Several items from Burt's (1980) Rape Myth Acceptance Scale and Field's (1978) Attitudes Toward Rape Inci dents Scale were added. A 50-item scale was then tested on 100 students. After the item analysis, 29 items with low discriminatory power were deleted. A 2 I-item scale was then used in the present study, including the item, "I am willing to accept a rape victim as my girl friend," which was applied to make subjects only. Reverse scoring was applied to the six negatively worded items. A higher total score indicated a higher de.

(8) 202 gree of acceptance of rape victims (Chen & Lin, 1987). Factor analysis revealed three key factors (with factor loading> 0.41) on the scale. The first factor, "characteristics of the rape victim," includes five items which are related to whether or not subjects judged the nature of the rape incident based on the victims' characteristics. The second factor, "victimization," includes four items which are related to victimization or stigmatising the victim. The third factor, "blaming the victim," includes four items which are focused on the negative evaluation of the victim's behavior. These three factors (dimensions) allow researchers to correlate subjects' acceptance of rape victims and their beliefs in a just world (Table 3). Attribution Scale (AS). Table 3. ATRVS "Victimization" F. I. Rape victims for what hap 2. Rape victims 4. We should fe victim. 7. A woman is 1 gets raped. Sub scale Total "Characteristics of. The attribution scale used in the present research was divided into two sections. Section one listed four possible causal factors (characteristics of rapists, characteristics of victims, circumstances, and luck) which led to rape incidents. A 7-point Likert Scale was used for subjects to indicate their viewpoints. Section two identified a list of ten characteristics of victims which might lead to rape incidents. Items (overexposure of one's body, failing to fight back or struggle, not knowing how to behave properly, etc.) which entailed victims' misbehaviors, personalities or characteristics, and cause-effects consequences, etc. were evaluated by the subjects. The "other" item was provided for subjects to further elaborate on attribution factors. Subjects were asked to consider the characteristics and behaviors of the rape vic tim and to identify major factors which caused rape. Since it is a multiple choice check list, factor analysis was not applied. Nevertheless, the frequency counts allow re searchers to draw some interesting conclusions for further elaboration on subjects' atti tudes toward rape victims. Social-demographic Infonnation Eight items were included in the basic information section: sex, age, education, religion, occupation, marital status, whether a victim is an acquaintance of the subject, and whether the subject thought of the victim at the time of answering the question naire. For the purpose of this preliminary report, the interaction effects between sex and other demographic variables were not analyzed.. 3. Only those Vi themselves b: clothing will 10. The reason tl victim does r 14. If a prostitut not necessaq 19. A good girl v 20. Rape victims are raped. Subscal~ Total "Blaming the Vict. 9. I can accept friends with 12. Rape victim: behave them 13. Many wome so they are a 18. The reason t that she or h cool enough Sub scale Total Attitudes Toward ·,p<.05; **p<.OI.

(9) 203 Table 3. Mean Scores for Attitudes Towards Rape Victims by Gender. ling> 0.41) on the des five items which pe incident based on includes four items hird factor, "blaming ve evaluation of the. I •. archers to correlate (Table 3).. Female. p. 6.01 6.22. 6.47 6.71. -3.09 -3.56. ** ***. 5.63. 5.85. -1.34. ns. 6.12 6.12. 6.49 6.49. -3.84 -3.84. *** ***. 6.12. 6.51. -2.99. **. 5.90. 6.26. -2.32. *. 5.76 6.52. 6.21 6.75. -4.01 -2.49. *** **. 6.26 5.90. 6.69 6.21. -3.75 -2.81. *** **. 5.65. 6.07. -4.02. ***. 5.59. 6.22. -4.00. ***. 6.04. 6.57. -4.01. ***. 5.67 5.75. 6.14 6.25. -3,03 -4.66. ** ***. 5.65. 6.02. -4.55. ***. t. "Victimization" Factor 1. Rape victims should be responsible for what happened. 2. Rape victims also should be punished. 4. We should feel sympathy for the rape victim. 7. A woman is not virtuous when she gets raped. Sub scale Total. 3. Only those who like to expose themselves by wearing revealing clothing will get raped. 10. The reason that a rape happens is that the victim does not protest as she should. 14. If a prostitute gets raped, it is not necessary to report it to the police. 19. A good girl will never get raped. 20. Rape victims enjoy the sex when they are raped. Subscal~ Total. pists, characteristics 7-point Likert Scale ~ntified a list of ten IS (overexposure of ~have properly, etc.) cs, and cause-effects !m was provided for. sex, age, education, ance of the subject,. vering the question!ffects between sex. Male. "Characteristics of the Victim" Factor. :l into two sections.. 'iors of the rape vic ultiple choice check ;y counts allow reon on subjects' atti-. ATRVS. •. I. I. "Blaming the Victim" Factor 9. I can accept the idea of making friends with a rape victim. 12. Rape victims do not know how to behave themselves properly. 13. Many women would like to be raped, so they are always under attack. 18. The reason that one may be raped is that she or he is not rational or cool enough to handle things. Sub scale Total Attitudes Toward Rape Victims Scale ·p<.05; **p<.OI; and ***p<.OOI.

(10) 204 5.853 for female: ble than to remai RESULTS Beliefs in a "Just WorId" The total mean score from the JWS and the two dimensions explains an indivi dual's belief in a just world--the higher the score, the lower the degree of acceptance of the "just world" idea. Results from the present study showed a mean of 3.98,which reflected the subjects' slight rejection of the "just world"; this was in congruence with Wagstaffs study of the JWS with British subjects (1983). A closer look at the itemized JWS revealed that only three items showed signifi cant gender differences. Two of these items (item 17 and item 20) were related to the "just" idea and one (item 4) was "unjust." However, the total mean scores for the JWS showed a significant gender difference (mean = 3.91 for males and 4.04 for fe males; t = -.26, p = .008), revealing that males, more than females, believed in a "just world." Educational background, marital status and whether the subjects knew any rape victims did not show any significant differences in the JWS and the two subscales.. A significant gender difference was found on the "unjust" factor mean scores (t = - 2.25, p = .02) (Table 1). The study also found that subjects tended to reject items related to the "criminal justice" theme (items 5, 9,17,19,20, and 23). It is in teresting to point out that both sexes tended to disagree regarding the work related statement, "In all occupations, those who work hard always get promoted." Sex Role Stereotype Significant differences between the sexes were demonstrated on the SRSS. For instance, males, more than females, accepted the statement, "It is wrong for a woman to remain single" (t = -2.71, p =0.007). However, there was no significant gender dif ference with regard to the statement, "It is wrong for a woman not to have a family (to be childless)." This finding reflects some very intriguing attitudes toward marriage and the family. Although there was no gender difference. toward a childless woman, the mean scores for this item (5.683 for males and 5 .98 for females) were higher than the means for the statements regarding a woman remaining single (5.465 for males and. A look at tl were oyer 4 (mel cepted sex-role st both sexes did di dimension ("trad to conclude that traditional femall lower scores for: total score (Table There were· (Table 2). In eac role more than fe to note that fem; questions #2 and the mean for mal nothing wrong w females' mean wa. Attitudes Toward By tabulatin females tended tc acceptance (The 0.001). In additi rape victim," "vic higher means tha: -4.66, p < 0.00: degree of accepta every single item more reluctant to.

(11) explains an indivi gree of acceptance !an of3.98, which n congruence with. ms showed signifi vere related to the ean scores for the sand 4.04 for fe believed in a "just ubjects knew any the two subscales.. Lctor mean scores s tended to reject ), and 23). It is in : the work related Iloted. ". on the SRSS. For rong for a woman ificant gender dif • to have a family s toward marriage ldless woman, the re higher than the ·65 for males and. 205 5.853 for females). This meant, for both sexes, that to be childless was more accepta ble than to remain single. A look at the total scores from the SRSS showed that mean scores for both sexes were oyer 4 (mean = 4.879 for males and 5.515 for females), reflecting that males ac cepted sex-role stereotyping more than did females (t = -2.67, p = 0.005). Nevertheless, both sexes did disagree with statements reflecting sex-role stereotypes. Since only one dimension ("traditional females") was derived from the factor analysis, it is adequate to conclude that males, more than females, consider that "females should abide with traditional female roles." This conclusion was drawn based upon the consistency of the lower scores for males in both the "traditional female" dimension score and the SRSS total score (Table 2). There were significant differences between the sexes in items #3, #4, #8, and #9 (Table 2). In each of those questions, males tended to accept the traditional female role more than females did. Even though the items were not significant, it is interesting to note that females; more than males, tended to accept the traditional female role on questions #2 and #7. In question #2, "A girl must be a virgin when she gets married," the mean for males was 5.267 and for females was 4.993, and in question #7, "There is nothing wrong with a single girl going to a bar," the males' mean was 5.220 while the females' mean was 5.190. AttitudesToward Rape Victims By tabulating the total score from the ATRVS, it was found that both males and females tended to accept rape victims, although females exhibited a higher degree of acceptance (The mean for males was 5.65 and for females was 6.02; t = -4.55, p < 0.001). In addition, separate sCores from three dimensions -- "characteristics of the rape victim," "victimization," and "victims's behavior" --revealed that females had higher means than did males (t = -3.84, p < 0.001; t = -2.81, p < 0.01; and t = -4.66, p < 0.001) which further confirmed the findings that females had a higher degree of acceptance of rape victims. In addition, females also had higher scores on every single item in the three dimensions. This leads to the conclusion that males were more reluctant to accept rape victims (Table 3)..

(12) 206 Attribution Factors The results showed, on a 7-point scale, that the mean scores for characteristics of rapists, victims, circumstances, and luck factors were 2.06,4.02,2.69, and 4.12, res pectively. Of these, the rapists and circumstances were considered to be more impor tant factors than the other two. Among the four factors, only attribution to victim charaf:teristics showed a significant gender difference (t = -3.17, p <0.01). Males, more than females, attributed the characteristics of the victim, as an impor tant cause of rape. The more one believes that rape is the victim's fault, the more one tends to blame the victim, and therefore, the victim is stigmatized. The characteristics of the rapist had the lowest mean (1.940 for males and 2.181 for females) which revealed it as the most important cause of rape. Correlations Among the Four Scales A second order analysis was carried out for further understanding of the rela tionship between and among the four scales used in the present study. A number of significant correlations were found. They are briefly described as follows: 1. The correlation between the JWS and other scales No significant correlation between the JWS and the SRSS existed. However, a Positive correlation between the JWS and the Victim's Behavior factor was found (r = .1 0, p < .05); the more one believed in a just world, the more one blamed the victim's behavior and circumstances. The JWS and the Attribution Factor (cir cumstances under which rape occured) were also positively correlated (r = 0.13, p <'05). In addition, it was found that the unjust factor was positively correlated with the Characteristic of the Victim Factor (r = 0.15, p < 0.001). 2. The correlation between the SRSS and other scales The SRSS was significantly correlated with the ATRVS, the three dimensions of the AS, and the Characteristics of the Victim Attribution at the p < 0.001 level (r = .57, .38, .44, .40, and .27, respectively). In short, the more one accepted the SRSS, the more one tended to blame victims. 3. ATRVS and AS Data showed that the higher the subjects scored on the ATRVS, the lower they scored on one of the Attribution factors. Namely, the more one rejected rape vic tims, the less one attributed the incident to the characteristics of the rapists (r = -.29, p < 0.001). The Blaming the Victim factor and the Characteristics of the. Victim facto the Characte victim, the n the responsib. The purpose~ attitudes (acceptal tions with one's However, althougl males, mean score sexes, in general, t sex-role stereotyp~ ded to reject sex-r (Chen and Lin, 1~ the U.S. subjects f predictable since tl. Behaviors ten rape incidents leas study found that t to blame victims fmding supports a I. It is interestin "when a man's gir This might reflect the woman, but als. The results sl blamed the victim ': variable in affectil affecting the degre Males, significantly.

(13) 207. ,r characteristics of .69, and 4.12, res to be more impor tribution to victim ~0.01).. victim. as an imp or °ault, the more one The characteristics '~r females) which. mding of the rela udy. A number of lows:. :isted. However, a ,r factor was found )re one blamed the bution Factor (cir ,rrelated (r = 0.13, ositively correlated 11 ). ~. Victim factor were also found to be positively correlated with every scale except the Characteristic of Rapist Attribution. In other words, the more one blamed the victim, the more one accepted the sex-role stereotype and the less one attributed the responsibility to the rapist (Table 4).. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The purposes of the present study were to assess possible gender differences in attitudes (acceptance of) toward rape victims and to determine these attitudes' correla tions with one's beliefs in a just world. Significant gender differences were found. However, although females had a higher degree of acceptance of victims than did males, mean scores from the Attitudes Toward Rape Victim Scale indicated that both sexes, in general, tended to accept rape victims. In addition, although males accepted sex-role stereotypes more than did females, the findings suggested that both sexes ten ded to reject sex-role stereotypes. This finding was inconsistent with the Taiwan study (Chen and .Lin, 1987). Although both studies showed significant gender differences, the U.S. subjects far more rejected the attitudes toward sex-role stereotypes. This was predictable since the Chinese society tends to be more male-dominant. Behaviors tended to be influenced by attitudes. Although the subjects attributed rape incidents least to the characteristics of victims and most to the rapists, the present study found that the more one accepted the sex-role stereotypes, the more one tended to blame victims and the less one attributed the responsibility to the rapist. This finding supports a previous study by Howard (1980). It is interesting to point out that on the SRSS male subjects felt very strongly that "when a man's girlfriend gets insulted, he should fight back" (t = -2.78, p <0.001).. three dimensions the p < 0.001 level 'e one accepted the. This might reflect the traditional idea that rape is not only an act of violence toward the woman, but also a sign of violence toward her partner.. ';S, the lower they le rejected rape vic s of the rapists (r = aracteristics of the. The results showed that the more one believed in a just world, the more one blamed the victim's behavior and circumstances. Gender appeared to be an important variable in affecting attitudes toward rape victims, identifying attribution factors, affecting the degree of belief in a "just world," and accepting sex-role stereotypes. Males, significantly more than females, believed in the "just world" idea and accepted.

(14) .58***. .13*. .10*. .12*. .12* .27***. .40***. .44***. .29***. .40***. .45***. .40***. .29**. .19***. .78***. .85***. .67***. 1.00. .51 ***. .57***. 6. -.11*. .28***. .50***. .54***. 1.00. .67***. .40***. .38***. 7. .50***. .54***. .14**. .12**. .10*. -.15**. .33***. .29*** -.18**. 1.00. .70***. .70***. .78***. .85***. 1.00. .29***. .40***. .45***. -.29**. 11. .39***. 1.00. .16**. .39**. .10*. .12*. .13*. 12. .11 **. .12**. .14**. 13. .11 ** 1.00. .16** 1.00. .33*** -.15**. .29*** -.18**. .28*** -.11 *. .19**. .27***. 10. .40***. .12*. .10*. 9. .44***. .15***. 8. ~ '" QS ..... 0 ..... ~ • ~p>0""'_"'''' S::::r'-'~ .... g. ~. ct. is::: =. ;g. P>. <:; 1. 0.. . =. ..... ~=--~:><::;. 0..'-' ,. ''''' s:: .......... ~OO~ ..., "0 ..., '-'". "' '" ~ ::r ..... ..,., ...... 0 o 0.. ~ en' Q = ~ c;i :: _~ ==;" CI'J ..(1) (ti ~ ........ :>;"...,. t-1. 5.:3 ~ 8 0; ~ ..., "O ..... -::;::-~ ~ (b ..... e: ~ '" ~. ~ ::r ~. "'..... o::r. "0. f!l.. '"'!'l. ...... P>. a. &. '". =. eo. 0;'. ~ e: ~ 8. ~. ~. Q §.. :3. :::r eo. ~ ~. is::: P'. t;n. S'. ~. c·. t;n. ...... ~ ~ 'E ~ 2. g. > ...... g.. s... = =. ...,::r .......... ~ !"'! -::r =-P>'"..... ~ ~ ~ s:: '" "'8. ::+..... 0..::< '" '< ~ ::4. -< ~ ::r ::::: 0....., '-'" 0.. P>"'" = = ~ ..... ..... ",:=.::3 (S. 0 ~ = _ ~,~ = ~ -< OIl !"'! ...... _ -, 0 _ ~ 0"........, 0....... ~ ~.......;:l CI'J ...... 0"'''' ...... ~ \0 ....... ::r == 0.. 0 0 ....· ' " P>...,_!"'!~,<!",!o.. =0 P>o....... = ........... !"'!'J;::l ..... ;::l 00Ot/ O"~~ ~o...,:3 ..... ;::lO"'P>O"'ZVl"'s:: '< ~.... '" ,.,..., ~ _ .... ~ ..... 0 _ ~. Ot/ '" 0" 0" ' ~ ..... .... 0.. = _ !"'! ~ .... P> ..., """'::r ..... ~ ..... " p>p>0 0 ..... '";::l-< '" ::r ~ 0 0 '" ..... ..., ~ "'~ 0 ~ .... 0 OIl 0 P> ;;;> P> ~ ~ lit P> 0.. ; . \0 P> ..., ..., 0.. :3 ~ :s ~. . . . . !F t:::"::S ('tl 'T"1 t'D 00 n ('l) ::::::t....... ::s. ~ §. ~. g. ...... ~. 1""'1_. j;;) (i1. "0. I. ~. P>o ...... _. s::~ '" ..... ...... '". '". 0... ~. P>:><. Q _. ~. a. I = Just World Scale, 2 = "Just" Factor, 3 = "Unjust" Factor, 4 = Sex Role Stereotype Scale,S = "Traditional Female Role" Factor, 6 = Attitudes Toward Rape Victims Scale, 7 = "Victimization" Factor, 8 = "Characteristics of the Victim" Factor, 9 = "Blaming the Victim" Factor, 10 = Attribution: Characteristics of the Victim, II = Attribution: Characteristics of the Rapist, 12 = Attribution: The Circumstances When the Rape Occurred, and 13 =Attribution: The Luck Factor.. *p<.05, **p<.OI, ***p<.OOI.. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. .15**. .38***. 7. 8. .57***. 6. .57***. 1.00. .97***. 5. 5. 4. .97***. 1.00. .10**. .58***. 3. 4.. .16**. .58*** . 1.00. 3. .58***. 2. 1.00. 2. Table 4. Pearson correlation matrix for scales and subscalesa . tv 00 0.

(15)

(16) 210 REFERENCES. Abel, G.G., D.H. Barlow, E. Blanchard, and D. Guild 1977 "The components of Rapists' Sexual Arousal," Archives of General Psychiatry, 34: 895-903. Acock, Alan C. and Nancy K. Ireland 1983 "Attribution of Blame in Rape Cases: The Impact of Norm Violence, Gender, and Sex-Role Attitudes," Sex-Role, 9: 179-193. Atwood, R.W., and RJ. Howell 1971 "Pupilometric and Personality Test Score Differences of Female Aggressing Peduphiliacs and Normals," Psychonumic Science, 22: 115-116. Brownmiller, S. 1975 Against Our Will and Schuster. Brozan, N. 1985. Men, Women, and Rape. New York: Simon. Chen, Jeaw-Me 1987 "e Ju tio Chen, Ro-Chan "I 1986 lo~. Clark, L. and D 1977 RG. Federal Bureau 1986 Cr. u. Field, H.S. 1978 . "p. sis lo~. "Jurors in Rape Trials Studied," New York Times, (June 17): 20.. Burt, Martha R. 1980 "Cultural Myths and Supports for Rape," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 217-230. Calhoun, L., J. Selby, and L. Warring 1976 "Social Perception of the Victim's Causal Role in Rape: An explorato ry Examination of Four Factors," Human Relations, 26: 517-526. Cann, A. et al. 1981 "Rape: A Contemporary Overview and Analysis," Journal of Social Issues, 37: 1-4. Chen, Jeaw-Mei and F.H. Tu 1984 "Attitudes toward the Handicapped," Chinese Sociological Jour-:wl, 18: 91-112.. Cager, N. and S 1976 Se, D1. Howard, Judith 1984 "S Ot. J ano ff-Bu1mam 1979 "C sic 17. Johnson, Allan "e 1980. Jones, C. and E 1973 "A of.

(17) 211 Chen, Jeaw-Mei and Phylis Lan Lin 1987 "Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Rape Victims and Beliefs in a Just World - The case in Taiwan'," paper presented at the I st Interna tional China Symposium, Indianapolis.. rives of General. Chen, Ro-Chang "In the Shadow of the Dark: Why Did They Rape Me?" Living Psycho 1986 logy, 97: 85-89. Norm Violence,. '.. Clark, L. and D. Lewis 1977 Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality. Toronto: The Women's Press.. lces of Female 'c Science, 22:. Federal Bureau of Investigation' 1986 Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.. " York: Simon. eI7):20.. Personality and. An explorato : 517-526.. Field, H.S. 1978 . "Attitudes toward Rape: A Comparative Analysis of Police, Rapist, Cri sis Counselors, and Citizens," Journal of Personality and Social Psycho logy, 36: 156-179.. Cager, N. and Schurr 1976 Sexual Assault: Confronting Rape in America. New York: Grosset and Dunlop. Howard, Judith A. 1984 "Social Influences on Attribution: Blaming Some Victims More Than Others," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 494-505.. !:. lurnal of Social. Janoff-Bulmann, R. 1979 "Characterological versus Behavioral Self-Blame: Inquiries into Depres sion and Rape," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 1798-1809. Johnson, Allan G. 1980 "On the Prevalence of Rape in the United States," Signs, 6: 136-145.. 'cal Jour~l, 18:. Jones, C. and E. Aronson "Attribution of Fault to a Rape Victim as a Function of Responsibility 1973 of the Victim," Journal of Personality, 26: 415-419..

(18) 212 Kilpatrick, D.K., L.J. Veronen, and C.L. Best "Factors Predicting Psychological Distress among Rape Victims," in 1984 C.R. Figley (ed.), Trauma and its Wake: The Study of Treatment of Postraumatic Stress Disorder. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Kilpatrick, D.G.et all. "Mental Health Correlates of Criminal Victimization: A Random Com 1985 munity Survey," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psxcho logy , 53: 886 873. Koss, Mary P .. HThe Hidden Rape Victim: Personality, Attitudinal, and Situational 1985 Characteristics," Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9: 193-212. Koss, M.P., C.A. Gidycz, and N. Wisniewski 1987 "The Scope of Rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55: 162-170. Krulewitz, J. and J. Nash 1979 "Effects of Rape Victim Resistance, Assault Outcome, and Sex of Ob server on Attribution about Rape," Journal of Personality, 47: 557-574. Langer, EJ. 1975 "The Illusion of Control," Journal of Personality and Social Psycho logy, 32: 311-328. L' Armand, K., A. Pepiton, and T.E. Shanmugam 1981 "Attitudes toward Rape: A Comparison of the Role of Chastity in India and the United States," Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 12: 284-303. Lerner, MJ. "The Effect of Responsibility and Choice on a Partner's Attractiveness 1965 Following Failure," Journal of Personality, 33: 178-187. 1970 "The Desire for Justice and Reaction to Victims," in J. McCauley and L. BerkowJtz (eds.), Atruism and Heiping Behavior. New York: Acade mic Press. 1980 The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Ple num Books.. Ma, L.c. and K.B. 1985 "Indi' Taiw~. Malamuth, N.M. at 1981 "The agaim lity, 1. Malamuth, N.M. ar 1982 "The 136 i logy. 1. Malamuth, N., S. II 1980 "Testi Sex, I Pers01: Ratliff, K.G., Jeaw 1988a "Fact4 paper Meetil 1988b "A C: paper Meetir. Russell, D.E.H. 1982 Rape i Ryan, W. 1971 . Blamil. Sanday, P.R. "The: 1981 nalof Sattem, L., J. Savel 1984 "Sex-F 860..

(19) 213. ape Victims," in iy of Treatment I-fazel.. A Random Com ~chology, 53: 886. and Situational 193-212.. exual Aggression :ation Students," -170.. , and Sex of Ob fty, 47: 557-574.. t Social Psycho. : of Chastity in Psychology, 12:. Ma, L.C. and K.B. Smith 1985 "Individual and Social Correlation of the Just World Belief: A Study of Taiwanese College Students," Psychological Reports, 57: 35-38. Malamuth, N.M. and J .V.P. Check 1981 "The Effects of Mass Media Exposure on Acceptance of Violence against Women: A Fixed Experimant," Journal of Research in Persona lity, 15: 436-446. Malamuth, N.M. and E. Donnerstein 1982 "The Effects of Aggressive-Pornographic Mass Media Stimuli," pp. 103 136 in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psycho logy. New York: Academic Press. Malamuth, N., S. Hager, and S. Feshback 1980 "Testing Hypotheses Regarding Rape: Exposure to Sexual Violence, Sex, Difference, and 'Normality' of Rapists," Journal of Research in PersonalitY,14: 121-137. Ratliff, K.G., Jeaw-Mei Chen, and Phylis Lan Lin 1988a "Factors Predicting College Students' Acceptance of Disabled Persons," paper presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans. 1988b "A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Attitudes toward Disabled Persons," paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta. Russell, D.E.H. 1982 Rape in Marriage. New York: Macmillan. Ryan, W. 1971. 's Attractiveness. r. McCauley and w York: AcadeNew York: Ple. Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage.. Sanday, P.R. "The Socio-Cultural Context of Rape: A Cross-Cultural Study," Jour 1981 nal of Social Issues, 37: 5-27. Sattem, L., J. Savells, and E. Murray 1984 "Sex-Role Stereotypes and Commitment of Rape," Sex-Role, 11: 849 860.. •.

(20) 214 Scully, D. and J. Marolla 1982 "Convicted Rapists' Vocabulary of Motive: Excuses and Justifications," Social Problems, 31: 530-544. 1985 "Riding the Bull at Gilley's': Convicted Rapists Describe the Rewards of Rape," Social Problems, 32: 251-263. Seligmann, J. 1984 "The Date Who Rapes," Newsweek, (Apri19): 91-92. Spence,J.T. and R. He1mreich 1972 "The Attitudes toward Women Scale: An Objective Instrument to Measure Attitudes toward the Rights and Roles of Women in Contem porary Society," JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2: 66. Thornton, B. 1984 "Defensive Attribution of Responsibility: Evidence for an Arousa1 Based Motivational Bias," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 721-734. Warr, M. 1985. "Fear of Rape among Urban Women," Social Problems, 32: 238-250.. Williams, L.S. "The Classic Rape: When Do Victims Report?" Social Problems, 31: 1984 459-467.. ~~~~~~lijf'i~~. 'ftA1.M+ m:~t5~~~~ -ffil ~ IE a~rltt W ' PI ~ g: {E~ A:!¥t J: ' mJIB If~HrtJ 'ilJ J;{ Rimy fI1~ IMfHrtJA:!¥t J: ' rog *~~ §'tfmM 'I rm~B'iJ ~itf:15-. @ils. ~t~t 260 ~ EO. M:i. fJ.fnI~,[?:15. . t!tWB'iJ fM~. 0. '. .§.f!.J:~. @:lI: ~,. ~ IE ill::W~ (IN i& DO J;{ i. Williams, J .E. and K.A. Holmes 1982 "The Second Assault: Rape and Public Attitudes," Sociology and So ciaIResearch,"67: 101-102. Wyer, R.S., G.V. Bodenhausen, and T.F. Gorman 1985 "Cognitive Mediators of Reactions to Rape," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 48: 324-338.. • ~ lz: i& tElj,:!fA,u J!l •• ~~ University.

(21) 215. !d Justifications,". **~~~mtk~~~tI~~~~f-f~. ribe the Rewards. IIi B3e. mr. (~ 'e Instrument to )men in Contem ts in Psychology,. ~;~~ i!i~ 1iJ #g~:tUiltt1B. fi. 3t tOO. * Jl\.. ~). .. ~l!ll%I]I[YfJ~~~ 1i im8'9-fj}i!i. IA~f+}JHtt!Ji~~i!i~1f!!~1lrtiJfL~IJi8'9J!H-7-M:~. **. 0. 0. r 0 IE-ttt:W- J. 8'9a~~fA y. . Lerner ( 1965 ) W~ffi'Ux1Mfi*Hf~H~~. ~0IE8'9-ttt:W-'8 • • ~~88'9A.~'.$R.a~~.8'9A.~o~*~$8'9.mB ~tE~ A:!'! ~. , 1J~ Jl£ ~ Ml A - 5.E {i!: 11" fA'- ~ A 11'1 ;:f{!-® 0 IE -ttt W1: ~ ~ ~ ;t~Hfi ~;f§ f~H~ -ttt W~ IftA9' 1iJl.iffiiJlll%Om!ffiIJ8'9 ' 1i'fj~~~~8'9%O~1iJ~mJH'iJ 1JM~' .H'iJ~JtfilM:~fja1:{EJX 0. 0. for an Arousal Jcial Psychology,. ~m88'9A.~,1i'fj~~~5.lli-5.E~D~.m8'9Yo *Uf~ ~~mM OOA ;f[H~. r 0lE-ttt:W- J. IJfiA9 ~i!i.- ~Il~m ik~~:1f fL~f:ft ~~. ~t¥t 260 ~m m:t(JJ!l*~~(tgrn~~~1!f. ns, 32: 238-250.. J cio logy. 0. , *6*M~-OOAifJi:;ffHgj0IE-ttt:WIDD~ ,. ~ifJi:. t •• ~5.'H.~.~~1I'I°~~'*~~Bm~~~~• • fr~~~~.~W@0lE t!t9ilB'iJ ff~~. 'al Problems, 31:. t'I'9~IJi.&.;Jtfg:71iJ Pj @~J;f&m~¥tn~-mW1~lJJ!J;fj. 0. m~ ~ tl: %lJfrtl: ~Br~;;fj:m s!R"U (tg tt )}IJ ~ @~j;f&m~ 0 ~t~ , *Uf~~$H¥t Le rn er. 1}IEt!t:W-t':t'91fR~1JOl.i W1IlfIi. 0. and So. ( Personality and. • IiilJtJ& rEi*.I()l!llif~Wi~~. .•• ~~ University of Indianapolis f:fmf-1.~~~N.

(22) 216. COLLEGE STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARD RAPE VICTIMS. .liUlUAI1l' : - * .J;t::tI IJJl 18:tc it M:}JU - 4i.~.tE=.~J;t P'9. '. -IIUtl*~~. (ABSTRACT). .R.~.. ,. *<=P'l,\Jm~. ~JmWP:m:~~i. - &.~JJtfWftJnU~Z~ The impact of rape on the victims is social, physical, and psychological. The just world hypothesis provides an explanation of why victims are often blamed for their misfortunes. Lerner (1965) proposed that we all believe in a just world -- good things happen to good people, while bad things only happen to bad people. If someone suf fers a misfortune, the person must be bad. People believe in a just world mainly be- . cause they want to believe that the world is predictable and controllable rather than uncontrollable and random. Thus, "bad things won't happen to a good person like me," and therefore the victim himself or herself is responsible. The present study was designed to invystigate how one's belief in a just world and attitudes toward sex-role stereotyping affect his/her attitude toward gender-linked vic tim-the rape victim.. - *flJiE:1I=:it. EI j • ••JJtf r tl'~tmJmWij 0 ••. •• -m~, *.JJ.~. -n.. - *_AI1::tImllll ' f1jlii!J J;t E. lltlJ.llflJiHt'ilttm : lii!1j~J. tEtl'. '. ~~JI9701:. He estimated th. ~.X~Z~~.13. (. <=pE. ~1!tJlffl' 1988). (Chiang. 1985). 'I lEx ~ B::tI f'F:1f ~IA; iii Data were collected from 260 Indiana college and university students via a survey questionnaire. The results show that the more one believed in a just world, the more one blamed and therefore the less one accepted the victim. Male subjects tended to believe in a just world more than did female subjects. However, the study also reflected both males and females rejecting sex role stereotypes. The present study concludes with a discusson of Lerner's just world hypothesis. Key words: Attitude, Rape, Victim, Just World, Attribution.. ~JH'.~.. B'il. wtJ. Hauser has propc. . 1.lJtlJ.lwt51Ef:ifiXB'il7ii~ It_mtE~J{l'::Jj. , 1m :. ~JfJ<=PIil1'JX1tffl~1 on recent arrivi. JUU 1:ijf::tI.wt.~ lii!1 J;J ~ : *6/1111=: tri ~ Ii tE 25 ' zp.~J&Am4iA. 25,. .~.13. .~.I3lii!J?UtE~X~ffii. ~~ • • 'lii!1tEm-fi~.

(23)