9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Negative Third-Party Reactions to Male and Female Victims of Rape: The Influence of Harm and Normativity Concerns

      1 , 2
      Journal of Interpersonal Violence
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Male and female victims of sexual violence frequently experience secondary victimization in the form of victim blame and other negative reactions by their social surroundings. However, it remains unclear whether these negative reactions differ from each other, and what mechanisms underlie negative reactions toward victims. In one laboratory study ( N = 132) and one online study ( N = 421), the authors assessed participants’ reactions to male and female victims, and whether different (moral) concerns underlay these reactions. The reactions addressed included positive and negative emotions, behavioral and characterological blame, explicit and implicit derogation, and two measures of distancing. It was hypothesized that male victimization would evoke different types of (negative) reactions compared with female victimization, and that normative concerns would predict a greater proportion of the variance of reactions to male victims than female victims. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to test whether reactions to male and female (non-)victims differed. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the influence of gender traditionality, homonegativity, as well as binding and individualizing moral values on participants’ reactions. Results revealed that participants consistently reacted more negatively to victims than to nonvictims, and more so to male than to female targets. Binding values were a regular predictor of negative reactions to victims, whereas they predicted positive reactions to nonvictims. The hypothesis that different mechanisms underlie reactions to male versus female victims was not supported. The discussion addresses implications of this research for interventions targeting secondary victimization and for future research investigating social reactions to victims of sexual violence. It also addresses limitations of the current research and considerations of diversity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences

          G*Power (Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996) was designed as a general stand-alone power analysis program for statistical tests commonly used in social and behavioral research. G*Power 3 is a major extension of, and improvement over, the previous versions. It runs on widely used computer platforms (i.e., Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X 10.4) and covers many different statistical tests of the t, F, and chi2 test families. In addition, it includes power analyses for z tests and some exact tests. G*Power 3 provides improved effect size calculators and graphic options, supports both distribution-based and design-based input modes, and offers all types of power analyses in which users might be interested. Like its predecessors, G*Power 3 is free.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.

              How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people's use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), "sacredness" reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American "culture war." Copyright (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Journal of Interpersonal Violence
                J Interpers Violence
                SAGE Publications
                0886-2605
                1552-6518
                May 2022
                April 29 2020
                May 2022
                : 37
                : 9-10
                : NP6055-NP6083
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Tilburg University, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Bielefeld University, Germany
                Article
                10.1177/0886260520914565
                3a77160f-a894-4eac-9846-86a6a5d62f09
                © 2022

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article