No abstract

The relationship between male rape myth acceptance, female rape myth acceptance, attitudes toward gay men, a series of gender role and sexism measures, victim blame and assault severity were investigated. It was predicted that men would display more negative, stereotypical attitudes than women and that male rape myth endorsement would be related to, and predicted by, the other attitude and attribution scales. Respondents comprised 323 undergraduates (146 males and 177 females) from a large University in the Northwest of England. Results broadly conformed to predictions, with men generally more negative than women, and male rape myth acceptance significantly related to female rape myth acceptance, negative attitudes about gay men, gender role attitudes, and victim blame. Furthermore, male rape myth acceptance was predicted by female rape myth acceptance, gender attitudes, and victim blame. Methodological issues and implications for future work and those working with victims are discussed.

Numerous studies have shown paranormal believers misperceive randomness and are poor at judging probability. Despite the obvious relevance to many types of alleged paranormal phenomena, no one has examined whether believers are more susceptible to the 'conjunction fallacy'; that is to misperceiving co-occurring (conjunct) events as being more likely than singular (constituent) events alone. The present study examines believer vs. non-believer differences in conjunction errors for both paranormal and non-paranormal events presented as either a probability or a frequency estimation task. As expected, believers made more conjunction errors than non-believers. This was true for both event types, with both groups making fewer errors for paranormal than for non-paranormal events. Surprisingly, the response format (probability vs. frequency) had little impact. Results are discussed in relation to paranormal believers' susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy and more generally, to their propensity for probabilistic reasoning biases.

This study investigated the roles of respondent, perpetrator, and victim gender on attributions toward a 10- or 15-year-old victim and an adult perpetrator in a hypothetical sexual abuse case. It was predicted (a) that female respondents would be more provictim and antiperpetrator than men, (b) that 10-year-old victims would be deemed more credible than 15-year-olds, and (c) that men would deem a 15-year-old male victim more culpable when child sexual abuse is perpetrated by a female abuser. Three hundred thirty-seven respondents read a 350-word sexual abuse depiction in which victim age, victim gender, and perpetrator gender were varied between respondents. Respondents then completed a 14-item attribution scale, relating to victim blame, perpetrator blame, assault severity, and victim credibility. A series of ANOVAs revealed support for all predictions. Results are discussed in relation to gender role attitudes. Suggestions for future work also considered.

This study investigated victim culpability, credibility, and assault severity in a hypothetical sexual abuse case. A 2 (respondent gender) x 3 (victim age) x 3 (perpetrator type) between-subjects design was employed. Members (391) of the U.K. general public read the depiction of a female child assaulted by an adult male perpetrator. Respondents then completed an attributions questionnaire. Findings showed that male respondents were less positive toward victims and considered the victim less credible than female respondents. Younger victims (aged five years) were considered more credible than older children (aged 15 years). Victims of strangers were considered more positively and more credible than victims of someone known to them (their father or a family friend). Suggestions for future work are proposed.