Comparing Rape Myth Acceptance Among Police Trainees and Medical Students: A Preliminary Danish Validation of the Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale

Abstract

Identifying rape myths among criminal justice and medical professionals is central to preventing secondary victimization. We present the first preliminary Danish validation of McMahon and Farmer’s updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale using samples of police and medical trainees. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses result in a 14-item, four-factor measure that demonstrates acceptable model fit, satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity, and good internal consistency. Although reported rape myth acceptance is generally low in both samples, some subscale scores vary across professional groups, thereby identifying specific targets for intervention in different occupational contexts. Further tests of the scale are recommended.

Rape Myth Acceptance in a Community Sample of Adult Women in the Post #MeToo Era

“…RMA was measured using the uIRMA scale developed by McMahon and Farmer (2011). The full 22-item version was administered, with questions such as, “When girls are raped, it’s often because the way they said ‘no’ was unclear.” In line with other recent research (e.g., Łyś et al, 2021; Skov et al, 2021), we used a reverse Likert-type scale from the original measure for ease of interpretation, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree , with higher scores indicating greater acceptance of rape myths. Item responses were summed to provide a total RMA score as well as scores across subscales.…”

“…The scale consists of 22-items asking respondents to rate on a 5-point Likert-type scale how much they agree or disagree with common rape myth statements (e.g., "When girls go to parties wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for trouble" and "If both people are drunk, it can't be rape"). Though only 19 of these items demonstrated significant factor loadings in the original study, the additional 3 items have been retained as optional and have proven to yield varying results in other cultures (Skov et al, 2021). A 5-factor model with the subscales: She Asked For It, He Didn't Mean To, He Didn't Mean To (Intoxication), It Wasn't Really Rape, and She Lied, had superior fit in the original sample (comparative fit index [CFI] = .90, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = .97, root mean square error approximation [RMSEA] = .07) compared to the 4-factor model which combined the two subscales for He Didn't Mean To (CFI = .87, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .09).…”

“…Other countries (e.g., Hungary, Denmark, Nigeria) have begun translating, culturally adapting, and validating the scale in various contexts (e.g., community samples, medical students, police officers, undergraduates; Fakunmoju et al, 2018; Nyúl & Kende, 2021; Skov et al, 2021). Differences have been identified across samples with regard to item significance and factor structure, supporting the notion that rape myths are socially constructed and culturally specific (Skov et al, 2021).…”

“…Currently, the uIRMA (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) is widely considered the most reliable measure of RMA (Reddy et al, 2022; Skov et al, 2021). This scale was adapted to measure more subtle rape myths, acknowledging sociocultural changes in how people discuss sexual violence and the impact social desirability can have on their responses.…”

Victim blaming, prior history to sexual victimization, support for sexually assaulted friends, and rape myths acceptance as predictors of attitudes towards rape victims in the general population of Pakistan

“…During the span of past many decades, a number of valid and reliable measures have been developed for the purpose of assessing rapid myths including the Attitudes Towards Rape Scale, the RMAS Scale, and Illinois Rape Myths Acceptance Scale (Skov et al 2022). From among these scales, the IRMA scale is known for being widely used.…”