Evaluations of Rape: Investigations Using Implicit and Explicit Measures, Online Research Methodology, and Samples of Community Men

Abstract

Evaluations of rape theoretically play an important role in sexually aggressive behaviour (e.g., Nunes, Hermann, & Ratcliffe, 2013). The purpose of this dissertation was to explore the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluations of rape and sexually aggressive behaviour using a longitudinal research design online. Study 1 examined the use of a self-generated identification code (SGIC) to track participants anonymously online. Study 1A examined a six question SGIC in a sample of 168 students and found the SGICs produced unique identifiers, and a low, but acceptable, exact match rate across a one month period. Study 1B explored a 12 question SGIC with a sample of 30 students and 15 community participants. The 12 question SGIC also produced unique identifiers, and resulted in a low, but acceptable, exact match rate across a one week period. These results suggest the 12 question SGIC can be used in longitudinal research online. Study 2 explored the cross-sectional relationships between implicit and explicit evaluations of rape and sexually aggressive behaviour using a sample of 150 male students and 378 community men. In both samples, explicit evaluations of rape had moderate to strong positive relationships with sexually aggressive behaviour. The same pattern of results was not observed for implicit evaluations of rape. Study 3 examined the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluations of rape and sexually aggressive behaviour using a longitudinal research design. Study 3 Wave 1 replicated and expanded on Study 2 using a sample of 190 male students and 597 community men. Importantly, four different measures of implicit evaluations of rape were used. The same pattern of results as observed in Study 2 was found. Participants in IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT EVALUATIONS OF RAPE iii Study 3 Wave 2 were 248 community men who had completed both Waves 1 and 2.Implicit and explicit evaluations of rape at Wave 1 significantly predicted self-reported sexually aggressive behaviour at Wave 2. These findings suggest that both implicit and explicit evaluations of rape may be relevant for sexually aggressive behaviour. If replicated, these results have important implications for theory, research, and correctional practice. IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT EVALUATIONS OF RAPE iv AcknowledgementsFirst and foremost I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Dr. Kevin Nunes for the guidance, support, time, and effort that he has invested in mentoring me throughout my doctorate. With patience and kindness, he has mentored me through the process of learning how to conduct rigorous psychological research and how to succeed in academia. I want to thank him for his extensive contributions of time, feedback, and effort in helping me acquire funding for my dissertation research, guiding me through the complicated process of implementing my research projects, and guiding me through the process of writing my dissertation. Furthermore, he has provided invaluable guidance and experience with regards to how to teach, manage research projects,...

Attitude May Be Everything, But Is Everything an Attitude? Cognitive Distortions May Not Be Evaluations of Rape

“…Gidycz, Warkentin, Orchowski, and Edwards (2011) found that male college students’ reported likelihood of engaging in sexually coercive and aggressive behavior was significantly associated with perpetrating future sexually coercive and aggressive behavior during a 3-month follow-up period. Hermann (2015) found that community men’s reported likelihood to rape was significantly associated with perpetrating future sexually coercive and aggressive behavior during a 4-month follow-up period.…”

“…Taken together, the available evidence allows some confidence regarding the construct validity of scores on our semantic differential scale. Nevertheless, future research should examine other self-report measures as well as implicit measures to assess evaluation of rape (Gannon & Polaschek, 2006; Hermann, 2015; Nunes et al, 2013; Widman & Olson, 2013). We have recently developed a self-report measure intended to provide a more comprehensive assessment of evaluation of sexual aggression that may be useful for future research in this area: Evaluation of Sexual Aggression Against Women (ESAW) scale (Hermann & Nunes, 2015).…”

“…On the LR Question (Malamuth, 1981), participants rate the likelihood that they would rape a woman if they could be assured of not being caught and punished on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( not at all likely ) to 5 ( very likely ). Past research has found moderate to large positive correlations between self-reported proclivity to rape and self-reported past sexually aggressive behavior in student and community samples (e.g., Hermann, 2015; Maimone, Hermann, Atlas, Berliant, & Nunes, 2013; Nunes et al, 2013). Gidycz, Warkentin, Orchowski, and Edwards (2011) found that male college students’ reported likelihood of engaging in sexually coercive and aggressive behavior was significantly associated with perpetrating future sexually coercive and aggressive behavior during a 3-month follow-up period.…”

Implicit and Explicit Evaluations of Sexual Aggression Predict Subsequent Sexually Aggressive Behavior in a Sample of Community Men

“…As a result, all four measures were combined into one RE-IAT variable at Wave 1 to maximize the sample size in the analyses. In Wave 2, all participants were asked to complete only the RCPN IAT (α = .70), as this version of the RE-IAT had the most consistent small positive relationships with sexually aggressive behavior in Wave 1 and these results were interpreted as preliminary evidence of criterion validity ( r = .11-.14; see Hermann, 2015).…”

“…In the current study, the internal consistency was excellent (Wave 1 α = .93, Wave 2 α = .87). Although the Evaluation of Rape Scale has not yet been validated, past research has found it is moderately and significantly correlated with other measures designed to assess explicit evaluations of sexual aggression and explicit evaluations of the outcomes of rape (Evaluations SES-TFR r = .46, p < .001 community men, Hermann, 2015; ROE-Evaluation scale, r = .30, p < .05 students, Maimone et al, 2013).…”