Initial evaluation of a gender-inclusive version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale.

Abstract

Rape myths are false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and/or perpetrators of rape that perpetuate a culture where sexual violence is excused. Martha Burt created the first measure of rape myth acceptance in 1980 and since then scholars have continuously updated our understanding of rape myths with a continued focus on rape perpetrated by men against women. While this focus is critical due to the prevalence of such violence, this exclusive focus risks ignoring other vulnerable groups, including the LGBTQþ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer) community. The current study aimed to expand the current measurement of rape myth acceptance beyond heteronormativity and the gender binary allowing for a representative measure of rape myth acceptance for LGBTQþ, heterosexual, and cisgender communities alike. To achieve this goal, the modified Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMAS) was altered to remove gendered language (e.g., he or she) and replaced with gender-inclusive language (e.g., they). Utilizing the gender-inclusive version of the modified IRMAS, data were collected from 575 ( 375LGBTQþ, 250 non-LGBTQþ) participants via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated stability of factor structure with five separate factors: Victim asked for it, Didn't mean to, Didn't mean to-specific to intoxication, It was not really rape, and Victim lied, underlying the overall latent factor. Further analysis supported measurement invariance of the gender-inclusive IRMAS across LGBTQþ membership. The results provide initial evidence for a gender-inclusive rape myth acceptance scale, which increases inclusivity and representation for individuals who are particularly vulnerable to victimization. Public Significance StatementThe gender inclusive version of the modified Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale allows researchers, clinicians, and educators to assess the extent to which individuals' hold false beliefs about rape (e.g., people often lie about being raped) in an inclusive manner where queer and gender nonbinary folks can see themselves represented in the items. We hope the incorporation of this scale can inform inclusive rape prevention research, intervention, and advocacy.

Does Gender Inclusive Language Affect Psychometric Properties of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale-Short Form? A Two-Sample Validation Study

“…At the same time as Thelan and Meadows (2021) work, Johnson et al (2021) also modified McMahon and Farmer’s (2011) subtle scale, but they did so with more gender inclusive language. This scale is promising as it was not tested exclusively on college students, retains item variance, has good model fit, and has strong internal consistency.…”

“…We, along with other researchers (McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Gerger et al, 2007), speculate that this low variability is caused by both the age of the scale and the societal shifts regarding rape myths in the last two decades as well as social desirability bias. Therefore, researchers may consider avoiding use of the IRMA-SF and, instead, conduct new studies using alternative measures such as Johnson et al’s (2021) scale.…”

“…There is little research about rape myth acceptance across different subpopulations that may extend beyond the heteronormative gender binary (Johnson et al, 2021).…”

“…This subtle language created more variability in scores. Then, Johnson et al (2021) Inclusive Sexual Assault Myth Scale by modifying the original IRMA with both gender inclusive language and gender reversed language (e.g., "If a girl acts like a slut…" changed to "If a guy acts like a man whore…, " p. 114). This scale also included new items that assessed rape myths specific to SGM communities (e.g., "Because they never turn down sex, gay men cannot be raped" p. 214).…”

“…Additionally, Schulze and Koon-Magnin (2017) suggest, “Given that sexual orientation is a strongly implied (and sometimes explicitly stated) component of many rape myths, failure to assess the role of sexual orientation in understanding rape myths is an important oversight” (p. 160). Despite this, the potential distinction for how subgroups such as the SGM community understand rape myths has not yet been addressed in Payne and colleagues’ (1999) IRMA-SF measure, although it has been addressed in more subtle measures of rape myth acceptance (Johnson et al, 2021; McMahon & Farmer, 2011). This motivates the present research for exploring how a gender inclusive update to the IRMA-SF language might affect the psychometric properties of the scale in sexually diverse and gender diverse populations.…”