This study assessed the role of rape myth acceptance (RMA) and situational factors in the perception of three different rape scenarios (date rape, marital rape, and stranger rape). One hundred and eighty-two psychology undergraduates were asked to emit four judgements about each rape situation: victim responsibility, perpetrator responsibility, intensity of trauma, and likelihood to report the crime to the police. It was hypothesized that neither RMA nor situational factors alone can explain how rape is perceived; it is the interaction between these two factors that best account for social reactions to sexual aggression. The results generally supported the authors' hypothesis: Victim blame, estimation of trauma, and the likelihood of reporting the crime to the police were best explained by the interaction between observer characteristics, such as RMA, and situational clues. That is, the less stereotypic the rape situation was, the greater was the influence of attitudes toward rape on attributions.

Two hypothetical scenario studies examined how situational, perpetrator, and observer factors affect blame towards rape victims. In Study 1, Spanish high school students (N=206) read about a rape committed by a boyfriend or husband who was described as benevolently sexist or not. Study 2 (N=201 British college students) replicated and extended Study 1 by adding a condition in which the rapist was described as a hostile sexist. In both studies, participants' benevolent sexism scores predicted more victim blame when the rapist was described as a husband (but not a boyfriend) who held benevolently sexist attitudes. Study 2 showed that participants' hostile sexism scores predicted more victim blame when the rapist was described as a hostile sexist.

Moral Foundations Theory proposes five intuition-based moral concerns: Care and

Two studies were conducted with college students to validate the Spanish-language version of the “Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression” scale (AMMSA) (Gerger, Kley, Bohner & Siebler, 2007). This scale assesses modern myths about sexual aggression in a subtle way. In Study 1, 305 students completed the Spanish AMMSA and other scales with related content. In Study 2, 263 participants completed the Spanish AMMSA and answered questions about a hypothetical sexual assault perpetrated by a young man against a female acquaintance. The Spanish AMMSA showed high internal consistency and adequate evidence of validity in both studies. Compared to traditional scales of rape myth acceptance, mean scores on the AMMSA were higher and their distributions more closely approximated normality. These findings suggest that the Spanish version of the AMMSA scale is a useful instrument to study the social perception of sexual aggression.

The measures available for assessing the acceptance of myths about intimate partner violence against women (AMIVAW) are characterized either by a lack of sufficient psychometric support or by being based on unclear theoretical propositions. In this article, we present a 15-item self-report scale: the Acceptance of Myths About Intimate Partner Violence Against Women (AMIVAW) Scale. We examined the reliability and validity of the scores of the Spanish and English versions of this scale across six different samples (N ¼ 1,650) consisting of adult participants from Spain and the United States. Scores on both versions demonstrated high reliability. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a one-dimensional structure. Invariance tests across genders demonstrated that the scale was invariant at the configural, metric, and scalar levels. The scale was also invariant at the configural level across countries. The AMIVAW scores were independent of social desirability, positively correlated with sexism and other scales used to measure attitudes toward abuse or sexual aggression, and negatively correlated with feminist ideologies. Finally, by using fictitious scenarios of intimate partner violence against women, we observed that participants with higher AMIVAW scores placed more of the blame on the victim and less responsibility on the perpetrator than those with lower AMIVAW scores. Taken together, the results provide strong validity evidence for the AMIVAW Scale. The AMIVAW Scale is a useful instrument to analyze the functions of myths in maintaining intimate partner violence against women. It is also a relevant tool for practitioners involved in programs to prevent and eradicate this form of violence.