Factor Structure of the Bumby RAPE Scale

Abstract

Rape-supportive cognition is both theoretically and empirically related to rape. Several types of rape-supportive cognition (cognitive distortions) have been identified in the literature, suggesting that rapists’ rape-supportive cognition may be multidimensional. The Bumby RAPE Scale is one measure of rape-supportive cognition. The authors conducted an exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations to examine the types of rape-supportive cognition assessed by the Bumby RAPE Scale with a sample of 280 adult male sex offenders. A two-factor model was found; the two factors were labeled Excusing Rape and Justifying Rape. The current study suggests that the Bumby RAPE Scale is multidimensional. This factor structure may provide greater precision and clarity in the assessment of rape-supportive cognition, which may facilitate more informative research and, ultimately, contribute to more effective sex offender treatment and management.

Rape-related cognitive distortions: Preliminary findings on the role of early maladaptive schemas

“…This factor is associated with increased dynamic risk of sexual recidivism in rapists (Hermann et al, 2012).…”

“…This schema may have a potential vulnerability role on surface-level cognitions, namely on cognitive distortions related to the minimization of the harm or wrongfulness of rape (Hermann et al, 2012). Indeed, considering that individuals with this schema believe that they are entitled to break social rules and to use other people to meet their own needs without empathy (Young et al, 2003) we think that this deeper cognitive structure may contribute to the development of distorted cognitions related to behaviors that are socially unacceptable, for instance, sexual offending behavior.…”

“…Furthermore, given the unconscious nature of the schemas, self-report measures may be questionable in the assessment of schema-level cognition (Beck, 1995). Consequently, additional replications with larger samples are recommended, for instance, to examine the relationship between EMSs and the Excusing Rape factor of the BRS (i.e., the notion that rapists' responsibility for rape is mitigated by the creditability and complicity of victims, such as "If a woman gets drunk at a party, it is really her own fault if someone takes advantage of her sexually"; Hermann et al, 2012). Likewise, the use of a longitudinal design would be of utmost relevance to clarify the hypothetical causal role of the EMSs on cognitive distortions.…”

Exploring the Underlying Constructs of Rape Cognition Scales and Their Relationships with Sexual Aggression

“…

Rape cognition is thought to play an important role in the initiation and maintenance of sexually aggressive behaviours (e.g., Beech et alHowever, empirical evidence remains mixed regarding this relationship. One explanation for the discrepancy proposed by researchers (e.g., Hermann et al, 2012) is that rape cognition is merely an umbrella term that encompasses many distinct types of cognitions already prevalent in the social psychological literature (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, justifications, excuses). Self-report measures of rape cognition typically assume that there is one general construct to be assessed, without conclusive evidence to support this notion.This study attempted to replicate and extend past research by examining whether the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, RAPE Scale, and Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance are assessing the same general construct or multiple distinct constructs by entering all items into one exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

…”

“…However, empirical evidence remains mixed regarding this relationship. One explanation for the discrepancy proposed by researchers (e.g., Hermann et al, 2012) is that rape cognition is merely an umbrella term that encompasses many distinct types of cognitions already prevalent in the social psychological literature (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, justifications, excuses). Self-report measures of rape cognition typically assume that there is one general construct to be assessed, without conclusive evidence to support this notion.…”