Priming of Consensual and Nonconsensual Sexual Scripts: An Experimental Test of the Role of Scripts in Rape Attributions

Abstract

Individuals do not often label incidents of forced intercourse as rape. We theorize that one reason this occurs is because incidents do not match individuals' rape script; instead, these incidents may be more consistent with their normative sexual scripts, such as seduction. We conducted an experimental test of this theory by priming consensual and nonconsensual sexual scripts and examining the impact of the priming on reactions to an ambiguous sexual scenario among a sample of college women (n = 210). The priming manipulation affected global ratings of the scenario as well as ratings of the motives of the characters in the scenario. We discuss implications of the results for future research on how individuals conceptualize incidents of forced sex, as well as their implications for rape prevention and outreach.

Liking a Sexual Character Affects Willingness to Have Casual Sex

“…Thus, the casual sex in both the movie fragment and the fictional encounter could have been interpreted by some participants as the start of a new relationship. Moreover, the interpretation of casual sex as a potential start of a relationship may be more likely to happen when the sexual female character is described as a likable character than when the character is described as an unlikable character, due to priming mechanisms (halo effect, e.g., Forgas & Laham, 2009; priming sexual scripts, e.g., Littleton, Axsom, & Yoder, 2006). This interpretation of the sex portrayed in the erotic scene, in turn, may have affected the interpretation of the sex in the fictional encounter.…”

Associations Between Sexual Behavior Norm Beliefs in Relationships and Intimate Partner Rape Judgments

“…Another one of Basile’s participants discussed that she was raised to believe that sex was a duty that a married woman was supposed to perform. Such expectations for women to “give in” can result in the difficulty of labeling more “ambiguous rape” experiences that involve non-physical coercion and can result in coerced sex or even forced sex being seen as normative behavior (Littleton, Axsom, & Yoder, 2006).…”

“…Hypothesis 1 (H1): Based on the research related to effects of sexual expectations in perceptions of rape (Basow & Minieri, 2011; Claire Morr & Mongeau, 2004; Muehlenhard et al, 1985), we hypothesized that participants’ partner sexual behavior norms (e.g., expectations for sexual behavior and acceptability to demand sex when haven’t had sex for a week to a month) would directly predict their perceived acceptability of non-consensual partner sex (e.g., acceptability to verbally demand sex, coerce sex, and physically force sex). Hypothesis 2 (H2): Based on the idea that normative beliefs supporting male pursuit of sex and female acquiescence to sex can lead to adherence to rape myths (Basile, 1999; Bridges, 1991; Littleton et al, 2006), we hypothesized that both participants’ partner sexual behavior norms and non-consensual partner sex judgments would also directly predict participants’ judgments about whether behaviors (i.e., physically forced sex and coerced sex) are “wrong but not rape.” Hypothesis 3 (H3): Based on the research suggesting that intimate partner rape is viewed as less of a real crime than non-intimate partner rape (e.g., Jeffords & Dull, 1982; Kirkwood & Cecil, 2001; Monson et al, 1996; Monson et al, 2000; Shotland & Goodstein, 1992), we hypothesized that “wrong but not rape” judgments would be negatively associated with participants’ charging partner rape judgments, which include decisions regarding whether to charge non-consensual partner sex (both physically forced and coerced) as rape. Hypothesis 4 (H4): Based on the research that suggests social norms affect how both physically forced and coerced rape is viewed as a crime (e.g., Basile, 1999; Bennice & Resick, 2003; Emmers-Sommer & Allen, 1999; Raphael, 2013; Raphael & Logan, 2009), we hypothesized that earlier measures in the model (e.g., partner sexual behavior norms) would also indirectly predict the later variables (e.g., charging partner rape judgments).…”

Risky Situation or Harmless Fun? A Qualitative Examination of College Women’s Bad Hook-up and Rape Scripts

“…Research supports the existence of a number of sexual scripts and that sexual interactions can be highly scripted, particularly interactions between new partners (Byers 1996;Krahé et al 2007;Littleton and Axsom 2003;O'Sullivan and Byers 1992). In addition, sexual scripts, such as rape and seduction scripts, have been found to affect how individuals conceptualize unwanted sexual experiences (Bondurant 2001;Kahn et al 1994;Littleton et al 2006a;Peterson and Muehlenhard 2004).…”