On Tuesday, May 28, maintenance work will be carried out on our website. During this time the following actions cannot be performed: Purchases/orders, redeeming access tokens, new user registrations, updates to user details. If you have any questions or comments, please contact our support team at [email protected]
Skip to main content
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.65.2.93

Previous research has shown that information about others’ rape myth acceptance (RMA) affects men’s rape proclivity (Bohner, Siebler, & Schmelcher, 2006). By varying both the level (low vs. high) and format (norm vs. anchor) of such information, different explanations for this effect were investigated. After reporting their own RMA, 117 male participants either read about others’ allegedly low vs. high RMA responses (norm conditions), or estimated if others’ responses were higher or lower than an “arbitrary” low vs. high value (anchor conditions). Later, participants indicated their rape proclivity (RP). Results show that the level of others’ RMA significantly affected participants’ self-reported RP, independent of information format. Furthermore, self-reported RMA and RP were positively correlated. Implications for future research are discussed.

References

  • Bohner, G. , Reinhard, M.-A. , Rutz, S. , Sturm, S. , Kerschbaum, B. , Effler, D. (1998). Rape myths as neutralizing cognitions: Evidence for a causal impact of anti-victim attitudes on men’s self-reported likelihood of raping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 257– 268 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bohner, G. , Jarvis, C. I. , Eyssel, F. , Siebler, F. (2005). The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men’s rape proclivity: Comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 819– 828 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bohner, G. , Siebler, F. , Schmelcher, J. (2006). Social norms and the likelihood of raping: Perceived rape myth acceptance of others affects men’s rape proclivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 286– 297 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Burt, M. R. (1978). Attitudes supportive of rape in American culture. In House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee Domestic and International Scientific Planning, Analysis and Cooperation (Ed.), Research into violent behavior: Sexual assaults (Hearing, 95th Congress, 2nd session, January 10-12, 1978; pp. 277-322). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cervone, D. , Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492– 501 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cialdini, R. B. , Kallgren, C. A. , Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201– 234 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cialdini, R. B. , Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Chapman, G. B. , Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519– 540 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Costin, F. (1985). Beliefs about rape and women’s social roles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 319– 325 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Englich, B. , Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535– 1551 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gerger, H. , Kley, H. , Bohner, G. , Siebler, F. (2006). Acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (AMMSA): Parallel scale development in German and English. Manuscript under review First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Koss, M. P. , Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455– 457 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Langer, E. J. , Blank, A. , Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of «placebic» information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635– 642 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lisak, D. , Roth, S. (1988). Motivational factors in nonincarcerated sexually aggressive men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 795– 802 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Malamuth, N. M. (1989a). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part one. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 26– 49 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Malamuth, N. M. (1989b). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part two. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 324– 354 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moscovici, S. (198). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 209– 239 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T. , Englich, B. , Strack, F (2004). Anchoring effect. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory (pp. 183-200). Hove, UK: Psychology Press First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T. , Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 1038– 1052 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T. , Strack, F. , Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142– 1150 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Payne, D. L. , Lonsway, K. A. , Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 3, 27– 68 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Quackenbush, R. L. (1989). A comparison of androgynous, masculine sex-typed, and undifferentiated males on dimensions of attitudes toward rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 318– 342 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ross, L. , Greene, D. , House, P. (1977). The «false consensus effect»: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279– 301 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Strack, F. , Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437– 446 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tversky, A. , Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.. Science, 185, 1124– 1131 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar