Intended Responses to Rape as Functions of Attitudes, Attributions of Fault, and Emotions

Abstract

We explore how attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions are related to female and male college students’ intended responses
to rape. Unlike past work which has examined these factors individually, we study them simultaneously to better understand
how they co-occur in the real world. One hundred and five female and 74 male U.S. students from a university in New England
read a short description of a female college student’s experience of rape and answered questions about their reactions. Results
demonstrate that female participants reported higher attitudes towards feminism, lower rape myth acceptance attitudes, higher
attributions of fault to society for the rape, and higher feelings of anger and fear in response to the rape than male participants.
Further, gender, attitudes towards feminism, rape myth acceptance attitudes, attributions of fault to society, and fear emerged
as predictors of desire to engage in anti-rape collective action. In contrast, gender, rape myth acceptance attitudes, attributions
of fault to the male perpetrator, and anger emerged as predictors of reported likelihood of helping the survivor of rape.
Results suggest that although female college students are more likely to intend to engage in anti-rape collective action and
help survivors of rape, the processes whereby attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions relate to intended responses
to rape are largely similar for female and male college students.

KeywordsRape–Collective action–Helping–Feminist attitudes–Attributions of fault

Full text

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Intended Responses to Rape as Functions of Attitudes,
Attributions of Fault, and Emotions
Valerie A. Earnshaw &Eileen V. Pitpitan &
Stephenie R. Chaudoir
Published online: 22 December 2010
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract We explore how attitudes, attributions of fault,
and emotions are related to female and male college
students’intended responses to rape. Unlike past work
which has examined these factors individually, we study
them simultaneously to better understand how they co-
occur in the real world. One hundred and five female and
74 male U.S. students from a university in New England
read a short description of a female college student’s
experience of rape and answered questions about their
reactions. Results demonstrate that female participants
reported higher attitudes towards feminism, lower rape
myth acceptance attitudes, higher attributions of fault to
society for the rape, and higher feelings of anger and fear in
response to the rape than male participants. Further, gender,
attitudes towards feminism, rape myth acceptance attitudes,
attributions of fault to society, and fear emerged as
predictors of desire to engage in anti-rape collective action.
In contrast, gender, rape myth acceptance attitudes, attribu-
tions of fault to the male perpetrator, and anger emerged as
predictors of reported likelihood of helping the survivor of
rape. Results suggest that although female college students
are more likely to intend to engage in anti-rape collective
action and help survivors of rape, the processes whereby
attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions relate to
intended responses to rape are largely similar for female
and male college students.
Keywords Rape .Collective action .Helping .
Feminist attitudes .Attributions of fault
Introduction
Rape is a significant problem on college campuses in the
United States where it is escalated by norms of heavy
drinking (Cole 2006; Locke and Mahalik 2005; Mohler-
Kuo et al. 2004). Although many college students will be
affected by rape as either a victim themselves or a friend or
family member of a victim, only some students will engage
in efforts to end rape and/or help survivors of rape. Who
participates in anti-rape collective action on college
campuses? Who helps survivors of rape?
Past research on sexual violence suggests that college
students’reactions to rape are complex, involving attitudes
(Burt 1980; Liss et al. 2004; Payne et al. 1999; Peterson
and Muehlenhard 2004), attributions of fault (Barnett et al.
1992; Brems and Wagner 1994; Ford et al. 1998; Grubb
and Harrower 2008; Kanekar and Seksaria 1993; Krulewitz
and Nash 1979; Pollard 1992), and emotions (for a review,
see Ahrens and Campbell 2000). Additionally, past research
highlights gender differences in college students’attitudes
(Anderson et al. 1997; Twenge 1997), attributions of fault
(Gillen and Muncer 1995), and emotions (Brownmiller
1975) regarding rape. Although attitudes, attributions of
fault, and emotions have been studied individually as
important factors that are related to college students’
behavioral responses to rape, they have not been examined
V. A. Earnshaw (*):E. V. Pitpitan
Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut,
406 Babbidge Road, Unit 1020,
Storrs, CT 06269-1020, USA
e-mail: valerie.earnshaw@uconn.edu
E. V. Pitpitan
e-mail: eileen.pitpitan@uconn.edu
S. R. Chaudoir
Department of Psychology, Bradley University,
1501 W. Bradley Ave.,
Peoria, IL 61625, USA
e-mail: schaudoir@bumail.bradley.edu
Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393
DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9920-1

simultaneously. Given that these psychological factors co-
occur in the real world, research that simultaneously
examines their ability to predict behavioral responses to
rape may be useful for researchers who aim to develop
programs to increase behaviors that will reduce the
frequency of rape and minimize its deleterious consequen-
ces for survivors. Additionally, research that explores
whether the processes whereby these factors relate to
behavioral responses to rape differ by gender may further
help researchers tailor their programs for female and male
college students.
In the current research, we sought to address these gaps
by asking American college students to read about an
incident of rape and measuring their responses to this
incident. We then examined mean differences in attitudes,
attributions of fault, and emotions between female and male
college students using a multivariate analysis of variance.
We further examined the degree to which these factors
predicted their desire to engage in anti-rape collective
action and reported likelihood of helping a survivor of rape
as well as whether gender moderated these relationships
with two regression analyses. Before describing the current
study, we review relevant research and theory related to
attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions. Unless
otherwise noted, the research reviewed was conducted with
samples of U.S. college students.
Attitudes: Feminism and Rape Myth Acceptance
Attitudes towards feminism and rape myth acceptance
encompass two trait-level constructs that may be related
to college students’responses to rape. The link between
feminist attitudes and engagement in feminist collective
action is well established among samples of U.S. college
students (Liss et al. 2004; Nelson et al. 2008) and U.S.
women (Duncan 1999). People who hold feminist attitudes
may be more likely to engage in anti-rape collective action
because they emphasize societal-level contributors to sexual
violence. Feminists have highlighted the connection be-
tween power inequalities that exist between men and
women in society and the widespread acceptance of
violence against women (Cowan and Quinton 1997). They
have identified representations that reduce women to sex
objects as both creating and supporting attitudes accepting
of violence and discrimination toward women (MacKinnon
1986). Further, feminists have examined the ways in which
society’s portrayal of heterosexuality provides a “cultural
scaffolding of rape”by normalizing unwanted and even
coercive sex (Gavey 2005). Importantly, there is a relation-
ship between attitudes towards feminism and gender:
Women tend to hold stronger feminist attitudes than men
(Twenge 1997). Therefore, in the current work we expected
that female college students would hold stronger feminist
attitudes than male college students. We further expected
that college students’feminist attitudes would be a
predictor of their desire to engage in anti-rape collective
action, but not reported likelihood of helping a survivor of
rape, because they emphasize the societal roots of sexual
violence.
Rape myth acceptance attitudes may also influence
responses to rape. Burt (1980) defined rape myths as
“prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape
victims, and rapists”which ultimately create a “climate
hostile to rape victims”(p. 217). Rape myths encourage
responsibility for rape to be placed on survivors of assault
by focusing on what survivors did to provoke the rape.
Therefore, rape myths decrease perceptions that survivors
deserve help by blaming them for the rape. Decreased
perceptions of deservingness in turn diminish willingness to
help others (Otten et al. 1988), suggesting that rape myths
may diminish willingness to help rape survivors. Further-
more, people who hold strong rape myth acceptance
attitudes may blame survivors for rape to the exclusion of
larger, societal forces. Rape myth acceptance attitudes are
also related to gender: Men endorse rape myth acceptance
attitudes more than women (Anderson et al. 1997). We
therefore expected that male college students would hold
stronger rape myth acceptance attitudes than female college
students. Because rape myths focus on the responsibility of
individuals for rape rather than societal forces, we further
expected that college students’rape myth acceptance
attitudes would predict their reported likelihood of helping
a survivor of rape but not desire to engage in anti-rape
collective action.
Attributions of Fault to Society, Perpetrator,
and/or Survivor
Attributions of fault or blame for rape represent an
additional variable that is likely related to how college
students respond to rape. Unlike attitudes, which are trait-
level constructs expected to be stable across situations,
attributions of fault are state-level constructs which may
vary across different situations. These attributions have
been made at both societal and individual levels by college
students in the U.S. (Cowan and Quinton 1997) and U.K.
(Gillen and Muncer 1995). At the societal level, college
students identify societal forces that influence the behavior
of individuals involved in rape (Gillen and Muncer 1995).
They draw connections between the attitude of society that
date rape is unimportant with the attitude of males that date
rape is unimportant, and expected norms of dates with
misunderstandings by men of women’s behavior. Past work
has shown that female college students in the U.K. are more
likely to draw connections between societal causes and
individual behaviors than male students (Gillen and Muncer
Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393 383

1995). We therefore expected that female college students
in the current study would also attribute more fault to
society than male college students. Further, people who
identify society as a cause of rape likely acknowledge that
rape will continue until societal changes occur. Therefore,
we expected that college students’attributions of fault to
society would predict desire to engage in anti-rape
collective action. We did not expect that their attributions
of fault to society would predict reported likelihood of
helping a survivor of rape.
In addition to blaming society for rape, many people
attribute fault to the perpetrator of rape. U.K. college
students in Gillen and Muncer’s(1995) study identified
male drunkenness, the need by males for dominance,
misunderstandings by men of women’s behavior, and
males’attitudes that date rape is unimportant as causes of
date rape. Female college students in this study were more
likely to endorse more of these reasons as causes of rape.
Male college students, in contrast, were more likely to
endorse only misunderstandings by men of women’s
behavior as a cause of rape. Other work has also shown
that female college students blame male perpetrators more
than male college students blame male perpetrators
(Krulewitz and Nash 1979). We therefore expected that
female college students in the current study would
attribute more fault to the male perpetrator than male
college students. Attributing fault to the individual male
perpetrator of rape may result in behavior at the individual
level rather than the collective level. Therefore, we
expected that college students’attributions of fault to the
male perpetrator would be a predictor of reported
likelihood of helping a survivor of rape but not desire to
engage in anti-rape collective action.
Finally, people often attribute fault to the female
survivor. Female survivors are blamed for rape if they had
been drinking alcohol at the time of the assault (Cowan and
Quinton 1997; Gillen and Muncer 1995), acted flirtatious
(Cowan and Quinton 1997; Gillen and Muncer 1995), wore
revealing clothing (Cowan and Quinton 1997), had previ-
ous sexual partners (Kanekar and Seksaria 1993), did not
physically resist their assailant (Kanekar and Seksaria
1993), and/or were raped by an acquaintance (Barnett et
al. 1992; Grubb and Harrower 2008; Kanekar and Seksaria
1993). People who attribute fault to the female survivor
believe that the woman did something wrong to provoke
the rape. This belief exonerates both the male perpetrator
and society as responsible for the rape, and undermines
perceptions that the survivor deserves help (Otten et al.
1988). Additionally, past work has consistently found that
men attribute more fault to female rape survivors than
women (Ahrens and Campbell 2000; Barnett et al. 1992;
Cowan and Quinton 1997; Grubb and Harrower 2008;
Kanekar and Seksaria 1993). We therefore expected that
male college students in the current study would attribute
greater fault to the female survivor than female college
students. Because it is an individual based attribution of
fault, we also expected that college students’attributions of
fault to a survivor would predict reported likelihood of
helping but not desire to engage in anti-rape collective
action.
Emotions: Fear, Anger, and Pity
Emotions may also influence American college students’
responses to rape. Feelings of fear are a common response
to increased awareness of rape (Ahrens and Campbell 2000;
Hughes et al. 2003; Klaw et al. 2005). Fear is felt as a result
of perceiving that the physical safety of oneself and/or
one’s close others has been endangered (Cottrell and
Neuberg 2005). In the current context, people may feel
fear as the result of perceiving that they are at risk of
experiencing rape and/or that their friends and family
members are at risk. Fear motivates action to protect the
self and close others from threats to physical safety,
including rape (Cottrell and Neuberg 2005). For example,
fear appeals focused on rape are related to women’s
intentions to engage in self-protective strategies against
rape as well as to men’s intentions to engage in strategies
protective of female close others (Morrison 2005). Young
women in the U.S. (Cobbina et al. 2008) and adult women
in Europe and North America (Yodanis 2004) perceive
themselves to be at greater risk of rape than men, and
experience greater fear in response to awareness of rape
than men. This research supports the theoretical claims of
Susan Brownmiller (1975) and other feminist theorists (e.g.,
Fredrickson and Roberts 1997;Griffin1979) who have
emphasized women’s experience of fear in response to the
threat of rape. We therefore expected that female college
students would experience greater fear than male college
students in the current study. Further, anti-rape collective
action offers an opportunity to encourage societal changes to
reduce the chance that the self and close others will
experience sexual violence. Consequently, we also expected
that fear would predict desire to engage in anti-rape
collective action but not reported likelihood of helping a
survivor of rape.
Feelings of anger have also been highlighted as a
response to rape among U.S. college students (Ahrens and
Campbell 2000) and U.S. rape victim advocates (Wasco
and Campbell 2002). Anger is felt as a result of perceiving
a threat to one’s personal freedoms and rights and/or those
of close others (Cottrell and Neuberg 2005). Rape repre-
sents a threat to people’s rights to physical safety and
control. In the current context, people may feel anger as the
result of perceiving that their own rights and/or the rights of
close others to physical safety and control have been
384 Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393

threatened by the risk of rape. Feelings of anger have been
highlighted as a motivator of collective action among U.S.
adults (Smith et al. 2008) and Dutch college students (van
Zomeren et al. 2004; van Zomeren and Lodewijkx 2005).
Anger has also been linked to interpersonal helping
behavior directed towards victims of crime (van Zomeren
and Lodewijkx 2005). Women are aware of their increased
vulnerability to rape (Griffin 1979), and may therefore be
more likely than men to perceive that their rights to
physical safety and control are threatened by rape.
Consequently, we expected that female college students
would experience greater anger than male college students
in response to reading a scenario about rape in the current
study. Further, collective action represents a way to protest
threats to personal freedoms and rights, and helping
represents a way to enhance the well-being of close others
whose freedoms and rights have been violated. Therefore,
we expected that anger would predict desire to engage in
anti-rape collective action and reported likelihood of
helping a survivor of rape.
Feelings of pity may also be felt in response to rape.
Although they have not been a focus of sexual violence
research, feelings of pity have been studied in relation to
responses to victims of other types of crime (van Zomeren
and Lodewijkx 2005). Pity is felt as a result of perceiving
that a close other’s well-being has been compromised for
reasons for which they are not responsible (Cottrell and
Neuberg 2005). Rape represents a serious threat to the
psychological and physical well-being of survivors (Elklit
et al. 2009; Koss et al. 2002; McMullin and White 2006).
Because we previously hypothesized that female college
students would attribute less fault, or responsibility, to the
female survivor, we also expected that female college
students would experience more pity than male college
students in the current study. Furthermore, pity felt as a
result of perceiving that a close other’s well-being has been
compromised motivates action to restore the close other’s
well-being (Cottrell and Neuberg 2005). We therefore
expected that pity would predict reported likelihood of
helping a survivor of rape but not desire to engage in anti-
rape collective action.
Current Study
In the current study, we explored how attitudes, attributions
of fault, and emotions predict American college students’
desire to engage in anti-rape collective action and reported
likelihood of helping a survivor of rape. We conducted a
study in which American college students read a short
description of a female college student’s experience of
being raped and then answered a series of questions about
their perceptions of and reactions to the incident described,
as well as how they would respond to the rape. We next
examined three sets of hypotheses. The first set of
hypotheses is related to gender differences and includes:
Hypothesis 1a: Female college students will hold
stronger attitudes towards feminism and weaker rape
myth acceptance attitudes than male college students.
Hypothesis 1b: Female college students will attribute
more fault to society, more fault to the male perpetra-
tor, and less fault to the female survivor than male
college students.
Hypothesis 1c: Female college students will experience
greater fear, anger, and pity than male college
students.
The second set of hypotheses is related to predictors of
desire to engage in anti-rape collective action and includes:
Hypothesis 2a: Attitudes towards feminism positively
predict desire to engage in anti-rape collective action.
Hypothesis 2b: Attributions of fault to society positive-
ly predict desire to engage in anti-rape collective
action.
Hypothesis 2c: Feelings of fear and anger positively
predict desire to engage in anti-rape collective action.
The third set of hypotheses is related to predictors of
reported likelihood of helping a survivor of rape and
includes:
Hypothesis 3a: Rape myth acceptance attitudes nega-
tively predict reported likelihood of helping a survivor
of rape.
Hypothesis 3b: Attributions of fault to a female
survivor of rape negatively predict and attributions of
fault to a male perpetrator positively predict reported
likelihood of helping a survivor of rape.
Hypothesis 3c: Feelings of anger and pity positively
predict reported likelihood of helping a survivor of
rape.
Our hypotheses are based on prior research that has
primarily examined these three factors individually. There-
fore, we expected that some factors may play a stronger or
weaker role in responses to rape when the remaining factors
were accounted for. To evaluate the first set of hypotheses,
we examined the descriptive statistics and correlations
separately for female and male participants. To evaluate
the second and third sets of hypotheses, we conducted
regression analyses including the main effects of gender,
attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions in the first steps
to demonstrate their ability to predict responses to rape
while controlling for each other. The interaction of gender
with each of the predictors was included in the second steps
to test the role of gender as a moderator of these effects.
Although we hypothesized that female and male college
students would score differently on the predictor variables,
Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393 385

we did not hypothesize that genderwould moderate the effects
of the predictor variables. There is a substantial amount of
theory and research to support our hypotheses that female and
male college students would differ in the extent to which they
endorse the predictor variables. Much of these gender differ-
ences are related to women’s awareness of their increased
vulnerabilitytorape(Brownmiller1975; Fredrickson and
Roberts 1997;Griffin1979). That is, given their substantial
increased risk of experiencing rape, women’srape-related
attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions should differ
from those of men. In contrast, there is no known theory or
research to suggest that the process linking these predictor
variables with desire to engage in anti-rape collective action
or reported likelihood of helping a survivor of rape would be
differ according to gender. We therefore expected that the
relationships between the predictor variables and dependent
variables would be similar for male and female college
students.
Method
Participants
One hundred and seventy-nine undergraduates from the
University of Connecticut, a large public university in the
northeast United States, participated in the study in the spring
of 2007. Students enrolled in introductory psychology courses
were eligible to participate for partial course credit. One
hundred and five participants (58.7%) identified as female.
Female participants were between the ages of 18 and 23 (M=
18.98, SD=.93). Female participants identified as White or
European-American (76.2%), Asian or Asian-American
(10.5%), Black or African-American (6.7%), Latino/a or
Hispanic-American (4.8%), and “Other”(1.0%). The major-
ity of the female participants (99%) identified as heterosex-
ual and one identified as bisexual. Seventy-four participants
(41.3%) identified as male. Male participants were between
the ages of 18 and 23 (M=19.18, SD = 1.23). Male
participants identified as White or European-American
(83.8%), Asian or Asian-American (8.1%), Latino/a or
Hispanic-American (2.7%), Multiracial (2.7%), and “Other”
(2.7%). The majority of male participants (98.6%) identified
as heterosexual and one identified as “Other.”
Procedure
All students who completed a mass pre-screening at the
beginning of the semester were eligible for the study.
Included in the pre-screening were measures of rape myth
acceptance attitudes and attitudes towards feminism. These
variables were measured in advance because they represent
trait-level phenomena that should not be influenced by the
scenario described in the study. Additionally, by collecting
these data separately we were able to ensure that responses
to questions regarding rape myths and feminism would not
contaminate responses to the remainder of the study.
Students who completed the attitude measures in pre-
screening were eligible to register for a study titled “College
Life: Responding to Stressful Events.”After registering,
participants were emailed a link to the online study. When
participants accessed the site they were instructed to read and
respond to a scenario describing a college student’snegative
experience. The scenario was ostensibly taken from a prior
study in which students were asked to write about a stressful
event that they experienced while at college. Participants were
informed that a female student at the University of Connect-
icut wrote the following:
I went to an apartment party with a few of my girl
friends. I was driving that night, so I wasn’t drinking.
About an hour after I got to the party, I ran into this
guy from class. We were talking about class and
having a good time until I had to use the bathroom.
The guy walked me to the bathroom and kept me
company in line. When I went into the bathroom, he
followed me in. He started coming on to me... kissing
and touching me... and then he forced himself on me.
But I didn’t want to have sex with him.
After reading the scenario, participants responded to a
series of questions assessing their attributions of fault, their
emotional reactions, and their desire to engage in collective
action and reported likelihood of helping the survivor.
These variables were measured after participants read the
scenario because they represent state-level phenomena that
are expected to be influenced by the situation described.
Measures
Attitudes Toward Feminism
Participants completed the Attitudes toward Feminism and the
Wome n’s Movement Scale (FWM; Fassinger 1994)during
pre-screening. The FWM Scale consists of 10 items designed
to measure participants’attitudes toward feminism, including
“Feminist principles should be adopted everywhere.”Partic-
ipants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed
with these items on a Likert scale ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). An average score of the
items was created from the scale (α=.86).
Rape Myth Acceptance Attitudes
Participants also completed items from the Illinois Rape
Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA; Payne et al. 1999) during
pre-screening. Experimenters were allowed to include only
386 Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393

a limited number of items in pre-screening, therefore 10 out
of 20 items were selected from the IRMA short form for
inclusion. Items were chosen based on representativeness
and potential for internal reliability. To achieve representa-
tiveness, one to two items were chosen from each of the
seven subscales, which include: She asked for it (SA), It
wasn’t really rape (NR), He didn’t mean to (MT), She
wanted it (WI), She lied (LI), Rape is a trivial event (TE),
and Rape is a deviant event (DE). To achieve potential for
internal reliability, items that correlated highly with the
entire scale in the original scale development study (Payne
et al. 1999) were chosen for the current work. The following
items were ultimately chosen based on these inclusion criteria:
SA-3, WI-5, TE-5, WI-1, NR-1, LI-2, DE-3, LI-1, MT-1, and
SA-1 (items can be found in Table 3 of Payne et al. 1999). An
example item is “If a woman doesn’t physically fight back,
you can’t really say that it was rape”(NR-1). Participants
indicated the extent to which they agreed with the items on a
Likert scale ranging from not at all agree (1) to very much
agree (7). An average score of the items was created from
the scale (α=.86).
Attributions of Fault
After reading about the scenario, participants were asked to
indicate the extent to which they thought that society, the
man involved in the scenario, and the woman involved in
the scenario were each at fault for the incident. These items
were adapted from a prior study examining predictors of
collective action in response to violent crime (van Zomeren
and Lodewijkx 2005). Participants were asked to rate how
much they agreed that: “Society is responsible for the
incident”and “Society can be blamed for the incident”on a
Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (7). An average score of the two items was created
(α=.91). These items were also employed to measure the
extent to which participants attributed fault to the man
andthewomanbyreplacing“society”with “the man”(α=.85)
and “the woman”(α=.78).
Emotional Reaction
Participants’feelings of anger, fear, and pity were assessed.
Emotional reactions items were also adapted from van
Zomeren and Lodewijkx (2005)’s study, in which they were
measured by asking participants to indicate the extent to
which they felt several emotions when reading about an
incident. In their study, anger items included “angry,”
“furious,”and “powerless.”Pity items included “pity,”and
“sorry.”Therefore, in the current study participants were
asked to indicate the extent to which they felt these five
emotions when reading about the incident described in the
procedure on a Likert scale ranging from not at all (1) to
extremely (7). To capture the extent to which participants
felt fear, “fear”was also included. An exploratory factor
analysis using principal axis factoring as the extraction
method and oblimin as the rotation method was then
conducted on the six emotion words. The factor analysis
resulted in three factors that accounted for 71.4% of the
variance. The first factor was labeled anger, and included
“angry, and “furious.”The second factor was labeled fear,
and included “fear,”and “powerless.”The third factor was
labeled pity, and included “pity”and “sorry.”Average
scores were created representing each of these factors
(anger: α=.93; fear: α= .73; pity: α= .78).
Desire to Engage in Anti-rape Collective Action
Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they
would like to participate in and raise awareness about anti-
rape efforts on their campus on a Likert scale ranging from
not at all (1) to extremely (7). Items included: “March in
Take Back the Night, a rally to protest rape and other forms
of sexual violence,”“Forward an email advertising Take
Back the Night,”“Join a group on campus that works to
raise awareness about violence towards women,”and “Post
a flyer in your residence hall advertising a group that raises
awareness about sexual violence.”An average score of
these four items was created (α= .88).
Reported Likelihood of Helping the Survivor
Participants were asked to imagine that the woman in the
scenario was a friend or family member and indicated the
likelihood that they would help the woman on a Likert scale
ranging from not at all likely (1) to very likely (7). Items
included: “I would do something to help the woman,”
“I would offer to talk to her about her experience,”and
“I would check in on her to see how she’s doing.”An
average score of these three items was created (α=.88).
Results
Hypothesis 1: Gender Differences in Predictor Variables
We evaluated our first set of hypotheses by examining the
means and standard deviations of each of the variables
included in the study for women and men, and comparing
them in a MANOVA analysis (see Table 1). We hypothe-
sized that women would hold stronger feminist attitudes
and weaker rape myth acceptance attitudes than men. This
was supported: Women scored higher than men on attitudes
towards feminism and lower than men on rape myth
acceptance attitudes. We further hypothesized that women
would attribute more fault to society, more fault to the male
Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393 387

perpetrator, and less fault to the female survivor than men.
This was partially supported: Women scored higher than
men on attributions of fault to society. Women also scored
lower than men on attributions of fault to the female
survivor, however this gender differences were not statis-
tically significant. Finally, we hypothesized that women
would experience greater fear, anger, and pity than men.
This was also partially supported: Women scored higher
than men on fear and anger. Women also scored slightly
higher than men on pity, however this gender difference
was not statistically significant. Finally, these analyses
revealed that women scored higher than men on desire to
engage in anti-rape collective action, however there were
no gender differences in reported likelihood of helping the
survivor.
We next explored the correlations between the varia-
bles for women and men (see Table 2). Among women,
desire to engage in anti-rape collective action was
correlated with the following predictor variables: attitudes
toward feminism, rape myth acceptance, society at fault,
man at fault, anger, fear, and pity. Among men, desire to
engage in anti-rape collective action was correlated with
the following predictor variables: attitudes toward femi-
nism, rape myth acceptance, woman at fault, anger, and
fear. Variables that correlated with desire to engage in anti-
rape collective action among female and/or male partic-
ipants were included in the first regression analysis.
Among women, reported likelihood of helping the woman
was correlated with the following predictor variables: rape
myth acceptance, man at fault, anger, and pity. Among
men, reported likelihood of helping the woman was
correlated with the following predictor variables: attitudes
toward feminism, man at fault, and anger. Variables that
correlated with reported likelihood of helping among
female and/or male participants were included in the
second regression analysis.
Table 2 Correlations between variables: women are above the diagonal, men are below
Variable Attitudes toward
feminism
Rape myth
acceptance
Society at
fault
Man at
fault
Woman
at fault
Anger Fear Pity Collective
action
Helping
Attitudes toward feminism –−.32** .19*** .12 −.26** .23** .27** .03 .43** .04
Rape myth acceptance −.48** –−.01 .19* .43** −.17*** −.20* −.29** −.29** −.20*
Society at fault −.08 .15 –.16 .18*** .19*** .15 .15 .33** .13
Man at fault .23* −.15 .01 –−.24* .41** .24* .34** .23* .42**
Woman at fault −.26* .36** −.01 −.28* –−.17*** −.23* −.25* −.12 −.07
Anger .47** −.24* .19 .08 −.26* –.55** .29** .31** .16***
Fear .23* −.08 .23* −.19 −.04 .60** –.30** .32** .12
Pity .12 −.13 .18 .22*** −.21*** .49** .24* –.21* .29**
Collective action .32** −.33** .04 .12 −.33** .24* .23* .12 –.29**
Helping .25* −.13 −.11 .23* −.17 .22*** .05 .18 .16 –
**p<.01, *p< .05, ***p< .10
Variables Women Men MANOVA Results
M SD M SD F df η
p
²p
1. Attitudes toward feminism 3.58 .53 3.22 .70 15.65 1,178 .08 <.001
2. Rape myth acceptance 2.02 .83 2.44 .96 9.85 1,178 .05 .01
3. Society at fault 3.76 1.50 3.32 1.46 3.76 1,178 .02 .05
4. Man at fault 6.11 1.14 6.25 1.02 .67 1,178 .01 .41
5. Woman at fault 1.95 1.17 2.24 1.36 2.35 1,178 .01 .13
6. Anger 4.51 1.62 3.96 1.73 4.83 1,178 .03 .03
7. Fear 4.13 1.71 2.97 1.41 23.42 1,178 .12 <.001
8. Pity 5.30 1.41 5.14 1.50 .53 1,178 .01 .47
9. Collective action 4.30 1.64 2.97 1.47 31.11 1,178 .15 <.001
10. Helping 6.09 1.27 5.90 1.12 1.13 1,178 .01 .29
Total 5.07 10,168 .23 <.001
Table 1 Descriptive statistics
and results of MANOVA
comparing women and men
Higher scores indicate greater
endorsement of or agreement
with variables. Attitudes toward
Feminism was measured on a
5-point Likert scale; all other
variables were measured on
7-point Likert scales
388 Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393

Hypothesis 2: Desire to Engage in Anti-rape Collective
Action
Preliminary analyses indicated that the variables repre-
senting desire to engage in anti-rape collective action
met the assumptions required for linear regression
analyses: the dependent variable was normally distribut-
ed and the predictor variables lacked multicollinearity
(all tolerances >.80, all VIF <2.00; Keith 2006).
Therefore, a sequential linear regression analysis was
conducted to examine the main effects of the predictors of
desire to engage in anti-rape collective action as well as
their interactions with gender (see Table 3). Sequential
linear regression provides information about the percent-
age of variance in the dependent variable accounted for by
the predictor variables at each step in the analysis. This is
represented by the R
2
statistic. A perfect model that
includes every relevant predictor variable would explain
100% (R
2
=1.00) of the variance in the dependent variable,
desire to engage in collective action. The R
2
statistic as
wellasthechangeinR
2
(ΔR
2
) are provided in Table 3for
both blocks of the linear regression analysis of desire to
engage in anti-rape collective action. Table 3also includes
both the unstandardized (B) and standardized (β)regres-
sion coefficients for the current analysis to better compare
its results to the analysis of reported likelihood of helping
the survivor.
At step 1, the main effects of gender and the predictor
variables accounted for 36% of the variance in desire to
engage in anti-rape collective action. We hypothesized that
attitudes towards feminism positively predict desire to
engage in anti-rape collective action. This was supported:
Participants who were higher in attitudes towards feminism
were more likely to desire to engage in anti-rape collective
action. We also hypothesized that attributions of fault to
society positively predict desire to engage in anti-rape
collective action. This was also supported: Participants who
attributed more fault to society for the rape were more
likely to desire to engage in anti-rape collective action.
Finally, we hypothesized that feelings of fear and anger
positively predict desire to engage in anti-rape collective
action. This was partially supported: Participants who felt
more fear were more likely to desire to engage in anti-rape
collective action, however feelings of anger were unrelated
to desire to engage in anti-rape collective action. Addition-
ally, the results demonstrate that female participants and
participants low in rape myth acceptance attitudes were
more likely to desire to engage in anti-rape collective
action. At step 2, the interaction terms of gender and the
predictor variables accounted for an additional 3% of the
variance in desire to engage in anti-rape collective action.
This was not a statistically significant increase in R
2
,
however, indicating that considering gender as a moderator
did not help to explain desire to engage in anti-rape
Model BSEBβtp
1
Gender .72 .24 .21 3.08 .01
Attitudes toward feminism .61 .20 .23 3.01 .01
Rape myth acceptance −.29 .14 −.15 −2.08 .04
Society at fault .19 .07 .17 2.59 .01
Woman at fault −.07 .10 −.05 −.69 .49
Man at fault .10 .11 .07 .99 .32
Anger .02 .08 .01 .17 .86
Fear .14 .08 .14 1.77 .08
Pity .01 .08 .01 .17 .87
R²= .36, ΔR
2
(9, 169)= .36, p< .001
2
Attitudes toward feminism * Gender .61 .42 .34 1.44 .15
Rape myth acceptance * Gender −.02 .28 −.02 −.07 .94
Society at fault * Gender .19 .16 .28 1.24 .22
Woman at fault * Gender .32 .20 .37 1.63 .11
Man at fault * Gender .04 .23 .04 .18 .86
Anger * Gender .15 .18 .24 .80 .42
Fear * Gender −.12 .18 −.21 −.67 .51
Pity * Gender .08 .17 .11 .45 .65
R²= .39, ΔR
2
(8, 161)= .03, p= .38
Table 3 Sequential linear
regression predicting anti-rape
collective action
Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393 389

collective action. Further, none of the interaction terms are
statistically significant, meaning that the slopes of the
regression lines for female and male participants are
parallel.
Hypothesis 3: Reported Likelihood of Helping the Survivor
Preliminary analyses indicated that the helping variable was
negatively skewed (skewness=−1.30, SE= .18) because
40.8% of participants indicated that it was very likely that
they would help the woman (i.e., their mean score on the
helping variable was 7), but that the predictor variables
lacked multicollinearity (all tolerances >.80, all VIFs <2.00;
Keith 2006). Because skew represents a violation of one of
the assumptions of linear regression, logistic regression was
the appropriate analysis strategy for the helping variable
(see Table 4). To conduct the hierarchical logistic regres-
sion, the helping variable was dichotomized to allow for a
comparison between participants who indicated that it was
very likely that they wouldhelpthewoman(i.e.,
participants whose mean score on helping was 7) with the
remaining participants who indicated at least some degree
of hesitancy that they would help the woman (i.e.,
participants whose mean score on helping was less than
7). Similar to sequential linear regression, hierarchical
logistic regression provides information about how well
the predictor variables are able to correctly classify
participants’scores on the dependent variable. A perfect
model that includes every relevant predictor variable would
correctly classify 100% of the participants into the two
categories represented by the dependent variable, reported
likelihood of helping the woman. For the current model, the
proportional by chance classification rate is .517. Therefore,
the model would correctly classify 51.7% of the partic-
ipants by chance alone.
At block 1, 68.5% of participants were correctly
classified by the main effects of the gender and predictor
variables. We hypothesized that rape myth attitudes
negatively predict reported likelihood of helping a survivor
of rape. This was supported: Participants who were higher
in rape myth acceptance attitudes were less likely to report
that they would help the woman. We also hypothesized that
attributions of fault to a female survivor of rape negatively
predict and attributions of fault to a male perpetrator
positively predict reported likelihood of helping a survivor
of rape. This was partially supported: Participants who
attributed fault to the man were more likely to report that
they would help the woman, however attributions of fault to
the woman were unrelated to reported likelihood of helping
the woman. Finally, we hypothesized that feelings of anger
and pity positively predict reported likelihood of helping.
This was also partially supported: Participants who felt
more anger were more likely to report that they would help
the woman, however feelings of pity were unrelated to
reported likelihood of helping. Additionally, female partic-
ipants were more likely to report that they would help the
woman. At block 2, an additional 4.5% of participants were
correctly classified with the addition of the interaction
terms between gender and the predictor variables. The
interaction between attributions of fault to the man and
gender was marginally statistically significant. Further
analyses demonstrated that female participants who
attributed more fault to the man were more likely to
help the woman, B(SE)=1.23 (.31), Exp(B)=3.44, Wald=
16.02, p<.001. However, there was no relationship between
male participants’attributions of fault to the man and their
Model BSEBExp(B) Wald p
1
Gender −.74 .37 .48 4.01 .05
Attitudes toward feminism −.12 .33 .89 .13 .72
Rape myth acceptance −.37 .23 .69 2.70 .10
Man at fault .78 .23 2.18 11.26 .01
Anger .25 .12 1.29 4.47 .03
Pity −.03 .13 .97 .05 .83
χ
2
(6)= 39.80, p< .001, 68.5% correctly classified
2
Attitudes toward feminism * Gender −.87 .71 .42 1.51 .22
Rape myth acceptance * Gender −.71 .47 .49 2.30 .13
Man at fault * Gender .85 .48 2.34 3.10 .08
Anger * Gender .01 .26 1.01 .01 .96
Pity * Gender −.30 .28 .74 1.17 .28
χ
2
(5)= 6.38, p= .27, 73.0% correctly classified
Tab l e 4 Hierarchical logistic
regression predicting helping
390 Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393

reported likelihood of helping the woman, B(SE)=.43 (.32),
Exp(B)=1.54, Wald=1.79, p=.18. The entire model correct-
ly classified 73.0% of participants on the helping dependent
variable. This model performed 41.2% better than chance
alone (i.e., 51.7%).
Discussion
In the present work, we focused on identifying the factors
that are related to American college students’desire to
engage in anti-rape collective action and reported likelihood
of helping a survivor of rape. More specifically, we
explored how attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions
are related to these two forms of responses to rape among
women and men. Although past research has examined
these three factors individually, we examined them simul-
taneously to learn which ones act as predictors of responses
to rape when controlling for the others. The results of this
work suggest that these factors are differentially related to
desire to engage in anti-rape collective action and reported
likelihood of helping survivors of rape. Gender, attitudes
toward feminism, rape myth acceptance attitudes, attribu-
tions of fault to society, and feelings of fear emerged as
predictors of desire to engage in anti-rape collective action.
Gender did not moderate these effects, suggesting that the
relationships between these predictors and desire to engage
in anti-rape collective action were similar for female and
male participants. In contrast, gender, rape myth acceptance
attitudes, attributions of fault to the man, and feelings of
anger emerged as predictors of reported likelihood of
helping the survivor. Gender moderated the effect of
attributions of fault to the man, indicating that women’s
attributions of fault to the man were positively related to
their reported likelihood of helping the survivor but men’s
attributions of fault to the man were unrelated to their
reported likelihood of helping the survivor. In sum, the
current work indicates that attitudes, attributions of fault,
and emotions contribute independently to college students’
responses to rape and that the predictors of these responses
are different.
Insights into Intended Responses to Rape
The results of the current study highlight the important role
that attributions of fault play in American college students’
responses to rape. Although past research on attributions of
fault within rape scenarios has largely focused on the
conditions under which people blame the female survivor
(Barnett et al. 1992; Cowan and Quinton 1997; Gillen and
Muncer 1995; Grubb and Harrower 2008; Kanekar and
Seksaria 1993), the current work draws attention to
attributions of fault to society and the male perpetrator.
Attributions of fault to society were related to desire to
engage in anti-rape collective action. Students who attribute
fault to society for rape may desire to engage in anti-rape
collective action in hopes of bringing attention to and
ultimately dismantling societal forces contributing to rape.
In contrast, attributions of fault to male perpetrators were
related to reported likelihood of helping survivors. There-
fore, students who make this individually-based attribution
of fault may want to engage in an action to restore the well-
being of the individual survivor. Interestingly, this finding
was moderated by gender: attributions of fault to the male
perpetrator were related to reported likelihood of helping
among female participants but not male participants.
Although past research has demonstrated that female
college students attribute more fault to male perpetrators
than male college students (Krulewitz and Nash 1979), it is
unclear why these attributions would be related to reported
likelihood of helping the survivor among female students
but not male students. This finding might therefore reveal
an especially interesting avenue for future research.
The current study further highlights the importance of
emotional reactions in American college students’
responses to rape. Past research has demonstrated a
connection between feelings of anger with engagement in
non-feminist collective action among U.S. adults (Smith et
al. 2008) and Dutch college students (van Zomeren et al.
2004; van Zomeren and Lodewijkx 2005), as well as
feminist collective action among Australian adult women
(Hercus 1999). Anger, however, was not a predictor of U.S.
college students’intentions to engage in anti-rape collective
action in the current study. Instead, fear was a predictor of
intentions to engage in anti-rape collective action. This
suggests that the emotional process involved in responses to
anti-rape collective action may differ from other forms of
collective action. Anger was instead related to reported
likelihood of helping the survivor. This finding is consistent
with past research that has demonstrated a relationship
between feelings of anger and helping (van Zomeren and
Lodewijkx 2005). Finally, although participants felt pity
towards the survivor, feelings of pity were unrelated to
responses to rape after controlling for the remaining
predictors. Future work might therefore further explore the
role of fear in anti-rape collective action and anger in
helping survivors of rape.
Limitations of the Current Work
There are limitations to the current study that are important
to consider when interpreting its results. For example, the
rape scenario described in the study may not be typical of
rape that occurs on college campuses. In particular, the
woman described in the scenario was not drinking at the
party, which may be unusual for both a college party and a
Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393 391

rape scenario. This description likely influenced partici-
pants’perceptions of the woman, making them less likely
to see her as at fault for the rape. The woman was also not
described as engaging in other behaviors that often lead to
victim blame. It is possible that participants’attributions of
fault would have been different given the constraints of a
different scenario and therefore may have been related to
responses to rape.
Further, the current study examined participants’desire
to engage in anti-rape collective action and reported
likelihood of helping the survivor described in the scenario
rather than actual engagement in anti-rape collective action
and helping survivors of rape. Therefore, constructs closer
to behavioral intentions rather than actual behaviors were
measured. It is possible that actual behavior in response to
rape might deviate from reported intended behavior. There
is reason to believe, however, that these behavioral
intentions are an appropriate proxy for actual behavior.
The theories of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975)
and planned behavior (Ajzen 1985) provide a theoretical
rationale supporting the relationship between behavioral
intentions and actual behavior. This theoretical rationale is
supported by empirical work demonstrating that behavioral
intentions lead to actual behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein
1973; Hagger and Chatzisarantis 2009; Schifter and Ajzen
1985). It is therefore plausible that the desire to engage in
anti-rape collective action and reported likelihood of
helping the woman captured in the current study would be
related to actual completion of these behaviors.
An additional limitation of the current work is the extent
to which its findings are generalizable. The goal of the
work was to identify the factors that predict American
college students’behavioral responses to rape. The sample,
however, was comprised of mostly white college students
attending a large public university in New England and
therefore may not be representative of all American college
students, particularly racial minorities. Future work might
explore whether the factors that were identified in the
current study are generalizable to other American college
students.
Conclusions
Given that rape is a significant problem on college
campuses in the U.S., it is important to better understand
American college students’responses to rape. These
responses may be directed at societal forces that perpetuate
violence towards women. They may play an important role
in raising awareness about sexual assault and rape, and
ultimately contribute to a lessening of sexual violence.
Additionally, these responses may be directed at individual
survivors of rape. College students’responses to survivors
could have a significant impact on survivors’psychological
and physical well-being. The current study suggests that
American college students’desire to engage in anti-rape
collective action and reported likelihood of helping a
survivor of rape are related to their attitudes, attributions
of fault, and emotions but that the specific attitudes,
attributions of fault, and emotions related to each response
are different. The current study further suggests that the
processes whereby these factors relate to intended
responses to rape are similar for female and male college
students. A stronger, more nuanced understanding of the
predictors of college students’desire to engage in anti-rape
collective action and likelihood of helping survivors of rape
will contribute to efforts to stop rape on college campuses
in the long-term and improve the outcomes of students who
have survived rape in the short-term.
Acknowledgement Preparation of this manuscript was supported by
a training fellowship (T32MH074387) awarded to the first author
from the National Institute of Mental Health. We thank Felicia Pratto,
Jack Dovidio, Colin Leach, and the UConn Intergroup Lab for their
helpful comments on this work.
References
Ahrens, C. E., & Campbell, R. (2000). Assisting rape victims as they
recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 15, 959–986. doi:10.1177/088626000015009004.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned
behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From
cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables
as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 27,41–57. doi:10.1037/h0034440.
Anderson, K. B., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. (1997). Individual
differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,295–315.
doi:10.1177/0146167297233008.
Barnett, M. A., Quackenbush, S. W., Sinisi, C. S., & Wegman, C. M.
(1992). Factors affecting reactions to a rape victim. Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 126, 609–620.
Brems, C., & Wagner, P. (1994). Blame of victim and perpetrator in rape
versus theft. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134,363–374.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.38.2.217.
Cobbina, J. E., Miller, J., & Brunson, R. K. (2008). Gender,
neighborhood danger, and risk-avoidance strategies among urban
African-American youths. Criminology, 46, 673–709.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00122.x.
Cole, T. B. (2006). Rape at US colleges often fueled by alcohol.
JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 296,
504–505. doi:10.1001/jama.296.5.504.
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to
different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to
‘prejudice’.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
770–789. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770.
Cowan, G., & Quinton, W. J. (1997). Cognitive style and attitudinal
correlates of the perceived causes of rape scale. Psychology of
392 Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393

Women Quarterly, 21, 227–245. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.
tb00110.x.
Duncan, L. E. (1999). Motivation for collective action: Group
consciousness as mediator of personality, life experiences, and
women’s rights activism. Political Psychology, 20,611–635.
doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00159.
Elklit, A., Due, L., & Christiansen, D. M. (2009). Predictors of acute
stress symptoms in rape victims. Traumatology, 15(2), 38–45.
doi:10.1177/1534765609338500.
Fassinger, R. E. (1994). Development and testing of the attitudes
toward feminism and the women’s movement (FWM) scale.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 389–402. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-6402.1994.tb00462.x.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading:
Addison-Wesley.
Ford, T. M., Liwag-McLamb, M., & Foley, L. A. (1998). Perceptions
of rape based on sex and sexual orientation of victim. Journal of
Social Behavior & Personality, 13, 253–262.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory:
Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental
health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. New
York: Routledge.
Gillen, K., & Muncer, S. J. (1995). Sex differences in the perceived causal
structure of date rape: A preliminary report. Aggressive Behavior,
21,101–112. doi:10.ejsp.24202/1098-2337(1995)21:2<101::AID-
AB2480210203>3.0.CO;2-S.
Griffin, S. (1979). Rape: The power of consciousness. San Francisco:
Harper & Row.
Grubb, A., & Harrower, J. (2008). Attribution of blame in cases of
rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and
perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 13, 396–405. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2009). Integrating the
theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in
health behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Health
Psychology, 14, 275–302. doi:10.1348/135910708X373959.
Hercus, C. (1999). Identity, emotion, and feminist collective action.
Gender & Society, 13,34–55. doi:10.1177/089124399013001003.
Hughes, P. P., Marshall, D., & Sherrill, C. (2003). Multidimensional
analysis of fear and confidence of university women relating to
crimes and dangerous situations. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 18,33–49. doi:10.1177/0886260502238539.
Kanekar, S., & Seksaria, V. (1993). Acquaintance versus stranger rape:
Testing the ambiguity reduction hypothesis. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 23, 485–494. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230506.
Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston: Pearson.
Klaw, E. L., Lonsway, K. A., Berg, D. R., Waldo, C. R., Kothari, C.,
Mazurek, C. J., et al. (2005). Challenging rape culture: Awareness,
emotion and action through campus acquaintance rape education.
Wome n & Th e r a p y, 2 8 (2), 47–63. doi:10.1300/J015v28n02_04.
Koss, M. P., Figueredo, A. J., & Prince, R. J. (2002). Cognitive
mediation of rape’s mental, physical and social health impact:
Tests of four models in cross-sectional data. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 926–941. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.70.4.926.
Krulewitz, J. E., & Nash, J. E. (1979). Effects of rape victim
resistance, assault outcome, and sex of observer on attributions of
rape. Journal of Personality, 47, 557–574. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1979.tb00209.x.
Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and correlates
of collective action. Sex Roles, 50, 771–779. doi:10.1023/B:
SERS.0000029096.90835.3f.
Locke, B. D., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Examining masculinity norms,
problem drinking, and athletic involvement as predictors of
sexual aggression in college men. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 279–283. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.279.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1986). Pornography: Not a moral issue. Women’s
Studies International Forum, 9,63–78. doi:10.1016/0277-5395
(86)90078-6.
McMullin, D., & White, J. W. (2006). Long-term effects of labeling a
rape experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30,96–105.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00266.x.
Mohler-Kuo, M., Dowdall, G. W., Koss, M. P., & Wechsler, H.
(2004). Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national sample
of college women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65,37–45.
Morrison, K. (2005). Motivating women and men to take protective
action against rape: Examining direct and indirect persuasive fear
appeals. Health Communication, 18,237–256. doi:10.1207/
s15327027hc1803_3.
Nelson, J. A., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Hurt, M. M., Ramsey, L. R.,
Turner, D. L., et al. (2008). Identity in action: Predictors of
feminist self-identification and collective action. Sex Roles, 58,
721–728. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9384-0.
Otten, C. A., Penner, L. A., & Waugh, G. (1988). That’s what friends
are for: The determinants of psychological helping. Journal of
Social & Clinical Psychology, 7,34–41.
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, 33,27–68. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998. 2238.
Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2004). Was it rape? The
function of women’s rape myth acceptance and definitions of sex
in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles, 51, 129–144.
doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037758.95376.00.
Pollard, P. (1992). Judgements about victims and attackers in depicted
rapes: A review. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 31,
307–326.
Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and
weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 843–851.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.843.
Smith, H. J., Cronin, T., & Kessler, T. (2008). Anger, fear, or sadness:
Faculty members’emotional reactions to collective pay disad-
vantage. Political Psychology, 29, 221–246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9221.2008.00624.x.
Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995: A meta-
analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,35–51.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00099.x.
van Zomeren, M., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2005). Motivated
responses to ‘senseless’violence: Explaining emotional and
behavioural responses through person and position identification.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 35,755–766.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.274.
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004).
Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective
action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649.
Wasco, S. M., & Campbell, R. (2002). Emotional reactions of rape
victim advocates: A multiple case study of anger and fear.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 120–130. doi:10.1111/
1471-6402.00050.
Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women,
and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence
against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 655–675.
doi:10.1177/0886260504263868.
Sex Roles (2011) 64:382–393 393