INTRODUCTION Rape. The word conjures up images of a man, a stranger, dressed in black, with his features hidden, lurking in the shadows, waiting for a defenseless woman to drag off into the bushes. Other images are of a man, breaking into a woman`s home, sneaking into her bedroom in the middle of the night, holding a knife, or other weapon, to her throat and raping her. These images and other beliefs people hold about rape, are myths. Rape myths are a deeply held, ingrained, prejudicial, stereotypical attitude and belief system which a person holds to be true about the act of rape, or of the perpetrator and/or victim of rape (Burt, 1980; Feild, 1978; Foubert & Marriott, 1997; Johnson, Kuck, & Schander 1997; Szymanski, Devlin, Chrisler, & Vyse, 1993). Examples of additional rape myths are: women falsely report rape to get attention; all women have a secret desire to be raped; men can`t always control their sexual urges; and only bad girls get raped (Burt, 1980; Feild, 1978; Brinson, 1992; Kopper, 1996; Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996; Foubert & Marriott, 1997; Johnson, Kuck, & Schander 1997; Szymanski, Devlin, Chrisler, Vyse, 1993). This is not to say that the incidents described above do not happen, they do, just not as often as is believed by the culture. Most rapes, approximately 78%, are committed by acquaintances ("Facts About", 1992). Rape myths are culturally bound (Brinson, 1992; Muir, Lonsway, & Payne, 1996). They function to alleviate a cultural distress over harmful events that have no rational explanation (Brinson, 1992). In American culture one suggestion for the use of rape myths is the "just world hypothesis". This hypothesis states that by applying blame to the victim, (that is, the victim must have done something to deserve the rape) the observer cognitively protects themselves from the possibility of suffering the same situation (Burt, 1980). For a myth to be widely accepted, it must be widely distributed (Brinson, 1992). In America, the media serves the function of circulation. In television series, rape has become an "acceptable conflict for plot development in dramatic programs" (Brinson, 1992, p. 364). However, by using rape myths as plot developments, a secondary, possibly not aimed for development occurs, an indirect encouragement of rape myth acceptance. Therefore, Brinson in 1992 studied the number of incidences of rape and use of rape myths on prime time television. Brinson found extensive use of rape myths in 26 rape story lines. "Rape myths were used 5.08 times per story line, while they were opposed 3.27 times per story line" (Brinson, 1992, p. 373). Not opposing the rape myths as often as employing one creates the illusion that the myths are fact. Unfortunately, this statistic illustrates the wide acceptance of rape myths in American culture as pictured by television. As Burt stated in 1980, "Rape is the logical and psychological extension of a dominant-submissive, competitive, sex-role stereotyped culture" (Burt, 1980, p. 229). Use of rape myths in entertainment extends the "dominant-submissive, competitive, sex-role stereotype" in American culture (Burt, 1980,p. 229). To explore the differences between cultures, Muir, Lonsway, & Payne (1996) studied American and Scottish college students. They found that Americans did have a higher acceptance of rape myths and consequently a higher incidence of reported rapes than the Scottish. They demonstrated the high influence society and culture has on rape myth acceptance and the act of rape. As stated by Muir, et al., ". . . to the extent that rape mythology is used to deny or justify actual sexual aggression, higher rates of sexual assault within a particular culture will tend to be associated with greater rape myth acceptance" (Muir, et al., 1996, p. 262). Muir, et al., (1996) found American rape reports at 70% higher than Scottish rape reports to authorities in 1991. The Statistical Abstract of the United States 1997 reports forcible rape at a rate of 37.1 per 100,000 in 1995 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997, 117th ed., 1995 was the most current year available). The total number of attempted or forced rapes reported to law enforcement in 1995, with 96% of the national population of law enforcement agencies reporting, was 97,460 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997, 117th ed.). Of these, 85,249, or 87.47%, was reported as forcible rape and 12,211, or 12.53% was reported as attempted (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997, 117th ed.). Statistics on the break down of the number of acquaintance or stranger rapes reported during this time are not included. The statistics also do not state the gender of the victim of these rapes. Koss (1992) believes that the numbers of rapes are actually higher than reported. Koss bases her beliefs on the following assumptions: first, the "common sense" assumption that not all crimes are reported to the police. Second, women may not acknowledge the situation as a crime and therefore, will not report it to the police. Third, the use of rape myths that place the blame on the victim, and then the woman feels "she deserved it". Fourth, the National Crime Survey used is vague and not sensitive enough to detect all rapes, or rape situations (Koss, 1992). Koss cites her study from 1987 where 3187 college women were questioned at 32 colleges in the United States. That study determined a rate of 166 per 1000 college women had experienced a sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault (Koss, 1992). A much higher rate than reported in the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1997 for similar years. However, Koss`s reports are in dispute. Gilbert in 1998 reviewed three studies by Koss and Russell and questions their statistics related to the number of attempted and completed rapes (Gilbert, 1998). Gilbert states that approximately two to five incidents are reported each year to campus police at colleges and universities, not anywhere near the number Koss reports to have found (Gilbert, 1998). Gilbert attempts to explain the extreme differences in the findings of reported rapes. He suggests the establishment of rape crisis counseling centers that have occurred more often on campuses may have had an effect. Gilbert explains that this might attribute to the differences because the centers allow women to get the assistance needed without reporting to law enforcement agencies (Gilbert, 1998). Nonetheless, Gilbert does recognize that not all women report their assaults due to the ". . . embarrassment and frequently callous treatment at the hands of the police" (Gilbert, 1998, p. 358). In further studies concerning law enforcement attitudes toward rape, Campbell and Johnson (1997) examined law enforcement officers` perceptions and personal definitions of rape in relation to the state`s legal definition of rape. They reported that according to Estrich in 1987 there appears to be two types of rape recognized by the police. "Real" rapes executed by strangers, and "simple" rapes committed by acquaintances (Campbell & Johnson, 1997). They state that the "real" rapes are the rapes given the most attention and are those reported by law enforcement agencies most often (Campbell & Johnson, 1997). Given the amount of latitude allowed to law enforcement on rape reporting and of charges being filed, this could be another explanation for part of the discrepancies between reported rape statistics by the U.S. Census Bureau, Gilbert, and Koss. In any case, Szymanski, Devlin, Chrisler, & Vyse (1993) report that the Federal Bureau of Investigations lists rape as the most underreported crime in the United States. "Facts About Rape in America" state that only 16% of all rapes are ever reported to law enforcement (National Victim Center, 1992). Several studies have cited acceptance of rape myths as key to the acceptance of, and in some cases, the likelihood to rape (Burt, 1980; Brinson, 1992; Kalof, 1993; Szymanski, et al, 1993; Schneider, Soh-Chiew Ee, & Aronson, 1994; Boxley, Lawrance, & Gruchow, 1995; Kopper, 1996; Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996; Muir, et al., 1996; Johnson, Kuck, & Schander, 1997; Foubert & Marriott, 1997; Anderson, Cooper, & Okamura, 1997; Kalra, Wood, Desmarais, Verberg, & Senn, 1998). The logic then follows, that if rape myth acceptance decreases, then the number of rapes, acquaintance and stranger, would decrease (Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996; Anderson, et al., 1997; Foubert & Marriott, 1997). Additionally, the cost and length of rape prevention programs are much less in relation to the costs and length of therapy for victims of rape (Schneider, et al., 1994). Traditional types of attempted rape programs for men have included aversion therapy, imaginal desensitization, and masturabotory reconditioning (Marshall, Jones, Ward, Johnson, & Barbaree, 1989 as cited in Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996). The traditional rape prevention programs for women follow rape myths. The women have been told how not to dress, to avoid being out after dark, to avoid certain areas, to carry protection (i.e., mace, guns), and to be discriminating in the men they allow into their company. As Schewe and O`Donohue (1996) state, "Not only are these forms of `prevention` unacceptable on the basis of a severe restriction of basic human rights, but also these tactics will never be completely successful" (Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996, p. 456). To combat this situation, rape prevention programs are being developed for men to hopefully reduce the number of men who rape. These programs focus on rape myths acceptance and the amount of long lasting damage that rape has on women (Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996). Currently, new programs for rape prevention of shorter duration focusing on the cognitive effects of rape myths are in use (Kopper, 1996; Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996; Anderson, et al., 1997; Foubert & Marriott, 1997). The most common types of programs include written vignettes of rape scenarios, and/or group discussion of the impact of the victim and the perpetrator, and/or video presentations of rape situations. A rape attitude scale is used to determine the effectiveness of the program, usually in a repeated measures design (Szymanski, et al., 1993; Schneider, et al., 1994; Kopper, 1996; Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996; Anderson, et al., 1997; Foubert & Marriott, 1997;). There are several rape attitude scales in use. The most often used scale is the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) developed by Burt in 1980 (Burt, 1980; Anderson, et al., 1997). Second in operation to the RMAS is the Attitudes Toward Rape scale (ATR) developed by Feild in 1978 (Feild, 1978; Anderson et al., 1997). Demographics that have been significantly related to rape myth acceptance are gender, race, education level, marital status, and age (Feild, 1978; Burt, 1980; Szymanski, et al., 1993; Schneider, et al., 1994; Kopper, 1996; Boxley, et al., 1995; Anderson, et al., 1997; Johnson, et al., 1997; Kalra, et al., 1998). The goal of this study is to investigate the effectiveness on rape myth acceptance of a rape sensitivity video alone or combined with a rape class. It is hypothesized that the video will decrease the acceptability of rape myths. Schewe and O`Donohue (1996) demonstrated that programs utilizing video presentation exerted a greater decrease in rape myth acceptance (Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996). By demonstrating that rape myths are alterable, rape sensitivity and rape awareness programs become more valuable to the general public. Szymanski, et al., (1993) stated that there was an effect of lower scores on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) for subjects who had attended a rape awareness workshop (Szymanski, et al., 1993). Although most of the research found similar results, Feild (1978) stated that his data did not substantiate significant differences among those who had attended a rape awareness workshop (Feild, 1978). This difference suggests that studies of this kind are still a valuable research tool. Gender will also be examined for its effect. It is believed that males will accept rape myths more than women. Studies have consistently shown males accept rape myths to a greater degree (Feild, 1978; Burt, 1980; Szymanski, et al., 1993; Boxley, et al., 1995; Muir, et al., 1996; Kopper, 1996; Johnson, et al., 1997). Boxley, et al. (1995) demonstrated that the difference in rape myth acceptance begins as early as adolescence. Approximately one-third of the male adolescents in their study accepted rape myths (Boxley, et al., 1995). Age is also being examined. Kalra, et al. (1998) found that older women in their study were more accepting of rape myths. However, it is believed that most of the respondents will be of very similar age. This would result in not enough variability in ages to show much difference in rape myth acceptance or in the effectiveness of the video in this study.
Two groups of participants were used. The first group of participants viewed the video as the only rape sensitivity tool. The second group of participants had a rape class prior to viewing the video. The total participants were one hundred and forty-three. The composition of the group was one hundred and forty students, a faculty member, and staff at a commuter college in Denver, Colorado. The Introductory Psychology Student Subject Pool at Metropolitan State College of Denver was tapped for one hundred and eleven of the one hundred and thirteen participants who had not had a rape class before the video. The Introductory Psychology participants from the subject pool were given credit for their psychology class requirement. The remaining two participants who had not had a class were volunteers from the Psychology Department staff at Metropolitan State College of Denver. The thirty-one participants who had a rape class before the video were part of a Psychology of Women class offered through the Psychology and Women`s Studies Departments of Metropolitan State College of Denver. Participants from the Psychology of Women class did not receive any type of compensation for participation. Participants were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. The guidelines for experiments with human subjects put forth by the American Psychological Association Ethical Principle for Psychologists were followed for this study. The age range for participants who did not have a rape class was 17 to 52. Seventeen participants did not give their age. The mean age of this group was 22.91, with a median of 20. Forty-nine participants in this group were males. Sixty-four were females. The group was predominantly white. Eighty-seven people responded as white. Six were African Americans, 12 were Hispanic, 3 responded as Asian, and 5 listed themselves as other. The group had 57 freshmen, 25 sophomores, 15 juniors, and 12 seniors. Four responded as either N/A or other for level in school. One of the participants from this group was not included as the questionnaires were not completed. The age range for the group receiving a rape class before the video was 20 to 50. Four participants did not give their age. The mean age of this group was 27.89, with a median of 23. Six participants in this group were males. Twenty-five were female. This group was also predominately white, consisting of 22 whites, 2 African American, 4 Hispanic, 2 Asian, and 1 who responded as other. The group had 2 sophomores, 11 juniors, and 16 seniors. Two answered as having a Bachelor`s degree or higher.
The video shown was a rape sensitivity video developed for training law enforcement officers in dealing with rape victims. Production of the video was by the Seattle Police Department Video Unit. Sergeant Dick Ramon of the Seattle Police Department provided the narration. The video is a graphic verbal description of a male police officer being sexually assaulted in an alley by two unknown male perpetrators. It is used in training sessions for the Exempla Lutheran Medical Center`s Volunteer Sexual Assault Counselor Program in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. It is also used by some of the law enforcement agencies in cities in Jefferson and Gilpin Counties in Colorado. The video became available to these agencies through COVA, Colorado Organization of Victim Advocates, at the annual conference in 1996. Two questionnaires were utilized. The first was the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) developed by Burt in 1980 (Burt, 1980). The RMAS has a Cronbach`s alpha of .875. Correlation for the item-to-item total for the 19 questions ranged from .27 to .62 (Burt, 1980; Kopper, 1996; Anderson, Cooper, & Okamura, 1997; Foubert & Marriott, 1997). In 1995, Schewe and O`Donohue reported finding a test-retest correlation of .84 (Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996). The RMAS has eleven statements related to rape myths that the respondent answers on a Likert scale ranging from 1, "strongly disagree" to 7, "strongly agree". Examples of statements are, "Any female can get raped," "a woman who is stuck-up and thinks she is too good to talk to guys on the street deserves to be taught a lesson". The remaining eight statements relate to the percentage of time the respondent believes how often women falsely report rape and the report of a rape by a friend, neighbor, young boy, or black woman (Burt, 1980). The total of the responses indicates the respondent`s acceptance of rape myths. A low score, 17, on the RMAS indicates non-acceptance of rape myths and a high score, 133, indicates strong acceptance of rape myths (Foubert & Marriott, 1997). The second questionnaire used was the Attitudes Towards Rape (ATR) scale developed by Feild in 1978 (Feild, 1978). The ATR has an internal consistency of .62 (Anderson, et al., 1997). The ATR contains thirty-two statements answered on a six point Likert scale. The responses range from 1, "strongly agree" to 6, "strongly disagree". Examples of statements included on the ATR are, "rapist are `normal` men," "in order to protect the male, it should be difficult to prove that a rape has occurred," "a convicted rapist should be castrated" (Feild, 1978). On the ATR, a score of 32 indicates strong acceptance of rape myths, while a score of 192 indicates less acceptance of rape myths (Feild, 1978). Factor analysis on the ATR revealed eight distinctive factors. Factor 1 is "Women`s Responsibility in Rape Prevention." Factor 2 is "Sex as Motivation for Rape." Factor 3 is "Severe Punishment for Rape." Factor 4 covers "Victim Perception of Rape." Factor 5 defines "Normality of Rapists." Factor 6 centers on "Power as Motivation for Rape." Factor 7 concerns "Favorable Perceptions of a Woman After Rape." Factor 8 deals with "Resistance as Woman`s Role During Rape" (Feild, 1978).
The two groups followed the same procedure. Genders were separated for the video presentation, except for the rape class group. In that group it was not possible to separate the males and females during presentation of the video. Each participant was asked to fill out the first questionnaire of the RMAS and ATR, along with a short section of demographics. Questionnaires were numbered in order to coordinate each before and after video questionnaire for the participant. The first questionnaires were collected and the participants allowed to watch the video. A second identical questionnaire was distributed to each participant at the conclusion of the video, and they were asked to fill out the questionnaire again. Questionnaires were collected and the participants thanked. Participants were asked if they had any comments or questions of the video or the study. Participants were provided with a list of phone numbers for the Metropolitan State College of Denver`s Counseling Center, the Rape Assistance and Awareness Program, the Rape Crisis Hotline, and the Rape Victim Support phone line, in case any issues concerning the topic of rape were encountered by the participant. Each participant received a before and after video score for the RMAS, ATR, and a combined score consisting of the sum of the RMAS and ATR. A t-test for related samples on before and after video scores were performed for the RMAS, ATR, and the combined score. For the comparison of rape class attendance, gender, and age the combined RMAS and ATR scores was used. A t-test for independent samples was performed on the before and after video scores for each of the independent variables listed above. All t-tests were run two-tailed.
RESULTS The mean difference of the RMAS for the full sample was -2.73, SD = 5.57. The results of the RMAS scores showed a significant difference in acceptance of rape myths after the video, t (143) = -5.87, p < .00. After viewing the videotape, rape myth acceptance decreased significantly, indicating the video is effective. The mean difference for the ATR was .72, SD = 9.71. The results of the ATR did not show a significant difference after viewing the video, t (143) = .89, p < .38. Indicating that rape myth acceptance as measured by the ATR did not change significantly after viewing the video. The mean difference for the combined RMAS and ATR score was -2.02, SD = 9.70. The results of the combined score showed a significant difference after viewing the video, t (143) = -2.50, p < .01. After viewing the video, the combined score for rape myth acceptance decreased.
Results of the two groups of participants, those who had a rape class prior to the video and those who did not, demonstrated no significant difference. The mean acceptance of rape myths for participants who had not previously had a rape class (n = 113) was 159.76, SD = 11.94. For those who did have a rape class (n = 31) prior to the video mean was 162.52, SD = 11.70. Analysis of the two groups before viewing the video revealed no significant differences between the groups in rape myth acceptance, t (142) = -1.15, p < .25. This indicates that the class on rape did not change rape myth acceptance prior to the video. The group having a rape class prior to the video was very similar to the group that did not have a rape class in rape myth acceptance.
After viewing the video there continued to be no significant difference between groups. The mean difference after the video for those who had not received a rape class (n = 113) was 158.17, SD = 11.02. For those who had the class (n = 31), the mean was 158.90, SD = 12.66. The groups did not differ significantly in rape myth acceptance after the video, t (142) = -.32, p < .75. This suggests that the video effect on rape myth acceptance was not significantly different for participants with a prior rape class than for participants without a prior rape class.
Analysis based on gender revealed no significant differences using the combined score. For males (n = 55) the average acceptance score of rape myths before the video was 159.71, SD = 14.01. For females (n = 89) the average score was 160.75, SD = 10.45. Males were not significantly different from females before the video in rape myth acceptance, t (142) = -.51, p < .61.
After the video the average rape acceptance score for males (n = 55) was 158.04, SD = 13.13. For females (n = 89) after the video the average rape acceptance score was 158.51, SD = 10.18. After the video males and females continued to show no significant difference in rape myth acceptance, t (142) = -.24, p < .81.
The mean age of 24 for the total sample was used to separate the participants into two age cohorts. For those below the mean age (n = 84) the average rape myth acceptance score was 159.23, SD = 10.55. For the participants above the mean age (n = 39) the rape myth acceptance score was 161.77, SD = 11.69. The difference between the two age cohorts for rape myth acceptance before the video was not significant, t (121) = 1.20, p < .23. The two age cohorts were similar in rape myth acceptance before the video.
After the video, age still had no effect on rape myth acceptance. Those below 24 (n = 84) had a mean rape myth acceptance of 157.90, SD = 11.72. The participants above 24 (n = 39) years of age had a mean rape myth acceptance of 159.09, SD = 11.59. The difference between age cohorts after viewing the video was not significant, t (121) = .53, p = .60. There was not a significant difference in rape myth acceptance for the two age cohorts, as defined by the mean age.
DISCUSSION The results of the study demonstrated that the video was effective in decreasing rape myth acceptance as hypothesized. The RMAS detected the most change in rape myth acceptance. The lack of significant change in rape myth acceptance measured by the ATR is puzzling when considered against the significant decrease in rape myth acceptance measured by the RMAS. The ATR may measure a different type of rape myth and this may account for part of the lack of significant changes for the ATR. Additionally, the ATR had almost twice as much variability (SD = 9.71) as the RMAS (SD = 5.57). The larger variability decreases the size of the t statistic. The question then becomes why was there more variability in the ATR? The larger variability may be attributed in part to the design of the ATR. The thirty-two questions in the ATR may allow for more variability. In general, larger variability requires that a much larger change or difference occur between groups or presentations to be detectable. The eight factors in the ATR may also be contributing to the lack of significance. The factors were not scored or used in this study. It is possible that without using the factors this scale is not acceptable for strict scoring. The combined scores` significance is mostly likely related to the significant change found by the RMAS. Surprisingly, the rape class did not have a significant effect on rape myth acceptance. The occurrence of a rape awareness program not changing rape myth acceptance is not without precedence. Feild (1978) found similar results. It may be that the class increases awareness but not until students are presented with more graphic information, as in the video, is a cognitive change in attitudes encountered. After the video, the two groups were very close in rape myth acceptance. This demonstrates that the most effective rape sensitivity tool was the video. Schewe and O`Donohue (1996) confirmed the efficacy of rape sensitivity programs that include video presentation. They used two different videos with two different groups. The video that specifically addressed rape myths proved to be more effective than the video that did not (Schewe & O`Donohue, 1996). In a 1997 study, Foubert and Marriott used a video that graphically described and showed a male rape. They found significant decreases in rape myth acceptance with the RMAS as well (Foubert & Marriott, 1997). This suggests that the video used in the current study efficiently exposes rape myths and that the use of a male as the victim is effective. The lack of significant difference between genders is not without precedence. Kopper (1996) began her study noting that the role of gender was unclear. Traditional views of gender and sex roles, which are usually held by men, appear to also influence the acceptance of rape myths (Feild, 1978; Burt, 1980; Kalof, 1993; Boxley, et al., 1995; Anderson, et al., 1997; Johnson, et al., 1997). It may be that the males attending Metropolitan State College of Denver do not hold as strong a view of traditional gender and sex roles. The males who enrolled in a Psychology of Women class may be already be "different" from other males, in that they are willing to expose themselves to an alternate perspective on gender. It cannot be ignored that the unequal n`s in this study for males and females may have added to the lack of significance. There is some evidence to suggest that the males at Metropolitan State College of Denver are lower in their acceptance of rape myths than other males at other colleges. Foubert and Marriott (1997) had a mean of 40.8, SD = 10.6 for males before a rape sensitivity program, a much larger baseline score than for the males at Metropolitan State College. RMAS score for males at Metropolitan State College of Denver (separate from the ATR and combined) were M=26.98, SD = 6.69. After the rape sensitivity program the males in Foubert and Marriott`s males still accepted rape myth scores more than the current study males, M = 37.3, SD = 11.8 (Foubert & Marriott, 1997). The males at Metropolitan State College resulted in M = 24.76, SD = 8.10. This difference supports a conclusion that the males at Metropolitan State College could be considered distinct. Age was not hypothesized to have a significant difference, and it did not. It was expected that the age range would be closer. However the wide range and lack of significant difference may suggest that rape myths are not as widely supported by different age cohorts in the late 1990`s. Again the type of students, staff, and faculty at Metropolitan State College in Denver may also be a contributing factor. They may not be as traditional in their views as other colleges. Foubert and Marriott (1997) on follow up questionnaires to their study, found that the rape myth acceptance score increased. The follow up score was higher than the post program score, but lower than the initial score (Foubert & Marriott, 1997). This suggests there may be a "shock effect" to rape sensitivity programs accounting for the lower scores immediately after the program presentation. However, the lower score at follow up is encouraging, suggesting that these types of programs carry a long-term effect. One draw back to the current study is the lack of a scheduled follow up questionnaire. The overall goal of this study, to judge the effectiveness of the rape sensitivity video on rape myth acceptance, was achieved. The video was judged to be an acceptable and sufficient training and awareness tool for rape myths. The success of the video in changing rape myth attitudes supports its continued use in training sessions. Surprisingly, genders were undifferentiated on the amount of rape myth acceptance before and after the video for the combined score in this study. In the future, studies that include an equal number of males and females might uncover a difference in rape myth acceptance or the impact of the video on ages and a prior rape class. Additionally, follow up questionnaires months after the video presentation to determine the long-term effectiveness of this video is warranted. In conclusion, rape myth acceptance is still a part of the American culture. The topic of rape and use of rape myths can be seen daily on television, in soap operas if not on prime-time dramas. The statistics reported by law enforcement on the number of attempted and completed rapes are still high enough to support the use of programs to increase rape awareness. Programs that specifically focus on rape myth acceptance are an effective way to bring unrecognized beliefs into consciousness, thereby examining rape myth`s power on behavior.
REFERENCES Anderson, K., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295-316. Boxley, J., Lawrance, L., & Gruchow, H. (1995). A preliminary study of eighth grade students` attitudes toward rape myths` and women`s roles. Journal of School Health, 65, 96-101. Brinson, S. (1992). The use and opposition of rape myths in prime-time television dramas. Sex Roles, 27, 359-375. Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230. Campbell, R. & Johnson, C. (1997). Police officers` perceptions of rape: Is there consistency between state law and individual beliefs? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 255-275. Feild, H. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 156-179. Foubert, J. & Marriott, K. (1997). Effects of a sexual assault peer education program on men`s belief in rape myth. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 36, 259-269. Gilbert, N. (1998). Realities and mythologies of rape. Society, 35, 356-363. Johnson, B., Kuck, D., & Schander, P. (1997). Rape myth acceptance and sociodemographic characteristics: A multidimensional analysis. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 36, 693-708. Kalof, L. (1993). Rape-supportive attitudes and sexual victimization experiences of sorority and nonsoroity women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 29, 767-781. Kalra, M., Wood, E., Desmarais, S., Verberg, N., & Senn, C. (1998). Exploring negative dating experiences and beliefs about rape among younger and older women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 145-154. Kopper, B. (1996). Gender, gender identity, rape myth acceptance, and time of initial resistance on the perception of acquaintance rape blame and avoidability. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 34, 81-94. Koss, M. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-75. Muir, G., Lonsway, K., & Payne, D. (1996). Rape myth acceptance among Scottish and American students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 261-263. National Victim Center. (1992). Facts About Rape in America [Brochure}. Arlington, VA. Schewe, P., & O`Donohue, W. (1996). Rape prevention with high-risk males: A short-term outcome of two interventions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 455-472. Schneider, L., Soh-Chiew EE, J., Aronson, H. (1994). Effects of gender and physical vs. psychological trauma/injury on observers` perceptions of sexual assault and its aftereffects. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 30, 793-812. Szymanski, L., Devlin, A., Chrisler, J., & Vyse, S. (1993). Gender role and attitudes toward rape in male and female college students. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 29, 37-58. U. S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997 (117th edition). Washington, D.C.