We examined the causal order of relationships between rape myth acceptance (RMA), victim blaming, and memory reconstruction. In Study 1, RMA-congruent memory (or alternatively, victim blaming) mediated the relationship between RMA and victim blaming (memory reconstruction). In Study 2, similar relationships emerged between RMA, victim blaming, and memory reconstruction. Although no mediation of RMA occurred in Study 2 independently, a mini meta-analysis of Studies 1 and 2 data replicated both patterns of mediation observed in Study 1. In Study 3, memory accuracy for neutral details of a rape scenario was unrelated to RMA. Manipulating memory to be more (vs. less) RMA congruent had no effect on victim blaming (Study 4), although manipulating perceived victim blameworthiness (Studies 5 and 6) produced RMA-congruent memory reconstruction when the victim was more (vs. less) blameworthy. The results suggest that, via victim blaming, RMA motivates a memory reconstruction process that explains and justifies victim blaming after the fact.
AbbeyA.McAuslanP.RossL. T. (1998). Sexual assault perpetration by college men: The role of alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 167-195.
2.
AbramsD.VikiG. T.MasserB.BohnerG. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111-125.
3.
AlbaJ. W.HasherL. (1983). Is memory schematic?. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203-231.
4.
AllisonJ. A.WrightsmanL. S. (1993). Rape: The misunderstood crime. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
5.
BartlettF. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
BohnerG.EysselF.PinaA.SieblerF.VikiG. T. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Affective, behavioural, and cognitive effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In HorvathM.BrownJ. (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17-45). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
8.
BrownmillerS. (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.
9.
BrunerJ. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. In BrunerJ. S.BrunswikE.FestingerL.HeiderF.MuenzingerK.F.OsgoodC. E.RapaportD. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 41-69). Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
10.
BurtM. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.
11.
BurtM. R. (1991). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In ParrotA.BechhoferL. (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 26-40). New York: John Wiley
12.
CallanM. J.FergusonH. J.BindemannM. (2013). Eye movements to audiovisual scenes reveal expectations of a just world. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 34-40.
13.
CallanM. J.KayA. C.DavidenkoN.EllardJ. H. (2009). The effects of justice motivation on memory for self-and other-relevant events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 614-623.
14.
CassidyL.HurrellR. M. (1995). The influence of victim’s attire on adolescents’ judgments of date rape. Adolescence, 30, 319-323.
15.
ConwayM.RossM. (1984). Getting what you want by revising what you had. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 738-748.
16.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’brienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359-378.
17.
DavisD.LoftusE. F. (2007). Internal and external sources of misinformation in adult witness memory. In TogliaM. P.ReadJ. D.RossD. F.LindsayR. C. L. (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. 1. Memory for events (pp. 195-237). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
DiedenhofenB.MuschJ. (2015). cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS ONE, 10(4): e0121945. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121945
19.
EdwardsK. M.TurchikJ. A.DardisC. M.ReynoldsN.GidyczC. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65, 761-773.
20.
EysselF.BohnerG. (2011). Schema effects of rape myth acceptance on judgments of guilt and blame in rape cases: The role of perceived entitlement to judge. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1579-1605.
21.
FeatherN. T. (1969). Attribution of responsibility and valence of success and failure in relation to initial confidence and task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 129-144.
22.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535-549.
23.
GrubbA. R.HarrowerJ. (2009). Understanding attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 63-81.
24.
GrubbA. R.TurnerE. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 443-452.
25.
HartW.AlbarracínD.EaglyA. H.BrechanI.LindbergM. J.MerrillL. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588.
26.
HirtE. R.McDonaldH. E.MarkmanK. D. (1998). Expectancy effects in reconstructive memory: When the past is just what we expected. In LynnS. J.McConkeyK. M. (Eds.), Truth in memory (pp. 62-89). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
JuddC. M.KulikJ. A. (1980). Schematic effects of social attitudes on information processing and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 569-578.
28.
KleinkeC. L.MeyerC. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 343-353.
29.
KrahéB.TemkinJ.BieneckS. (2007). Schema-driven information processing in judgments about rape. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 601-619.
30.
KrulewitzJ. E.NashJ. E. (1979). Effects of rape victim resistance, assault outcome, and sex of observer on attributions about rape. Journal of Personality, 47, 557-574.
31.
LambertA. J.RaichleK. (2000). The role of political ideology in mediating judgments of blame in rape victims and their assailants: A test of the just world, personal responsibility, and legitimization hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 853-863.
32.
LemmerG.GollwitzerM. (2017). The “true” indirect effect won’t (always) stand up: When and why reverse mediation testing fails. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 144-149.
33.
LernerM. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
34.
LoftusE. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572.
35.
LoftusE. F.PalmerJ. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589.
36.
LonswayK. A.FitzgeraldL. F. (1994). Rape myths in review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164.
37.
MacraeC. N.MilneA. B.BodenhausenG. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy- saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37-47.
38.
MasonG. E.RigerS.FoleyL. A. (2004). The impact of past sexual experiences on attributions of responsibility for rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1157-1171.
39.
McDonaldH. E.HirtE. R. (1997). When expectancy meets desire: Motivational effects in reconstructive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 5-23.
40.
McFarlandC.RossM. (1987). The relation between current impressions and memories of self and dating partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 228-238.
41.
PayneD. L.LonswayK. A.FitzgeraldL. 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.
42.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
43.
PickrellJ. E.BernsteinD. M.LoftusE. F. (2004). The misinformation effect. In PohlR. F. (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory (pp. 345-361). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
44.
ReadS. J.RossonM. B. (1982). Rewriting history: The biasing effects of attitudes on memory. Social Cognition, 1, 240-255.
45.
RoedigerH. L. (1996). Memory illusions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 76-100.
46.
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.FazioR. H. (1992). On the orienting value of attitudes: Attitude accessibility as a determinant of an object’s attraction of visual attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 198-211.
47.
RossM. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341-357.
48.
RossM.ConwayM. (1986). Remembering one’s own past: The construction of personal histories. In SorrentinoR. M.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 122-144). New York, NY: John Wiley.
49.
SanitiosoR.KundaZ.FongG. T. (1990). Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 229-241.
50.
SharmanS. J.PowellM. B. (2012). A comparison of adult witnesses’ suggestibility across various types of leading questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 48-53.
51.
ShaverK. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.
52.
SimsC. M.NoelN. E.MaistoS. A. (2007). Rape blame as a function of alcohol presence and resistance type. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2766-2775.
53.
SnyderM.UranowitzS. W. (1978). Reconstructing the past: Some cognitive consequences of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 941-950.
54.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845-851.
55.
SüssenbachP.BohnerG.EysselF. (2012). Schematic influences of rape myth acceptance on visual information processing: An eye-tracking approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 660-668.
56.
SüssenbachP.EysselF.BohnerG. (2013). Metacognitive aspects of rape myths: Subjective strength of rape myth acceptance moderates its effects on information processing and behavioral intentions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2250-2272.
57.
SüssenbachP.EysselF.ReesJ.BohnerG. (2015). Looking for blame: Rape myth acceptance and attention to victim and perpetrator. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 1-22.
58.
WhatleyM. A. (1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 81-95.
59.
YamawakiN. (2009). The role of rape myth acceptance and belief in a just world on victim blame attribution: A study in Japan. Psychologia, 52, 163-174.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
