Sexual assault statistics are both widely disseminated and routinely challenged. Two studies investigated reactions to sexual assault research through the lens of ideologically motivated science denial. In particular, hostile sexism was expected to positively predict skepticism of sexual assault research. In Study 1, adult men in the United States (N = 316) reported their hostile sexism, then read one of three research summaries and reported their skepticism of the findings. Although there was no difference in skepticism across conditions, hostile sexism was a stronger predictor of skepticism regarding sexual assault research than of skepticism regarding breast cancer or alcohol abuse research. In Study 2 (N = 254), a standard self-affirmation manipulation failed to alter the hostile sexism-skepticism relation. Given that people deny science when it contradicts their ideology, it was posited that the research substantiating sexual assault had clashed with hostilely sexist views of women. Strategies beyond standard self-affirmation interventions, such as scientific literacy psychoeducation, may thus be needed to effectively communicate sexual assault-relevant science to hostile audiences. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website athttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843231215373.
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(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111
2.
AdamsG.TormalaT. T.O'BrienL. T. (2006). The effect of self-affirmation on perception of racism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.001
3.
AgadullinaE.LovakovA.BalezinaM.GulevichO. A. (2022). Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(5-6), 819–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2855
4.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
5.
AndersonR. E.CuccoloK. (2022). An experimental test of the impact of varying questionnaire response format on prevalence rates for sexual violence victimization and perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23-24), NP23541–NP23562. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211064239
6.
AndersonR. E.SilverK. E.CiampagliaA. M.VitaleA. M.DelahantyD. L. (2021). The frequency of sexual perpetration in college men: A systematic review of reported prevalence rates from 2000 to 2017. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019860619
7.
AngeloneD. J.CantorN.MarcantonioT.JoppaM. (2021). Does sexism mediate the gender and rape myth acceptance relationship?Violence Against Women, 27(6-7), 748–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220913632
8.
AngeloneD. J.MitchellD.SmithD. (2018). The influence of gender ideology, victim resistance, and spiking a drink on acquaintance rape attributions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(20), 3186–3210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516635318
9.
AzevedoF.JostJ. T. (2021). The ideological basis of antiscientific attitudes: Effects of authoritarianism, conservatism, religiosity, social dominance, and system justification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 518–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221990104
10.
BadeaC.ShermanD. K. (2019). Self-affirmation and prejudice reduction: When and why?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418807705
11.
BarangerD. A. A.FinsaasM. C.GoldsteinB. L.VizeC. E.LynamD. R.OlinoT. M. (2023). Tutorial: Power Analyses for Interaction Effects in Cross-Sectional Regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231187531
12.
BeshersS.DiVitaM. (2021). Changes in rape myth acceptance among undergraduates: 2010 to 2017. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19-20), 9371–9392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519867153
BohnerG.EysselF.PinaA.SieblerF.VikiT. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective, and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In HorvathM.BrownJ. (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17–45). Willan Publishing.
15.
BonamC. M.Nair DasV.ColemanB. R.SalterP. (2019). Ignoring history, denying racism: Mounting evidence for the Marley hypothesis and epistemologies of ignorance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617751583
16.
BoyleK. M.McKinzieA. E. (2015). Resolving negative affect and restoring meaning: Responses to deflection produced by unwanted sexual experiences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272514564073
17.
BrzezinskiA.KechtV.Van DijckeD.WrightA. L. (2021). Science skepticism reduced compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies in the United States. Nature Human Behavior, 5(11), 1519–1527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01227-0
ByrneC. A.PetriJ. M.OhJ. K. (2021). Changes in female rape myth acceptance among college students: A 20-year perspective. Sex Roles, 85(9), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01231-8
20.
CallaghanB.HarouniL.DupreeC. H.KrausM. W.RichesonJ. A. (2021). Testing the efficacy of three informational interventions for reducing misperceptions of the Black-White wealth gap. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(38), e2108875118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108875118
ChapleauK. M.OswaldD. L.RussellB. L. (2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57(1), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9196-2
CohenG. L.AronsonJ.SteeleC. M. (2000). When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1151–1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611011
25.
CohenG. L.ShermanD. K.BastardiA.HsuL.McGoeyM.RossL. (2007). Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.415
26.
ConnorR. A.FiskeS. T. (2019). Not minding the gap: How hostile sexism encourages choice explanations for the gender income gap. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318815468
27.
ConnorR. A.GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2017). Ambivalent sexism in the twenty-first century. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 295–320). Cambridge University Press.
28.
CrockerJ.NiiyaY.MischkowskiD. (2008). Why does writing about important values reduce defensiveness? Self-affirmation and the role of positive other-directed feelings. Psychological Science, 19(7), 740–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02150.x
29.
DavisT. M.SettlesI. H.JonesM. K. (2022). Standpoints and situatedness: Examining the perception of benevolent sexism in Black and White undergraduate women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 46(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211043108
30.
de LemusS.NavarroL.VelásquezJ.RyanM.MegíasE., (2014). From sex to gender: A university intervention to reduce sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12089
31.
DiethelmP.McKeeN. (2021). Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
32.
The Do Better Campaign [thedobettercampaign] (2022, February 11). Gender-based violence is a rampant problem everywhere. Swipe to learn about the prevalence gender-based violence and share what stands out… [Slideshow]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/CZ2whHqlLVG/
33.
DouglasB. D.EwellP. J.BrauerM. (2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between Mturk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. Plos One, 18(3), e0279720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720
34.
DworkinE. R. (2020). Risk for mental disorders associated with sexual assault: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 1011–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018813198
35.
DworkinE. R.KrahéB.ZinzowH. (2021). The global prevalence of sexual assault: A systematic review of international research since 2010. Psychology of Violence, 11(5), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000374
36.
EdwardsK. M.SylaskaK. M.BarryJ. E.MoynihanM. M.BanyardV. L., et al. (2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: a comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514535260
37.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
38.
FedinaL.HolmesJ. L.BackesB. L. (2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 19(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016631129
39.
FeinS.SpencerS. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.31
40.
FinsaasM. C.BarangerD. A. A.GoldsteinB. L.VizeC.LynamD.OlinoT. M. (2021). InteractionPoweR Shiny App: Power analysis for interactions in linear regression. https://mfinsaas.shinyapps.io/InteractionPoweR/
41.
FrancoS. Eds. (2015). Tackling harmful alcohol use economics and public health policy: Economics and public health policy. OECD Publishing.
42.
FraniukR.SeefeltJ. L.VandelloJ. A. (2008). Prevalence of rape myths in headlines and their effects on attitudes toward rape. Sex Roles, 58(11), 790–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9372-4
43.
GalassoV.PonsV.ProfetaP.BecherM.BrouardS.FoucaultM. (2020). Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(44), 27285–27291. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012520117
44.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x
45.
GohJ. X.Bandt-LawB.CheekN. N.SinclairS.KaiserC. R. (2022). Narrow prototypes and neglected victims: Understanding perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000260
46.
HammockA. C.DasS. M.MathewA.JohnsonS. (2022). An exploratory qualitative study of undergraduate men’s perspectives on sexual violence bystander education. Journal of American College Health, 70(4), 1223–1230. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1790572
47.
HandleyI. M.BrownE. R.Moss-RacusinC. A.SmithJ. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(43), 13201–13206. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510649112
48.
HanselmanP.RozekC. S.GriggJ.BormanG. D. (2017). New evidence on self-affirmation effects and theorized sources of heterogeneity from large-scale replications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000141
49.
HauserD.PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2019). Common concerns with Mturk as a participant pool: Evidence and solutions. In KardesF. R.HerrP. M.,, & SchwarzN. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in consumer psychology (pp. 319–337). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351137713-17
HillS.MarshallT. C. (2018). Beliefs about sexual assault in India and Britain are explained by attitudes toward women and hostile sexism. Sex Roles, 79(7), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1790572
52.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.BainP. G.FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
53.
JinaR.ThomasL. S. (2013). Health consequences of sexual violence against women. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology, 27(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.08.012
54.
KantorJ.TwoheyM. (2019). She said: Breaking the sexual harassment story that helped ignite a movement. Penguin Press.
55.
KerrJ. R.WilsonM. S. (2021). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict rejection of science and scientists. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 550–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221992126
56.
KilmartinC.SemelsbergerR.DyeS.BoggsE.KolarD. (2015). A behavior intervention to reduce sexism in college men. Gender Issues, 32(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-014-9130-1
57.
KilmartinC.SmithT.GreenA.HeinzenH.KuchlerM.KolarD. (2008). A real time social norms intervention to reduce male sexism. Sex Roles, 59(3–4), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-944
58.
KochL.ChristopherM. (2015). Sexual violence prevention training during orientation: What students need to know. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention, 22(2), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.24926/jcotr.v22i2.2890
59.
KraemerH. C.WilsonG. T.FairburnC. G.AgrasW. S. (2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(10), 877–883. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.59.10.877
60.
KunstJ. R.BaileyA.PrendergastC.GundersenA. (2019). Sexism, rape myths and feminist identification explain gender differences in attitudes toward the #metoo social media campaign in two countries. Media Psychology, 22(5), 818–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1532300
61.
LehmillerJ. J.LawA. T.TormalaT. T. (2010). The effect of self-affirmation on sexual prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.009
62.
LesickT. L.ZellE. (2021). Is affirmation the cure? Self-affirmation and European-Americans’ perception of systemic racism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211056493
63.
LevineE. C. (2021). Rape by the numbers: Producing and contesting scientific knowledge about sexual violence. Rutgers University Press.
64.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436
65.
LisnekJ. A.WilkinsC. L.WilsonM. E.EkstromP. D. (2022). Backlash against the #MeToo movement: How women’s voice causes men to feel victimized. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 682–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211035437
66.
McLamoreQ.SyropoulosS.LeidnerB.HirschbergerG.YoungK.ZeinR. A.BurrowsB. (2022). Trust in scientific information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the US, but few other nations. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07508-6
67.
MetzJ.MyersK.WallaceP. (2021). Rape is a man’s issue:’ Gender and power in the era of affirmative sexual consent. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.1834367
MuehlenhardC. L.PetersonZ. D.HumphreysT. P.JozkowskiK. N. (2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(4-5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014
70.
MurnenS. K.WrightC.KaluznyG. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020488928736
NewcombeP. A.Van Den EyndeJ.HafnerD.JollyL. (2008). Attributions of responsibility for rape: Differences across familiarity of situation, gender, and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1736–1754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00367.x
74.
NicolA. A.De FranceK.Mayrand NicolA. (2022). The relation of climate change denial with benevolent and hostile sexism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(9), 823–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12880
75.
OkuyanM.VollhardtJ. R. (2022). The role of group versus hierarchy motivations in dominant groups’ perceived discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), NP54–NP80. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211053543
76.
ParentM. C. (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(4), 568–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012445176
77.
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(1), 27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238
78.
PhillipsL. T.LoweryB. S. (2020). I ain’t no fortunate one: On the motivated denial of class privilege. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1403–1422. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000240
79.
PietriE. S.Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.GuhaD.RoussosG.BrescollV. L.HandelsmanJ. (2017). Using video to increase gender bias literacy toward women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316674721
80.
Ponce de LeonR.WingroveS.KayA. C. (2020). Scientific skepticism and inequality: Political and ideological roots. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104045
81.
PoortingaW.WhitmarshL.StegL.BöhmdeG.FisherS. (2019). Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: A cross-European analysis. Global Environmental Change, 55, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.007
82.
Purdie-VaughnsV.EibachR. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5-6), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
83.
ReedM. B.AspinwallL. G. (1998). Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health risk information. Motivation and Emotion, 22(2), 99–132. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021463221281
84.
RekkerR. (2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521989193
85.
RutjensB. T.SuttonR. M.van der LeeR. (2018). Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314
86.
RuvalcabaY.RodriguezA. L.EatonA. A.StephensD. P.MadhivananP. (2022). The effectiveness of American college sexual assault interventions in highly masculine settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 65, 101760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2022.101760
87.
SacksM.AckermanA. R.ShlosbergA. (2018). Rape myths in the media: A content analysis of local newspaper reporting in the United States. Deviant Behavior, 39(9), 1237–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1410608
88.
SchmidP.BetschC. (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(9), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4
89.
Serra-GarciaM.HansenK. T.GneezyU. (2020). Can short psychological interventions affect educational performance? Revisiting the effect of self-affirmation interventions. Psychological Science, 31(7), 865–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620923587
90.
ShermanD. K.CohenG. L. (2002). Accepting threatening information: Self–Affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00182
91.
ShermanD. K.NelsonL. D.SteeleC. M. (2000). Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611011
92.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM.DuckittJ. (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294745
93.
SmithS. G.ChenJ.BasileK. C.GilbertL.MerrickM. T.PatelN.WallingM.JainA. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
94.
StabileB.GrantA.PurohitH.RamaM. (2019). She lied”: Social construction, rape myth prevalence in social media, and sexual assault policy. Sexuality, Gender & Policy, 2(2), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/sgp2.12011
95.
SteeleC. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 261–302). Academic Press.
96.
StroebeW.van DellenM. R.AbakoumkinG.LemayE. P.SchiavoneW. M.AgostiniM.BélangerJ. J.GützkowB.KreienkampJ.ReitsemaA. M.Abdul KhaiyomJ. H.AhmediV.AkkasH.AlmenaraC. A.AttaM.BagciS. C.BaselS.KidaE. B.BernardoA. B. I.LeanderN. P. (2021). Politicization of COVID-19 health-protective behaviors in the United States: Longitudinal and cross-national evidence. PloS One, 16(10), e0256740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256740
97.
SuarezE.GadallaT. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2010–2035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354503
98.
TippettE. C. (2018). Harassment trainings: A content analysis. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 39(2), 481–526. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38WP9T69M
99.
van der BruggenM.GrubbA. (2014). A review of the literature relating to rape victim blaming: An analysis of the impact of observer and victim characteristics on attribution of blame in rape cases. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.008
100.
van der LindenS.MaibachE.CookJ.LeiserowitzA.LewandowskyS. (2017). Inoculating against misinformation. Science, 358(6367), 1141–1442. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar4533
101.
WashburnA. N.SkitkaL. J. (2018). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500
102.
WebbM. A.TangneyJ. P. (2022). Too good to be true: Bots and bad data from Mechanical Turk. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221120027
103.
WeisbergD. S.LandrumA. R.HamiltonJ.WeisbergM. (2021). Knowledge about the nature of science increases public acceptance of science regardless of identity factors. Public Understanding of Science, 30(2), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520977700
104.
YamawakiN. (2007). Rape perception and the function of ambivalent sexism and gender-role traditionality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(4), 406–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506297210
105.
ZawadzkiM. J.ShieldsS. A.DanubeC. L.SwimJ. K. (2014). Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: The Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation (WAGES). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313498573
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.
