Along with the direct trauma of their experience, many rape victims also suffer secondary victimization due to the tendency of others to blame victims for their assault, particularly in cases of acquaintance rape. We explored the role of news media coverage in promoting victim blaming tendencies. In Study 1, a content analysis of articles reporting sexual assaults from two newspapers revealed a tendency for media to overreport stranger rapes and underreport acquaintance rapes, perpetuating the stranger rape as “real rape” prototype. More victim blaming language was also used in reports of acquaintance rape than stranger rape. Perceivers responded to these differences; a high victim blaming news article resulted in greater victim blaming compared to an article low in victim blame content (Study 2 and 3), and exposure to a high blaming article produced greater victim blaming in a subsequent unrelated case of rape and increased endorsement of rape myths (Study 3). These findings demonstrate the importance of the media in shaping public perception of rape victims, particularly in cases of acquaintance rape, and suggest that news media, legislators, and other visible communicators can change the culture of victimization through intentional efforts to delegitimize rape stereotypes in their reporting and dialogs.
AlderdenM. A.UllmanS. E. (2012). Gender difference or indifference? Detective decision making in sexual assault cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416465
2.
AllisonJ. A.WrightsmanL. S. (1993). Rape: The misunderstood crime. Sage.
3.
AnastasioP. A.CostaD. M. (2004). Twice hurt: How newspaper coverage may reduce empathy and engender blame for female victims of crime. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 51(9-10), 535–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-5463-7
4.
AndersonK. B.CooperH.OkamuraL. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(3), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297233008
5.
ArcherA. M. N.KamC. D. (2021). Modern sexism in modern times: Public opinion in the #Metoo era. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(4), 813–837. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa058
6.
Ardovini-BrookerJ.Caringella-MacDonaldS. (2002). Media attributions of blame and sympathy in ten rape cases. The Justice Professional, 15(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08884310212826
7.
BarghJ. A. (2014). The historical origins of priming as the preparation of behavioral responses: Unconscious carryover and contextual influences of real-world importance. In MoldenD. C. (Ed.), Understanding priming effects in social psychology (pp. 218–233). Guilford.
8.
BarghJ. A.ChartrandT. L. (2014). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). Cambridge University Press.
9.
BasileK. C.SmithS. G.KresnowM.KhatiwadaS.LeemisR. W. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 report on sexual violence. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
10.
BenedictH. (1993). Virgin or vamp: How the press covers sex crimes. Oxford University Press.
11.
BenedictJ.KleinA. (1998). Arrest and conviction rates for athletes accused of sexual assault. In BergenR. K. (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 169–176). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328348.n11
12.
BernardP.LoughnanS.MarchalC.GodartA.KleinO. (2015). The exonerating effect of sexual objectification: Sexual objectification decreases rapist blame in a stranger rape context. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 72(11-12), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0482-0
BieneckS.KrahéB. (2011). Blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator in cases of rape and robbery: Is there a double standard?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(9), 1785–1797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510372945
15.
BlackM. C.BasileK. C.BreidingM. J.SmithS. G.WaltersM. L.MerrickM. T.ChenJ.StevensM. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
16.
BohnerG.JarvisC. I.EysselF.SieblerF. (2005). The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men’s rape proclivity: Comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.284
17.
BreitenbecherK. H. (2006). The relationships among self-blame, psychological distress, and sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(5), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506286842
18.
BrownmillerS. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. Simon & Schuster.
19.
BuchwaldE.FletcherP.RothM. (1993). Are we really living in a rape culture? In BuchwaldE.FletcherP.RothM. (Eds.), Transforming a rape culture (pp. 5–9). Milkweed Editions.
20.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
BurtM. R. (1998). Rape myths. In OdemM. E.Clay-WarnerJ. (Eds.), Confronting rape and sexual assault (pp. 129–144). Resources.
23.
CameronC. A.StritzkeW. G. K. (2003). Alcohol and acquaintance rape in Australia: Testing the presupposition model of attributions about responsibility and blame. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(5), 983–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01935.x
24.
CarterC. (1998). When the “extraordinary” become “ordinary”: Everyday news of sexual violence. In CarterC.BranstonG.AllanS. (Eds.), News, gender and power (pp. 219–232). Routledge.
25.
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s Mturk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.00
26.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. C. (2020). An Mturk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
27.
ClarkM. D.CarrollM. H. (2008). Acquaintance rape scripts of women and men: Similarities and differences. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 58(9-10), 616–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9373-3
28.
ClarkeA. K.LawsonK. L. (2009). Women’s judgements of a sexual assault scenario: The role of prejudicial attitudes and victim weight. Violence and Victims, 24, 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.2.248
29.
CohnE. S.DupuisE. C.BrownT. M. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: Do behavior and character affect victim and perpetrator responsibility for acquaintance rape?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(7), 1513–1535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00493.x
30.
ConleyT. D.RamseyL. R. (2011). Killing us softly? Investigating portrayals of women and men in contemporary magazine advertisements. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311413383
31.
CuklanzL. M.MoortiS. (2006). Television’s “new” feminism: Prime-time representations of women and victimization. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23(4), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393180600933121
32.
CundiffJ. L. (2012). Is mainstream psychological research “womanless” and “raceless”? An updated analysis. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 67(3-4), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0141-7
33.
D’AngeloP. (2017). Framing: Media frames. In RoesslerP.HoffnerC. A.van ZoonenL. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–10). Wiley.
34.
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
EdwardsK. M.TurchikJ. A.DardisC. M.ReynoldsN.GidyczC. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 65(11–12), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2
EstrichS. (1987). Real rape. Harvard University Press.
39.
FisherB. S.DaigleL. E.CullenF. T.TurnerM. G. (2003). Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape: Results from a national–level study. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 535–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095611
40.
FlynnM. A.ParkS. Y.MorinD. T.StanaA. (2015). Anything but real: Body idealization and objectification of MTV docusoap characters. Sex Roles, 72, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0464-2
41.
FoxJ.PotockiB. (2016). Lifetime video game consumption, interpersonal aggression, hostile sexism, and rape myth acceptance: A cultivation perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(10), 1912–1931. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515570747
42.
FraniukR.LucaA.RobinsonS. (2020). The effects of victim and perpetrator characteristics on ratings of guilt in a sexual assault case. Violence Against Women, 26(6–7), 614–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219840439
43.
FraniukR.SeefeltJ. L.CepressS. L.VandelloJ. A. (2008a). Prevalence and effects of rape myths in print journalism: The Kobe Bryant case. Violence Against Women, 14(3), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207313971
44.
FraniukR.SeefeltJ. L.VandelloJ. A. (2008b). Prevalence of rape myths in headlines and their effects on attitudes toward rape. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 58(11-12), 790–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9372-4
45.
FreedmanE. B. (2013). Redefining rape: Sexual violence in the era of suffrage and segregation. Harvard University Press.
46.
GaldiS.MaassA.CadinuM. (2014). Objectifying media: Their effect on gender role norms and sexual harassment of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313515185
47.
GerdesE.DammannE.HeiligK. (1988). Perceptions of rape victims and assailants: Effects of physical attractiveness, acquaintance, and subject gender. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 19(3-4), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00290151
48.
GlaceA. M.KaufmanK. L. (2020). Sexual consent attitudes and rape-supporting norms among gender and sexual minority students. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 20(1), 657–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12221
49.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753
50.
GravelinC. R.BaldwinM. B.BiernatM. (2019). The impact of power and powerlessness on blaming the victim of sexual assault. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 22(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217706741
51.
GravelinC. R.BiernatM.BucherC. E. (2018). Blaming the victim of acquaintance rape: Individual, situational, and sociocultural factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422
52.
GrubbA.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(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002
53.
HalickiK. T.HauserR.WänkeM. (2023). When she is standing left, she might be blamed. Responsibility attribution for sexualized violence moderated by rape myth acceptance and benevolent sexism. Violence Against Women, 29(2), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.177/10778012221108420
54.
HardinM.SimpsonS.WhitesideE.GarrisK. (2007). The gender war in U.S. sport: Winners and losers in news coverage of Title IX. Mass Communication & Society, 10(2), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430701265737
55.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
59.
HigginsE. T.BrendlC. M. (1995). Accessibility and applicability: Some “activation rules” influencing judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 218–243. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1011
60.
HodgettsD.ChamberlainK. (2007). Mediated communities: Considerations for applied social psychology. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17(6), 411–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.940
61.
HollandK. J.CiprianoA. E.HuitT. Z.VolkS. A.MeyerC. L.WaitrE.WienerE. R. (2021). “Serious enough”? A mixed-method examination of the minimization of sexual assault as a service barrier for college sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Violence, 11(3), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000377
62.
JacobsonM. B.PopovichP. M. (1983). Victim attractiveness and perceptions of responsiblity in an ambiguous rape case. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8(1), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1983.tb00621.x
63.
KanekarS.ShaherwallaA.FrancoB.KunjuT.PintoA. J. (1991). The acquaintance predicament of a rape victim. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(18), 1524–1544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00486.x
64.
KeesJ.BerryC.BurtonS.SheehanK. (2017). An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304
65.
KellerJ.MendesK.RingroseJ. (2018). Speaking ‘unspeakable things’: Documenting digital feminist responses to rape culture. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(2), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1211511
66.
KeumH.HillbackE. D.RojasH.De ZunigaH. G.ShahD. V.McLeodD. M. (2005). Personifying the radical: How news framing polarizes security concerns and tolerance judgments. Human Communication Research, 31(3), 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/31.3.337
67.
KitzingerJ. (2009). Rape in the media. In HovarthM.BrownJ. (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 74–98). Willan Publishing.
68.
KlippenstineM. A.SchullerR. A.WallA. (2007). Perceptions of sexual assault: The expression of gender differences and the impact of target alcohol consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(11), 2620–2641. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00273.x
KossM. P.DineroT. E. (1989). Predictors of sexual aggression among a national sample of male college students. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1988.tb50856.x
71.
Lamb, S. (1991). Acts without agents: An analysis of linguistic avoidance in journal articles on men who batter women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(2), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079243
72.
Larcombe, W. (2002). The ‘Ideal’ victim v successful rape complainants: Not what you might expect. Feminist Legal Studies, 10(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016060424945
73.
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
LorenzK.KirknerA.UllmanS. E. (2019). A qualitative study of sexual assault survivors’ post-assault legal system experiences. Journal of Trauma Dissociation, 20(3), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2019.1592643
77.
LoughnanS.PinaA.VasquezE. A.PuviaE. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313485718
78.
LovettM.BajabaS.LovettM.SimmeringM. J. (2018). Data quality from crowdsourced surveys: A mixed method inquiry into perceptions of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Masters. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 67(2), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12124
79.
MasonP.Monckton-SmithJ. (2008). Conflation, collocation, and confusion: British press coverage of the sexual murder of women. Journalism, 9(6), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884908096241
80.
Masser, B., Lee, K., & McKimmie, B. M. (2010). Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim blame. Sex Roles, 62, 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9648-y
81.
Maurer, T. W., & Robinson, D. W. (2008). Effects of attire, alcohol, and gender on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 58(5-6), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9343-9
82.
McKimmieB. M.MasserB. M.BongiornoR. (2014). What counts as rape? The effect of offense prototypes, victim stereotypes, and participant gender on how the complainant and defendant are perceived. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(12), 2273–2303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513518843
83.
McKinleyJ. (2011, March 9). Vicious assault shakes Texas town. The New York Times, 13.
84.
MillerA. K.MarkmanK. D.HandleyI. M. (2007). Self-blame among sexual assault victims prospectively predicts revictimization: A perceived sociolegal context model of risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331585
85.
Moody-RamirezM.LewisT.MurrayB. (2019). The 2013 Steubenville rape case: An examination of framing in newspapers and user-generated content. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 30(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.58997/smc.v30i2.7
Naseralla, E. J., & Warner, R. H. (2020). The role of reporting in the evaluation of rape victims. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(5), 1032–1045. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2654
O’HaraS. (2012). Monsters, playboys, virgins and whores: Rape myths in the news media’s coverage of sexual violence. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics, 21(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947012444217
90.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598
91.
ParrattK. A.PinaA. (2017). From “real rape” to real justice: A systematic review of police officers’ rape myth beliefs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.005
92.
PattersonD.GreesonM.CampbellR. (2009). Understanding rape survivors’ decisions not to seek help from formal social systems. Health & Social Work, 32(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/34.2.127
93.
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
94.
PeerE.VosgerauJ.AcquistiA. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y
95.
PennebakerJ. W.FrancisM. E.BoothR. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2001.
96.
PenningtonR.BirthiselJ. (2016). When new media make news: Framing technology and sexual assault in the Steubenville rape case. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2435–2451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815612407
97.
PerssonS.DhingraK. (2022). Attributions of blame in stranger and acquaintance rape: A multilevel meta-analysis and systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(3), 795–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020977146
98.
PetersonZ. D.MuehlenhardC. L. (2004). Was it rape? The function of women’s rape myth Acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 51(3-4), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000037758.95376.00
99.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69
100.
PicaE.SheahanC.PozzuloJ. (2020). “But he’s a star football player!”: How social status influences mock jurors’ perceptions in a sexual assault case. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(19–20), 3963–3985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517713715
101.
PowerJ. G.MurphyS. T.CooverG. (1996). Priming prejudice: How stereotypes and counter-stereotypes influence attribution of responsibility and credibility among ingroups and outgroups. Human Communication Research, 23(1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00386.x
102.
ProjanskyS. (2001). Watching rape: Film and television in postfeminist culture. NYU Press.
103.
RadM. S.MartinganoA. J.GingesJ. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401–11405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115
RyanK. M. (2011). The relationship between rape myths and sexual scripts: The social construction of rape. Sex Roles, 65(11-12), 774–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0033-2
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
108.
SchneiderB.ChamberlainK.HodgettsD. (2010). Representations of homelessness in four Canadian newspapers: Regulation, control, and social order. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 37(4), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.3564
109.
SchwarkS. (2017). Visual representations of sexual violence in online news outlets. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 774. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00774
110.
SchwarkS.BohnerG. (2019). Sexual violence—“Victim” or “survivor”: News images affect explicit and implicit judgments of blame. Violence Against Women, 25(12), 1491–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218820202
111.
SeabrookR. C.WardM. L.GiaccardiS. (2019). Less than human? Media use, objectivation of women, and men’s acceptance of sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 9(5), 536–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000198
112.
ShorE.van de RijtA.FotouhiB. (2019). A large-scale test of gender bias in the media. Sociological Science, 6, 526–550. https://doi.org/10.15195/v6.a20
113.
ShultzS. K.SchermanA.MarshallL. J. (2000). Evaluation of a university based date rape prevention program: Effect on attitudes and behavior related to rape. Journal of College Student Development, 41(2), 193–201.
114.
SillsS.PickensC.BeachK.JonesL.Calder-DaweO.Benton-GreigP.GaveyN. (2016). Rape culture and social media: Young critics and a feminist counterpublic. Feminist Media Studies, 16(6), 935–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2015.1137962
115.
SleathE.BullR. (2015). A brief report on rape myth acceptance: Differences between police officers, law students, and psychology students in the United Kingdom. Violence and Victims, 30(1), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00035
SoothillK.WalbyS. (1991). Sex crimes in the news. Routledge.
118.
SpencerB. (2016). The impact of class and sexuality-based stereotyping on rape blame. Sexualization Media, & Society, 2(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374623816643282
119.
StankiewiczJ. M.RosselliF. (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 58(7-8), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9539-1
120.
StevensJ. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
121.
StuartS. M.McKimmieB. M.MasserB. M. (2019). Rape perpetrators on trial: The effect of sexual assault–related schemas on attributions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(2), 310–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640777
122.
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
123.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
124.
TankardJ.W.Jr. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H.GrantA. E. (Eds.). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understandings of the social world (pp. 95–105). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
UllmanS. E.FilipasH. H.TownsendS. M.StarzynskiL. L. (2007). Psychosocial correlates of PTSD symptom severity in sexual assault survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(5), 821–831. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20290
129.
VrijA.FirminH. R. (2001). Beautiful thus innocent? The impact of defendants’ and victims’ physical attractiveness and participants’ rape beliefs on impression formation in alleged rape cases. International Review of Victimology, 8(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800100800301
130.
WeirT.BradyE. (2003, December 22). In sexual assault cases, athletes usually walk. USA Today.
WentzE.ArchboldC. A. (2012). Police perceptions of sexual assault victims: Exploring the intra-female gender hostility hypothesis. Police Quarterly, 15(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611111432843
133.
WilliamsJ. E. (1984). Secondary victimization: Confronting public attitudes about rape. Victimology: An International Journal, 9(1), 66–81.
134.
YamawakiN.DarbyR.QueirozA. (2007). The moderating role of ambivalent sexism: The influence of power status on perception of rape victim and rapist. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.1.41-56
135.
YeaterE. A.TreatT. A.VikenR. J.McFallR. M. (2010). Cognitive processes underlying women’s risk judgements: Associations with sexual victimization history and rape myth acceptance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019297
136.
YoungB.DesmaraisS. L.BaldwinJ. A.ChandlerR. (2017). Sexual coercion practices among undergraduate male recreational athletes, intercollegiate athletes, and non-athletes. Violence Against Women, 23(7), 795–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216651339
137.
ZaleskiK. L.GundersenK. K.BaesJ.EstupinianE.VergaraA. (2016). Exploring rape culture in social media forums. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 922–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.036
