Sexual social exchange theory was applied to perceptions of a date rape by manipulating the cost of the date and who paid in vignettes presented to 188 U.S. college students, who then rated the characters’ sexual expectations, blame, responsibility, and rape justifiability. Findings from this between-participant design partially supported predictions: When the man paid for an expensive date, men agreed more than did women that both characters should have expected sexual intercourse. Conversely, when the costs of an inexpensive date were split, the perpetrator was assigned the most blame, and women agreed more than men that no sexual expectations were warranted. Participant gender affected some responses, although level of rape myth acceptance was the main predictor of rape perceptions.
Abbey, A. ( 1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830-838.
2.
Anderson, K.B., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. ( 1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295-315.
3.
Baumeister, R.F., & Vohs, K.D. ( 2004). Sexual economics: Sex as a female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.
4.
Belk, R.W., & Coon, G.S. ( 1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 393-417.
5.
Bostwick, T.D., & DeLucia, J.L. ( 1992). Effects of gender and specific dating behaviors on perceptions of sex willingness and date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 14-25.
6.
Calhoun, K., & Townsley, R. ( 1991). Attributions of responsibility for acquaintance rape . In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 57-70). New York: Wiley .
7.
Cook, K.S., & Rice, E. ( 2003). Social exchange theory. In J. D. DeLamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 53-102). New York: Springer.
8.
Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megias, J.L. ( 2004). Social perception of rape: How rape myth acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143-161.
9.
Morr Serewicz, M.C., & Gale, E. ( 2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship . Sex Roles, 58, 149-164.
10.
Muehlenhard, C.L. ( 1988). Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 20-37.
11.
Muehlenhard, C.L., Friedman, D.E., & Thomas, C.E. ( 1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297-309.
12.
Muehlenhard, C.L., & McCoy, M.L. (1991). Double standard/double blind: The sexual double standard and women’s communication about sex . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447-461.
13.
Muehlenhard, C.L., & Rodgers, C.S. ( 1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on an old stereotype . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443-463.
14.
Newcombe, P.A., van den Eynde, J., Hafner, D., & Jolly, L. ( 2008). Attributions of responsibility for rape: Differences across familiarity of situation, gender, and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1736-1754.
15.
Pallak, S.R., & Davies, J.M. ( 1982). Finding fault versus attributing responsibility: Using facts differently. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 8, 454-459.
16.
Payne, D.L., Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68.
17.
Willan, V.J., & Pollard, P. ( 2003). Likelihood of acquaintance rape as a function of males’ sexual expectancies, disappointment, and adherence to rape-conducive attitudes . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 637-661.
18.
Workman, J.E., & Freeburg, E.W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261-277.
