APS Poster

Effect of Gender and Age on Perceptions of Sex Crimes Cara Stevens M.A. Castleton State College Abstract The current study examined the effects of victim age and gender and offender gender on participants’ perceptions of sex offenses. Participants read a brief scenario describing a sexual incident. The victim’s age (8, 15) and gender were manipulated in addition to the gender of the offender. Participants rated the extent to which the incident was an example of child abuse and how harmful the incident was to the child, as measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Results indicated that participants perceived scenarios involving male victims as less harmful than scenarios involving female victims. In addition, the scenarios in which the offender was female were perceived as less harmful than scenarios with a male offender. A significant interaction between victim gender and offender gender was revealed after controlling for male rape myth acceptance. Results Two MANCOVAs were conducted to control for Rape Myth Acceptance and Male Rape Myth Acceptance. The results of the first MANCOVA did not differ significantly from the results of the original MANOVA. When Male Rape Myth Acceptance was added to the model, the results revealed a significant interaction between victim gender and offender gender Wilks’ Λ = .94, F(2,132) = 4.17, p < .05, η2 = .06. Univariate follow-up analyses revealed that scenarios describing male victims and male offenders (M = 6.93, SD = .28) were viewed as significantly stronger examples of child sexual abuse than scenarios involving female offenders and male victims (M = 6.51, SD = .1.03), F(1,132) = 5.77, p < .025 η2 = .04 (see Table 3). In addition, scenarios in which the offender was male and the victim was male (M = 6.73, SD = .64) were rating significantly more harmful than scenarios involving female offenders and male victims (M = 6.07, SD = 1.25), F(1,132) = 5.60, p < .025 η2 = .04 (see Table 4). Methods Materials Rape Myth Acceptance Scale: (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995) Male Rape Acceptance Scale: (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992) Procedure All responses were confidential. Participants were recruited through the study response website (studyresponse.com). Participants were provided with a consent form describing the purpose of the study as well as risk and benefits of participation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions (victim age (8, 15) x victim gender x offender gender) using a computerized randomization method. Participants first read a brief scenario describing a sexual encounter between and adult and a child and then completed a short questionnaire. In addition, participants completed three attitude measures: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale; Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence; and the Male Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. In addition, participants completed a demographic questionnaire. Included in the demographic questionnaire was the manipulation check, which asked the participants to recall the victim’s age and gender and offender’s gender. After completing the surveys, participants were provided with a debriefing statement describing in detail the purpose of the study and the primary researchers contact information. Results A 2 (victim gender) x 2 (victim age) x 2 (perpetrator gender) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to investigate the effect of victim age and gender in addition to the perpetrator gender on the two dependent variables, degree of child abuse and severity of harm. The analysis revealed significant main effects for victim gender Wilks’ Λ = .94, F(2,159) = 5.98, p < .05, η2 = .07 and offender gender Wilks’ Λ = .95, F(2,159) = 4.39, p < .05, η2 = .05. Univariate follow-up analyses revealed that when the victim was male (M = 6.30, SD = 1.20), participants rated the scenario as significantly less harmful then when the victim was female (M = 6.83, SD = .57), F(1, 159) = 12.03, p < .001 (see Table 1). In addition, participants provided significantly higher ratings of harmfulness when the offender was male (M = 6.78, SD = .67) than when the offender was female (M = 6.36, SD = 1.17), F(1,159) = 8.83, p < .05 (see Table 2). Table 1 Effect of Victim Gender on Ratings of Abuse M SD Male Victim 6.30* 1.20 Female Victim 6.83* .57 *p<.05 Table 2 Effect of Offender Gender on Ratings of Harmfulness M SD Male Victim 6.78* .67 Female Victim 6.33* 1.17 *p<.05 Introduction Child sexual abuse cases receive a great deal of media attention. The image created by the media is that of a violent male predator who cannot be rehabilitated. Very rarely do news reports describe female predators. However, recently there have been several high profile cases involving female teachers engaging in sex with young male students. In the sentencing hearing for one of these women, the judge stated, “The 16-year-old in this case is a victim in the statutory sense only, he was certainly not victimized by you in any other sense of the word” (Michele Bolton, 2005). The media attention given to female sex offenders appears to differ greatly from that given to male sex offenders. Are women less likely to commit sex offenses? Do male and female sex offenders differ in substantive ways? Waterman and Foss-Goodman (1984) investigated attribution of fault to the victim, offender, and parents of the victim. The researchers manipulated the age of the victim (7, 11, 15) as well as the gender of the victim and offender. The offender was either someone known to the victim, a stranger, or the parent of the victim. Participants were asked to read a brief scenario describing a sexual encounter between an adult and child and report how much fault they attributed to the offender, victim, and parent on an 11-point scale. The results of this study suggest participants viewed female offenders as less blameworthy. Broussard, Wagner & Kazelski (1991) conducted a study to examine attitudes toward sexual activity between an adult and a 15-year-old child. The researchers examined the impact of the victim’s response, victim’s sex, respondent’s sex, and perpetrator’s sex on the following items: the labeling of the sexual interaction as child sexual abuse; the extent to which the child’s behavior was perceived as realistic; and the degree to which the child was viewed as suffering harm from the incident (Broussard et al. 1991). When both the victim and perpetrator were female, the rating of harm to the child was not significantly affected by the victim’s response. Female perpetrators were seen as causing significantly less harm to male than to female victims. The current study seeks to add to the limited research addressing effects of gender on perceptions of sexual offense. Participants were asked to read a brief scenario, modeled after Broussard et al. (1991) and Waterman & Foss-Goodman (1994), describing a sexual encounter between a child and an adult. The age and the gender of the child were manipulated by the researcher in addition to the gender of the perpetrator. Participants were asked to rate how the sexual encounter affected the child. Hypothesis Based on previous research by Broussard et al. (1991) and Waterman & Foss-Goodman (1984), it was hypothesized that female victims of male offenders would be viewed as suffering more harm than male victims of female offenders. It is further hypothesized that incidents involving older male victims will be perceived as less harmful. Table 3 Ratings of Abuse Controlling for Male Rape Myth Acceptance Male VictimFemale Victim M SD M SD Male Offender 6.93* .28 6.94 .34 Female Offender 6.51* 1.03 6.96 .19 *p<.025 Table 4 Ratings of Harmfulness Controlling for Male Rape Myth Acceptance Male VictimFemale Victim M SD M SD Male Offender 6.73* .64 6.91 .38 Female Offender 6.07* 1.25 6.85 .36 *p<.025 Conclusions ,[object Object]

APS Poster

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to APS Poster

Similar to APS Poster (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (9)

APS Poster