665110

research-article2016
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260516665110Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceBarnett et al.

Article
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
2018, Vol. 33(8) 1219­–1235
Religious Affiliation, © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Religiosity, Gender, and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260516665110
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516665110
Rape Myth Acceptance: journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Feminist Theory and

Rape Culture

Michael D. Barnett,1 Kylie B. Sligar,1

and Chiachih D. C. Wang1

Abstract
Rape myths are false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists, often
prejudicial and stereotypical. Guided by feminist theory and available
empirical research, this study aimed to examine the influences of
gender, religious affiliation, and religiosity on rape myth acceptance of
U.S. emerging adults. A sample of 653 university students aged 18 to
30 years were recruited from a large public university in the southern
United States to complete the research questionnaires. Results indicated
that individuals who identified as Roman Catholic or Protestant endorsed
higher levels of rape myth acceptance than their atheist or agnostic
counterparts. Men were found more likely to ascribe to rape myths
than their female counterparts. Religiosity was positively associated with
rape myth acceptance, even after controlling the effect of conservative
political ideology. No significant interaction was found between gender
and religious affiliation or gender and religiosity. Limitations, future
research directions, and implications of the findings are discussed from
the perspective of feminist theory.

1University of North Texas, Denton, USA

Corresponding Author:
Michael D. Barnett, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle
#311280 Denton, TX 76203, USA.
Email: Michael.Barnett@unt.edu
1220 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(8)

Keywords
rape myth acceptance, religious affiliation, religiosity, gender, political
ideology

The prevalence of rape in the United States has been described as an “epi-
demic” (Davis, 1981; Russell & Bolen, 2000). In 2013, 79,770 rapes (exclud-
ing statutory rape and incest) were reported to law enforcement (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2014). The overall lifetime rate of rape for all women
is 17.6%, indicating that one of every six U.S. women has been the victim of
an attempted or completed rape (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network
[RAINN], 2009; Rozee & Koss, 2001). Experts posit that approximately 68%
of rapes go unreported, making it one of the most underreported personal
crimes in the United States (RAINN, 2009), Canada (Ontario Women
Directorate, 2004), and the United Kingdom (Walby & Allen, 2004). Rape
also is prevalent on college campuses. For instance, it is estimated that one in
five women and one in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college, but
also, that more than 90% of these victims do not report the assault (Fisher,
Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996).
The epidemic of rape in U.S. society has prompted the creation of many
rape prevention programs; however, the impact of such programs may be
short lived (Anderson & Whiston, 2005) due to the “rape culture” present in
our society. Rape culture refers to the broader, deeply entrenched cultural
attitudes regarding biological sex, gender, and sexuality that inform people’s
attitudes about rape (Rozee & Koss, 2001). Through rape culture, it is
assumed that sexual violence is a fact of life and ultimately inevitable
(Buchwald, Fletcher, & Roth, 1993). According to Herman (1988), U.S. soci-
ety is a rape culture because it fosters and encourages rape by instructing citi-
zens that it is normal and natural for sexual relations to involve aggressive
behavior on the part of males. Herman goes on to say that as long as these
types of relationships are supported, rape will remain a common occurrence.
Rape culture impacts the United States not only at the individual level but
also at the institutional level, affecting how victims are perceived and essen-
tially how cultural systems treat them, including how police officers interact
with victims (Page, 2008).
The general purpose of this study was to investigate the influences of three
selected factors on the endorsement of rape culture in university students.
Guided by feminist theory, religious affiliation, religiosity, and gender have
been linked with patriarchal attitudes and/or biased attitudes about women in
separate studies but no published research work could be located that exam-
ined their unique contributions and possible interaction effect on rape myth
Barnett et al. 1221

acceptance attitudes. Relevant literature and theoretical reasoning will be

presented next, followed by the specific hypotheses.

Rape Myth Acceptance

Rape culture is supported by rape myth acceptance (Herman, 1988; Kondos,
2016; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Rape myths are false beliefs about rape,
rape victims, and rapists, and are often prejudicial and stereotypical (Burt,
1980; Finley, 2016), and rape myth acceptance is the extent to which indi-
viduals endorse or believe in rape myths. Rape myths are culturally based,
used to explain an important cultural phenomenon, and justify cultural
arrangements (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). In addition, rape myths place
the blame onto the victim while exonerating the rapist (Bohner et al., 1998).
Rape myths appear to affect not only societal perceptions of rape but also the
victim’s perceptions of rape (Jenkins, 2016; Monson, Langhinrichsen-
Rohling, & Binderup, 2000).
Rape myth acceptance has been found to predict men’s sexual violence
(Loh, Gidycz, Lobo, & Luthra, 2005), and overall, men are more likely to
endorse rape myths than women (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Rape myth accep-
tance is associated with hyper-masculinity, hostility toward women, and
homophobia (Anderson & Anderson, 2008; Parrot & Zeichner, 2003). In pre-
vious literature, religiosity has been found to correlate with rape myth accep-
tance, as well as interact with gender while affecting rape myth acceptance,
with religious men being more likely to expect the women to take blame for
her rape, whereas religious women were more likely to sympathize with the
victim (Freymeyer, 1997).

Feminist Theory
Feminist theory is concerned with the fundamental inequalities between men
and women, as well as the sense of patriarchy it entails (Hooks, 1984;
Jackson, 1998; Price & Shildrick, 1999). Rozee and Koss (2001) emphasize
the use of feminist theory to understand rape myth acceptance as society’s
acceptance of patriarchy and male dominance, themes that are present in
most religious systems (Ozorak, 1996). In this study, radical feminism is used
as the guiding theoretical framework to explain why religion might influence
the endorsement of rape myth acceptance through patriarchal values. Radical
feminism is a branch of feminism that focuses on male oppression, or patri-
archy as the cause of gender inequalities, the emphasis being violence, both
physical and psychological, as perpetrated by male-dominated institutions
against females (Williams, Sawyer, & Wahlstrom, 2012). Schneider (2004)
1222 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(8)

states that patriarchy is the system of domination, which legitimizes the

oppression on the weaker sex/gender by the more powerful one and is rooted
in the hierarchal idea of men over women, as well as the marginalization of
women (Edwards, Turchick, Dardis, Reynolds, & Gidycz, 2011). People who
subscribe to the ideology of patriarchy, especially its sacralized form as hier-
archy, regard what men do to women as their right (Schneider, 2004). Because
rape ideologies emanate from and are perpetuated by a patriarchy system
(Edwards et al., 2011) and because religion is a prevalently influential social
and cultural source in our society that promotes hierarchy and patriarchy, it is
reasonable to expect that religion would likely be a strong predictor of rape
myth acceptance.

Religion and Religiosity

Religion is an important component of American life and culture (Newport,
2012). Religious affiliation is a categorical form of religious classification
based on denomination (Steensland et al., 2000; Wald & Calhoun-Brown,
2014), whereas religiosity usually refers to religious beliefs, practice, involve-
ment, or importance, often measured as a continuous variable (Freymeyer,
1997; Neff, 2006). Religious affiliation is a potent influence on culture, as
well as socialization (Finlay & Walther, 2003; Sapienza, Zingales, & Guiso,
2006) that guides many political, cultural, and social attitudes. Survey find-
ings suggest that approximately 77% of Americans identify as Christian, with
52% as Protestant and 23% as Roman Catholic (Newport, 2012). Of those
who are religiously unaffiliated, 61% still believe in God (Pew Research
Center, 2015). The statistical evidence clearly echoes the potential profound
influence of religion, particularly Christianity, on beliefs and attitudes held
by individuals in our country.
It has been suggested that some religious texts include passages that sup-
port rape myths and patriarchal attitudes, and that distorted or selective inter-
pretations of these texts could influence the endorsement of rape myth
acceptance (Barlas, 2009; Franiuk & Shain, 2011; Gross, 1993; Mir-Hosseini,
2006). Female chastity, wifely duties, and the ideal women are a few exam-
ples of the themes within religious texts that endorse patriarchy and contrib-
ute to a culture that excuses men’s violence against women
(Narasimhan-Madhavan, 2006; Niaz, 2003). Sheldon and Parent’s (2002)
research suggests that rape myths are endorsed by a large number of clergy.
Findings show that more religious participants have higher rape myth
endorsement than less religious participants (Edwards et al., 2011; Freymeyer,
1997; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Both religious affiliation and religiosity have
been linked with other sociocultural attitudes, including homophobia (Finlay
Barnett et al. 1223

& Walther, 2003), transphobia (Nagoshi et al., 2008), racism, and sexism
(Henley & Pincus, 1978).
Researchers conclude that rape myths do not develop due to objective
evidence; rather, they develop within groups that provide a setting that is sup-
portive of their development, and that these communities of believers often
develop in-group mentalities (Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Freymeyer,
1997; Humphrey & Kahn, 2000). A religion is a powerful and influential
community. Patriarchy and the status of women around the world are strongly
influenced by religion (Albee & Perry, 1998; Starr, 1991), and if the church
is an agent of socialization, akin to family, school, or profession (Boakye,
2009), it is reasonable to consider that religious beliefs may influence views
of women and attitudes about rape.
Previous research has found that conservative political ideology is also
associated with rape myth acceptance (Kahlor & Morrison, 2007). Wilson
(2013) offered a definition of conservatism as a sense of resistance to change
and the predilection to prefer safe, traditional forms of institutions and behav-
ior. Not only do more conservative people prefer existing institutions, they
also typically report having a disposition toward being cautious or moderate
(Wilson, 2013). Although religion has been recognized as a conservative
force in society and people who report being religious typically have more
conservative views (Renzetti & Curran, 1995), it is not unusual to find some
non-religious individuals also endorsing conservative political ideology.
Because the purpose of this study was to explore the impacts of religious
affiliation and religiosity on rape myth acceptance, we sought to control for
conservative political ideology.

The Current Study

Although some research has explored religion and rape myth acceptance
(e.g., Edwards et al., 2011; Freymeyer, 1997; Sheldon & Parent, 2002), lim-
ited research has considered both religious affiliation and religiosity, for
available studies have focused mainly on Christian versus non-Christian
beliefs as variables for rape myth acceptance (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994),
failing to separate religious affiliation into sub-groups (or categories). In
addition, previous studies have not simultaneously considered the roles of
gender and political ideology while investigating the impacts of religion and
religiosity. To address these limitations, the primary goal of this study was to
examine the differences by religious affiliations in rape myth acceptance
while controlling for conservative political ideology as well as to explore the
unique and interaction effects of religiosity and gender on rape myth
acceptance.
1224 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(8)

Guided by feminist theory and available literature, the following hypoth-

eses were advanced:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): After controlling for political ideology, individuals

who identified as Protestant or Catholic (i.e., who affiliate with a specific
religion) would demonstrate higher rape myth acceptance than individuals
who identified as agnostic or atheist (i.e., who do not affiliate with a spe-
cific religion).
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Religiosity would be positively associated with
higher rape myth acceptance.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Men would have higher rape myth acceptance than
women.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Gender would play a moderating role between reli-
gious affiliation and rape myth acceptance such that the interaction
between gender and religious affiliation would explain variance in rape
myth acceptance beyond either variable alone.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Gender would play a moderating role between religi-
osity and rape myth acceptance such that the interaction between gender
and religiosity would explain variance in rape myth acceptance beyond
either variable alone.

Method
Participants
Participants were undergraduate students aged 18 to 30 years (71.7% female, N =
961) enrolled in psychology courses at a large public university in the southern
United States. Participants were recruited through the department research web-
site and offered extra course credits for participation. Regarding religious affilia-
tion, most students identified as Christian: Protestant (n = 341, 52.2%), Christian:
Roman Catholic (n = 156, 23.9%), atheist (n = 68, 10.4%), or agnostic (n = 88,
13.5%). Because the sample did not contain a sufficient number of members of
the other religious affiliation categories, only these four religious groups were
included in the study, leaving a final sample of 653 for subsequent analyses.
Demographic characteristics of the final participants are displayed in Table 1.

Measures
Religious affiliation.  Participants selected their religious affiliation from a list
of options (e.g., Christian: Roman Catholic, Christian: Protestant, Jewish,
Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, and other).
Barnett et al. 1225

Table 1.  Participant Demographics.

N = 653 %
Gender
 Male 185 28.3
 Female 468 71.7
Age
 M 20.40 — —
 SD 2.071 — —
 Range 18-30 — —
Ethnicity
 White/ 352 53.9
Caucasian
 Black/African 97 14.9
American
 Hispanic 144 22.1
 Asian/Pacific 39 6.0
Island
 Other 21 3.2
Academic classification
 Freshman 177 27.1
 Sophomore 148 22.7
 Junior 182 27.9
 Senior 142 21.7
 Other 4 0.6
Religious affiliation
 Protestant 341 52.2
  Roman Catholic 156 23.9
 Atheist 68 10.4
 Agnostic 88 13.5

Religiosity.  Religiosity was an author-derived measure with two items. Par-

ticipants were asked how important their religion is to them in their daily life
and responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all important to
5 = very important. Participants were asked how often they attended church
services and responded on a scale where 1 = never through 5 = more than
once a week. These two items were summed together to form the religiosity
variable (Cronbach’s α = .79).

Political ideology.  Political ideology was an author-derived measure with two

items. The first asked participants to rate their political ideology on social
1226 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(8)

issues, and the second asked them to rate their political ideology on economic
issues. On both, participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale where
1 = very liberal through 7 = very conservative. These two items were summed
together to form the political ideology variable, with higher scores represent-
ing a higher level of conservative political ideology (Cronbach’s α = .74).

Rape myth acceptance. This construct was measured by the Illinois Rape

Myth Acceptance Scale–Short Form (IRMA-SF; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzger-
ald, 1999). The IRMA-SF is a self-report measure of rape myth acceptance.
Participants read 19 items regarding rape and rape victims and responded on
a scale where 1 = not at all agree through 7 = very much agree. The IRMA-
SF scale includes the following subscales: she asked for it (e.g., “If a woman
is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting
things get out of control”), it wasn’t really rape (e.g., “If a woman doesn’t
physically fight back, you can’t really say that it was rape”), he didn’t mean
to (e.g., “When men rape, it is because of their strong desire for sex”), she
wanted it (e.g., “Although most women wouldn’t admit it, they generally find
being physically forced into sex a real ‘turn-on’”), she lied (e.g., “Women
who are caught having an illicit affair sometimes claim that it was rape”),
rape is a trivial event (e.g., “If a woman is willing to ‘make out’ with a guy,
then it’s no big deal if he goes a little further and has sex”), and rape is a devi-
ant event (e.g., “Rape mainly occurs on the ‘bad’ side of town”). In this study,
all the subscale scores were summed to form a total score, with higher scores
representing a higher level of rape myth acceptance (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Procedure
This study was approved first by the university institutional review board
(IRB). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants
completed a survey online (remotely) and received course credit as compen-
sation of their participation time. To encourage self-disclosure, the survey
instructions emphasized that the information provided was anonymous and
confidential, and no identifying information was requested from the
participant.

Results
Rape myth acceptance total scores demonstrated high positive skewness
across both men and women. A log10 transformation was performed to
address this skewness (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and the transformed val-
ues were used in all primary analyses. Although other transformations such
Barnett et al. 1227

Table 2.  Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Measured Variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 M SD
1.   RMA — 1.49 0.19
2.   Political ideology −.09** — 3.75 1.76
3.   Gender .20*** .07* — 1.72 0.46
4.   Religiosity .24*** −.29*** .14*** — 6.55 2.75

Note. Gender: male = 1, female = 2. RMA = rape myth acceptance.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

as the square root were explored, it was found that the log10 transformation
yielded the best results in eliminating the skewness. For the ANCOVA,
Levene’s test for the homogeneity of variance was significant, F(7, 645) =
3.518, p = .001; thus, a more stringent alpha value (p < .001) was specified.
According to McLean (1978), concern over the effects of violations of homo-
geneity of variance may be minimized unless such violations are gross. Hill
and Lewicki (2006) stated the F statistic is quite robust against violations of
this assumption. Therefore, we proceeded with the planned ANCOVA. No
other assumptions were violated. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate
correlations of continuous variables are displayed in Table 2.

Differences by Religious Affiliation and Gender

To test H1, H3, and H4, a two-way, between-groups ANCOVA was conducted
in which gender (male and female) and religious affiliation (Christian:
Protestant, Christian: Roman Catholic, agnostic, and atheist) were the indepen-
dent variables and rape myth acceptance was the dependent variable with polit-
ical ideology being the covariate. Results found significant differences in rape
myth acceptance by gender, F(1, 644) = 25.87, p < .001, partial η2 = .04, and by
religious affiliation, F(3, 644) = 13.59, p < .001, partial η2 = .060. No signifi-
cant interaction was found between gender and religious affiliation on rape
myth acceptance. Tukey’s post hoc analysis indicated the Protestant group
endorsed significantly higher levels of rape myths than the atheist group (p =
.003) and the agnostic group (p = .002). The post hoc analysis also indicated
that the Roman Catholic group endorsed significantly higher levels of rape
myths than the atheist group (p = .002) and agnostic group (p = .001). Based on
the findings, we concluded that H1 and H3 were supported and H4 was not.
The findings of ANCOVA and post hoc analyses are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
To provide a visual illustration, we developed Figure 1 to show the rape myth
acceptance scores of participants by gender and religion affiliation.
1228 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(8)

Table 3.  Descriptive Statistics—Rape Myth Acceptance ANCOVA.

Religious affiliation N M SD
 Protestant 341 1.51 .19
  Roman Catholic 156 1.52 .22
 Atheist 68 1.42 .17
 Agnostic 88 1.42 .15
Gender
 Male 185 1.56 .20
 Female 468 1.47 .18
Total 653 1.49 .19

Table 4.  Tukey Post Hoc Results.

Variables (Religious
Affiliation) 1 2 3 4 M SD
1.   Protestant — 1.50 .19
2.   Roman Catholic −.01 — 1.52 .22
3.   Atheist .09** .10** — 1.42 .17
4.   Agnostic .08** .10** .01 — 1.42 .15

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Effects of Religiosity and Gender

To test H2, H3, and H5, a four-step hierarchical regression was performed
with rape myth acceptance as the dependent variable. Political ideology
was entered in the first step to control its effect, gender was added in the
second, religiosity in the third, and the interaction of gender and religios-
ity was entered into the fourth step. Findings of the regression indicated
that conservative political ideology was a significant contributor to the
model, F(1, 651) = 5.49, p = .02, accounting for 1% of the variance in
rape myth acceptance. The gender variable entered in Step 2 contributed
significantly as well, F(2, 650) = 17.00, p < .001, accounting for 5% of
the additional variance, which again supported H3. Accounting for 7% of
the variance, religiosity demonstrated significant results at the third step,
F(3, 649) = 28.15, p < .001, which yielded support to H2. The interaction
term of religiosity and gender entered in the fourth step did not result in
significant increment in variance, which suggested that H5 was not sup-
ported. The summary of the hierarchical regression analysis is displayed
in Table 5.
Barnett et al. 1229

Figure 1.  Gender and religious affiliation on rape myth acceptance.

Table 5.  Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Rape Myth
Acceptance.

Variable B SE β T R R2 ΔR2 ΔF
Step 1 .09 .01 .01 5.49
  Political ideology −.01 .00 −.09 −2.34*  
Step 2 .22 05 05 28.29
  Political ideology −.01 .00 −.10 −2.74**  
 Gender .087 .02 .20 5.32***  
Step 3 .34 .12 .07 47.99
  Political ideology −.00 .00 −.03 −0.79  
 Gender .10 .02 .24 6.35***  
 Religiosity .02 .00 .27 6.93***  
Step 4 .34 .12 .00 1.51
  Political ideology −.00 .00 .03 −0.72  
 Gender −.03 .11 −.07 −0.28  
 Religiosity .02 .00 .27 6.82***  
Gender × Religiosity −.13 .11 −.31 −1.23  

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion
The goal of this study was to explore differences by religious affiliation in
rape myth acceptance as well as the relationships among religiosity, gender,
1230 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(8)

and rape myth acceptance. Results supported H1 in that, after controlling for
political ideology, individuals who identified as Protestant or Roman Catholic
demonstrated higher rape myth acceptance than individuals who identified as
agnostic or atheist. This might suggest that people who affiliate with a reli-
gion may be more likely to place the blame on the victim rather than the rap-
ist. Results supported H2 in that, after controlling for political ideology,
religiosity was found to be associated with higher rape myth acceptance.
Results supported H3 in that gender was found to be significantly associated
with rape myth acceptance, with men being more likely to endorse rape myth
acceptance than women, findings that are consistent with previous studies
(Freymeyer, 1997; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010).
This could imply that individuals who are more religious (i.e., those with
higher religiosity scores), due to their greater attendance and involvement in
church activities, are exposed more often to patriarchal teachings and more
likely to hold religion to a greater importance, which together result in stron-
ger endorsement of rape myths. Our findings suggest that religious women
may not endorse rape myths to the extent that their male counterparts do. This
may be because the patriarchal teachings they are so often exposed to are
oppressive in nature; and being someone sitting on the recipient end of the
oppressive, patriarchal system, they presumably would be more readily and
better able to empathize with victims of sexual assault due to their personal
experience or feelings (Freymeyer, 1997). Results did not support H4 as there
was not a significant interaction effect between gender and religious affilia-
tion on rape myth acceptance; also, there was no significant interaction
between religiosity and gender on rape myth acceptance, leaving H5 unsup-
ported as well. The findings suggest that gender socialization and religion
affiliation may be two significant yet independent sources affecting people’s
rape myth acceptance attitudes. This study controlled for political ideology,
with results overall staying consistent with previous research (Lonsway &
Fitzgerald, 1994). Findings suggest that individuals who affiliate with a reli-
gion, as well as individuals who are higher in religiosity, are more likely to
endorse rape myths.
It should be noted that this study was limited in several ways. This study
included only individuals who identified as either Christian (Christian:
Protestant, Christian: Roman Catholic) or as a non-believer (atheist, agnostic),
meaning that many other religions were not represented; therefore, the results
may not be generalized to all religions. Second, findings of religiosity relied on
a two-question, self-report scale of religious attendance and importance.
Diverse interpretations of religious importance could have led to a variation in
findings, and thus, religiosity could have been better accounted for through a
more comprehensive measure. Similarly, the political ideology scale being
Barnett et al. 1231

made up of just two items could have also benefited from a more in-depth
scale. This study utilized a convenience sample of college students, limiting the
generalizability of the results to general populations of older ages or less edu-
cated. Analyzing young college adults could limit generalizability due to previ-
ous studies finding that levels of rape myth acceptance often vary between
generations (Devdas & Rubin, 2007). Acceptance of rape myths reported by
college students recruited from a single university campus in the southern
United States may not be representative of those in other regions, especially in
more liberal states. Because the data are cross-sectional in nature, the results
that can be drawn about causality and directionality of results are limited.
Future studies could include individuals who affiliate with other religions.
Analyzing results yielded by the rape myth acceptance subscales to identify
particular rape myths that may be more prevalent than others may be a fruit-
ful direction. Similar moderator/mediator effects may be examined on other
dependent variables relevant to the rape culture, such as hostility toward
women and the sexual double standard.
Because rape is so prevalent in U.S. culture, it is important to address the
sociocultural attitudes underlying our perspectives of rape and rape victims.
Feminist theory has been used in previous research to comprehend our soci-
ety’s acceptance of patriarchy and male dominance (Rozee & Koss, 2001),
themes found within most religions (Ozorak, 1996). Through the lens of radi-
cal feminism, patriarchal teachings contribute to the rape culture in the United
States. Due to the social and cultural influence of religion in U.S. culture,
radical feminist theorists would suggest that addressing the patriarchal teach-
ings within the church may help to decrease rape myth acceptance. If we use
the church as a platform to foster a positive environment for victims of rape,
as well as an educational resource to diminish rape myths, it might lead to
some substantial and lasting changes within our rape culture. If as a society
we are able to lessen victim-blaming attitudes and provide a safe reporting
environment, women as a result would then be encouraged to report sexual
assault when it occurs and, thus, more likely to do so. Educating our society
about the rape culture we live in, as well as sex and gender equality, could
have the potential to make the impact of rape prevention programs successful
and long lasting, and as a result might even decrease rape and the stigma sur-
rounding its victims. Not many social institutions have the similar level of
influence and power in our culture as religion does, and thus, it has the tools
to drastically impact our society’s rape culture.

Acknowledgment
A special thank you to Dr. Heidemarie Blumenthal for her contribution of helpful
ideas and her time spent reviewing this article.
1232 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(8)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

References
Albee, G. W., & Perry, M. (1998). Economic and social causes of sexism and the
exploitation of women. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 8,
145-160. doi:10.1002/1099-1298
Anderson, C. A., & Anderson, K. B. (2008). Men who target women: Specificity
of target, generality of aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 605-622.
doi:10.1002/ab.20274
Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-
analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29,
374-388. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00237.x
Barlas, A. (2009). “Believing in women” in Islam: Unreading patriarchy interpreta-
tions of the Qur’an. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
Boakye, K. E. (2009). Attitudes toward rape and victims of rape: A test of the
feminist theory in Ghana. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1633-1651.
doi:10.1177/0886260509331493
Bohner, G., Reinhard, M. A., Rutz, S., Sturm, S., Kerschbaum, B., & Effler, D.
(1998). Rape myths as neutralizing cognitions: Evidence for a causal impact
of anti-victim attitudes on men’s self-reported likelihood of raping. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 257-268. doi:10.1002/1099-0992
Brown, A. L., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2010). Personal and perceived peer attitudes
supporting sexual aggression as predictors of male college students’ willingness
to intervene against sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
503-517. doi:10.1177/0886260509334400
Buchwald, E., Fletcher, P., & Roth, M. (1993). Transforming a rape culture.
Minneapolis, MD: Milkweed Editions.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 217-230. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217
Davis, A. Y. (1981). Rape, racism, and the capitalist setting. The Black Scholar:
Journal of Black Studies and Research, 12, 39-45.
Devdas, N. R., & Rubin, L. J. (2007). Rape myth acceptance among first and second
generation South Asian American women. Sex roles, 56, 701-705. doi:10.1007/
s11199-007-9209-1
Edwards, K. M., Turchick, J. A., Dardis, C., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011).
Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implica-
tions for change. Sex Roles, 65, 761-773. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2
Barnett et al. 1233

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Uniform crime reports. U.S. Department of

Justice. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/
Finlay, B., & Walther, C. S. (2003). The relation of religious affiliation, service atten-
dance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students.
Review of Religious Research, 44, 370-393. doi:10.2307/3512216
Finley, L. L. (2016). Domestic abuse and sexual assault in popular culture. Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of col-
lege women (Research Report). Institute of Educational Sciences, Education
Resources Information Center. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449712
Franiuk, R., & Shain, A. (2011). Beyond Christianity: The status of women and rape
myths. Sex Roles, 65, 783-791. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9974-8
Freymeyer, R. H. (1997). Rape myths and religiosity. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-
South Sociological Association, 17, 473-489. doi:10.1080/02732173.1997.
9982179
Gross, R. M. (1993). Buddhism after patriarchy: A feminist history, analysis and
reconstruction of Buddhism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Henley, N. M., & Pincus, F. (1978). Interrelationship of sexist, racist, and anti-
homosexual attitudes. Psychological Reports, 42, 83-90. doi:10.2466/pr0.1978.42.1.83
Herman, D. (1988). The rape culture. Culture, 1(10), 45-53.
Hill, T., & Lewicki, P. (2006). Statistics: Methods and applications: A comprehensive
reference for science, industry, and data mining. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft.
Hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. New York, NY: Routledge.
Humphrey, S. E., & Kahn, A. S. (2000). Fraternities, athletic teams, and rape. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1313-1320.
Jackson, S. (1998). Contemporary feminist theories. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh
University Press.
Jenkins, K. (2016). Rape myths and domestic abuse myths as hermeneutical injus-
tices. Journal of Applied Philosophy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/
japp.12174
Kahlor, L., & Morrison, D. (2007). Television viewing and rape myth acceptance
among college women. Sex Roles, 56, 729-739. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9232-2
Kondos, L. M. (2016). Linguistic causes of rape culture on college campuses.
Philologia, 8, 1-15.
Loh, C., Gidycz, C. A., Lobo, T. R., & Luthra, R. (2005). A prospective analysis of sex-
ual assault perpetration: Risk factors related to perpetrator characteristics. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1325-1348. doi:10.1177/0886260505278528
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths in review. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x
McLean, J. E. (1978). The care and feeding of ANCOVA. Institute of Educational
Sciences, Education Resources Information Center. Retrieved from http://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED191867
Miller, T. R., Cohen, M. A., & Wiersema, B. (1996). Victim costs and consequences:
A new look (155282). National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Retrieved
from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155282
1234 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(8)

Mir-Hosseini, Z. (2006). Muslim women’s quest for equality: Between Islamic law
and feminism. Critical Inquiry, 32, 629-645. doi:10.1086/508085
Monson, C. M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Binderup, T. (2000). Does “no” really
mean “no” after you say “yes”? Attributions about date and marital rape. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1156-1174. doi:10.1177/088626000015011003
Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi,
C. T. (2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia.
Springer Science: Sex Roles, 59, 521-531. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7
Narasimhan-Madhavan, D. (2006). Gender, sexuality, and violence: Permissible vio-
lence against women during the partition of India and Pakistan. HAWWA, 4, 396-
416. doi:10.1163/156920806779152237
Neff, J. A. (2006). Exploring the dimensionality of “religiosity” and “spirituality” in
the Fetzer multidimensional measure. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
45, 449-459. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2006.00318.x
Newport, F. (2012). Seven in 10 Americans are very or moderately religious. Gallup.
Retrieved from http://gallup.com/poll/159050/seven-americans-moderately-reli-
gious.aspx
Niaz, U. (2003). Violence against women in South Asian countries. Archives of
Women’s Mental Health, 6, 173-184. doi:10.1007/s00737-003-0171-9
Ontario Women Directorate. (2004). Sexual assault: Reporting issues. Retrieved from
http://www.orcc.net/sites/all/files/pdf/Sexual-Assault-Statistics-FS.pdf
Ozorak, E. W. (1996). The power, but not the glory: How women empower them-
selves through religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 17-29.
doi:10.2307/1386392
Page, A. D. (2008). Judging women and defining crime: Police officers’ atti-
tudes toward women and rape. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 389-411.
doi:10.1080/02732170802053621
Parrot, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hyper-masculinity on physi-
cal aggression against women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 70-78.
doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.70
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. doi:10.1006/
jrpe.1998.22386
Pew Research Center. (2015). America’s changing religious landscape: Demographic
study. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-chang-
ing-religious-landscape/
Price, J., & Shildrick, M. (1999). Feminist theory and the body. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. (2009). Sexual assault: Reporting rates.
Retrieved from https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
Renzetti, C. M., & Curran, D. J. (1995). Women, men and society: The sociology of
gender. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rozee, P. D., & Koss, M. P. (2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 25, 295-311. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00030
Barnett et al. 1235

Russell, D. E. H., & Bolen, R. M. (2000). The epidemic of rape and child sexual abuse
in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., & Guiso, L. (2006). Does culture affect economic out-
comes? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 23-48.
Schneider, S. M. (2004). Beyond patching: Faith and feminism in the Catholic
Church. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Sheldon, J. P., & Parent, S. L. (2002). Clergy’s attitudes and attributions of blame
toward female rape victims. Violence Against Women, 8, 233-256.
Starr, T. (1991). The “natural inferiority” of women. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., &
Woodberry, R. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving
the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291-318. doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.291
Suarez, E. B., & Gadalla, T. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-
analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2012-2035.
doi:10.1177/0886260509354503
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA.
Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
Walby, S., & Allen, J. (2004). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking:
Findings from the British Crime Survey (Research Study No. 276). London,
England: Home Office Research and Statistics Department.
Wald, K. D., & Calhoun-Brown, A. (2014). Religion and politics in the United States.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Williams, B. K., Sawyer, S. C., & Wahlstrom, C. M. (2012). Marriages, families, and
intimate relationships (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Education.
Wilson, G. (2013). The psychology of conservatism. London, England: Routledge.

Author Biographies
Michael D. Barnett is a senior lecturer in psychology at the Univeristy of North
Texas. His current research includes older adults/aging, death and dying, end-of-life
decision making, neuropsychology, and sexuality.
Kylie B. Sligar is a graduate from the University of North Texas. She earned her
Bachelor’s of Science in psychology. Her research interests include trauma and gen-
der issues.
Chiachih D. C. Wang is an associate professor of psychology at the University of
North Texas. His current research includes attachment theory, cultural variations of
adult attachment, acculturation, adjustment and psychological wellbeing of immi-
grant individuals, and parent-child relationships in Asian immigrant families.