A Proposal on the Impact of Positive, Negative Social Reactions and Victim Blaming Towards Rape Victims Among University Students Within Ibadan Metropolis
Chapter One
Objective of the study
The following objectives will be assessed;
- To find out the impact of positive social reactions on victim blaming towards rape victims among University Students within Ibadan Metropolis.
- To find out the impact of negative social reactions on victim blaming towards rape victims among University Students within Ibadan Metropolis
- To examine whether judgments about a rape victim can be influenced by the social reactions of others among University students within Ibadan Metropolis
CHAPTER TWO
RELATED LITERATURES REVIEW
Rape myth acceptance
The notion of rape mythology arose in the 1970s, (Brownmiller, 1975) with rape myths being characterised as “prejudicial, stereotyped or false beliefs about rape, rape victims and rapists” that forms a hostile milieu towards victims (Burt, 1980) and is considered to predict rape victim-blaming in society (Mason, Riger & Foley, 2004; Yamawaki, 2009). Rape myths are believed to vary across cultures and societies, but constantly follow a trend by which the victim is blamed and includes claims where a disbelief of rape is expressed; perpetrator is exonerated and posit that particular women are raped (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; Bohner & Siebler, 2007). These claims were further subcategorised into seven female rape myth domains, which include: “He didn’t mean to”; “Rape is trivial”; “She asked for it”; “Rape is a deviant event”; “It wasn’t really rape”; “She liked it”; and finally “She wanted it” (Payne, Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999). Holding such inaccurate beliefs explains the dissemination of sexual violence within society to date (Grubb & Turner, 2012). These victim-blaming ideologies have a huge impact on decisions made by the police or prosecutors when attributing a level of blame towards either the victim or perpetrator, as Frohman (1991) found that they were less inclined to take on a rape case if the victim had admittedly flirted with the perpetrator beforehand or was intoxicated, which are described by rape myth ideologies that are associated with victim blaming due to the victim’s behaviour. The attribution of victim-blame is influenced by a general cognitive schema known as rape myth acceptance (RMA) (e.g. Jones & Aronson, 1973; Krahé, 1991; Pollard, 1992; as cited in Grubb & Turner, 2012), as a key finding revealed that those scoring high on RMA are likely to allocate greater accountability for the rape to the victim, as well as judging the trauma as less severe (Frese, Moyea & Megías,, 2004). However, there are limitations in using rape myths as a single explanation of rape and a factor influencing victim-blaming (Buddie & Miller, 2001) because there is evidence for the lack of robust academic support for the construct of this phenomenon (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). In a comprehensive review by Lonsway & Fitzgerald (1994), inconsistencies in the methodology and definitions were detected, as an analysis of Burt’s (1980) scales revealed that they were gender-biased since they only referred to the concept of violence towards women, which is concerning, as the majority of research in the field has utilised these scales, further questioning the strength of the findings in this field (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). This led to the proposal of a variety of other scales, such as the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne et al., 1999), which suggests that there is no consensus on one measure of rape myths, which may query the overall strength of the findings in the field.
Rape myth acceptance & Just World beliefs
RMA may also assist in self-perpetuating a much broader motive, known as a “belief in a just world” (Bohner et al., 2009). The Just World theory (Kleinke & Meyer, 1990; Lerner & Mathews, 1967) is a social and cultural concept, which states that individuals perceive the world to be a rational place (Lambert & Raichle, 2000; Fetchenhauer et al., 2005), where events are “deserved, so the world cannot be unjust” (Faccenda & Pantaleon, 2011). Rooted within Protestant Ethic ideology, which states that good actions and hard-work are praised with good affluence, with this responsibility lying with the individual (Lerner, 1980; Montada & Lerner, 1998), Just World beliefs (JWBs) permit individuals to maintain a feeling of security and to ensure the control over their own behaviour and future outcomes, making the world around them a safer, manageable and predictable place (Lodewijx, Wildschut, Nijstadm Savenije, & Smit, 2001). A sense of control would be threatened if one believed that unfortunate events occur without a valid reason (Lerner & Mathews, 1967), postulating that adherence to this schema would suggest that victims are to blame, which is in line with the already held belief that people are deserving of what they get. The idea that a victim is innocent goes against the Just World theory (Grubb & Turner, 2012). A rape case that entails an innocent victim acts as a threat to JWBs, as it postulates that not everyone experience events they deserve (Hafer, 2000), which leads to the assertion of victim-blaming (Strömwall, Alfredsson& Landstrom, 2013) that gives people a sense of control and order (Grubb & Harrower, 2008). In addition, JWBs are viewed as an individual difference that acts as a factor in itself which can have a causal influence on victim blaming (Lambert & Raichle, 2000) Recently, Hayes et al. (2013) found a link between RMA and JWBs, but postulated that the Just World hypothesis should be divided into two domains: Just World belief for oneself (JWB-self); and Just World belief for others (JWB-other). Findings yielded a negative relationship between a JWB-self and RMA, which implies that these individuals are stable within their lifestyle (Lerner, 1980), thus resulting in a decrease in rape myth acceptance as victim-blaming is reduced. However, a positive relationship between JWB-other and RMA was obtained, resulting in higher victim-blaming, which suggests that there is a difference in blame when just world beliefs are attributed for oneself or others. This is consistent with the actor-observer bias where one’s own behaviour is attributed externally, and other people’s behaviour is attributed internally (Jones & Nisbett, 1971)
Chapter Three
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The researcher used descriptive research survey design in building up this project work. The choice of this research design was considered appropriate because of its advantages of identifying attributes of a large population from a group of individuals. The design was suitable for the study as the study sought to the impact of positive, negative social reactions and victim blaming towards rape victims among University Students within Ibadan Metropolis.
Chapter Four
METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS
The researcher will employ oral and direct interview in administering this research questions. Responses from the respondents were needed unlike questionnaires, which is less rewarding due to late receipt and loss of responses from respondents. The method of data analysis that will be used by the researcher is the simple percentage. More so, percentage and degrees of the responses will also be used in the analysis. Here, the ratio of those whose responses were not in the affirmative will be found and conclusions will be drawn there upon. Representations of the level of responses will be made in tabular form. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software will be used to test the hypotheses.
References
- Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public opinion quarterly, 42(1), 93-104.
- Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research.American journal of pharmaceutical education, 74(8).
- Barn, R., & Kumari, V. (2015). Understanding Complainant Credibility in rape appeals: a Case stUdy of HigH CoUrt JUdgments and JUdges’ perspeCtives in india. British Journal of Criminology, 55(3), 435-453.
- Bohner, G., Eyssel, F., Pina, A., Siebler, F., & Viki, G. T. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking, 17-45.
- Buddie, A. M., & Miller, A. G. (2001). Beyond rape myths: A more complex view of perceptions of rape victims. Sex roles, 45(3-4), 139-160.
- Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of personality and social psychology, 38(2), 217.
- Burt, M. R. (1983). Justifying personal violence: A comparison of rapists and the general public. Victimology.
- Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2008). Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
- Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M. (2009). In the Eye of the Beholder: Do Behavior and Character Affect Victim and Perpetrator Responsibility for Acquaintance Rape? 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(7), 1513-1535.
- Davies, M., Pollard, P., & Archer, J. (2001). The influence of victim gender and sexual orientation on judgments of the victim in a depicted stranger rape. Violence and Victims, 16(6), 607-619.