Abstract

1. Examining Rape Myths and Incivility Online:The Implications of a Lack of EmpathyBy Lindsey Alberty, Jacqueline Weber, and Kelly Morrison, Ph.D. Preliminary Results & Coding Categories Abstract In 1980, Martha Burt defined rape myths as prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists. Over thirty years later, many of these false beliefs about rape still exist. Despite the fact that these beliefs appear stagnant, the society surrounding and supporting these beliefs has changed dramatically, specifically in the area of technology. This research suggests that rape myths need to be examined in online settings, as online settings allow for anonymous environments that function with reduced cues for feedback and empathy. A qualitative analysis of reader comments in response to an online news article that reported an alleged sexual assault perpetrated by athletes was completed. The categories that emerged included rape myths, incivility, and whether or not the alleged victim's perspective was supported. This analysis suggests that online comment forums, in particular those related to reporting about alleged assaults by athletes, can promote rape cultures and should be included in our research in order to further our understanding of rape myths. Background & Research Question Implications The New York Times recently was criticized for its coverage of an alleged gang rape of an eleven-year old girl. Specifically, many readers complained that the report seemed to blame the girl for the attack, mentioning her makeup and clothing. These complaints resounded publicly, so much so that the New York Times re-reported the story. The reason for the public outcry was because the reporting included myths about rape. Rape myths were defined by Martha Burt (1980) as prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists. Though much time has passed since her original conceptualization, the New York Times article exemplifies the degree to which these beliefs seem intransigent in our culture. Much of the research examining rape myths has utilized quantitative scales, such as Burt’s Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS; 1980) and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMAS; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1994). A recent summary of the rape myth literature calls for researchers to consider social desirability and how it may influence respondents’ answers on quantitative measures (Edwards, Turchik, Dardis, Reynolds & Gidycz, 2011). One solution to counter the potential social desirability bias is to examine how rape myths appear in online forums, where individuals comment freely. Additionally, it is important to consider examining online forums in our research on rape myths because today’s youth are spending so much of their free time in online environments where feedback cues are limited and empathic abilities reduced (Beer, John, Scabini, & Knight, 2006; Suler, 2004). RQ: How are rape myths expressed in an online media forum? • Based on our results, if Michigan State University were to launch a campus campaign to combat modern rape myths, the following topics should provide the foundation. • The campus community needs to be educated about the legal definition of consent. Consent is a communicative process. Ultimately, consent is a “yes,” not the lack of a “no.” • No one deserves to be raped regardless of provocative clothing, alcohol, and past consent to intimacy. To be considered a victim, one does not have to scream or have physical injuries or abrasion. • Since we live in an increasingly technological world, it is important for the campus community to recognize that online communication lacks emotive feedback. This characteristic reduces the empathy conveyed by a participant in an online situation. Online incivility exacerbates the likelihood of victim blaming in online communication activities. Perspective Supporting Alleged Victim/Assault Victims in General “And with one of the perpetrators collaborating the victim’s story, there should be no question about her accuracy as a witness. All she asked for, in the end, was justice. Where is it?” Supporting Alleged Perpetrators/Perpetrators in General “The victim? Please. More like. The False Accuser.” Neutral “Again, I’ll keep saying it……the public does not have enough information to make any judgment.” No Information Available to Code for a Perspective “You’re a blind sheep.” Incivility Personal Attacks “Take your probably untrue, attention-grabbing, “I was raped but I didn’t report it bullshit and shove it” Polite Disagreement “You’re logic is flawed.” Sarcasm “So if you would be so kind as to show which side hasn’t been addressed I’d love to see it. Maybe some magical 3rd side?” Rape Myths Nothing Happened “But crying rape is no excuse to ignore all the bad judgments the woman made that night.” Opposite of Nothing Happened “If, as he said in his statement, sexual contact occurred after she said no, rape occurred.” No Harm Was Done “Honestly, I do not think she is an angel after reading and thinking of the situation.” Opposite of No Harm Was Done “The issue is not whether she was being a good girl (because plenty of angels get raped too).” She Wanted It "No evidence of force/coercion means consent to some extent.“ Opposite of She Wanted It “No means stop, it doesn’t mean keep it up in the hopes she’ll change her mind.” She Deserved It “If you act like a ho you will be treated like a ho.” Opposite of She Deserved It “She has a right to get drunk and wasted, walk into a guy’s room and not get raped or be able to change her mind. It’s not reality, but it is a right.” References Buchwald, E., Fletcher, P., & Roth, M. (1993). Transforming a rape culture. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions. Burt, M.R. (1980). Cultrual myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 38, 217-230. Burt, M.R. (1991). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.) Acquaintance rape: the hidden crime (pp. 26-40). New York: John Wiley.  Edwards, K.M., Turchik, J.A., Dardis, C.M., Reynolds, N. & Gidycz, C.A.(2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence and implications for change. Sex Roles, 64, Online First, 12 February. doi:10.1007/s11199-0011-9943-2. Franiuk, R., Seefelt, J.L., & Vandello, J.A. (2008). Prevalence of rape myths in headlines and their effects on attitudes toward rape. Sex Roles, 58, 790-801. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9372-4.  Payne, D., Lonsway, K., & Fitzgerald, F. (1994). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Awareness Scale. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 33, 27-68. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238. Suler, J. (2004). CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 321-326. Top 3 “Liked” Comments Methodology Out of a 387 comments total from 90 respondents, these comments were the most “liked” comments by the blog community. #1 “Thanks for the report. Rapist of the world appreciate your view.” #2 “ ‘No’ means ‘no.’ It sounds like the [prosecutor] missed the very heart of what constitutes rape. And with one of the perpetrators collaborating the victim’s story, there should be no question about her accuracy as a witness. All she asked for, in the end, was justice. Where is it?“ #3 “So why are you accusing a woman of filing a false accusation. Which I’m sure as a “red blooded American” you know is also a crime. It appears that your “innocent until proven guilty” only applies to the alleged offender in this case. If you are going to use presumption of innocence as your justification, shouldn’t it apply to everyone? And if that is the case, maybe you should wait until there is a verdict reached before you share your opinions. The analysis consisted of examining reader comments posted in response to an online news article that reported an alleged rape of a woman by two male perpetrators. In the reported incident, both the alleged victim and perpetrators had consumed alcohol. To create the coding structure, each coder read thirty pages of comments and examined them for recurring themes. The coders then met for discussion and a preliminary coding structure was created. The coders then independently coded ten pages of comments and met again for discussion and revision of the structure. After three more iterations of transcript analysis, discussion, and independent practice coding the final coding structure emerged and the coders each independently coded sections of the data. This final coding structure included categories indicating: (a) the degree to which the victim’s story was supported; (b) incivility; (c) four of Burt’s Rape Myths (each category split according to whether the myth was endorsed or rejected); (d) opinions on the legal/judicial system; (e) opinions about journalistic integrity; and (f) sarcasm. Intercoder reliability was assessed through Cohen’s kappa and found to be acceptable (k=.80). Acknowledgements Thank you to MSU’s College of Communication Arts and Sciences for sponsoring our research project. We were extremely fortunate to partner with Dr. Kelly Morrison. Thank you for your commitment to improving the lives of women everywhere.