Office Standard rape scripts and rape acknowledgme

connection of assailant. the relationship between
the assailant and also the victim was coded into certainly one of a number of
groups: relative, regular boyfriend, date, acquaintance
but no prior interaction, and stranger. due to tiny
sample sizes for the victim teams, scripts had been
categorized as acquaintance or stranger scripts. the three
groups differed considerably on this variable,~, x2(two,
n=150) = eight.82, p < .02. as table 1 reveals, there have been
descriptions of both stranger and acquaintance rape in the
non-victim and unacknowledged victim scripts. however, all
but among the acknowledged victims' scripts ended up
acquaintance rape. a direct comparison of the scripts of
the acknowledged and unacknowledged victims revealed that
our basic hypothesis was strongly supported, that
unacknowledged victims would be more likely than
acknowledged victims to write a stranger, blitz rape
script, x~2 (1, n=33) = eight.81 , p < .01.
place of attack. the scripts differed in where the
attack took place, x~2 (two, n=145) = 9.89, p < .01. the
scripts of unacknowledged victims were more likely to
describe an outdoor attack (64.3%), than the scripts of
acknowledged victims (11.1%) as well as the scripts of the non-
victims (47.8%). the comparison amongst the two victim
teams on this measure was also significant, x~2 (1, n=32) =
9.89, p < .01
offender aggression. for each of several types of
aggressive behavior by the offender, coders noted if this
behavior had been mentioned in the script. the percentages
reported represent the percentage of each rape category
group that mentioned the particular type of offender
aggression. although the scripts of unacknowledged
victims, acknowledged victims, and non-victim did not
significantly differ in the depiction of verbal coercion or
threat of physical attack, unacknowledged victims wrote
rape scripts containing drastically more violence than
did acknowledged victims and somewhat more violence than
non-victims. although a comparison of the three groups did
not indicate a significant difference in the use of
physical restraint without attack, x~2(two, n=174) = 5.05, p =
.08, in a direct comparison in between unacknowledged and
acknowledged victims, unacknowledged victims had been less
likely to mention physical restraint without physical
attack from the assailant (23.5%) than acknowledged victims
(59.1%), ~x2 (1, n=39) = 4.93, p < .03. the three teams
did differ significantly in the frequency with which they
mentioned physical attack, ~x2(2, n=174) = 10.97, p < .01.
unacknowledged victims were more likely to mention an
actual physical attack (70.6%) than acknowledged victims
(18.2%) or non-victims (40.0%). the direct comparison
among the two victim groups on this measure was also
significant, ~x2 (1, n=39) = 10.89, p < .001. although the
comparison of the three groups on the threat of or actual
use of a weapon was not significant, x~2(two, n = 174) = 5.31,
p < .07, once again scripts of unacknowledged victims had been
considerably more likely to include threat with a weapon
or use of a weapon (23.5%) than the scripts of acknowledged
victims (0.0%), x~2 (1, n=39) = 5.77, p < .02.
victim resistance. numerous types of victim resistance
were coded and also the percentages reported represent the
percentage of each rape category group that mentioned the
particular resistance behavior. as indicated in table 1,
the scripts of the acknowledged and unacknowledged victims
had been similar in the frequency with which they described the
victim as screaming, crying, or trying to leave. however,
there have been some differences in use of verbal protests and
struggling with the assailant. a comparison of the 3
teams showed a tendency for the most frequent use of
verbal protest in scripts of acknowledged victims (68.2%),
followed by non-victims (48.9%) and unacknowledged victims
(29.4%), x~2(two, n=174) = 5.84, p < .06. scripts of
unacknowledged victims have been significantly less likely than
those of acknowledged victims to mention a verbal protest,Cheap Office 2007,
x~2 (1, n=39) = 5.77, p < .02. the 3 teams did differ
drastically in the frequency with which the victim
struggled with the assailant, ~x2(2, n=174) = 6.41, p < .05,
as did the two victim groups alone, ~x2 (1, n=39) = 4.50, p
< .04. scripts of unacknowledged victims (70.6%) have been more
likely than those of acknowledged victims (36.4%) or non-
victims (39.3%) to mention that the victim struggled with
the assailant.
physical effects on the victim. the scripts ended up
coded to indicate the degree of physical trauma mentioned
(mild, severe, death). mild physical trauma included
effects such as cuts, bruises or scrapes while severe
physical trauma included effects such as broken bones,
being unconscious or harm that required urgent medical
care. no significant differences had been found for these
measures. of the 174 scripts coded on this measure, 10.9%
reported mild physical trauma and 4.6% reported severe
physical trauma. in two of the scripts of non-victims, the
victim in the script died. in most of the scripts (84.5%)
physical trauma was not mentioned.
emotional effects on the victim. the scripts had been
coded to indicate the degree of emotional trauma mentioned
(mild,Microsoft Office 2007 Pro, severe). mild emotional trauma included effects
such as feeling guilty, feeling violated, crying, or regret
while severe emotional trauma included effects such as
withdrawal, hysteria, personality change, feeling
devastated, life style changes or recurrent thoughts of the
rape. no significant differences were found among the
three teams on these measures. of the 174 scripts coded
on these items, 46.0% indicated the victim suffered mild
emotional trauma, 18.4% described severe emotional trauma,
and 35.9% did not mention emotional trauma.
victim behavior following the rape. the scripts ended up
coded to determine if the victim tells the police, tells
friends or relatives, remains silent, avoids contact with
the assailant, leaves the scene, or engages in some other
behavior. the percentages reported for each subcategory
represent the percentage of each rape category group that
mentioned the behavior. analyses of the 3 groups
together did not produce any significant differences.
however, in direct comparisons of the unacknowledged and
acknowledged victims, unacknowledged victims (29.4%) were
more likely to contact the police than had been acknowledged
victims (4.4%), x~2 (1, n=39) = 4.56, p < .04. with regard
to the other measures, in 20.1% of the 174 scripts the
victim told a friend or relative, in 18.4% she remained
silent, in 24.7% she left the scene and in 32.8% she
engaged in some other behavior (typically, went to the
hospital, saw a counselor, or took a shower).
assailant behavior following the rape. the
assailant's behavior following the rape was coded for your
following behaviors: threatened the victim or her loved
ones, physically or verbally abused the victim, left the
scene, or engaged in some other behavior. the percentages
reported for each subcategory represent the percentage of
each rape category group that mentioned the behavior.
analyses of the three teams together did not produce any
significant differences. however, in direct comparisons of
the unacknowledged and acknowledged victims, unacknowledged
victims had been more likely (70.6%) to indicate that the
assailant immediately left the scene than ended up acknowledged
victims (35.4%), x~2 (1, n=39) = 4.50, p < .04.
presence of alcohol. the scripts had been coded to
determine if the victim, the assailant, or both used
alcohol. the percentages reported for each subcategory
represent the percentage of each rape category group that
mentioned some use of alcohol, regardless of who used it.
analysis of the 3 groups together did not produce any
significant differences. however, acknowledged victims
have been more likely to mention alcohol in their scripts
(57.1%) than had been unacknowledged victims (23.5%), x~2(1,
n=38) = 4.35, p < .05.
finally, it should be noted that on almost all aspects
of the rape scripts, the percentage of coded
characteristics for non-victims' scripts have been in between those
of acknowledged and unacknowledged rape victims. it is
likely that this group of non-victims contains a mixture of
potential unacknowledged victims (who wrote stranger rape
scripts, n=42) and potential acknowledged victims (who
wrote acquaintance rape scripts, n=75).
discussion
in the present study, the percentage of women who had
experienced forced ######ual intercourse was 23.2%. this
percentage was greater than that obtained by koss (1985)
and is because of to the fact that we added four questions to koss
and oros' (1982) original scale to categorize women as rape
victims. when our participants are classified as rape
victims using koss' original three questions the percentage
was 10.1%, which is similar to the 12.7% of rape victims
found by koss (1985). the percentage of victims in our
study who ended up unacknowledged victims was 47.8%, a figure
that is comparable to the 43% of unacknowledged victims in
koss' (1985) study. all but among the rape victims in our
study was raped by an acquaintance.
the results of our study support our hypothesis that
unacknowledged victims would be more likely to write
scripts describing blitz or stranger rape than acknowledged
victims. all but certainly one of the scripts of the acknowledged
victims described the assailant as an acquaintance while
the scripts of unacknowledged victims ended up evenly divided
between stranger and acquaintance rapes. furthermore, the
details of the scripts of the unacknowledged victims tended
to fit the blitz rape situation. compared to acknowledged
victims, unacknowledged victims were more likely to say the
rape occurred outdoors, more likely to mention physical
attack and use or threat of use of weapons, less likely to
say the victim used verbal protest but more likely to say
she struggled with the assailant,Office Standard, more likely to mention
the victim reported the rape to the police and that the
assailant left the scene, and less likely to mention the
presence of alcohol.
the two teams may have differed in the details of the
scripts simply because unacknowledged victims wrote more
stranger rape scripts. a comparison of scripts depicting a
stranger and those depicting an acquaintance as the
assailant revealed that across all participants, scripts
with a stranger ended up more likely to describe an outdoor
scene, less restraint without attack and more physical
attack and use of weapons, less verbal protest by the
victim, more mild and severe physical trauma to the victim,
greater likelihood of telling the police and friends and
less likelihood of remaining silent, more physical abuse by
the assailant and a greater chance of the assailant leaving
the scene, and less involvement of alcohol. however, a
comparison of the acquaintance and stranger scripts of the
unacknowledged victims found no differences in regards to
assailant aggression, victims' physical and emotional
trauma, or assailant reaction following the rape although
stranger scripts had been more likely to depict an outdoor
attack and less likely to have the victim use verbal
protest or remain silent. on the other hand, a comparison
in between nonvictims' stranger and acquaintance scripts
revealed that in stranger scripts the rape was much more
likely to occur outdoors, assailants were more likely to
threaten to use or use physical attack, physical restraint
and weapons, victims ended up less likely to use verbal
protests and remain silent, more likely to suffer severe
physical trauma, and more likely to tell police or friends.
in other words, stranger and acquaintance scripts had been more
alike for unacknowledged victims than for nonvictims. thus
the differences in the details of the acknowledged and
unacknowledged victims' scripts does not appear to be due
solely to the partnership in between the assailant and also the
victim in the scripts.
another possible explanation for your lower level of
violence in acknowledged victims' scripts is that these
victims ended up simply writing a description about their own
non-consensual ######ual experience which they did, in fact,
label as rape, whereas unacknowledged victims were
describing a more general perception of rape because in
their perspective, they did not have a rape experience upon
which to base a script. this explanation does not seem
likely, however. we asked the acknowledged victims to
indicate the extent to which their description of rape
matched their own rape experience on a scale ranging from 1
(completely different) to 7 (exactly the same). only 30.4%
indicated it was "exactly the same," the mean response was
4.9, and some participants responded at each point along
the scale. also, in a comparison with unacknowledged
victims on actual ######ual experience, acknowledged victims
reported more force by a male in kissing and petting, more
threatened or actual use of force by the male in an
unsuccessful attempt to have intercourse, and more force in
a successful attempt at intercourse when the women did not
want it. these differences in experiences are paradoxical
in that acknowledged victims' scripts described less force
than the unacknowledged victims' scripts, while their life
experiences contained more force. thus, the scripts of
acknowledged victims are not necessarily mirror-images of
their own ######ual or rape experiences.
based on the results of the demographic survey the
differences in the rape scripts amongst acknowledged and
unacknowledged victims do not appear to be because of to
differences in their demographic characteristics assessed
in this study. there have been no differences in age, year in
school, self-reported knowledge about rape, having attended
a seminar on rape, working with rape victims, or knowing a
rape victim nor did they differ in their certainty about
what constituted rape in the seven hypothetical scenarios.
a final issue that warrants attention is the finding
that 50% of the unacknowledged victims wrote acquaintance
scripts. even though they had an experience of forced
######ual intercourse with an acquaintance and wrote a script
depicting acquaintance rape, these women still did not
acknowledge that they had been raped. this suggests that
their inability to recognize their experience as rape is
dependent on more than just the nature of the connection
amongst the assailant as well as the victim. other
characteristics of the rape script or characteristics of
the individuals may also be involved in the decision to
label a ######ual experience as rape. a single important variable
may be the level of force used in the actual rape. on a
number of the ses items we found differences between
unacknowledged and acknowledged rape victims, with fewer
unacknowledged victims reporting ######ual experiences
involving force than acknowledged victims. yet, the
unacknowledged victims ended up more likely to include physical
attack in their rape scripts. thus, it may be that lack of
an actual physical attack, contained in their rape scripts
but not present in their actual rape experience, leads
these unacknowledged victims to not regard their experience
as rape. this finding is consistent with the results of
research by ryan (1988), bourque (1989) and parrot (1991),
who have argued that level of force used in the ######ual
encounter may be one of the most important variables in
determining whether the experience is considered rape.
although our results offer support for your importance
of rape scripts in determining whether rape victims label
their experience as rape, there are at least two caveats.
first, out data are purely correlational. while
acknowledged and unacknowledged victims differed in their
rape scripts, we cannot be sure it is the difference in
scripts that caused differences in acknowledgment. second,
our sample was composed almost exclusively of acquaintance
rape victims. we would be surprised to find many women who
had been victims of a stranger rape who did not acknowledge it.
in summary, our data suggest that unacknowledged rape
victims, compared to acknowledged rape victims, are more
likely to have rape scripts in which the assailant is a
stranger, and in which the assailant, whether stranger or
acquaintance, uses a high level of force. in addition,
unacknowledged victims' own rape and non-rape ######ual
experiences had been likely to have involved less force when
compared to acknowledged victims. in other words, the
unacknowledged rape victim is likely to be a woman who has
not encountered force in ######ual relations and has a script
of rape which involves considerable force.
references
bourque, l. b. (1989). defining rape. durham, nc: duke university press.
koss, m.p. (1985). the hidden rape victim: personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. psychology of women quarterly, 9, 192-212.
koss, m. p. (1992). the underdetection of rape: methodological choices, influence incidences estimates. journal of social issues, 48, 61-76.
koss,Microsoft Office 2007, m.p., dinero, t.e., seibel, c.a., & cox, s.l. (1988). stranger and acquaintance rape: are there differences in the victim's experience? psychology of women quarterly, 12, 1-24.
koss, m.p., gidycz, c.a.,Office Standard 2007, & wisniewski, n. (1987). the scope of rape: incidence and prevalence of ######ual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 55, 162-170.
koss, m.p., & oros, c.j. (1982). ######ual experiences survey: a research instrument investigating ######ual aggression and victimization. journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 50, 455-457.
levine-maccombie, j., & koss, m. p. (1986). acquaintance rape: effective avoidance strategies. psychology of women quarterly, 10, 311-320.
markus, h., & zajonc, r.p. (1985). the cognitive perspective in social psychology. in g. lindzey & a. aronson (eds.), handbook of social psychology (pp. 137-230). ny: random house.
muehlenhard, c. l., powch, i. g., phelps, j. l., & giusti, l. m. (1992). definitions of rape: scientific and political implications. journal of social issues, 48, 23-44.
parrot, a. (1991). institutionalized response: how can acquaintance be prevented? in a. parrot & l. bechhofer (eds.), acquaintance rape: the hidden crime (pp. 355-367). new york: wiley.
russell, d. (1975). the politics of rape: the victim's perspective. new york: stein & day.
russell, d. e. h. (1982) rape in marriage. new york: macmillan.
ryan, k.m. (1988). rape and seduction scripts. psychology of women quarterly, 12, 237-245.
torgler, c. c. (1991). rape scripts as determinants of acknowledged versus unacknowledged rape victims. unpublished master's thesis, james madison university, harrisonburg, va.
weis, k., & borges, s.s. (1973). victimology and rape: the case of the legitimate victim. issues in criminology, eight, 71-115.
author notes
portions of this article have been presented at the 100th
annual convention of the american psychological
association, washington, dc, august 16, 1990.
we wish to thank sarah baker, paula beeghly, kimberly
bradley, gina feria, kathryn hastings, hannah hinely, anne
mccarthy, elaine schoka, julie stuckey, and megan sullivan,
members of our undergraduate research team, who helped
design the research and collect the data.
requests for reprints should be sent to arnold s.
kahn, department of psychology, james madison university,
harrisonburg, va 22807.
footnotes
1it should be noted that one particular form of acquaintance
rape, marital rape, may involve a high degree of force and
violence (koss, dinero, seibel, & cox, 1988; russell,
1982).
two when data ended up collected in classrooms, male students
have been given a male version of the ses. these data are not
reported in this paper.
3 separate analyses for ses first and script first
revealed that the only differences in the two sets of
analyses ended up on the type of relationship, the use of
verbal protest, screaming, and struggling by the victim,
and whether the victim told the police. for your latter two
items, the patterns were the same but were significant in
a single case but not the other. when the ses was first, both
acknowledged and unacknowledged victims wrote more
acquaintance scripts but when the script was first,
unacknowledged victims wrote more stranger scripts than
acquaintance scripts. the concern that the ses first might
alter the scripts of the acknowledged victims was not
supported. when the ses was first, about half of both
groups said the victim protested verbally but this item
decreased in frequency for that unacknowledged group and
increased in frequency for that acknowledged group when the
script was first. when the ses was first, about 10% of
both teams said the victim screamed but when the script
was first, the unacknowledged group reported more of this
behavior. because of the few differences as well as the little
cell frequencies resulting from these analyses, no further
use was made of these analyses.