Me Too Movement: About Support of Sexual Assault Victims And Rape Victims

​Previous research has demonstrated that rape myth acceptance and victim blame are correlated with attentional focus. However, researchers have yet to examine how culturally dominant styles of thought can impact attentional focus and thus victim blaming. Because previous research indicated a connection between holistic thinking and context-based thinking and a connection between analytic thinking and object-based thinking, we hypothesized that analytical thinking (v. holistic thinking) will lead to increased (v. decreased) perceptions of blame in rape victim scenarios. Priming participants to think either analytically or holistically, we presented a rape scenario and examined to what degree participants placed blame on the victim for his own rape. The results support our hypothesis, and implications for applying these findings to rape response and prevention are discussed.

Introduction

Although 2017’s powerful “Me Too” movement has elicited worldwide recognition and support of sexual assault victims, rape victims continue to be subject to accusations of their own role in this horrendous act of violence. Despite the obvious wrongdoing on these perpetuators’ part, public figures have continued to assign blame to his victims, demonstrating the prevalence of this mindset. Rather than attribute rape to the actions of the perpetrator, many individuals continue to ascribe blame to the victim’s excessive drinking or provocative clothing. Common responses include “She asked for it!” or “She just got drunk and regretted her decision the next day.” Despite the progress made, victim-blaming is evidently still common in our society, necessitating change that will actively reduce these harmful perceptions.

The current body of research only skims the surface in explaining what can contribute to victim-blaming. Current research primarily focuses on characterizing what kind of individual tends to victim blame, pointing out that men – specifically those with hostile attitudes and behaviors towards women – are more likely to engage in this line of thought (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Additionally, research places a focus on who is more likely to be blamed: black and male victims (George & Martinez, 2002; Strömwall, Alfredsson, & Landström, 2013). However, there is limited research on what thought processes can reduce victim blaming. Sussenbach et al. (2017) suggest that rape myth acceptance – including victim blaming – is correlated with a preference for focusing on information about the victim. This finding demonstrates that attentional focus directs perceptions of rape scenarios; specifically, attentional focus directed towards the victim increases perceptions of whether the victim carries blame in their own rape.

Given this research, mediators of attentional focus may be vital in reducing victim-blaming. A significant body of research focuses on cultural differences in holistic versus analytic thinking that determine attentional focus. Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan (2001) first highlighted these differences in comparing East Asian and Western styles of thinking. Holistic thinking characterizes East Asian societies and is defined as attending to the context or field, the relationships between focal point and background, and a dialectical reasoning based on these relationships (Nisbett et al., 2001). On the other hand, analytic thinking characterizes Western societies and is defined as attending primarily to focal objects, its categorizations, and a consistent formal logic based on rules (Nisbett et al., 2001). More recent research expands on how these two styles differ in information processing. Li (2014) found that holistic thinkers from Hong Kong attended to more information in their decision-making than analytic thinkers from Canada. These findings can be explained by a study by Norenzayan, Choi, & Nisbett (2002), which found that holistic thinkers will consider external context-based factors in addition to internal object-based factors, whereas analytic thinkers focus on internal object-based factors.

Research since Nisbett et al.’s (2017) initial claims continue to substantiate these cultural differences. A study by Lee, Masuda, & Uleman (2017) comparing European Canadians and Japanese participants reveals a link between analytic thinking and spontaneously inferring traits and a link between holistic thinking and spontaneously inferring situation. In the context of a rape scenario, we suggest that analytic thinking may elicit thoughts about the victim’s inherent traits, whereas holistic thinking may elicit thoughts about the situation framing the rape scenario.

Moreover, critical to the distinction between holistic and analytic thinking is causal attributions, where holistic thinkers not only consider contextual factors but also employs context to draw causal relationships. Experiments show that holistic thinkers are more likely to draw conclusions about causal relationships than analytic thinkers (Badrinarayanan, Becerra, Kim, & Madhavaram, 2012). Because victim blaming has been correlated with focusing on the victim, analytic thinking will likely elicit thoughts about the victim’s own role in the rape (leading to victim blaming) while holistic thinking may elicit thoughts about the many other factors contributing to the rape (Sussenbach et al., 2017).

In considering how to minimize these misperceptions, further research into this cultural style of thought may prove vital to understanding what mediates this victim-blaming. The current body of research has yet to explore how we might minimize this harmful mindset through psychological mechanisms. Because holistic and analytic thinking redirect attentional focus in distinct ways, our experiment sought to explore how these differences would influence perceptions of victim scenarios, specifically in regards to victim blaming. We test this line of thinking in an experimental study comparing analytic thinking-primed participants with holistic thinking-primed participants. Following this prime, participants were provided with scenarios – one of which is the rape scenario that we are concerned with – and asked to rate to what degree they agree with the statements provided. Because of the present climate that has made sexual harassment and assault salient, we chose to focus on a date rape scenario with a male victim in order to increase the likelihood of finding a significant difference between the two experimental groups, as students have been found to attribute more blame in date rape situations and to male victims (Grubb & Harrower, 2008; Stromwell, Alfredsson, & Landstrom, 2013). We expected that participants with the holistic thinking prime would rate agreement with the victim blaming statements lower than participants with the analytic thinking prime.

Thus, the hypothesis for the present study is that analytic thinking (vs. holistic thinking) will lead to increased (vs. decreased) perceptions of blame in rape victim scenarios. When presented with a rape scenario, participants who are primed to think holistically will be less likely to blame the rape victim than those who are primed to think analytically.

Method

Participants​

Participants included X undergraduate students (Y female, Z male; V between 18-24 years old and W between 25-23 years old) at a conservative Southern university. We chose to conduct this experiment at a more conservative university, as research has shown that conservative political ideologies emphasize different moral foundations than liberal political ideologies, which in turn lead to increased acceptance of rape myths (Barnett & Hilz, 2017). Participants were recruited through campus flyers offering a $10 for a one-hour study. T participants chose to leave before completing the study and were not included in analysis.

Materials

​The test was computerized. The priming procedure was adapted from Monga & John (2008) with minor changes to the images used in order to fit the cover story. Following the prime, participants completed the 24-item holism scale as a manipulation check (Monga & John, 2008). They then read 3 scenarios and indicated to what degree they agreed with 6 statements for each scenario on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing strongly disagree and 10 representing strongly agree. This task was followed by a demographic survey.

Procedure

​Participants were seated at a computer when they arrived and told that they would be participating in two separate studies during the one-hour period. Participants were told that if at any time, they felt uncomfortable with the subject matter, they could excuse themselves from the experiment and still receive the $10 compensation.

Priming task. Participants were randomly assigned to either a holistic or analytic thinking prime. This task was presented as the first study examining perception. This exercise to prime holistic / analytic thinking was adapted from Monga & John’s study (2008). The holistic thinking group was asked to find 11 objects within a scene and indicate the number of objects found and when they completed the task (if at all). The analytic thinking group was asked to examine and write about the same scene with a focus on the background. Participants were given 5 minutes to complete the task, with a timer indicating the remaining time on the screen for reference.

Judgment task. After completing the first task, participants were told that they had completed the first study and that this second study would examine first-impression judgments of crisis scenarios; therefore, participants should respond to the questions as quickly as they can. There were 3 crisis scenarios presented: (a) rape (b) mass shooting (b) mugging. Participants answered 6 questions on a scale from 1 to 10 for each scenario, with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 10 indicating strongly agree. Both the scenarios and the questions were counterbalanced. We took the mean for the 4 questions pertaining to victim blaming in the rape scenario to measure the degree of victim blaming.

Demographics. Finally, we collected demographics from participants. If we did not receive the result we expected, we would have excluded those who had taken a sexual violence training, have experienced sexual assault or have had a close one experience assault in order to re-analyze the data, as this topic would be more salient for these participants.

Debrief. Following the computerized test, participants were asked to guess the real purpose of the study. If participants correctly inferred the true intentions of the study, their responses were eliminated from analysis of the data. Participants were then debriefed.

Conclusion

​These findings confirm our hypothesis. As expected, increased victim blaming occurred in participants primed with analytic thinking, while decreased victim blaming occurred in participants primed with holistic thinking. These results suggest that holistic and analytic thinking affects the extent to which people place blame on victims in rape scenarios.

This study provides further evidence that supports previous research that drew a connection between victim-centered thinking and rape victim blame. Consistent with previous research, this study suggests that context-based thinking (induced by holistic thinking) reduces victim blame, while object-based thinking (induced by analytic thinking) increases victim blame. These findings are important in affirming that programs and policies aimed at reducing rape victim blame are directly targeting the appropriate root cause.

Moreover, in addition to confirming previous research, this study extends upon the existing body of research. Researchers have previously found that attentional focus plays a large role in victim blaming. A greater attentional focus on the victim has been connected to increased levels of victim blaming (Sussenbach et al., 2017). However, previous research has not looked at what underlying thought processes might direct attentional focus and ways in which we can encourage these thought processes. The results of this study suggest that holistic thinking can direct individuals’ attention to the context of the rape rather than the victim, reducing perceptions that the victim played a role in their own rape.

This study has important implications for the body of research on holistic and analytic thinking, as it is the first to apply holistic and analytic thinking to this context. Current research on holistic and analytic thinking focuses on other domains, including marketing and politics (Badrinarayanan, Becerra, Kim, & Madhavaram, 2012; Talhelm et al., 2014). Although researchers have continued to build off Nisbett et al.’s (2001) original research on holistic and analytic thinking, this study is important in extending these findings beyond its current areas of focus. The findings of this study suggest that there may be additional domains in which holistic and analytical thinking can be successfully applied to. Our findings add to this line of research by highlighting the way in which this cultural style of thought can be utilized for prosocial means.

​Second, our study adds holistic and analytic thinking to considerations of how to reduce blame for rape victims. As previously discussed, there is currently a focus on who falls prey to victim blame and the ways in which negative attitudes towards women contribute to victim blame (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). This study provides promising evidence that this holistic style of thinking can be used for the purpose of reducing victim blaming. Although as a society we should aim to achieve more equitable perspectives on women, given the stability of ingrained attitudes towards women, the findings of this study point to evidence of that perceptions of rape can be altered through other means to reduce victim blame.

​There are several limitations of this study. First, we did not full consider the way in which social desirability could factor into our experiment. If participants had a tendency to respond to questions in a manner favorable to others, this factor may have biased our study. Although we asked participants to respond to the crisis scenarios as quickly as possible, participants may have still taken the time to consider their response before making a selection. Future research should measure social desirability to determine if it is a predictor in responses, factoring this bias into its analysis of the data. In our next experiment, we would ask participants at the conclusion of the experiment to fill out the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, which predicts the likelihood of a person answering in a socially desirable rather than truthful manner, and account for participants whose higher social desirability score predicts their results. This addition to our experiment would enable us to more precisely eliminate the impact of social desirability on our results.

​Moreover, we acknowledge that our methods could be further improved in future studies. In evaluating each participant’s degree of victim-blaming, we simply took the mean of their responses to the scale provided. However, the level of victim-blaming for each statement may have varied. For instance, the statement, “Robert initiated by kissing Amanda, which signaled to Amanda that he wanted to have sex as in previous instances,” directly blames Robert for prompting the situation in the first place, whereas other statements may be considered to be less accusatory. Yet, in our method of analysis, we considered each statement equal. Although we had not thought of this variance at the time, further studies would involve a pre-test, in which participants would evaluate the level of blame implied by the statement.

​Our findings can be extended in a number of ways. In considering future directions of this research, these findings could potentially apply to reducing self-blame in victims of rape. While we looked at individuals’ perceptions of others in rape scenarios, self-blame is also common following rape. In fact, only 27% whose assault meets the legal definition of rape consider themselves rape victims (Kuersten, 2003). If inducing holistic thinking can reduce victim blaming of others, perhaps it can also reduce self-blame when the victim is confronted with thinking through their own rape. This research could therefore be extended to help rape victims themselves better overcome the aftermath these horrific acts of violence.

​Additionally, future research might explore whether these cultural styles of thought apply to other victim scenarios. Domestic violence in particular would be a good next step, given that that domestic violence and rape both involve a situation in which a perpetrator exerts their dominance over a victim. Moreover, further experimentation could explore victim scenarios such as homelessness, for which there is not necessarily one individual to blame. Nevertheless, public perception is that homeless individuals have put themselves in this situation, when oftentimes, other factors have come into play resulting in this state of homelessness. Extending holistic and analytic thinking beyond a rape victim scenario could be an elucidating next step that would allow us to generalize these findings to a wider range of situations.

​This research is crucial in creating more sympathetic views of rape victims. Despite the prevalence of rape myths and victim blaming, there has been limited consideration as to how rape prevention policies and post-rape procedures can address this phenomenon. If we are better able to understand the mechanisms determining how individuals view situations of rape, we can reduce victim blaming and create a society in which rape perpetuators are held more accountable for their disgusting actions. Perhaps, this research can be applied to training emergency responders for rape victims or creating better resources for rape victims and their families for handling the aftermath of this act of violence. Additionally, this research could be applied to how rape is discussed and framed in the media in order to reduce victim blaming in the greater public.

​While this research is the first to draw the connection between this cultural style of thought and rape victim blaming, this experiment is a promising start. Creating a fuller body of research moving in this direction would provide a fuller understanding of how holistic and analytic thinking affect perceptions of blame. Although we have only just begun exploring the impact of analytic and holistic thinking on victim blaming, our findings suggest that this cultural style of thinking may be vital in creating a more sympathetic environment for victims.