Violence and Victims, Volume 31, Number 2, 2016

Labeling Sexual Victimization

Experiences: The Role of Sexism,
Rape Myth Acceptance, and
Tolerance for Sexual Harassment
Kelly L. LeMaire, MS
Debra L. Oswald, PhD
Marquette University, Wisconsin

Brenda L. Russell, PhD

Pennsylvania State Berks

This study investigated whether attitudinal variables, such as benevolent and hostile sex-
ism toward men and women, female rape myth acceptance, and tolerance of sexual harass-
ment are related to women labeling their sexual assault experiences as rape. In a sample
of 276 female college students, 71 (25.7%) reported at least one experience that met the
operational definition of rape, although only 46.5% of those women labeled the experience
“rape.” Benevolent sexism, tolerance of sexual harassment, and rape myth acceptance, but
not hostile sexism, significantly predicted labeling of previous sexual assault experiences
by the victims. Specifically, those with more benevolent sexist attitudes toward both men
and women, greater rape myth acceptance, and more tolerant attitudes of sexual harass-
ment were less likely to label their past sexual assault experience as rape. The results are
discussed for their clinical and theoretical implications.

Keywords: sexism; rape; sexual assault; rape myth acceptance

R
ape and other instances of sexual assault are reportedly widespread, with a large
percentage of the victims being young and female (Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski,
1987; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 2006). The National Institute of Justice and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that approximately 18% of the women
surveyed experienced rape in their lifetime (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 2006). Of the
women who reported being raped, the average number of victimizations per person was
2.9. College-aged women are particularly vulnerable to sexual assault (Sinozich & Langton,
2014). The National Institute of Justice (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006) found that 29% of
women who report being raped were raped between the ages of 18 and 24 years. The U.S.
Department of Justice (Greenfeld, 1997; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006) found that 86% of all
rape victims are female and 80% of the victims are younger than age 30 years.
It is noteworthy that not all jurisdictions use the term rape to describe sexual victimization,
nor do all states define it in the same manner. Although the legal definition of rape or sexual

332 © 2016 Springer Publishing Company

http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00148
Labeling Sexual Victimization333

assault varies from state to state, in January 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice Uniform
Crime Report definition of rape was changed so that the gender of the victim and perpetra-
tor is neutral and to include instances when the victim is unable to give consent because of
intoxication, being younger than the age of consent, or because they are mentally or physi-
cally incapable of giving consent. The new definition of rape reads, “The penetration, no
matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a
sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim” (U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Public Affairs, 2012). This is the operational definition of rape used in this study.
Despite the high prevalence of rape, especially on college campuses, research suggests
that rape is underreported and that many women do not label their experience as rape even
when it meets the definition of rape. Although different studies have varied on how the
authors operationally defined rape (e.g., inclusion of coercion and incapacitation), it is
estimated that approximately 42%–78% of rape victims do not label their sexual assault
experience as rape (Bondurant, 2001; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Littleton, Rhatigan,
& Axsom, 2007; McMullin & White, 2006; Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013; Peterson
& Muehlenhard, 2011). Instead, they may conceptualize the experience of not consisting
of victimization or as being a “serious misconception” (Orchowski et al., 2013).
Whether a victim identifies his or her experience as rape may have implications for their
mental health and recourse. Several studies have found psychological and social disadvan-
tages for women who do not label their sexual victimization experience (Botta & Pingree,
1997; Littleton, Axsom, & Grills-Taquechel, 2009). For example, Littleton et al. (2009)
found that women who did not label their rape experience (unacknowledged victims) were
more likely to use alcohol and report continuing her relationship with the perpetrator than
women who labeled their sexual assault experience. The authors also found that women who
did not label their experience as rape were twice as likely as labelers to report experiencing
an attempted rape experience during the 6-month follow-up period. Women who label their
sexual victimization as rape report having significantly less interference with their work and
social activities, feel significantly better overall, report using less alcohol afterward, and have
more social support than those that did not label their experience (Botta & Pingree, 1997).
However, conflicting evidence has been found on this matter. McMullin and White
(2006) conducted a longitudinal study to examine differences between nonvictims, label-
ers, and nonlabelers in psychological well-being, alcohol use, and attitudes. They did not
find any differences in distress or alcohol use between labelers and nonlabelers, although
nonlabelers drank significantly more alcohol than nonvictims. In addition, studies have
revealed opposing results in terms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms
reported by those who label their previous experiences of assault and those who do not.
Specifically, Marx and Soler-Baillo (2005) found no difference in the level of PTSD symp-
toms endorsed by labelers and nonlabelers; however, Layman, Gidycz, and Lynn’s (1996)
study indicated that those who labeled their assault as rape reported more symptoms of
PTSD than nonlabelers.
Although previous research presents mixed conclusions about whether labeling sexual
assault as rape is beneficial for victims, it is important to note that labeling it as a crime
is essential for a victim to pursue legal action. Because labeling sexual assault experi-
ences can affect the victim’s psychological and emotional well-being, as well as change
the individual’s pursuit of legal justice, it is important to understand factors related to
labeling. In addition, because attitudes and beliefs can shape the way we understand our
experiences, it is important to examine the impact these beliefs have on labeling assault.
If we can understand some of the attitudinal factors related to labeling instances of assault,
334 LeMaire et al.

we may be better able to help others who have been victimized to better understand their
experience. Perhaps providing such information to victims can lead to increased reporting
of the events, and thus a greater chance for legal justice and prevention of further assaults.
In this article, we seek to understand if attitudinal variables such as endorsement of hostile
and benevolent sexism toward men and women, adherence to rape myths, and tolerance
toward sexual harassment are related to women labeling their experiences of rape.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LABELING AN EXPERIENCE AS RAPE

It is important to recognize that rape is a highly charged subject for many individuals. The term
is often associated with ideas of strangers attacking women, although research suggests that
more often than not, sexual assault occurs in the context of preexisting relationships (Tjaden
& Thoennes, 2006). Sexual assault is an immensely complex subject that inherently includes
issues of consent and force. Both of these issues, along with other factors, play an important
role in whether or not a person conceptualizes their sexual assault experience as rape.
Previous research has identified several reasons why women do not label their experi-
ence as rape. Factors associated with women not acknowledging her attack as an assault
include experiencing feelings of responsibility, guilt, distress, fear, and stigma, as well
as other psychological and legal factors (Fisher et al., 2000; Koss et al., 1987; Littleton,
Breitkopf, & Berenson, 2008; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2011). Peterson and Muehlenhard
(2011) examined the reasons why some women may not label their sexual experience
as rape and found that 24% of rape victims in their study did not feel they struggled or
resisted enough to consider the experience rape. Other reasons for not labeling the assault
included not wanting to label the male assailant “a rapist,” not feeling as though the
incident was violent or forceful enough to be considered rape, or feeling as if their own
behavior made them partially responsible (e.g., not saying “no” at the last minute or being
under the influence of alcohol). Other nonlabelers reported wanting to avoid feeling worse
about the assault and wanting to avoid having to report it to legal authorities.
One consistent finding is that women tend to label their sexual victimization as rape
more often when it fits a “rape script,” that is, when the assailant was a stranger and used
force, if the victim was asleep or tricked into intercourse, experienced extreme negative
affect after the event, or if they were victimized as a child (Kahn, Jackson, Kully, Badger,
& Halvorsen, 2003). Women were less likely to label the experience as rape if the assailant
was a boyfriend, drugs or alcohol were involved, or if the experience involved oral sex.
Older women were more likely to label their experience as rape than were younger women.
Other studies have generally found results consistent with the idea that women label their
experience as rape if it fits their “rape script” and included elements of force, violence or
threats, if they resisted the assault, and if they had not been drinking (Bondurant, 2001;
Layman et al., 1996; Littleton et al., 2008: Orchowski et al., 2013).

BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES ASSOCIATED WITH LABELING AN

EXPERIENCE AS RAPE

Although a body of research has found that women’s rape script and other situational
factors play a large role in their decision to label their experiences (Kahn et al., 2003;
Layman et al., 1996; Littleton et al., 2008; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2011), less research
Labeling Sexual Victimization335

has examined how beliefs about rape and sexist ideologies are associated with labeling
a sexual assault as rape. This study seeks to examine whether attitudes regarding sexual
harassment, sexism, and rape myth acceptance are associated with women’s labeling of
their sexual experiences. Although some of these attitudes have been investigated in other
studies regarding perceptions of victims and perpetrators (i.e., Cowan, 2000; Durán, Moya,
Megías, & Viki, 2010; Yamawaki, 2007), to date, we are only aware of a few studies exam-
ining how beliefs about rape or gender are related to women’s labeling of their own sexual
experiences (Koss, 1985; McMullin & White, 2006; Peterson & Meuhlenhard, 2004). Very
few attitudinal differences have been noted in previous studies between women who label
their sexual experiences and those who do not (Bondurant, 2001; Koss, 1985; McMullin
& White, 2006), although, to our knowledge, variables such as sexism and tolerance for
sexual harassment have not been examined directly. It is hoped that this study will provide
further clarification on how these attitudes differ for women who label and do not label
their own sexual assault experiences.
Rape myth acceptance is one attitudinal variable that could explain why women do not
label a sexually coercive experience as rape, especially on college campuses where many
rapes are date rapes. Rape myths are “attitudes and beliefs that are generally false but are
widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression
against women” (Lonsway & Fitgerald, 1994, p. 134). Rape myths enforce blaming of the
victim and diminish the responsibility of the perpetrator (Burt, 1980). Some myths about
rape include ideas that women “ask for rape,” victims actually wanted to be raped, the
perpetrator “didn’t mean to” rape the victim, and many of women’s claims of being raped
are false accusations (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999). Although men tend to accept
rape myths more than women, both men and women adhere to beliefs about rape myths
(Reilly, Lott, Caldwell, & DeLuca, 1992).
The degree to which a person accepts rape myths is associated with their perceptions
of rape victims and the individual who committed the sexual assault (Burt, 1980). Rape
myth acceptance is correlated with the degree to which jurors place judgments of blame
and guilt on the defendant in mock-jury rape trial, such that those with higher levels of rape
myth acceptance are less likely to blame the defendant (Eyssel & Bohner, 2011; Temkin
& Krahé, 2008). Rape myth acceptance has also been found to be highly predictive of
rape proclivity—an inclination toward rape (Chapleau & Oswald, 2010). Peterson and
Muehlenhard (2004) found that female participants who held the belief that women who
were “sexually teasing” deserved to be raped and perceived their own behavior to be sexu-
ally teasing were less likely to label their own sexual experience “rape.” Similarly, those
women who did not fight back during their own sexual experience, and also believed that
an experience could not be considered rape if the victim did not fight back, were also less
likely to label their experience.
A second set of variables that is likely to play a role in women labeling their sexual
victimization experiences is holding sexist attitudes about men and women. Ambivalent
sexism theory argues that sexist attitudes can be expressed as benevolent and hostile
sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Benevolent sexism toward women is an attitude that encom-
passes paternalistic feelings about women who embrace traditional roles (e.g., caregivers
and homemakers). In contrast, hostile sexism toward women encompasses more negative
and disapproving views of women who break with traditional roles (e.g., women who
work and feminists). Both types of sexism reinforce traditional gender roles by rewarding
women who maintain an image consistent with traditional views and by punishing women
who stray from these roles.
336 LeMaire et al.

Ambivalent sexist beliefs about women are associated with perceptions of rape victims.
Endorsement of hostile sexist attitudes toward women has been linked to victim blaming in
cases of both sexual harassment and rape (Cowan, 2000; Durán et al., 2010). Individuals
high in hostile sexism are also more likely to deny rape victim’s psychological damage,
the level of violence in the rape, and are less likely to label the assault as rape (Yamawaki
et al., 2007). Yamawaki et al. (2007) found that men who believed that women are trying
to take power from men and who endorsed benevolent sexism tended to perceive the vic-
tim of rape as being responsible for and provoking the alleged rape. Similarly, benevolent
sexism has been associated with placing blame on a victim of date rape. Individuals who
were high in benevolent sexism toward women attributed more blame to acquaintance
rape victims and were more likely to recommend shorter prison sentences to acquaintance
rape perpetrators than individuals who were low in benevolent sexism (Abrams, Viki,
Masser, & Bohner, 2003; Viki, Abrams, & Masser, 2004). This suggests that individuals
with strong benevolent and hostile sexist beliefs regarding women may view acquaintance
rape perpetrators as less responsible for their actions or view their crimes as less severe.
Although sexism is commonly thought of as targeting women, Glick and Fiske (1999)
argue that there are similar hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes about men. Hostile sex-
ism toward men represents women’s resentment of men’s greater power and use of sexual
violence against women. Benevolent sexism toward men reflects maternalistic attitudes
that presumes weakness and fosters an idea that men should be cared for. Although benev-
olent sexism portrays women in the seemingly more dominant and powerful role within
the home, it justifies the idea that women should be in service to men. There is relatively
little research that examines how sexism toward men is associated with perceptions of
sexual assault or perpetrators of sexual assault; however, it is possible that women’s views
of men’s traditional gender roles may affect their perceptions of their sexual experiences
with men. Chapleau, Oswald, and Russell (2007) found that maternalism, complementary
gender roles, and heterosexual intimacy, all encompassing different aspects of benevolent
sexism toward men, were associated with rape myth acceptance for women. Men’s rape
myth acceptance was associated only with complimentary gender roles and heterosexual
intimacy aspects of benevolent sexism. However, rape myth acceptance was not associated
with hostile sexism toward men, although it was associated with hostile sexism toward
women. As a set, it appears that sexism toward men and women are both associated with
minimizing perceptions of sexual aggression. We further argue that endorsement of these
sexist beliefs, both hostile and benevolent, will also be associated with victims’ denial that
their own experience was rape.
The final variable investigated as a factor for labeling rape experiences was tolerance
for sexual harassment. Tolerant attitudes toward sexual harassment include beliefs such
as women should naturally expect sexual advances to be made at her, innocent flirtations
are often mistaken for sexual harassment, and that people make “too big a deal” of sexual
harassment. In general, men have been found to be more tolerant of sexual harassment
than women (Reilly et al., 1992). However, benevolent and hostile sexism have been found
to be strongly predictive of tolerance of sexual harassment, above and beyond gender
(Russell & Trigg, 2004). Sexist beliefs and hostility toward women have been identified
as being tied to attitudes toward sexual harassment, in that more hostility toward women
is associated with more tolerance of sexual harassment (Pryor, Giedd, & Williams, 1995;
Russell & Trigg, 2004). Similarly, benevolent sexist attitudes, which are less obviously
negative but still rooted in power differentials of men and women, have also been associ-
ated with tolerance for sexual harassment.
Labeling Sexual Victimization337

Researchers have found that individuals identified sexual harassment more frequently
when victims offered resistance, either verbally or physically (Osman, 2007). Wiener and
colleagues found that individuals with hostile sexist beliefs were less likely to find evidence
for sexual harassment when presented with different stories of workplace sexual assault
(Wiener, Hurt, Russell, Mannen, & Gasper, 1997; Wiener et al., 2010). Individuals high in
hostile sexism were less likely to find the defendant’s behavior unwelcome, found it less
severe, less pervasive, less likely to negatively impact the plaintiff’s work performance and
well-being in a negative manner, and found less evidence of a hostile work environment.
Because individuals who are more tolerant of sexual harassment are less likely to see evi-
dence of sexual harassment and may not view it as detrimental to the victim, these beliefs
may carry over to sexual assault and rape as well. It is likely that women who are more
tolerant of sexual harassment are also less likely to label sexual assault as rape.

CURRENT STUDY

This study seeks to extend the literature on why women do (or do not) label their experi-
ences as rape by examining their sexist attitudes about women and men, rape myths, and
sexual harassment. It was hypothesized that both benevolent and hostile sexism toward
men and women would significantly predict labeling of rape experiences. Specifically,
we expected that those with lower levels of benevolent and hostile sexism would be more
likely to label their sexual assault experience than women who hold stronger sexist beliefs.
In addition, it was hypothesized that rape myth acceptance and tolerance of sexual harass-
ment would also significantly predict labeling, in that women who were less tolerant of
sexual harassment and had less acceptance of rape myth would be more likely to label
their experiences as rape, than those with greater tolerance of sexual harassment and rape
myth acceptance.

METHOD

Participants
A sample of 276 female college students participated in this study. Of these women,
71 (25.72%) reported an experience that met our operational definition of rape and this
sample was used in the analyses. Sixty-four (90.1%) of these women reported being
Caucasian. Other women reported being African American (n 5 2, 2.8%), Asian American
(n 5 2, 2.8%), Hispanic American (n 5 2, 2.8%) and “other” American (n 5 1, 1.4%).
The mean age was 20.71 (SD 5 4.5) years. Thirty-one (43.7%) were freshmen, 20 (28.2%)
were sophomores, 8 (11.3%) were juniors, 4 (5.6%) were seniors, and 8 (11.3%) reported
having an “other” student status. Most of the women identified as completely heterosexual
(n 5 45, 63.4%), two (2.8%) identified as completely homosexual, and the rest indicated
a sexual orientation on a continuum between completely heterosexual and homosexual.

Procedure
Participants were recruited through the department participant pools at a private Midwest
university and a public Eastern university and were given extra credit for their participa-
tion. After consent was obtained, participants were taken to a private testing room where
338 LeMaire et al.

they completed the surveys via computer. Participants completed the Illinois Rape Myth
Acceptance Scale-Short Form (Payne et al., 1999), the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
(Glick & Fiske, 1996), Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1999), the
Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale (Mazer & Percival, 1989), as well as questions about
experiences of sexual assault and demographics. Upon completion of the study, par-
ticipants were debriefed, thanked, and provided with information on sexual assault and
campus resources. The institutional review board approved this research.

Measures
Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale-Short Form. Participants completed Payne and col-
leagues’ (1999) 20-item scale, which uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 5 strongly disagree,
5 5 strongly agree) to assess rape myth acceptance. Items include “If a woman is raped
while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of con-
trol” and “Many women secretly desire to be raped.” Scores are averaged with higher mean
scores signifying more agreement with rape myths. The coefficient alpha for the current
sample was .85.
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Participants completed Glick and Fiske’s (1996)
22-item scale (0 5 strongly disagree, 5 5 strongly agree) to assess levels of benevolent
and hostile sexism toward women, where higher scores indicate higher levels of sexism
toward women. Benevolent sexism items include “Many women have a quality of purity
that few men possess,” whereas hostile sexism is measured by items such as “When
women lose to men in fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated
against.” The coefficient alpha for benevolent sexism was .77, and the coefficient alpha
for hostile sexism was .85.
Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. Glick and Fiske’s (1999) 20-item scale (0 5
disagree strongly, 5 5 strongly agree) was used to measure benevolent and hostile sexism
toward men, with higher scores denoting more sexist attitudes toward men. Benevolent
sexism items include “Women are incomplete without men,” and hostile sexism include
items such as “When it comes down to it, most men are really more like children.” The
coefficient alpha for benevolent sexism for this sample was .85, and the coefficient alpha
for hostile sexism was .80.
The Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale. Participants completed Mazer and Percival’s
(1989) 18-item scale (1 5 strongly disagree, 4 5 strongly agree) measuring the degree
to which they tolerate sexual harassment and believe it to be a natural occurrence. Higher
mean scores indicate more tolerance for sexual harassment. Items include “Many charges
of sexual harassment are frivolous and vindictive” and “Innocent flirtations make the
workday interesting.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .83
Experiences of Rape. Several questions identified from Koss and Oros’s (1982) Sexual
Experiences Scale were adapted to assess participant’s experiences of rape. Five items that
described situations that all met the U.S. Department of Justice’s updated definition of
rape were used: “Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to, because
someone gave you alcohol or drugs?”; “Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you
didn’t want to, because he/she threatened to use physical force (twisting your arm, holding
you down, etc.) if you didn’t cooperate?”; “Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you
didn’t want to because someone used his/her position of authority (boss, teacher, supervi-
sor) to make you?”; “Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone when you didn’t
want to, because he/she used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding
 Labeling Sexual Victimization339

you down, etc.)?”; “Have you ever been in a situation where someone obtained sexual acts
with you (such as anal or oral intercourse) when you didn’t want to because of physical
force?” These five items were used to identify victims of rape. In addition, participants
also answered a sixth question, “Have you ever been raped?” Women who had an experi-
ence that met the definition of rape and indicated that they had been raped were classified
as “labelers” and those who had an experience that met the definition of rape but indicated
they had not been raped were classified as “nonlabelers.”

RESULTS

Of the 276 women in our sample, 71 (25.72%) women reported being raped or having
an experience that met the definition of rape. Of the 71 participants that reported having
an experience that met the definition of rape, 33 (46.48%) women labeled the experience
rape, whereas 38 (53.52%) women did not label their sexual assault experience as rape.
Bivariate correlations among the measures of hostile and benevolent sexism toward
men and women, female rape myth, and tolerance for sexual harassment, using the
71 female participants who reported an experience of rape are presented in Table 1. All
of the variables were significantly and positively correlated (p , .001) indicating that
sexist beliefs, tolerance for sexual harassment and rape myth acceptance are all strongly
interrelated. Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations of the variables by group.
It was predicted that women who did not label their sexual victimization experience
as rape, even though it met the definition of rape, would have higher levels of benevolent
and hostile sexism toward both men and women as well as more tolerance toward sexual
harassment and acceptance of rape myths. To test the hypotheses, a series of logistic
regressions using the attitudinal variables to predict group membership (0 5 nonlabelers
and 1 5 labelers). Consistent with recommendations from ambivalent sexism theory, we
conducted the regressions with hostile and benevolent sexism in the model simultaneously.

TABLE 1.  Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Ambivalent Sexism Toward Men
and Women, Female Rape Myth, and Tolerance for Sexual Harassment Across Groups
(N 5 71)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.  Benevolent sexism toward men —

2.  Hostile sexism toward men  .44*** —
3. Benevolent sexism toward  .78***  .46*** —
women
4.  Hostile sexism toward women  .46***  .44***  .41*** —
5.  Female rape myth acceptance  .65***  .37***  .49***  .46*** —
6.  Tolerance of sexual harassment  .57***  .41***  .48***  .62***  .62*** —
M 1.72 2.21 2.27 1.90 1.67 2.23
SD 0.93 0.89 0.86 0.86 0.53 0.45
***p , .001.
340 LeMaire et al.

Table 2.  Means and Standard Deviations for Nonlabelers (N 5 38) and Labelers
(N 5 33) of Rape
Nonlabelers Labelers
Variables M SD M SD

Benevolent sexism toward men 1.99 0.85 1.41 0.94

Hostile sexism toward men 2.29 0.87 2.11 0.92
Benevolent sexism toward women 2.50 0.76 2.01 0.90
Hostile sexism toward women 1.95 0.85 1.83 0.87
Female rape myth acceptance 1.79 0.56 1.53 0.48
Tolerance of sexual harassment 2.32 0.44 2.13 0.44
Note. An alternative data analysis strategy is to compare the groups with independent t tests.
These tests reveal similar findings. There were significant differences between labelers and
nonlabelers in benevolent sexism toward men, t(69) 5 2.72, p , .01, d 5 .64, and toward
women, t(69) 5 2.49, p 5 .01, d 5 .59. There were no differences between the two groups
in endorsement of hostile sexism toward men, t(69) 5 0.85, p 5 .40, d 5 .20, or hostile
sexism toward women, t(69) 5 0.58, p 5 .57, d 5 .14. Female rape myth acceptance,
t(69) 5 2.14, p 5 .02, d 5 .51, and tolerance of sexual harassment, t(69) 5 1.90, p 5 .03,
d 5 .45, differed significantly for labelers and nonlabelers.

However, because of multicollinearity issues (see Table 1), we examined sexism directed
toward men and women in separate logistic regression models. Similarly, because rape
myth acceptance and tolerance for sexual harassment were highly correlated with all of
the other variables, we examine them in separate regression models.
Consistent with our hypotheses, hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs about women sig-
nificantly predicted whether or not women labeled their experiences as rape, x2(2) 5 6.26,
p 5 .04. Benevolent sexism was a significant predictor (b 5 2.79, p 5 .02, odds
ratio 5 .46) such that increased endorsement of benevolent sexism toward women was
associated with being less likely to label their experience as a rape. However, endorsement
of hostile sexist beliefs toward women was not associated with labeling (b 5 .14, p 5 .66,
odds ratio 5 1.15).
Similar results were found for sexist beliefs about men. Ambivalent sexist beliefs
about men significantly predicted whether or not women labeled their experiences as
rape, x2(2) 5 7.23, p 5 .03. Benevolent sexism toward men was a significant predictor
(b 5 2.77, p 5 .02, odds ratio 5 .46) such that increased endorsement of benevolent
sexism toward men was associated with being less likely to label their experience as a
rape. However, endorsement of hostile sexist beliefs toward men was not associated with
labeling (b 5 .11, p 5 .73, odds ratio 5 1.12).
In support of our hypothesis, acceptance of rape myths significantly predicted labeling,
x2(1) 5 4.57, p 5 .03, such that women who labeled their sexual assault as rape reported
less rape myth acceptance (b 5 21.01, p 5 .04, odds ratio 5 .36). Similarly, tolerance for
sexual harassment marginally significantly predicted whether or not a woman labeled her
experience as rape, x2(1) 5 3.62, p 5 .06. Specifically, women who labeled their sexual
assault as rape reported lower tolerance for sexual harassment (b 5 21.06, p 5 .07, odds
ratio 5 .35).
Labeling Sexual Victimization341

DISCUSSION

In this study, 71 (25.72% of total sample) women reported having an experience that met
the operational definition of rape. The percentage of women reporting an experience that
met the definition of rape is slightly higher but generally consistent with what other studies
have found, which varies typically between 15% and 18% (Koss et al., 1987; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998). It is unclear why our sample had a somewhat higher prevalence rate than
other studies. It may be due in part to the method in which the participants were asked
about their experience. Participants in this study were asked if they had specific experi-
ences, but these experiences were not explicitly labeled as sexual assault or rape. This
method might have led to more authentic responding, given the difficulty of acknowledg-
ing victimization of sexual assault. Prevalence rates can also vary across studies depending
on the operational definition of rape. We operationalized rape to be consistent with the
U.S. Department of Justice’s Uniform Crime Report; however, other studies may have
used different operational definitions resulting in somewhat different estimates of rape
prevalence. Consistent with other research (Fisher et al., 2000; McMullin & White, 2006;
Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2011), this study also found that women do not always label
their sexual assault experiences as rape. In this study, more than half of the women who
reported an experience that met the definition of rape did not label the experience as rape.
This study found that attitudes that are associated with minimizing rape victimization
are also related to victims of rape labeling their own sexual assaults. Specifically, benevo-
lent sexist beliefs significantly predicted labeling of sexual assault experiences. Women
who did not label their sexual assault as rape held significantly stronger benevolent sexist
beliefs toward both men and women than women who did label their experience as rape.
However, hostile sexist beliefs were not predictive of labeling. Benevolent sexism encom-
passes beliefs that women should be pure, protected, and cherished. Although these beliefs
may appear to be kind on the surface, they reinforce traditional gender roles where men
are dominant and women are subservient. Researchers have found that individuals who
hold benevolent sexist beliefs about women tend to minimize other’s sexual victimization
and place greater blame on victims of rape because the female victims acted outside of
their traditional gender roles (Abrams et al., 2003; Viki et al., 2004). Although not as well
studied, evidence also suggests that benevolent sexist beliefs about men are also associated
with placing less blame on the male perpetrator and more on the female victim (Chapleau
et al., 2007). This also seems to occur for victims. Women who endorse benevolent sexism
about men are less likely to label their own experiences as rape. This may be because, in
conjunction with benevolent sexist beliefs toward men, women may believe that the man
was “just acting like a man” or that he “got carried away.” In contrast to the results of
this study, McMullin and White (2006) did not find gender traditional attitudes, attitudes
toward chivalry, acceptance of male violence, or disapproval of women taking the lead in
romantic relationships to differ between labelers and nonlabelers. Although it is surprising
that these results differ, one possible explanation may be the use of different scales to
assess gender traditional beliefs because McMullin and White used four subscales from
the Gender Attitudes Inventory (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1987) where we assessed sexism
via the ambivalent sexism inventories (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999).
Rape myth acceptance has long been implicated as an attitude that denies the occur-
rence of rape of others. This study similarly finds that the endorsement of rape myths also
predicts denial of one’s own experiences as a rape. It is possible that rape myth accep-
tance leads women to view the sexual assault as a bad experience or a mistake, where the
342 LeMaire et al.

perpetrator just “went too far,” instead of rape. Indeed, many of these myths about the
perpetrator are maternalistic in their content and further suggest that benevolent sexism
about men plays a role in women denying their experiences as rape and protecting the
perpetrator. It may also be possible that greater acceptance of rape myths leads women
who have been raped to place more blame on themselves and question their role in leading
up to the assault. Although assault is never the fault of the victim, individuals who have
been raped and hold strong rape myths beliefs may struggle with attributing fault to the
perpetrator as rape myths function to enforce victim blaming.
This study also found that tolerance of sexual harassment marginally significantly
predicted labeling, in that women who do not label their experience as rape tend to have
higher tolerance for sexual harassment than women who label the assault. Women with
more tolerance for sexual harassment endorse beliefs about the inevitability of sexual
harassment, that harassment is a less serious offense, and that many women blow inno-
cent flirtations out of proportion by asserting that it is sexual harassment. Women with a
higher tolerance for sexual harassment could view rape similarly, in that they may not see
the assault as being as detrimental to the victim or may view the perpetrator as acting in
a manner that is “only natural.” It appears that women who have a higher tolerance for
sexual harassment also extend at least some of the tolerance to their own experiences of
sexual assault.
It is interesting that hostile sexism toward men was not associated with how victims
label their sexual assault experiences. This finding is inconsistent with our hypothesis.
In general, more benevolent sexist beliefs were found in our sample. It is possible that
benevolent attitudes, such as “He just got overly excited” or “He was just acting like a
man” are really driving the relationship between labeling assault and attitudes, not hostile
views. Although we cannot be certain who the perpetrator was in the reports given by our
sample, it is plausible that many of the rape experiences reported by our sample were date
or acquaintance rapes if they occurred during college. If that is the case, we would expect,
based on previous research (e.g., Abrams et al., 2003), that benevolent sexist views would
be more related to labeling than hostile sexism.
This study suggests important implications for the field, rape victims, and all people
who may face sexual assault. It is imperative to understand factors associated with label-
ing sexual assault because it has been linked with both positive and negative outcomes for
victims (Botta & Pingree, 1997; Layman et al., 1996; Littleton et al., 2009; McMullin &
White; 2006). In addition, for victims of sexual assault to pursue legal action, they must
first label the experience as an assault. Without labeling and reporting sexual assault, there
is little chance for legal justice to be pursued or for the perpetrator to face legal conse-
quences. We argue that rape awareness programs and interventions should focus not only
on identifying situational factors that are associated with people denying rape but also
on attitudinal factors that are associated with the victims’ awareness and understanding
of their sexual experiences. It is also crucial for therapists working with sexual assault
victims to be sensitive to how victims’ attitudes and beliefs about male and female rela-
tionships, sexism, and rape myths might be associated with clients’ understanding of their
sexual experiences
Despite the intriguing findings and implications for this study, some caution is war-
ranted in interpreting the results. Although 276 women were originally sampled, 71 of
these women were used in the analyses examining attitudes and experiences of rape. Our
sample also demonstrated a lack of racial diversity. Replication of these findings with a
larger, more diverse sample, is warranted. Another limitation is that no information was
Labeling Sexual Victimization343

gathered on the frequency of the sexual experiences, the nature of the women’s relation-
ships with the assailant(s), the perpetrator’s gender, or how long ago the events occurred.
All of these factors may affect victim’s labeling and processing of the events. Future
research could expand on this study by collecting information about both attitudinal and
situational factors that may be related to labeling the assault. Finally, given the correla-
tional nature of the study one should be careful about drawing causal inferences about
attitudes and labeling sexual assault.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that not all sexual assaults meet the operational defini-
tion of rape used in this study. The authors recognize that the term rape is emotionally
charged and stigmatized and is therefore an understandably sensitive topic to address and
examine. However, the term rape is used often throughout the literature as well as col-
loquially when discussing the topic. For these reasons, we felt it was warranted to use this
terminology. Moreover, it is important that the topic of whether or not victims of sexual
assault label their experience not become about blaming the victim. Especially because
victims of assault have traditionally been blamed and questioned, it is important not to
add to that culture by insisting that they label their assault experiences. Because research
suggests both positive and negative associations with labeling sexual victimization (Botta
& Pingree, 1997; Layman et al., 1996; Littleton et al., 2009; McMullin & White; 2006),
the authors are not necessarily advocating for labeling. Instead, the goal of this study is
to help individuals to have a better understanding of the way attitudes may be related to
perceptions of experiences.
Research has shown that less than half of women who experience rape actually label
the experience. Because labeling the assault may hold important emotional, psychologi-
cal, and social consequences for the victim, it is crucial to understand why some women
label their experiences whereas others do not. Understanding and educating others about
situational and attitudinal variables related to labeling rape will lead us to help women to
better understand their experiences and hopefully guide victims to better healing.

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance
rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111
Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1987, June). Development of a structure inventory to assess
gender-related attitudes. Paper presented at Nags Head Conference on Sex and Gender, Nags
Head, NC.
Bondurant, B. (2001). University women’s acknowledgment of rape: Individual, situational, and social
factors. Violence Against Women, 7, 294–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801201007003004
Botta, R. A., & Pingree, S. (1997). Interpersonal communication and rape: Women acknowledge
their assaults. Journal of Health Communication, 2, 197–212.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 217–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217
Chapleau, K. M., & Oswald, D. L. (2010). Power, sex, and rape myth acceptance: Testing
two models of rape proclivity. Journal of Sex Research, 47(1), 66–78. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/00224490902954323
Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women
and men supports rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57(1), 131–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-007-9196-2
344 LeMaire et al.

Cowan, G. (2000). Women’s hostility toward women and rape and sexual harassment myths.
Violence Against Women, 6(3), 238–246.
Durán, M., Moya, M., Megías, J. L., & Viki, G. T. (2010). Social perception of rape victims in dating
and married relationships: The role of perpetrator’s benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 505–519.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9676-7
Eyssel, F., & Bohner, G. (2011). Schemas effects of rape myth acceptance on judgment and blame in
rape cases: The role of perceived entitlement to judge. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8),
1579–1605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260510370593
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women (NCJ
182369). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/
pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiation hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile
and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x
Greenfeld, L. A. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault.
Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Kahn, A. S., Jackson, J., Kully, C., Badger, K., & Halvorsen, J. (2003). Calling it rape: Differences in
experiences of women who do or do not label their sexual assault as rape. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 27, 233–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00103
Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1985.tb00872.x
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence
of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of high education students.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-006X.55.2.162
Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigat-
ing sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50,
455–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455
Layman, M. J., Gidycz, C. A., & Lynn, S. J. (1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape
victims: Situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105,
124–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.1.124
Littleton, H. L., Axsom, D., & Grills-Taquechel, A. (2009). Sexual assault victims’ acknowledgment
status and revictimization risk. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(1), 34–42. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01472.x
Littleton, H. L., Breitkopf, C. R., & Berenson, A. (2008). Beyond the campus: Unacknowledged
rape among low-income women. Violence Against Women, 14(3), 269–286. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/1077801207313733
Littleton, H. L., Rhatigan, D. L., & Axsom, D. (2007). Unacknowledged rape: How much do we
know about the hidden rape victim? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 14(4),
57–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J146v14n04_04
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
18, 133–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x
Marx, B. P., & Soler-Baillo, J. M. (2005). The relationships among risk recognition, autonomic and
self-reported arousal, and posttraumatic stress symptomatology in acknowledged and unac-
knowledged victims of sexual assault. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 618–624. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000171809.12117.79
Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationships among percep-
tions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 20(3),
135–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287987
Labeling Sexual Victimization345

McMullin, D., & White, J. W. (2006). Long-term effects of labeling a rape experience. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 30, 96–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00266.x
Orchowski, L. M., Untied, A. S., & Gidycz, C. A. (2013). Factors associated with college
women’s labeling of sexual victimization. Violence and Victims, 28(6), 940–958. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1891/0886-6708
Osman, S. L. (2007). Predicting perceptions of sexual harassment based on type of resistance
and belief in token resistance. Journal of Sex Research, 44(4), 304–346. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/00224490701586714
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238
Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2004). Was it rape? The function of women’s rape myth
acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles, 51, 129–144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000037758.95376.00
Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2011). A match-and-motivation model of how women label
their nonconsensual sexual experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(4), 558–570.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684311410210
Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. (1995). A social psychological model for predicting sex-
ual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 69–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995
.tb01309.x
Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., Caldwell, D., & DeLuca, L. (1992). Tolerance for sexual harassment
related to self-reported sexual victimization. Gender & Society, 6(1), 122–138. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/089124392006001008
Russell, B. R., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender
differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50(7), 565–573.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd
Sinozich, S., & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age
females, 1995–2013. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
Temkin, J., & Krahé, B. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Hart.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against
women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings
from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice & Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/
pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. (2012). Attorney General Eric Holder
announces revisions to the Uniform Crime Report’s definition of rape. Retrieved from http://
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Masser, B. (2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The role
of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law and Human
Behavior, 28, 295–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000029140.72880.69
Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L. E., Russell, B. L., Mannen, R. K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Perceptions of sexual
harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human
Behavior, 21, 71–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024818110678
Wiener, R. L., Reiter-Palmon, R., Winter, R. J., Richter, E., Humke, A., & Maeder, E. (2010).
Complainant behavioral tone, ambivalent sexism, and perceptions of sexual harassment.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 56–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018434
Yamawaki, N. (2007). Rape perception and the function of ambivalent sexism and gender-
role traditionality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 406–423. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0886260506297210
346 LeMaire et al.

Yamawaki, N., Darby, R., & Queiroz, A. (2007). The moderating role of ambivalent sexism: The
influence of power status on perception of rape victim and rapist. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 147(1), 41–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.1.41-56

Acknowledgments. The authors thank Kristine Chapleau, Angela Pirlott, Kara Lindstadt, and Sara
Thimsen for their assistance with data collection and John Grych and Rachel Jensen for their helpful
comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Debra L. Oswald, PhD, Cramer Hall,
604 N. 16th Street, Milwaukee WI 53233. E-mail: debra.oswald@marquette.edu