Perceptions Of Rape And Sexual Assault Sociology Essay

Perceptions Of Rape And Sexual Assault Sociology Essay by the course of this essay Irina Andersons query into outrage perception every last(predicate)ow be critically analysed. This essay will offset printingly summarise the look and then go through each possibleness, the methodology employed and the ideas de vagabonde forward within the interchange will be assessed receivable to their several(prenominal) strengths and weaknesses. In addition to this there will be a ingredient commenting on the place of this interrogation within indulge look into at double. most of the problems associated with results of this inquiry and the conclusions drawn from it will be looked at in like manner. finally educeions on ways to overcome these problems will withal be investigated. As this digest takes place within the context of Social Psychology Andersons query will thus be viewed through the lens of theories relating to attitudes. This was first put forward by Allport who d efined attitudes as A mental and nervous state of readiness, organised through experience, exerting a directive or high-energy influence upon the individuals response to all objects and situations with which it is related (Allport,1935 p.810). due to the gendered nature of transgress perception this research is much needed in building a frame work for how irreverence is give awayn by the ordinary. The pinch is very clear and to the point and succinctly condenses the research. The three hypothesises under investigating argon what is the current perception of fe priapic infraction, whether this perception is applicable to five-year-old-begetting(prenominal) cocker or ar there elements of cultural lag in mannish assault. Despite previous research it was strand that these hypothesises were proved ill-timed during the exercise overDuring the introduction these instituteation of the hypothesises under investigation are laid. It was raise that past research had carry n that egg-producing(prenominal) rape was most commonly seen terra incognita rape. The Stranger rape stereotype (SRS) is a script which constructs rape as occurring between two people who do non tell a patch each other, the act usually happens at night with the struggling victim subdued, etc. However studies make believe shown that contrary to this scenario the vast absolute majority of fe masculine rapes 78-84% (Gavey 2005, Koss 1988) are committed by males known to the victim this disparity between official statistics and humans perceptions is part of the basis of this matter. It is argues that changes in rape perception, brought on by demystifying of rape myths by the media , the breakdown of gender roles and business relationships which suggest that a broader definition of rape is being used have combine to contri notwithstandinge to the complete rejection of the traditional SRS paradigm into that of acquaintance rape. Though Gavey p 17-49 has examined the move away from traditional stranger rape paradigm, especially from the 1970s onward, a complete reversal of public thinking does not await to be completely supported. However as participants within this study were asked to fetch their own lists of information it was expected that an answer to this question would be found through the course of Andersons research.One of the most important points that rat be drawn from the introduction is what seem to be a overleap of research following on from Kahns work regarding a concrete musical interval of and definition of public attitudes to the differences between acquaintance rape and seduction (Kahn 2004). The convergence between these terms as outlined by Kahn may hint to general bewilderment and it may be argued that without a clear specialty between these terms present research into the conceptualisation of egg-producing(prenominal) rape may be hampered. In order to address these questions, this current research is vital is analysing wha t a female rape will be conceptualised as.The results pertaining to the first hypothesis are analysed within the discussion section, which is the head structured and lucid it begins by addressing the first findings regarding the first hypothesis was directly contradicted by the results of the experiment. It is well argued that a possible reason for this opposition was due in part to the problems load attribution where by participants described scenarios in which the victim would be less likely to invite societal consign. From this analysis the have it off of societal blame appears to be highly salient in rape perception. Moreover in descriptions of a typical rape Anderson asserts that respondents appear to evince scenarios in which no level of blame may be wedded to the victim and suggests that shape up research should concentrate on whether participants are describing what they see as the reality of typical rapes or if other positionors, namely blame attribution play a par t in the results. Research clear up this ambiguity would do much to further the study of public rape perception.The second intention of Andersons research is to ascertain whether or not male rape is seen along the same parameters as while/acquaintance rape in females. It is stated that due to a lack of data concerning male rape cause by low report rates and the propagation of rape myths and misconceptions that the research into the public perception of male rape has in not been given the attention which it deserves . From the information equanimous in previous in previous studies (Donnelly and Kenyon 1996) it has been hypothesised that if the current opinion of female rape is characterised within the parameters of acquaintance/date rape and that male rape is much(prenominal) commonly seen within the older SRS model. The second part of the discussion directly deals with the results relating to this hypothesis. From the analysis undertaken female rape may still be generally seen along the lines of a stranger- acquaintance rape continuum. However the results show that male rape is viewed along completely dissimilar lines to female rape. From these findings Anderson argues that male rape perception may be characterised by (a) erroneous and unreal perception. These other itemors entangle descriptions of the act of rape, the relative strength of the culprit and victim, sexual orientation and the motivation of the rape being sexual urges rather than mightiness related. The fact that almost of the factors attributed to male rape include homosexuality and that discriminatory beliefThe hypothesis of the cultural lag of male rape was nonetheless not supported during the course of the research. Finding show that male rape does not lag behind female rape, rather other factors not found the SRS/AR models were drawn upon when conceptualising male rape. These other factors need up a fourth hypothesis in the method section were not previously mentioned within the introduction or hypothesis summary. The failure to include this fourth hypothesis previously, which directly addresses the other factors associated with male rape appears to be an oversight. However though it is very useful in helping to make sense of the data as a whole, the late formulation, or at least labelling of this as a hypothesis, subverts the initial aims of the experiment and calls into question the hardness of the data coded within this section. The inclusion of this section also further widens the circumstance of this limited study. Considering the limited data which may be collected from much(prenominal) a small (119 people) and highly privileged sample of the population. In dizzy of the three main interconnected hypothesises the extension to a fourth hypothesis principally concerned with factors initially outside the experiments design data tracks to a accredited weakening of this study. Though this data is well coded and analysed, there rotter be no doubt tha t this section places strain upon the method section of this study as a whole.The third intention of this current research is to analyse the differences of response between male and female respondents. All previous studies which lead male and female attitudes to rape have shown a strong dissimilitude between attitudes along the gender divide. This it is argued is unsurprising due firstly the fact that men generally have less knowledge about or contact with rape, and secondly due to the fact that historically been the victims of violence while men have been the perpetrators. In agreement with this it is demonstrated that men to a greater extent often agree than disagree with rape myths, empathise less and last less tolerant attitudes towards victims (Jiminez Abreu,2003) In addition to this Andersons previous research has found that men possess to a greater extent homophobic attitudes that women in regards to male rape. This is endorse up solidly by previous research, which in su mmery states that as men experience rape less and that as the issue of rape is less prominent within the male consciousness. Men will extrapolate their knowledge of female rape, to a male scenario along the SRS paradigm.In selective service out the reasons for the predominance of factors such as homosexuality and homophobia associated with male but not female rape Anderson puts forward several reasons as to wherefore this may be the case, the first is that participants may simply be expressing their plague at this act (Davies, 2002). Secondly use homophobic language as a means of distancing the participants from the victim so at to keep their masculinity intact and to also remove the possibility that they (the male participants ) could themselves be raped. This is a very interesting point which is well argued and is a convincing analysis of the data presented. The recommendation given for further research investigating the corporation between sexuality and homophobia in relati on to conceptualizations of male rape and the blame attributed to victims is well founded and may go some way in explaining why these factors have gained such prominence in this research.Through course of critically analysing the current research many issues of importance have become apparent. for the first time any research which furthers the field of rape perception is of huge importance. It is also of paramount importance to educating the public at large about the dominant trends of rape within society. With regard the article under review some very important questions have been raised by this study. The fact that all but one of hypothesis has been proved false may be seen in part as a cause for alarm. This is particularly manifest in the case that female rape perception has seemed to have woolly-headed its cultural lead over supposed paradigms of male rape. This calls for a reappraisal of assumptions that female rape is typically seen within the AR framework. Secondly the fa ct that male rape is not seen either as SRS or AR and is viewed in often homophobic terms may be interpret differently than to Andersons theory that homophobia is a form of distancing on the part of male participants, it may be interpreted as evidence that homophobia is much more(prenominal) prominent in society than previously assumed. The difference between male and female respondents has not been clearly addressed either, it seems from previous research that more than ever there is now a pressing need to prepare males within society about the various aspects of rape. From analysing this research it seems that very small-scale was confirmed or disproved about rape attitudes and perceptions, this research has in turn raised more questions than it answers. In conducting future research it would be prudent to approach one hypothesis at a time, using a much larger sample of the population. In addition to this a more careful use of wording of research questions may also receipts future studies, for example the question what are the predominant circumstances of a male/female rape may address the hypothesis more clearly than the use of the phrase typical. This leads us to ask further questions about the problematic nature of this type of research.Andersons current research acknowledges some of the shortcomings of the present study including the fact that the research participants used for the study were from a student population, despite this acknowledgement it would be naive to derive these findings due to the particularities associated with a student sample to the population at large. Some of the main problems associated with using a student population for this type of are that as supported by the research that rape may be an issue generally held in the student consciousness. Secondly the predominantly young age participants, mean age 21.2, could perhaps play a large part in how rape is conceptualised. This is especially important considering that the age assemblage of these students suggest that they have been brought up within the AR framework. A larger study would show how the population at large conceptualise rape. It bottom be argued that perhaps even previously un-theorised concepts of rape may be found as a result of such a study. It would also be of great interest to investigate what the current perceptions of marital/ accomplice rape is.Another important factor which may have touch on findings is that up to 34% of the participant were from ethnical minorities. Anderson argues that this factor may have altered the outcome of the study. It may however be argued that the inclusion of ethnic minorities may in fact give the present study a higher degree of validity and allow this research to be generalised. regardless of the supposed less tolerant perceptions of rape within minority communities (Nagel, 2005), the hypothesised certain attitudes of the student population appear to be unfounded. This finding adds to the overal l confusion of the results presented. At present it is impossible to say whether the inclusion of these minorities have lead to a substantial change in the findings of the survey. Further studies along the lines of Nagels research are to be suggested. This work should concentrate on the questions of race, ethnicity and kinfolk should be dealt with as a means of aiding the understanding of rape perceptions in the public at large.In conclusion the current body of research into rape perception is clearly lacking. The findings of some previous research which are not supported by this study are a knockout problem which must in due course be addressed. furthermore Andersons unsupported hypothesises clearly show the need for further and more tell research into the area of public rape perceptions. Some interesting points were brought up which also require further research, most importantly the fact that female rape perception is still categorised along the lines of SRS rather than AR. I n addition to this the evidence produced regarding the other factors associated with male rape also guarantee investigation. Andersons suggestion that further studies concentrating on blame attribution is a logical and well reasoned course of action and is highly advisable. In summery past and present research has shown gaps in the understanding of how the public view rape scripts. This research has done much to highlight this problem. It can only be hoped that further research and public education can lead to an increased awareness and understanding on the topic of rape.