Abstract

Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994) have defined RM in relation with their functions as “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’’ (p. 134). Meanwhile, Gerger, Kley, Bohner, and Siebler (2007) have defined RMs as “descriptive or prescriptive beliefs about rape (i.e., about its causes, context, consequences, perpetrators, victims, and their interaction), that serve to deny, downplay or justify sexual violence that men commit against women” (in Bohner, 1998, p 14). New developments involve not only rape but also sexual aggression within a wider category, including sexual assault and harassment (Gerger et al., 2007). RMs are cognitive schemas which influences how individuals and communities process and interpret social information (Chapleau & Oswald, 2010; 2013; Gerger, et al., 2007), that supports sexist beliefs, male dominance, social status quo and sexual violence (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Evidence shows a strong support for the rape myths acceptance (RMA onwards) in the whole society, and particularly among men (Bohner, Eyssel, Pina, Siebler, & Viki, 2013). As to test the validity of the underlying theoretical categories to the conceptualization of rape myths, as described by Gerger et al. (2007) in 5 categories, a field study was designed. Results gives only support to category number 1 (“Denial of the scope of the problem”). Concerning category 2 (“Antagonism toward victims demands”) and 3 (“Lack of support for policies...”) results joined both in a new category “Social response to protect and support the victim” . Similarly, categories 4 (“Beliefs that exonerate male perpetrators...” ) and 5 (“Beliefs that male coercion forms a natural part of sexual relationships”) were also joined into a category “victim responsibility attribution and exonerating the perpetrator”. Additionally, results give explicit support to a new category for explaining rape myths, comprising gender stereotypes, which address the naturalization of sexual incontrollable and “biological” impulses. Summing up, the theoretical proposal underlying rape myths in this sample is: •Factor 1 “Denial of the scope of the problem” •Factor 2 “Social response to protect and support the victim” •Factor 3 “Victim responsibility attribution and exonerating perpetrator” •Factor 4 “Sexual gender stereotypes” In conclusion, the categories underlying to rape myth, are subjected to contextual effects.