Abstract
Rape is a pervasive social problem that causes serious physical and psychological repercussions. Rape victims’ recovery is often complicated by the public's failure to believe the victim and restore justice. This study applied system justification theory to examine whether the justification of gender inequality is related to moral outrage (an emotional precursor to corrective action) and rape myth acceptance; we also examined whether rape myth acceptance is associated with moral outrage at injustice. Results showed that gender-specific system justification correlated with less moral outrage at human suffering as well as greater rape myth acceptance. The relationships between these variables were similar for men and for women, a finding that suggests that rape myths are system justifying for women. When we controlled for gender-specific system justification, rape myth acceptance correlated with less moral outrage. Results are discussed in the context of how legitimizing ideologies reduce moral outrage at injustice and perpetuate a system of sexual violence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was part of a larger study that was conducted as a dissertation for the clinical psychology graduate program at Marquette University. We report no proprietary or commercial interest in any product mentioned or concept discussed in this article.
We thank Kristine Nichols, Brian Forman, Britney Parish, Kelly Brutto, Molly Arenburg, Lillian Figg-Franzoi, Kelly McClendon, and Alicia Ali for their assistance with data collection.
Notes
1. To determine significant skewness we used a z test, in which the skewness is divided by the standard error of skewness. A distribution was considered significantly skewed if the skewness was greater than 2–3 times the standard error of the skewness.