Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:32:03.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spanish Validation of the Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression Scale (AMMSA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Jesús L. Megías ,
Mónica Romero-Sánchez ,
Mercedes Durán ,
Miguel Moya  and
Gerd Bohner
Jesús L. Megías*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Mónica Romero-Sánchez
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Mercedes Durán
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Miguel Moya
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Gerd Bohner
Affiliation:
Universität Bielefeld (Germany)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jesús L. Megías. Facultad de Psicología. Campus Cartuja 18071, Granada (Spain). Fax: +34-958246239. E-mail: jlmegias@ugr.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two studies were conducted with college students to validate the Spanish-language version of the “Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression” scale (AMMSA) (Gerger, Kley, Bohner & Siebler, 2007). This scale assesses modern myths about sexual aggression in a subtle way. In Study 1, 305 students completed the Spanish AMMSA and other scales with related content. In Study 2, 263 participants completed the Spanish AMMSA and answered questions about a hypothetical sexual assault perpetrated by a young man against a female acquaintance. The Spanish AMMSA showed high internal consistency and adequate evidence of validity in both studies. Compared to traditional scales of rape myth acceptance, mean scores on the AMMSA were higher and their distributions more closely approximated normality. These findings suggest that the Spanish version of the AMMSA scale is a useful instrument to study the social perception of sexual aggression.

Se realizaron dos estudios con estudiantes universitarios para validar la versión en español de la escala “Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression” (AMMSA) (Gerger, Kley, Bohner, & Siebler, 2007). Esta escala mide de manera sutil los mitos actuales sobre las agresiones sexuales. En el Estudio 1, 305 estudiantes completaron el AMMSA en español y otras escalas de contenido relacionado. En el Estudio 2, 263 participantes completaron el AMMSA en español y respondieron a preguntas acerca de un caso hipótetico de agresión sexual a una mujer joven, perpetrado por un hombre al que conocía. La escala AMMSA en español mostró alta consistencia interna y evidencia adecuada de validez en ambos estudios. Comparada con las escalas tradicionales de aceptación de mitos sobre la violación, las puntuaciones medias en el AMMSA fueron mayores y sus distribuciones se aproximaron más a la normalidad. Estos hallazgos sugieren que la versión en español de la escala AMMSA es un instrumento útil para estudiar la percepción social de las agresiones sexuales.

Keywords

sexual aggressionscalemythsvalidationrapeviolence against womenagresión sexualescalamitosvalidaciónviolaciónviolencia contra las mujeres
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , November 2011 , pp. 912 - 925
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohner, G. (1998). Vergewaltigungsmythen: Sozialpsychologische Untersuchungen über täterentlastende und opferfeindliche Überzeugungen im Bereich sexueller Gewalt [Rape myths: Social-psychological studies about beliefs that exonerate perpetrators and blame victims of sexual violence]. Landau, Germany: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.Google Scholar
Bohner, G., Eyssel, F., Pina, A., Siebler, F., & Viki, G. T. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In Horvath, M.A.H. & Brown, J.M. (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17–45). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
Bohner, G., Jarvis, C. I., Eyssel, F., & Siebler, F. (2005). The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men's rape proclivity: Comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 819–828. doi:10.1002/ejsp.284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohner, G., & Lampridis, E. (2004). Expecting to meet a rape victim affects women's self-esteem: The moderating role of rape myth acceptance. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 77–88. doi:10.1177/1368430204039974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohner, G., Reinhard, M-A., Rutz, S., Sturm, S., Kerschbaum, B., & Effler, D. (1998). Rape myths as neutralizing cognitions: Evidence for a causal impact of anti-victim attitudes on men's self-reported likelihood of raping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 257–268. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199803/04)28:2<257::AID-EJSP871>3.0.CO;2-13.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohner, G., Siebler, F., & Schmelcher, J. (2006). Social norms and the likelihood of raping: Perceived rape myth acceptance of others affects men's rape proclivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 286–297. doi:10.1177/0146167205280912CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohner, G., Weisbrod, C., Raymond, P., Barzvi, A., & Schwarz, N. (1993). Salience of rape affects self-esteem: The moderating role of gender and rape myth acceptance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 561–579. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New york, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports of rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.38.2.217CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, C. A., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (2003). Alcohol and acquaintance rape in Australia: testing the presupposition model of attributions about responsibility and blame. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 983–1008. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01935.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., Wasco, S. M., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Social reactions to rape victims: healing and hurtful effects of psychological and physical health outcomes. Violence and Victims, 16, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costin, F. (1985). Beliefs about rape and women's social roles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 319–325. doi:10.1007/BF01550847CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Expósito, F., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: medición y correlatos [Ambivalent sexism: Measurement and correlates] Revista de Psicología Social, 13, 159–170. doi:10.1174/021347498760350641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyssel, F., & Bohner, G. (2008). Modern rape myths: The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (AMMSA) scale. In Morrison, M. A. & Morrison, T. G. (Eds.), The Psychology of modern prejudice (pp. 261–276). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Eyssel, F., & Bohner, G. (2011). Schema effects of rape myth acceptance on judgments of guilt and blame in rape cases: The role of perceived entitlement to judge. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1579–1605. doi:10.1177/0886260510370593CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyssel, F., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2006). Perceived rape myth acceptance of others predicts rape proclivity: Social norm or judgmental anchoring? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 93–99. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.65.2.93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyssel, F., Bohner, G., Süssenbach, P., & Schreiber, P. (2009). Neuentwicklung und Validierung eines szenariobasierten Verfahrens zur Erfassung der Neigung zu sexueller Aggression [New development and validation of a scenario-based measure of sexual aggression tendencies]. Diagnostica, 55, 117–127. doi:10.1026/0012-1924.55.2.117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feild, H. S. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 166–179. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.36.2.156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2004). Social perception of rape: How rape myth acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143–161. doi:10.1177/0886260503260245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2007). The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (AMMSA) scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 422–440. doi:10.1002/ab.20195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J, Abrams, D., Masser, B., … López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Instituto de la Mujer (2009). Violencia sexual y trafico de seres humanos [sexual violence and trafficking in human beings]. Madrid, Spain: Author. Retrieved from http://www.migualdad.es/mujer/mujeres/cifras/violencia/violencia_sexual.htmGoogle Scholar
Kelly, L., Lovett, J., & Regan, L. (2005). A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases. Child and Women Abuse Studies Unit (Study 293). London, UK: Home Office Research.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koss, M. P. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krahé, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility attributions to victims of rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krahé, B. (1991). Social psychological issues in the study of rape. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 279–309. doi:10.1080/14792779143000097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubany, E. S., Abueg, F. R., Owens, J. A., Brennan, J. M., Kaplan, A. S., & Watson, S. B. (1995). Initial examination of a multidimensional model of trauma-related guilt: Applications to combat veterans and battered women. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 353–376. doi:10.1007/BF02229056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 38, 88–91. doi:10.3758/BF03192753CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lottes, I. L. (1991). Beliefs systems: Sexuality and rape. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 4, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 138–157. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01075.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. P. (1985). The effects of aggressive pornography on beliefs in rape myths: Individual differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 299–320. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90021-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masser, B., Viki, G. T., & Power, C. (2006). Hostile sexism and rape proclivity amongst men. Sex Roles, 54, 565–574. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9022-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina-Ariza, J., & Barberet, R. (2003). Intimate partner violence in Spain. Findings from a national survey. Violence Against Women, 9, 302–322. doi:10.1177/1077801202250073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, P. (1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romero-Sánchez, M., Durán, M., Carretero-Dios, H., Megías, J. L., & Moya, M. (2010). Exposure to sexist humor and rape proclivity: the moderator effect of aversiveness ratings. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2339–2050. doi:10.1177/0886260509354884CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sierra, J. C., Rojas, A., Ortega, V., & Martín, J. A. (2007). Evaluación de actitudes sexuales machistas en universitarios: primeros datos psicométricos de las versiones españolas de la Double Standard Scale (DSS) y de la Rape Supportive Attitude Scale (RSAS) [Evaluating sexist attitudes with university students: First psychometric data of Spanish versions of the Double Standard Scale (DSS) and the Rape Supportive Attitude Scale (RSAS)]. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7, 41–60.Google Scholar
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.68.2.199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Temkin, J., & Krahé, B. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford, UK: Hart.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Personnel research section report, 984. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (2005). WHO Multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press.Google Scholar