(PS8-86) Social dominance Orientation Mediates the Association Between Benevolent Sexism and Rape Myth Acceptance

Background: Rape myths are defined as false and stereotyped beliefs about rape (Burt, 1980). Rape myth acceptance (RMA) involves the endorsement of these beliefs by removing guilt from the perpetrator, blaming the victim, and minimizing the violence of rape (Bohner et al., 2006). Benevolent sexism (BS) entails sexist ideals about women in restricted and subjugated roles that are positive in tone (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Social dominance orientation (SDO) involves preferences for inequality across groups that justify hierarchies and group dominance (Jost et al., 2003). BS and SDO are related to RMA in terms of behavior expectations of women (Abrams et al., 2003) and endorsement of social inequality (Manoussaki & Hayne, 2019); however, scarce research has assessed mediational pathways between these associations. Additionally, individuals who endorse gender differences in line with SDO are also more likely to endorse RMA (Chapleau & Oswald, 2014), suggesting the RMA and BS relationship may align with system-justifying ideology. Due to the interconnectedness of BS and SDO and the potential of RMA and BS to align with system justification, this study aimed to determine if SDO mediates the relationship between BS and RMA. 

Method:  We recruited 263 undergraduate students from a large university participant pool (55% cisgender woman, 51% Hispanic, 89% 18-20 years old, and 72% heterosexual) who completed a Qualtrics survey. Measures included the Rape Myths Scale (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995), the Benevolent Sexism subscale of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996), and the Social Dominance Orientation scale (Mata et al., 2010). We ran mediation analyses with the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2012), with BS as the predictor (X), SDO as the mediator (M), and RMA as the outcome (Y). 

Results:  The total effect between BS and RMA was significant (c path; β = 0.17, CI[0.05, 0.29]). When including SDO as a mediator of this relationship, there was a significant positive relationship between BS and SDO (a path; β = 0.30, CI[0.19, 0.42]),  a significant positive relationship between SDO and RMA (b path; β = 0.32, CI[020, 0.44]), and there was a significant indirect effect (ab path; β = 0.10, CI[0.04, 0.16]). There was no significant relationship between BS and RMA when including SDO as a mediator (c’ path; β = 0.07, CI[-0.05, 0.20]). Implications: Our results provide evidence that SDO mediates the relationship between BS and RMA. Results suggest that while BS is positive in tone, there is still an underlying drive for male power over women rather than protectiveness (Abrams et al., 2003) or expectations of “refined behavior” (Chapleau et al., 2007). This aspect of BS potentially works through SDO in order to justify male dominance over women and maintain sexist perceptions of women, which are subsequently used to justify RMA. Findings may inform prevention strategies and interventions by challenging belief systems that maintain social hierarchies in order to reduce RMA. Potential intervention targets may include challenging benevolent sexism and developing belief systems that promote social equality. Further research should also obtain longitudinal data in order to better ascertain causality and the temporal order of these processes.