To honor and obey: Perceptions and disclosure of sexual assault among honor ideology women

The overwhelming majority of rapes goes unreported. To better understand the sociocultural mechanisms behind why underreporting may occur, three studies (total n = 1,481) examine how women's endorsement of honor values influence the perceptions of rape. Using vignettes that varied the closeness of the perpetrator of a sexual assault (i.e., stranger, acquaintance, or husband), we found that women who endorse honor values of womanhood were less likely to label a forced sexual act as “rape” and to suggest that the victim discloses the rape to others, including to the police. This was especially true the closer the victim was to the perpetrator (e.g., husband vs. stranger). Our findings highlight the effects of honor values on perceived sexual assault and the consequences of disclosure, and may aid in understanding barriers to rape reporting and areas for intervention.

     

To Tell or Not to Tell: Disclosure and the Narrative Self

ABSTRACT Drawing from a narrative identity framework, we present the results of three studies examining the nature of what people do and do not disclose about their life experiences. Across three studies, our findings indicate that (1) the major difference in what people do and do not disclose concerns the emotionality of the events and whether or not the events are transgressions; (2) for everyday memorable events, increased negative emotion is associated with greater likelihood of disclosure; but (3) for more important and/or longer retained events, increased negative and decreased positive emotion were associated with lower likelihoods of disclosure. We also found that socioemotional consequences are an important reason for nondisclosure of important past experiences and are predictably related to the extent to which events induce positive and negative emotions. Findings are considered in terms of their implications for narrative identity.     

Recommendations to disclose sexual assault are motivated by retribution among women who endorse honor values

Rape arrests are higher in US states wherein residents more typically endorse honor values. Because honor values reflect an association between reputation and self-worth, which is based on one's ability to uphold traditional gender norms, one should expect that women who endorse honor values are motivated to conceal a sexual assault. However, honor values also engender the expectation that women defend their reputations if threatened. Thus, women from honor cultures should be more likely to seek retribution by disclosing a sexual assault to others. The current research investigates the impact of honor values on the recommendation to disclose a sexual assault when women believe the victim is motivated to protect her reputation. We evaluated the role of common post-rape emotions (shame, anger, and fear) on motivations to either conceal a “victim” status or to punish the transgression. In two studies, US women (total n = 842) responded to vignettes of sexual assault that varied the relationship of the perpetrator (acquaintance or husband). Using path modeling to test the two competing hypotheses, we found that women who endorsed honor values more strongly perceived that the victim of a sexual assault experienced more anger and fear, was more likely to seek retribution, and, in turn, were more likely to recommend that she disclose to confidants (similar across the acquaintance and husband scenarios). These findings may help increase researchers' and practitioners' cultural understanding of the help-seeking behavior of survivors of sexual assault across different communities.     

The comprehension of anomalous sentences: evidence from structural priming

We report three experiments investigating how people process anomalous sentences, in particular those in which the anomaly is associated with the verb. We contrast two accounts for the processing of such anomalous sentences: a syntactic account, in which the representations constructed for anomalous sentences are similar in nature to the ones constructed for well-formed sentences; and a semantic account, in which the representations constructed for anomalous sentences are erroneous, or altogether missing, and interpretation is achieved on the basis of semantic representations instead. To distinguish between these accounts, we used structural priming. First, we ruled out the possibility that anomaly per se influences the magnitude of the priming effect: Prime sentences with morphologically incorrect verbs produced similarly enhanced priming (lexical boost) to sentences with the same correct verbs (Exp. 1). Second, we found that prime sentences with a novel verb (Exp. 2) or a semantically and syntactically incongruent verb (Exp. 3) produced a priming effect, which was the same as that produced by well-formed sentences. In accord with the syntactic account, we conclude that the syntactic representations of anomalous sentences are similar to those constructed for well-formed sentences. Our results furthermore suggest that lexically-independent syntactic information is robust enough to produce well-formed syntactic representations during processing without requiring aid from lexically-based syntactic information.