Men with hostile sexist attitudes are more likely to express skepticism about scientific research on sexual assault, according to new research published in Psychology of Women Quarterly. This finding persisted despite attempts to mitigate these attitudes through self-affirmation techniques. The study, encompassing two separate experiments, indicates a strong ideological influence in the perception of sexual assault research.
Previous research in this field has consistently shown that sexual assault is a significant and pervasive issue, with considerable impacts on the mental and physical health of survivors. Despite this, there’s been a notable trend of disbelief and skepticism toward such findings, often fueled by misconceptions and myths about sexual assault. Recognizing this gap between empirical evidence and public perception, researchers were motivated to explore the underlying reasons for this skepticism, particularly among men.
“We wondered why accounts of sexual assault were being met with skepticism, why #MeToo was being met with the defensiveness of #NotAllMen,” said study author Diana E. Betz, an associate professor of psychology at Loyola University Maryland. “We questioned whether that skepticism would extend to scientific reports, where motivated skepticism had already been found in domains like climate change and COVID-19. We were also hopeful that self-affirmation could reduce that skepticism, but this was not the case.”
The researchers conducted two separate studies to examine how hostile sexist attitudes among men influence their skepticism towards scientific research on sexual assault, and whether self-affirmation interventions could mitigate this skepticism.
The first study involved 316 male participants, who were recruited through online platforms. The researchers used a specific tool known as the Hostile Sexism subscale from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory to measure each participant’s level of hostile sexism. This scale assesses attitudes that are overtly negative towards women, with questions that gauge beliefs about women seeking to control men or interpreting innocent remarks as sexist.
Participants were then randomly assigned to read one of three articles. Each article presented factual, negative-valenced information about a societal issue: sexual assault, breast cancer, or alcohol abuse. The researchers carefully designed these articles to present empirical data on how each issue impacts emotional, physical health, and career prospects.
After reading the articles, participants rated their skepticism using a credibility scale. This scale included questions like “How skeptical were you when reading these informational bullet points?” allowing researchers to gauge the participants’ level of doubt or disbelief about the information presented.
The results of Study 1 were revealing. While men did not exhibit more skepticism towards the sexual assault article compared to the other topics, the study found that hostile sexism was a significant predictor of skepticism specifically towards the sexual assault information. This suggests that men with higher levels of hostile sexism are more inclined to doubt scientific findings on sexual assault, a trend not observed as strongly with the other topics.
“Science is not interpreted the same across the board: different audiences are coming to the same scientific findings, and viewing them differently based on pre-existing worldviews,” Betz told PsyPost. “Research about sexual assault might be particularly scoffed at by those holding hostile views of women, even more so than other topics of study that chiefly concerns women.”
In Study 2, the researchers aimed to see if self-affirmation techniques could weaken the link between hostile sexism and skepticism. This study involved 254 male participants, who, like in Study 1, were first measured for hostile sexism.
All participants then underwent a writing exercise. They were asked to rank nine personal values and then write a brief paragraph about either their top-ranked value (self-affirmation condition) or their seventh-ranked value (control condition). This exercise, validated in previous research, was designed to bolster their sense of self-worth and integrity.
Following the self-affirmation task, every participant read the same article on sexual assault used in Study 1. They then rated their skepticism towards the information in the article.
In line with Study 1, men’s hostile sexism was again a predictor of greater skepticism towards scientific research documenting sexual assault. Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, however, the self-affirmation exercise did not significantly weaken the relationship between hostile sexism and skepticism of sexual assault information.
Even after self-affirming their values, men with higher levels of hostile sexism remained just as skeptical of the sexual assault research. This suggests that the skepticism rooted in hostile sexist attitudes is deeply ingrained and not easily swayed by interventions aimed at enhancing self-integrity.
Betz was surprised by “the fact that the self-affirmation manipulation did not break or even weaken the link between hostile sexism and skepticism of sexual assault science. I have been impressed by the disarming power of self-affirmation: in one paper, prejudiced people were more open to discussions of racism if they first got to reflect on something positive about themselves: a recent memory of their own creativity or an expression of fairness; Stone et al. (2011). But in our case, it was not a useful tool for persuading skeptical audiences.”
While these studies offer valuable insights, they come with limitations. One of the key challenges was the potential underpowering of the studies to detect smaller, nuanced effects. This means that some subtle interactions or influences might have gone unnoticed.
“Overall levels of skepticism were low, as was endorsement of hostile sexism,” Betz said. “The paper does not catalogue all major drivers of defensive or skeptical reactions to sexual assault science, nor does it speak to the reactions of most men. But for those men who hold really negative and confrontational views of women, this is a first step to understanding their skepticism, which could ultimately reveal ways to break through and effectively deliver these findings.”
The study, “Men’s Hostile Sexism Predicts Skepticism of Sexual Assault Science“, was authored by Diana E. Betz, Kelly Deegan, and Alex Gomes.