肯定同意标准是否提高了性侵犯认知的准确性?这取决于你如何了解这个标准。

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000512
Abigail R Riemer, Kathryn Holland, Evan McCracken, Amanda Dale, Sarah J Gervais
{"title":"肯定同意标准是否提高了性侵犯认知的准确性?这取决于你如何了解这个标准。","authors":"Abigail R Riemer,&nbsp;Kathryn Holland,&nbsp;Evan McCracken,&nbsp;Amanda Dale,&nbsp;Sarah J Gervais","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colleges and universities are increasingly adopting affirmative consent standards of sexual assault, in which consent is defined as conscious and voluntary \"yeses\" given throughout a sexual interaction. We examined the impact of affirmative consent standards on perceptions of assault and consent.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that in sexual assault scenarios involving physical force or verbal coercion, exposure to the consent standard would increase perceptions of assault and decrease perceptions of consent relative to not being exposed to the standard. We then explored whether dehumanization of the perpetrator or the victim mediates the association between assault type and sexual assault perceptions and how this relation changes on the basis of exposure to the affirmative consent standard.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We exposed 909 participants (predominantly women: n = 574; predominantly White: n = 677; age: M = 28.61 years, SD = 11.10; students: n = 363, Mechanical Turk workers: n = 546) to an affirmative consent standard in a written policy, a video using a \"cup-of-tea\" metaphor to describe the consent standard, or no information on the standard. Participants rated perceptions of assault, consent, and dehumanization of a man and woman involved in a sexual interaction involving physical force, verbal coercion, or a consensual agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants who saw the affirmative consent video were more likely to perceive physical assault as assault compared with participants in the no-exposure control condition. Participants who read the affirmative consent definition were no more or less likely to perceive physical assault as sexual assault compared with participants in the control condition. Participants exposed to the text definition perceived the consensual interaction as more assaultive than did participants in the video and control conditions. Perpetrator dehumanization also emerged as a mediator of the relation between assault type and assault perceptions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest that exposure to consent standards sometimes aids sexual assault decision-making but also leads to confusion, even in scenarios in which consent is normally discernable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"46 6","pages":"440-453"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the affirmative consent standard increase the accuracy of sexual assault perceptions? It depends on how you learn about the standard.\",\"authors\":\"Abigail R Riemer,&nbsp;Kathryn Holland,&nbsp;Evan McCracken,&nbsp;Amanda Dale,&nbsp;Sarah J Gervais\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/lhb0000512\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colleges and universities are increasingly adopting affirmative consent standards of sexual assault, in which consent is defined as conscious and voluntary \\\"yeses\\\" given throughout a sexual interaction. We examined the impact of affirmative consent standards on perceptions of assault and consent.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that in sexual assault scenarios involving physical force or verbal coercion, exposure to the consent standard would increase perceptions of assault and decrease perceptions of consent relative to not being exposed to the standard. We then explored whether dehumanization of the perpetrator or the victim mediates the association between assault type and sexual assault perceptions and how this relation changes on the basis of exposure to the affirmative consent standard.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We exposed 909 participants (predominantly women: n = 574; predominantly White: n = 677; age: M = 28.61 years, SD = 11.10; students: n = 363, Mechanical Turk workers: n = 546) to an affirmative consent standard in a written policy, a video using a \\\"cup-of-tea\\\" metaphor to describe the consent standard, or no information on the standard. Participants rated perceptions of assault, consent, and dehumanization of a man and woman involved in a sexual interaction involving physical force, verbal coercion, or a consensual agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants who saw the affirmative consent video were more likely to perceive physical assault as assault compared with participants in the no-exposure control condition. Participants who read the affirmative consent definition were no more or less likely to perceive physical assault as sexual assault compared with participants in the control condition. Participants exposed to the text definition perceived the consensual interaction as more assaultive than did participants in the video and control conditions. Perpetrator dehumanization also emerged as a mediator of the relation between assault type and assault perceptions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest that exposure to consent standards sometimes aids sexual assault decision-making but also leads to confusion, even in scenarios in which consent is normally discernable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"volume\":\"46 6\",\"pages\":\"440-453\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000512\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000512","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:学院和大学越来越多地采用性侵犯的肯定同意标准,其中同意被定义为在性互动过程中有意识和自愿的“是”。我们研究了肯定同意标准对侵犯和同意观念的影响。假设:我们假设,在涉及身体暴力或语言胁迫的性侵犯场景中,相对于没有接触到标准,接触到同意标准会增加对侵犯的感知,减少对同意标准的感知。然后,我们探讨了加害者或受害者的非人性化是否介导了攻击类型和性侵犯感知之间的联系,以及这种关系如何在暴露于肯定同意标准的基础上发生变化。方法:我们暴露了909名参与者(主要是女性:n = 574;主要是白色:n = 677;年龄:M = 28.61岁,SD = 11.10;学生:n = 363,机械土耳其工人:n = 546),在书面政策中明确同意标准,用“一杯茶”比喻来描述同意标准的视频,或者没有关于标准的信息。参与者对涉及肢体暴力、言语胁迫或双方同意的性互动的男女的攻击、同意和非人化的感知进行评分。结果:与无暴露控制组相比,观看肯定同意视频的参与者更容易将身体攻击视为攻击。与对照组的参与者相比,阅读肯定同意定义的参与者将身体攻击视为性侵犯的可能性并没有增加或减少。接触文本定义的参与者认为双方同意的互动比视频和控制条件下的参与者更具攻击性。施暴者非人性化也成为攻击类型和攻击感知之间关系的中介。结论:这些结果表明,接触同意标准有时有助于性侵犯决策,但也会导致混乱,即使在通常可以识别同意的情况下也是如此。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does the affirmative consent standard increase the accuracy of sexual assault perceptions? It depends on how you learn about the standard.

Objective: Colleges and universities are increasingly adopting affirmative consent standards of sexual assault, in which consent is defined as conscious and voluntary "yeses" given throughout a sexual interaction. We examined the impact of affirmative consent standards on perceptions of assault and consent.

Hypotheses: We hypothesized that in sexual assault scenarios involving physical force or verbal coercion, exposure to the consent standard would increase perceptions of assault and decrease perceptions of consent relative to not being exposed to the standard. We then explored whether dehumanization of the perpetrator or the victim mediates the association between assault type and sexual assault perceptions and how this relation changes on the basis of exposure to the affirmative consent standard.

Method: We exposed 909 participants (predominantly women: n = 574; predominantly White: n = 677; age: M = 28.61 years, SD = 11.10; students: n = 363, Mechanical Turk workers: n = 546) to an affirmative consent standard in a written policy, a video using a "cup-of-tea" metaphor to describe the consent standard, or no information on the standard. Participants rated perceptions of assault, consent, and dehumanization of a man and woman involved in a sexual interaction involving physical force, verbal coercion, or a consensual agreement.

Results: Participants who saw the affirmative consent video were more likely to perceive physical assault as assault compared with participants in the no-exposure control condition. Participants who read the affirmative consent definition were no more or less likely to perceive physical assault as sexual assault compared with participants in the control condition. Participants exposed to the text definition perceived the consensual interaction as more assaultive than did participants in the video and control conditions. Perpetrator dehumanization also emerged as a mediator of the relation between assault type and assault perceptions.

Conclusions: These results suggest that exposure to consent standards sometimes aids sexual assault decision-making but also leads to confusion, even in scenarios in which consent is normally discernable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
期刊最新文献
The Miranda penalty: Inferring guilt from suspects' silence. Comparing predictive validity of Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory scores in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadian youth. Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams. Lived experiences of bias in compensation and reintegration associated with false admissions of guilt. The structured assessment of violence risk in youth demonstrates measurement invariance between Black and White justice-referred youths.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1