Risk perception and value judgment on rape: gender differences

김범준

doi:10.21193/kjspp.2007.21.3.004

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

Apply for Authority
P-ISSN1229-0653
KCI

Home

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next

e-Submission

Vol.21 No.3

Citation Share

Risk perception and value judgment on rape: gender differences

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;

2007, v.21 no.3, pp.57-73

https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2007.21.3.004

(2007). Risk perception and value judgment on rape: gender differences. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 21(3), 57-73, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2007.21.3.004

copy

Downloaded
Viewed

PDF Download

Abstract

The present research aims to investigate risk perception, value judgment, and gender effect on rape. For this purpose, two studies were conducted. Study 1 examined the risk perception of rape and gender effect of the perception. The results showed that respondents perceived rape as a serious crime, but its frequency estimation was not high. And the estimation of probability for others to become a rape victim was higher than the estimation for self. Moreover the estimation for women was higher than the estimation for men. In study 2, respondents were provided with four rape scenarios(homosexual / heterosexual rape), and asked to make value judgment regarding the severity of conduct and the degree of punishment and to attribute the offender's conduct and gender effect of those judgments. The results showed gender difference. In general, women showed sterner ethical standards, heavier sentencing, and less situational attribution than men did. Especially, women showed stronger gender effect on the case where a man raped a woman compared to other cases. However, men sentenced shorter sentence in the case where a woman raped a man compared to other cases. Finally, implications and limits of the study were discussed.

keywords: Rape, Homosexual rape vs. heterosexual rape, Value judgment, Punishment, Gender Difference, Rape, Homosexual rape vs. heterosexual rape, Value judgment, Punishment, Gender Difference, 강간, 동성 강간과 이성 강간, 가치 판단, 처벌, 성차

Reference

고재홍 (1994). 가해자 외모와 형량판단간의 매개과정. 한국심리학회지：사회, 8, 68-84.

고재홍 (1995). 처벌크기 판단에 관여하는 정보들의 통합방식, 한국심리학회지：사회, 9, 29-50.

김관현 (2000). 양형의 실태와 합리화 방안. 연세대학교 관리과학대학원 석사학위청구논문.

김상균 (2007). 범죄심리학. 서울：청목 출판사.

김지현 (1992). 법전문가와 비전문가의 선고목적 선호와 형량결정 과정에 미치는 선고맥락 효과. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위청구논문.

국가인권위원회 (2004). 군대내 성폭력 실태조사. 국가인권위원회.

박광배, 홍성진 (1993). 형사재판에서의 유무죄판결 및 선고의 일관성. 한국심리학회지：사회, 7, 73-89.

백승경, 김기범 (2003). 강간사건 지각 및 판단에 미치는 심리적 영향 요인분석. 2005년 한국심리학회 연차학술발표대회 논문집, 187-188.

법무 연수원 (2006). 법무백서. 법무 연수원.

10.

손지선, 이수정 (2007). 가족 살해의 가해자의 특성과 양형요인에 대한 연구. 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격, 21, 1-17.

11.

유은상 (2004). 낙관주의 및 귀인 방식과 건강의 관계. 연세대학교 본 대학원 석사학위청구논문.

12.

윤병해, 고재홍 (2006). 양가적 성차별 태도에 따른 성폭력 피해자에 대한 비난 차이：강간통념의 매개효과. 한국심리학회지：여성, 11(1), 1-19.

13.

이건호, 강혜자 (2005). 강간통념 수용도, 성역할 태도 및 음란물 접촉 간의 관계. 한국심리학회지：사회문제, 11(3), 23-40.

14.

이명선 (1989). 강간에 대한 여성학적 접근. 이화여자대학교 대학원 석사학위청구논문.

15.

이석재 (1999). 강간통념척도의 개발과 타당도 검증. 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격, 2, 131-148.

16.

이석재, 최상진 (2001). 강간통념수용도에 따른 성행동, 성폭력 및 성폭행사건 지각. 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격, 15(1), 97-116.

17.

이윤호 (2002). 범죄학 개론. 서울：박영사.

18.

최인철, 김범준 (2005). 정보화 시대의 사회적 불안의 특성과 변화. 정보통신 정책연구원.

19.

황규대, 박상진, 이광희, 이철기 (1999). 조직행동의 이해. 박영사.

20.

황인정 (2007). 범죄 피해자와 범죄 판단자의 성별이 양형판단에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지：여성, 12(2), 107-121.

21.

Anderson, I. (2007). What is a typical rape? Effects of victim and participant gender in female and male rape perception. British Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 46, 225-245.

22.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cogni- tive adaptation: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 989-1003.

23.

Bartol, C. R. (1991). Criminal behavior: A psychological approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

24.

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

25.

Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D. S., Ketchman, A. S., Moffat, F. L., Jr., & Clark, K. C. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 375-390.

26.

Dion, K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's transgression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 207-213.

27.

Doherty, K., & Anderson, I. (2004). Making sense of male rape: constructions of gender, sexuality and experience of rape victims. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 85-103.

28.

Drout, C. E., & Gaertner, S. (1994). Gender differences in reactions to female victims. Social Behavior and Personality, 22, 267-278.

29.

Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megias, J. L. (2004). Social per- ception of rape: How rape myth acceptance modu- lates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143-161.

30.

Haskell, M. R., & Yablonsky, L. (1983). Criminology: Crime and criminality. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

31.

Hogarth, J. (1971). Sentencing as a human process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

32.

Klemmack, S. H., & Klemmack, D. L. (1976). The social definition of rape. In J. W. Marcia & L. B. Stanley (Eds.), Sexual assault the victim and the rapist. Massachusetts, D.C.: Health and company(pp.135- 147).

33.

Koss, M. P., Leonard, K., Beezley, K., & Oros, C. (1981). Personality and attitudinal characteristics of sexually aggressive men. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association. Los Angeles.

34.

Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 138-157.

35.

McFatter, R. M. (1982). Purposes of punishment: Effects of utilities of criminal sanctions on perceived appropriateness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 255-267.

36.

Miller, J. (2002). The strengths and limits of ‘doing gender' for understanding street crime. Theoretical Criminology, 6, 433-460.

37.

Rye, B. J., Greatrix, S., & Enright, C. S. (2006). The case of the guilty victim: The effects of gender of victim and gender perpetrator on attributions of blame and responsibility. Sex Roles, 54, 639-649.

38.

Seagel, W. (1941). The quest for law. New York: Knopf.

39.

Sellin, T. (1938). Culture conflict and crime. New York: Social Science Research Council.

40.

Shepherd, J. (1981). Sociology. St. Paul, MN: West Pub- lishing Co.

41.

Thomas, C. W., Cage, R. J., & Foster, S. C. (1976). Public opinion on criminal law and legal sanction: Am examination of two conceptual models. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 67, 110-116.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.21 No.3

Risk perception and value judgment on rape: gender differences

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology