Júzgame, no me juzgues: el rol del tamaño ocular y el género del observador en la violación por un conocido
Agencias de apoyo
- Foundation for Science and Technology (Portugal)
Resumen
El propósito de este estudio fue examinar el efecto del tamaño ocular y el género del observador en la atracción inicial percibida, honestidad, y atribuciones de responsabilidad en la violación. Se probó un diseño experimental 3 (tamaño del ojo: pequeño vs. normal vs. grande) x 2 (género del observador: masculino vs. femenino). Noventa participantes (45 mujeres y 45 hombres) observaron una de tres caras femeninas asignadas al azar (con manipulación del tamaño de los ojos), y puntuaron la honestidad y atractivo inicial. Entonces se les pidió que leyeran un escenario de violación por conocido con una mujer tradicional, puntuando la responsabilidad de la víctima y del agresor. Se demostró que el tamaño del ojo afecta a todas las variables del estudio: el rostro femenino con ojos grandes fue visto como más atractivo y honesto, se consideró menos responsable de su propia victimización, y el delincuente se vio como más responsable. El género se ha demostrado que afecta a la percepción de atracción inicial y a la responsabilidad de la víctima. Se discuten las implicaciones teóricas y prácticasDescargas
Citas
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111-125. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111.
Acock, A. C., & Ireland, N. K. (1983). Attribution of blame in rape cas-es: The impact of norm violation, gender, and sex-role attitude. Sex Roles, 9(2), 179-193. doi: 10.1007/BF00289622.
Ambady, N. & Skowronski, J.J. (Eds.) (2008). First impressions. New York: Guilford Press.
Anderson, I., & Swainson, V. (2001). Perceived motivation for rape: Gender differences in beliefs about female and male rape. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(8), 107-123.
Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education pro-grams: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 374-388. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00237.x.
Angelone, D. J., Mitchell, D., & Lucente, L. (2012). Predicting percep-tions of date rape: An examination of perpetrator motivation, relationship length, and gender role beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(20), 1-21. oi: 10.1177/0886260512436385.
Aosved, A. C., & Long, P. J. (2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth ac-ceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55(7-8), 481-492. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9101-4.
Argyle, M. (1970). Eye-contact and distance: a reply to Stephenson and Rutter. British Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 395-396. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1970.tb01258.x.
Atoum, A. O., & Al-Simadi, F. A. (2000). The effect of presentation modality on judgments of honesty and attractiveness. Social Behavior and Personality, 28(3), 269-278. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2000.28.3.269.
Best, J. B., & Demmin, H. S. (1982). Victim’s provocativeness and vic-tim’s attractiveness as determinants of blame in rape. Psychological Reports, 51(1), 255-258. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1982.51.1.255.
Capezza, N. M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2008). Why do people blame victims of abuse? The role of stereotypes of women on perceptions of blame. Sex Roles, 59(11), 839-850. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9488-1.
Coates, L., & Wade, A. (2004). Telling it like it isn’t: Obscuring perpe-trator responsibility for violent crime. Discourse & Society, 15(5), 499-526. doi: 10.1177/0957926504045031.
Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M. (2009). In the eye of the be-holder: Do behavior and character affect victim and perpetrator responsibility for acquaintance rape? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(7), 1513-1535. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00493.x.
Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 261–279. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261.
Davies, M., Gilston, J., & Rogers, P. (2012). Examining the relationship between male rape myth acceptance, female rape myth acceptance, victim blame, homophobia, gender roles, and ambivalent sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(14), 2807-2823. doi: 10.1177/0886260512438281.
Deitz, S. R., Littman, M., & Bentley, B. J. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy, victim resistance, and victim attractiveness. Sex Roles, 10(3-4), 261-280. doi:10.1007/BF00287780.
DeJong, W. (1999). Rape and physical attractiveness: Judgments con-cerning likelihood of victimization. Psychological Reports, 85(1), 32-34. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1999.85.1.32.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290. doi: 10.1037/h0033731.
Erian, M., Lin, C., Patel, N., Neal, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1998). Juror verdicts as a function of victim and defendant attractiveness in sexual assault cases. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(3), 25-40.
Feild, H. S. (1979). Rape trials and jurors’ decisions: A psycholegal analysis of the effects of victim, defendant, and case characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3(4), 261-284. doi: 10.1007/BF01039806.
Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2004). Social perception of rape: How rape myth acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2), 143-161. doi: 10.1177/0886260503260245.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878.
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate pref-erences. Psychological Inquiry, 17(2), 75-95. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1.
Geldart, S., Maurer, D., & Carney, K. (1999). Effects of eye size on adults’ aesthetic ratings of faces and 5-month-olds’ looking times. Perception, 28(3), 361-374. DOI: 10.1016/S0163-6383(98)91640-X.
Gerdes, E. P., Dammann, E. J., & Heilig, K. E. (1988). Perceptions of rape victims and assailants: Effects of physical attractiveness, ac-quaintance, and subject gender. Sex Roles, 19(3-4), 141-153. doi: 10.1007/BF00290151.
Gölge, Z. B., Yavuz, M. F., Müderrisoglu, S., & Yavuz, M. S. (2003). Turk-ish university students’ attitudes toward rape. Sex Roles, 49(11-12), 653-661. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000003135.30077.a4.
Gonçalves, G., Martins, A. T., Parreira, T., Ferrão, M. C., Santos, J. V., Giger, J-C., & Gomes, A. (2012a). The eye size has an influence in the way we judge others. In C. Sousa & A. M. Oliveira (Eds.), Pro-ceedings of the 14th European Conference on Facial Expression: New Challenges for Research (pp.121-128). Lisboa/Almada: European Society for the Study of Facial Expressions/IPCDVS.
Gonçalves, G., Martins, A. T., Ferrão, M. C., Parreira, T., Gomes, A., & Ramos, A-O. (2012b). People judge a book through its cover and humans by their eyes. International Journal of Advances in Social Psychology, 1(2), 40-45.
Gonçalves, G., Gomes, A., Ferrão, M. C., Parreira, T., Santos, J. V., Giger, J-C., & Martins, A. T. (2014). Once upon a face: The effect of eye size, observer gender and stimulus gender on impression formation. Current Psychology (published online 07/2014). doi: 10.1007/s12144-014-9244-3.
Griffin, A. M. & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24(2), 212-246. doi: 10.1521/soco.2006.24.2.187.
Gregory, J., and Lees, S. (1999). Policing Sexual Assault. London: Routledge.
Grubb, A. R., & Harrower, J. (2009). Understanding attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Sexual Aggres-sion, 15(1), 63-81. doi:10.1080/13552600802641649.
Grubb, A. R., & Turner, E. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 443-452. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002.
Humphreys, T. P. (1993). Gender Differences in the Perception of Rape: The Role of Ambiguity [Thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology of the Wilfrid Laurier University in partial fulfillment of the re-quirements for the Master of Arts Degree]. Ontario: Wilfrid Lauri-er University.
Jacobson, M. B., & Popovich, P. M. (1983). Victim attractiveness and perceptions of responsibility in an ambiguous rape case. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8(1), 100-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1983.tb00621.x.
Johnson, J. D., Jackson, L. A. & Smith, G. J. (1989). The role of ambiguity and gender in mediating the effects of salient conditions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(1), 52-60. doi: 10.1177/0146167289151005.
Keating, C. F., & Doyle, J. (2002). The faces of desirable mates and dates contain mixed social status cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(4), 414-424. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00007-0.
Keating, C. F., Randall, D. W., Kendrick, T., & Gutshall, K. A. (2003). Do babyfaced adults receive more help? The (cross-cultural) case of the lost resume. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(2), 89-109. doi: 10.1023/A:1023962425692.
Kelly, L. (2002). A Research Review on the Reporting, Investigation and Prosecu-tion of Rape Cases. London: HMCPSI.
Kościński, K. (2007). Facial attractiveness: General patterns of facial preferences. Anthropological Review, 70(1), 45-79. doi: 10.2478/v10044-008-0001-9.
Krahè, B. (1991). Social psychological issues in the study of rape. Euro-pean Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 279-309. doi: 10.1080/14792779143000097.
Krahè, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility attributions to victims of rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(1), 50-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00004.x.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390-423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390.
Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 79-84. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.79.
Luginbuhl, J., & Mullin, C. (1981). Rape and responsibility: How and how much is the victim blamed? Sex Roles, 7(5), 547-559. doi: 10.1007/BF00288631.
Mitchell, D., Angelone, D. J., Kohlberger, B., & Hirschman, R. (2009). Effects of offender motivation, victim gender, and participant gender on perceptions of rape victims and offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(9), 1564-1578. doi: 10.1177/0886260508323662.
Moore, F. R., Filippou, D., & Perrett, D. I. (2011). Intelligence and attractiveness in the face: Beyond the attractiveness halo effect. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9(3), 205-217. doi: 10.1556/JEP.9.2011.3.2.
Nagel, B., Matsuo, H., McIntyre, K. P., & Morrison, N. (2005). Attitudes toward victims of rape: Effects of gender, race, religion, and social class. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 725-737. doi: 10.1177/0886260505276072.
Newcombe, P. a., van den Eynde, J., Hafner, D., & Jolly, L. (2008). Attributions of responsibility for rape: Differences across familiarity of situation, gender, and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1736-1754. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00367.x
Paunonen, S. V., Ewan, K., Erathy, J., Lefave, S., & Goldberg, H. (1999). Facial features as personality cues. Journal of Personality, 67(3), 555-583. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00065.
Pettijohn, T. F. II, & Tesser, A. (2005). Threat and social choice: When eye size matters. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(5), 547-570. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.145.5.547-570.
Pollard, P. (1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 307-326. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00975.x.
Rebeiz, M. J., & Harb, C. (2010). Perceptions of rape and attitudes to-ward women in a sample of Lebanese students. Journal of Interper-sonal Violence 25(4), 735-752. doi: 10.1177/0886260509334410.
Reysen, S. (2008). Construction and validation of measures of perceived honesty and perceived expertise. Poster presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association. Kansas City, MO.
Rodrigues, D. & Garcia-Marques, T. (2006). Como medir a atracção sentida num primeiro encontro? Propriedades métricas do Índice de Atracção Inicial (IAI). VI Simpósio Nacional de Investigação em Psicologia. Évora.
Rodrigues, D. & Garcia-Marques, T. (2005). Marquemos o encontro ao cimo da escada: O papel da activação fisiológica na atracção interpessoal. Análise Psicológica, 23(4), 427-436.
Schneider, L. J., Mori, P. L. L., & Wong, A. O. (2009). The role of gen-der and ethnicity in perceptions of rape and its aftereffects. Sex Roles, 60(5), 410-421. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9545-9.
Seligman, C., Brickman, J., & Koulack, D. (1977). Rape and physical attractiveness: Assigning responsibility to victims. Journal of Personality, 45(4), 554-563. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00171.x.
Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(2), 101-113. doi: 10.1037/h0028777.
Shinners, E. (2009). Effects of the “what is beautiful is good” stereo-type on perceived trustworthiness. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research, 12, 1-5.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and inter-group behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tarsi, M. M., & Jalbert, N. L. (1999). Observers’ evaluations of couples involved in date rape. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 4(3), 119-124.
Thornton, B., & Ryckman, R. M. (1983). The influence of a rape victim’s physical attractiveness on observers’ attributions of responsibility. Human Relations, 36(6), 549-561. doi: 10.1177/001872678303600604.
Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47(5), 289-293. doi: 10.1023/A:1021342912248.
Vrij, A., & Firmin, H. (2001). Beautiful thus innocent? The impact of defendants' and victims' physical attractiveness and participants' rape beliefs on impression formation in alleged rape cases. International Review of Victimology, 8(3), 245-255. doi: 10.1177/026975800100800301.
Wade, T. J. (2010). The Relationships between symmetry and attrac-tiveness and mating relevant decisions and behavior: A review. Symmetry, 2(2), 1081-1098. doi: 10.3390/sym2021081.
Whatley, M. A. (2005). The effect of participant sex, victim dress, and traditional attitudes on causal judgments for marital rape victims. Journal of Family Violence, 20(3), 191-200. doi: 10.1007/s10896-005-3655-8.
Workman, J. E., & Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41(3-4), 261-277. doi: 10.1023/A:1018858313267.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Voinescu, L., & Collins, M. A. (1996). “Wide-eyed” and “crooked-faced”: Determinants of perceived and real honesty across the life span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1258-1269. DOI: 10.1177/01461672962212006.
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. El Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (la editorial) conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2024
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (texto legal). Se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que: i) se cite la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial y URL de la obra); ii) no se usen para fines comerciales; iii) se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente las versiones pre-print (versión antes de ser evaluada y enviada a la revista) y/o post-print (versión evaluada y aceptada para su publicación) de sus obras antes de su publicación, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión más temprana y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica. Color RoMEO: verde.
