Abstract
This research examines how group discussion may influence males’ inclinations toward sexual assault. This experiment tested two competing explanations of how reactions toward a sexual assault scene are affected by group discussion. Group polarization predicts that strong or weak inclinations toward sexual assault among group members become exaggerated with group discussion. Accordingly, because unfavorable opinions of sexual assault are most prevalent, then discussion exaggerates this tendency such that group members’ reactions toward sexual assault will be even more unfavorable for sexual assault after group discussion. Alternatively, release theory proposes that group interaction allows members to follow their impulses by disinhibiting social constraints such that group discussion would exaggerate inclinations toward sexual assault among group members. The results of an experiment in which participants watched a video depiction involving a sexual assault and then gave responses related to similar situations showed a pattern of results providing support for group polarization and no support for release theory. Therefore, group discussion can be a positive social influence on tendencies toward anti-social behavior if those inclinations are not widespread among group members. This finding can inform prevention programs aimed at reducing permissive attitudes toward sexual violence and sexual assault occurrences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Open Science Foundation repository, osf.io/ck3br.
Code availability:
Not applicable
Notes
This research included multiple dependent variables which were selected based on an examination of the research literature that investigates reactions and responses to sexual assault or rape. Much of this research involves responses to depictions of a rape scene, often with a vignette (e.g., McCaul et al., 1990). Several of the measures in this experiment derive from established measures (e.g., state affect, Byrne et al., 1974; empathy with the victim, Fernandez & Marshall 2003). For other measures, items were constructed to directly assess the concept. For example, the attributions of responsibility were based on a structure informed by Shaver’s (1985) work on attribution. Consequently, the dependent variables selected allowed tests of the release theory and group polarization hypotheses while also being implicated as important reactions to sexual assault in previous work (e.g., intentions; Malamuth, 1989).
Files with the set of instructions, details of the questionnaire items, and the SPSS data set are available at: osf.io/ck3br.
References
15 Face Charges in Hazing Incident (2003). Retrieved August 9, 2021 from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/15-face-charges-in-hazing-incident/
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Byrne, D., Fisher, J. D., Lamberth, J., & Mitchell, H. E. (1974). Evaluation of erotica: Facts or feelings? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035731
Coker, A. L., Cook-Craig, P. G., Williams, C. M., Fisher, B. S., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., & Hegge, L. M. (2011). Evaluation of Green Dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 777–796.
Cronbach, L., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure ‘change’: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029382
da Silva, T., Harkins, L., & Woodhams, J. (2013). Multiple perpetrator rape: An international phenomenon. In M. A. H. Horvath, & J. Woodhams (Eds.), Handbook of the study of multiple perpetrator rape (pp. 10–36). New York, NY: Routledge.
Davis, J. H., & Hinsz, V. B. (1982). Current research problems in group performance and group dynamics. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group decision making (pp. 1–20). London: Academic Press.
Davis, J. H., Spitzer, C. E., Nagao, D., & Stasser, G. T. (1978). Bias in social decisions by individuals and groups: An example from mock juries. In H. Brandstatter, J. H. Davis, & H. Schuler (Eds.), Dynamics of group decisions (pp. 33–52). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
DeGrassi, S. W., Morgan, W. B., Walker, S. S., Wang, Y., & Sabat, I. (2012). Ethical decision making: Group diversity holds the key. Journal of Leadership Accountability and Ethics, 9(6), 51–65.
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005
Edwards, S. R., Bradshaw, K. A., & Hinsz, V. B. (2014). Denying rape but endorsing forceful intercourse: Exploring differences among responders. Violence and Gender, 1, 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2014.0022
Edwards, S. R., & Hinsz, V. B. (2013). Exploring attitudinal variables predictive of how men perceive rape. Problems of Psychology in the 21st Century, 7, 16–22.
Fernandez, Y. M., & Marshall, W. L. (2003). Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320301500102
Hinsz, V. B., & Davis, J. H. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization and choice shifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167284102012
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
Jaffe, S., (Producer), Lansing, S., Producer, Kaplan, J., & Director (1998). The Accused [Motion Picture]. United States: Paramount.
Kenny, D. A., & LaVoie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.339
Klein, N., & Epley, N. (2015). Group discussion improves lie detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7460–7465.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. In T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (pp. 197–211). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Loh, C., Gidycz, C. A., Lobo, T. R., & Luthra, R. (2005). A prospective analysis of sexual assault perpetration: Risk factors related to perpetrator characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10), 1325–1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278528
Malamuth, N. M. (1989). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part one. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551491
McCaul, K. D., Veltum, L. G., Boychecko, V., & Crawford, J. J. (1990). Understanding attributions attributions of victim blame for rape: Sex, violence and foreseeability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00375.x
McGrath, J. E., Martin, J., & Kulka, R. A. (1982). Judgment calls in research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1975). The polarizing effect of group discussion. American Scientist, 63(3), 297–303.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83
National Sexual Violence Resource Center (2015). Info and stats for journalists: Statistics about sexual violence. Retrieved June 17, 2019 from https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4901665/Publications-Nsvrc-Factsheet-Media-Packet.pdf
Park, E. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2015). Group interaction sustains positive moods and diminishes negative moods. Group Dynamics, 19, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000034
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238
Pruitt, D. G. (1971). Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031922
Sadler, M. S., & Judd, C. M. (2002). Overcoming dependent data: A guide to the analysis of group data. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp. 497–524). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Samuelson, C. D. (2022). Why were the police attacked on January 6th? Emergent norms, focus theory, and the invisibility of expectations. Group Dynamics, 26(3).
Semanko, A. M., & Hinsz, V. B. (2022). Getting by with a little help from bystanders: Group versus individual hel** in the presence of alcohol primes. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND: Manuscript submitted for publication.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 289–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60010-6
van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J. W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. (2016). Booze, bars, and bystander behavior: People who consumed alcohol help faster in the presence of others. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00128
Woodhams, J., Taylor, P. J., & Cooke, C. (2020). Multiple perpetrator rape: Is perpetrator violence the result of victim resistance, deindividuation, or leader–follower dynamics? Psychology of Violence, 10, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000255
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). The simple difference score as an inherently poor measure of change: Some reality, much mythology. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in Social Science Methodology (Vol. 5, pp. 269–304). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Jared Ladbury who served as the experimenter for this study. Anna Semanko is now at the College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, MN. Alexis Charles is now at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Direct queries to Verlin B. Hinsz, NDSU Psych Dept 2765, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108 − 6050 or email Verlin.Hinsz@NDSU.edu.
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The study conception, design, material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Sarah R. Edwards and Verlin B. Hinsz. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sarah R. Edwards and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
(include appropriate approvals or waivers): This research was approved by the North Dakota State University Institutional Review Board before data collection began.
Consent to participate
No identifying information was gathered from participants and all participants provided a signed informed consent to participate in this research.
Consent for publication:
Not Applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hinsz, V.B., Edwards, S.R., Semanko, A.M. et al. Does Group discussion exaggerate or diminish males’ reactions to a sexual assault scene?. Curr Psychol 42, 24732–24741 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03397-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03397-0