Category: Psychology &amp; Human Behavior

5 Shares

12 common microaggressions that target LGBTQ+ individuals, why they’re harmful, and what to say instead.

5 Shares

Microaggressions that target LGBTQ+ individuals, both intentional and unintentional, are commonplace.

A microaggression is defined by Merriam-Webster (online dictionary) as “a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group.”

The concept was originally coined by Harvard psychiatrist, Chester M. Pierce, in 1970 to describe the insults and dismissals he witnessed White Americans inflict on Black Americans. The term microaggression has since expanded to include other stigmatized and marginalized groups.

Microaggressions that target LGBTQ+ individuals are harmful and have been linked to serious mental health problems and suicide. What’s more, microaggressions contribute to stereotypes.

This article provides 12 examples of microaggressions that target LGBTQ+ persons.

To start, here are some useful glossary terms from The LGBT National Help Center.

The acronym LGBTQ+ stands for

Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Trans or Transgender
Queer or Questioning
[+] may represent Questioning or Agender, Bigender, Genderless, Gender Nonconforming, Gender Queer, Pangender, Pansexual, etc.

Lesbian: A woman who is attracted to other women (sexually, emotionally, and/or romantically)
Gay: An individual or a man who is attracted to individuals of the same gender
Bisexual: A person who is attracted to both men and women
Transgender: A person whose gender identity differs from the one assigned at birth
Queer: A reclaimed slur that refers to and celebrates individuals who are gay
Questioning: A person who is uncertain about or questioning their sexuality or gender identity. (Note: This is in reference to the internal conflict one experiences.)

Agender (or Genderless): Someone who does not identify with any gender (or as having a gender)

Bigender: An individual who identifies with two or more genders

Gender Nonconforming (or Gender Variant): Individuals who do not conform with society’s expectations of their gender role

Gender Queer (or Genderqueer): A person who identifies outside the gender categories of male and female

Pangender: Individuals who identify with two or more genders or with all/any genders (or as a non-male/non-female gender)

Pansexual: Someone who is capable of being attracted to all genders

The above list is in no way comprehensive. I recommend doing your own research. (Start with the resource section at the end of this article.)

Note that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing. Sexual orientation refers to sexuality or attraction while gender identity refers to how a person views and thinks about themselves in terms of gender.

Source: Wikimedia Commons contributors, ‘File:1*YwY44v93qVAkje3 wADZkw@2x.png’, Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository.

When considering gender, imagine a gender spectrum vs. a binary consisting of male and female. This concept of gender spectrum is supported by scientific data.

12 Examples of Microaggressions that Target LGBTQ+ Individuals

1. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

This Christian slogan was intended to be catchy and humorous – while at the same time condemning gay men as unnatural. The indication is that God didn’t intend for people to be gay. Therefore, if you’re gay, you’re an abomination in God’s eyes.

2. Assuming that a gay man has multiple sexual partners.

Gay and promiscuous are not one and the same. The idea that a gay man sleeps with multiple men (as opposed to being in a committed relationship with one person) is a stereotype.

3. Forms that include checkboxes for male/female only and documents that use he/she (vs. they).

Limited-choice binary forms are microaggressions that target LGBTQ+ individuals and invalidate the 5.6% (about 6 out of every 100) Americans who don’t identify as either male or female.

4. “I went through a bisexual phase in college, but I got over it.”

This suggests that bisexuality is temporary and/or something that one can “get over.” Similarly, when someone who is bisexual is asked, “When are you just going to pick one?” – the indication is that bisexuality is a temporary state that ends when someone chooses one or the other. It’s insinuated that someone who is bisexual is indecisive or that bisexuality isn’t real, but something leading up to something real.

5. “What is your sexual preference?”

The word preference indicates choice. In reality, one doesn’t consciously choose to be sexually attracted to someone. It just happens.

No one wants to be ridiculed or discriminated against for being gay. (Oppositely, it’s in our very nature to seek acceptance and connection. We desire inclusion and belonging.)

Instead of “preference,” use orientation when talking about attraction.

6. Intentionally using the wrong pronouns.

The implication is that someone’s gender identity is wrong. This microaggression may be used to push a religious or political agenda, but it’s harmful to reduce a person to an agenda.

Furthermore, the intentional use of non-preferred pronouns is a form of bullying. Bullying may lead to poor mental health, substance use, and suicide.

Directing a transwoman/transman to a bathroom that doesn’t match their gender identity and/or the incorrect use of “ma’am/sir” are similar forms of this microaggression.

Since you won’t always know how an individual prefers to be addressed, keep it simple… just ask.

7. “Were you born boy or a girl?”

Like asking one’s “preference,” this microaggression targets LGBTQ+ individuals by implying that someone who doesn’t identify with their biological sex made a conscious choice to reject their biological sex.

Instead of “born boy or girl,” someone’s biological sex should be referred to as assigned gender.

8. Automatically assuming that something happened to the individual (i.e., childhood sexual abuse, domestic violence, etc.) that “made” them the way they are.

This microaggression implies that a person is LGBTQ+ because something bad happened to them. The assumption tolerates a person’s LGBTQ+ identification, but only to excuse it. (For example: “She became a lesbian because she was tired of dating chauvinistic jerks.”) This discredits the complexity of sexual orientation and gender identity.

9. “I’ll pray for you, but I can’t condone your choices.”

The idea that being LGBTQ+ is a sin implies that it’s a willful act against God. In reality, being LGBTQ+ is not a choice.

10. “How do you know you don’t like [men/women] if you haven’t tried?”

Sexual orientation is not the same as taking a car for a test drive or trying on pairs of jeans. You wouldn’t question a straight man about his relationship with a woman or encourage him to have sex with at least one man before committing to marriage.

11. “Who’s the man and who’s the woman in the relationship?”

This implies that relationships are defined by stereotypical gender roles. It undermines non-traditional relationships, suggesting that for a relationship to be legitimate, there must be a male and female.

12. “I never would have known you’re transgender! You’re totally passable as a [man/woman].”

You wouldn’t compliment a lady by telling her she’s “passable” as a woman.

Also, take a moment to consider insecurities you have about your looks. Have you ever struggled with body image or felt self-conscious? Imagine being in the wrong body!

Conclusion

In sum, microaggressions that target LGBTQ+ individuals can be unintentional or well-meaning, but when LGBTQ+ persons are subjected to microaggressions time after time, it’s damaging. What’s more, microaggressions that target LGBTQ+ individuals contribute to stigma and perpetuate false stereotypes.

Microaggressions that target the LGBTQ+ population thrive in environments where it is acceptable to:

Voice judgments about a person’s morality
Discredit or devalue someone’s personal experience
Bully or intimidate
Make invasive comments about a person’s sexual relationships

To conclude, microaggressions that target LGBTQ+ persons are harmful. You can prevent using them by increasing your awareness.

LGBTQ+ Resources

The Startling Truth About Political Affiliation & Personality

6 Shares

Research indicates that personality is a strong predictor of political affiliation. This article explores conservative and liberal characteristics.

Americans Still See Big Government as Top Threat (gallup.com)

6 Shares

Research indicates that personality is a strong predictor of political affiliation, leading to the question: What personality traits are associated with modern liberalism versus conservatism?

This article is based on scientific research. It explores the clashing personality characteristics of the left and the right in America. And if you’re reading this now and doubting that science can predict political affiliation, chances are, you lean to the right! Read on to find out more…

Image by Andrew Martin from Pixabay

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Liberalism is “a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law” (Wikipedia, 2021). Modern liberalism in America “combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy.”

Meanwhile, the foundations of American conservatism (defined as “a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions” [Wikipedia, 2021]), are based on four fundamental concepts: liberty, tradition and order, the rule of law, and belief in God (Intercollegiate Studies Institute).

Morals & Values

Liberals and conservatives differ in morals and values, with empathy being a notably distinct value that designates the left as ‘bleeding heart’ liberals. In fact, research indicates that when a person’s ability to empathize increases, they shift to having a more liberal perspective.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are more concerned with duty and order, valuing the ability to exert personal self-control to meet the demands of self and others.

Regarding spirituality and belief in God, conservatives are more religious, more likely to pray, and more likely to attend church, while liberals are more likely to lean towards atheism. What’s more, Republicans tend to believe that belief in God is necessary for morals while Democrats believe morals can exist without religion.

In one study, liberals were found to value care and fairness more while conservatives were more likely to value loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Also, Democrats exhibit more creativity than their Republican counterparts, who prefer certainty and clarity.

Additional research suggests that conservatives value structure, simplicity, and tradition. Republicans place greater emphasis on stability. Meanwhile, the ‘bleeding-heart’ liberal cares more about openness, compassion, and equality. Democrats place greater emphasis on progress and innovation.

Intelligence, Thinking Style, & Problem-Solving

Regarding political affiliation and intelligence, one study found that liberals and non-religious individuals have higher IQ’s than conservatives and religious individuals. In contrast, other research suggested that individuals who identified as Republican had greater probability knowledge, higher verbal reasoning ability, and better question comprehension.

Regardless of political affiliation, mental rigidity (i.e., ‘black-and-white’ thinking) is characteristic of individuals who identify as either far left or far right (extremist views).

When it comes to problem-solving, conservatives are more structured and persistent. Conversely, liberals are more flexible, and tend to think outside the box. Also, Democrats are better at tolerating complexity and ambiguity than Republicans, and are more influenced by emotions.

Not surprisingly, both liberals and conservatives struggle to think logically when it comes to arguments attacking their political beliefs. However, researchers found that liberals were better at recognizing flaws in conservative arguments, and conservatives at identifying flaws in liberal reasoning.

Political Affiliation & Fear

Liberals and conservatives experience fear differently. Conservatives have a greater fear of death (which enhances their need for security). While Republicans fear chaos and the absence of order, Democrats tend to fear emptiness.

In one study, when asked about a world where God doesn’t exist, conservatives expressed fear that tradition and order would fall apart, resulting in chaos. Liberals, on the other hand, feared a world without God as barren, lifeless, and devoid of beauty or meaning.

What’s more, neuroscientists found that Republicans and Democrats processed risk differently, although they did not differ in the risks they took. Liberals showed significantly greater activity in the brain region associated with social and self-awareness. Meanwhile, conservatives showed significantly greater activity in the brain region involved in the body’s fight-or-flight system.

Another key difference between Democrats and Republicans is in what they worry about. For example, Democrats are more concerned about climate change while Republicans fear big government and worry more about terrorism.

Temperament, Happiness, & Disgust

A person’s temperament, including how they experience things like happiness and disgust, predicts political affiliation.

Temperament in childhood may predict political ideology in adulthood. Children with fearful temperaments are more likely to be politically conservative as adults. Contrastingly, children with higher levels of activity and focus are more likely to develop liberal views in adulthood.

When it comes to happiness, research indicates that political conservatives are happier than liberals. What’s more, Republicans tend to have happier marriages and are less likely to divorce than Democrats.

However, one study found that compared to conservatives, liberals are more likely to smile genuinely and use ‘happier’ (positive) language.

Other research suggests that compared to Democrats, Republicans are more alert to negativity and spend more time focusing on the negative (but do not seem to be negatively impacted by it).

Interestingly, research indicates that compared to liberals, conservatives experience disgust more easily and intensely, and have stronger physiological reactions when they are repulsed. Similar research suggests that disgust may influence moral judgement.

Political Affiliation & Language

The words we use in everyday conversations are positively associated with political affiliation. There are a few key differences in language and speech patterns of conservatives and liberals. Republicans are more likely to use language that stresses clarity and predictability while Democrats use emotionally expressive language and have a preference for poetry.

In an analysis of U.S. presidential speech transcripts, conservatives demonstrated a preference for nouns, and tended to refer to things by name rather than providing a description of their features. (Example: “He is an adventurer” versus “He is adventurous.”) It was determined that the use of nouns over adjectives was a way to promote stability, familiarity, and tradition.

On Twitter, liberals swear more (with ‘f**k’ and ‘sh*t’ in their top ten most used words) and are more likely than conservatives to use emotionally expressive language and to express both positive feelings and anxiety. Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely to tweet about religion, with ‘God’ and ‘psalm’ as popular words. What’s more, liberals on Twitter are more likely than conservatives to use words like ‘I’ and ‘me,’ while conservatives use ‘we’ and ‘our’ more.

Political Affiliation & Trust in Science

Liberals and conservatives differ in how trusting they are when it comes to science and empirical data. Some research indicates that compared to liberals, conservatives are less trusting of the scientific community. Additionally, conservatives are more skeptical of the value of empirical data. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be more optimistic about knowledge gained from scientific research and its potential applications.

Other research found that while Democrats are generally more ‘pro-science’ than other political parties, Republicans trust science with the exception of the following issues: global warming, evolution, gay adoption, and mandatory health insurance.

Regarding science bias, research suggests that both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to trust science when it does not align with their political beliefs.

Additional Traits by Political Affiliation

Liberals

Seek reform for injustice in society
Are more likely to describe themselves as trusting and optimistic
Are more likely to enjoy reading and going to museums
View teachers and college professors more warmly
Are more likely to have a passport
Drink more lattes
Are more likely to use Instagram and Twitter
Endorse gay unions, government support programs, universal healthcare, feminism, and environmentalism
Are more likely to say it’s important to have a moral, ethical president
Are more likely to support the right to peaceful protest
Report higher levels of political activity
Are more likely to recycle

Conservatives

Are willing to defend current social groups as justifiable or necessary
Prefer SUVs
Prefer to live in small towns
Are more likely to own a gun
Are more likely to go hunting or sport shooting
Are more likely to buy established name-brand products over generics
Are less likely to participate in clinical trials (medical research)
Endorse the United States government, the military, the state they live in, big corporations, and most Americans
Are more likely to say they are ‘proud to be an American’
Prefer politicians with deep voices
Are more likely to be a first-born
Are more negative in their evaluations of the media
Are more likely to vote
Demonstrate better self-control

Conclusion

In sum, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that personality is a strong predictor of political affiliation. Liberals and conservatives tend to have different values, thinking styles, temperaments, and emotional experiences.

While partisan differences may contribute to a polarized divide in America, this doesn’t have to be the norm. Rather, differing perspectives can be complementary and maintain balance.

Liberal… conservative… or somewhere in between… try to learn from opposing viewpoints and aim to value differences, regardless of political affiliation!

References

Aarhus University. (2015, November 24). Republicans prefer politicians with deep voices. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151124112136.htm

American Psychological Association. (2018, December 20). Certain moral values may lead to more prejudice, discrimination. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181220104506.htm

American Sociological Association. (2010, February 24). Liberals and atheists smarter? Intelligent people have values novel in human evolutionary history, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

Association for Psychological Science. (2012, October 22). Parenting and temperament in childhood predict later political ideology. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022162655.htm

Association for Psychological Science. (2013, February 12). Name-brand or generic? Your political ideology might influence your choice. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212131953.htm

Bixter, M. T. (2015). Happiness, political orientation, and religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 7-11. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914004553

Carl, N. (2014). Cognitive ability and party identity in the United States. Intelligence, 47, 3-9. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081

Cornell University. (2009, June 5). Easily Grossed Out? You Might Be A Conservative!. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604163620.htm

Georgia State University. (2018, September 20). Commitment to democratic values predict climate change concern, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180920161057.htm

Michigan State University. (2020, September 16). The unintended consequence of becoming empathetic. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200916131030.htm

Northwestern University. (2008, September 25). Political Conservatives Fear Chaos; Liberals Fear Emptiness. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924124549.htm

Northwestern University. (2016, March 15). Conservatives and liberals do think differently: Research shows different ways of solving everyday problems linked to political ideology. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160315120953.htm

Ohio State University. (2015, February 9). Both Liberals, Conservatives Can Have Science Bias. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209113001.htm

Pew Research Center, June, 2014, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology”

Pew Research Center, June, 2014, “Political Polarization in the American Public”

Pew Research Center, September, 2017, “Partisans Differ Widely in Views of Police Officers, College Professors”

Pew Research Center, October, 2017, “Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left”

Pew Research Center, August, 2020, “Americans See Skepticism of News Media as Healthy, Say Public Trust in the Institution can Improve”

Pew Research Center, September, 2020, “In Views of U.S. Democracy, Widening Partisan Divides Over Freedom to Peacefully Protest”

Pew Research Center – Democrats more likely to say having an ethical president is very important

Pew Research Center – How use of Facebook, Twitter, other social media sites differs by party (or not)

Queen Mary, University of London. (2015, September 16). Study finds people’s conservative and liberal traits show up in their Twitter vocabulary: Different language used by supporters of different parties reflects psychological understanding. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150916161824.htm

Regnery, A. S. (2018). THE PILLARS OF MODERN AMERICAN CONSERVATISM. Intercollegiate Review.

SAGE Publications. (2015, March 2). Republicans trust science — except when it comes to health insurance and gay adoption. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150302123337.htm

Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (2014, November 7). Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141107091559.htm

Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (2019, April 17). Logical reasoning: An antidote or a poison for political disagreement?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417084524.htm

Terrorism Fears Drive More in U.S. to Avoid Crowds (gallup.com)

University of Alabama. (2016, July 13). Study shows stark differences in how conservatives, liberals value empirical data. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160713172717.htm

University of California – Irvine. (2015, March 12). Political liberals display greater happiness, study shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150312142909.htm

University of Cambridge. (2019, August 29). ‘Mental rigidity’ at root of intense political partisanship on both left and right, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190829081401.htm

University of Cincinnati. (2015, June 22). Conservatives demonstrate more self control than Liberals, studies suggest. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150622181857.htm

University of Exeter. (2013, February 13). Red brain, blue brain: Republicans and Democrats process risk differently, research finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130213173131.htm

University of Kent. (2016, February 24). Conservatives prefer using nouns, new research finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160224133417.htm

University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (2011, November 9). That’s gross! Study uncovers physiological nature of disgust in politics. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025122617.htm

University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (2014, July 31). Political attitudes derive from body and mind: ‘Negativity bias’ explains difference between liberals and conservatives. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731145935.htm

University of New Hampshire. (2008, November 2). Does Your Personality Influence Who You Vote For?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081031161623.htm

University of Pennsylvania. (2018, June 19). Liberals do drink more lattes, but maybe not for the reasons you think. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180619122429.htm

University of Toronto. (2010, June 10). Personality predicts political preferences. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609111312.htm

University of Utah. (2015, August 18). Republicans have happier marriages than Democrats, study indicates. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150818090528.htm

Washington University in St. Louis. (2021, March 22). Widening political rift in U.S. may threaten science, medicine: Study finds conservatives less willing than liberals to participate in research. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210322120110.htm

Wikipedia contributors. (2021, April 18). Conservatism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&oldid=1018563259

Wikipedia contributors. (2021, April 7). Liberalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberalism&oldid=1016510923

Rape Culture Explained: The Role of Toxic Blame

5 Shares

Rape culture ideology explains how society normalizes sexual violence while blaming the victim. This is an article about rape culture and how it influences sexual violence.

5 Shares

According to Wikipedia, “rape culture is a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.”

Rape-culture attitudes/behaviors include victim-blaming, slut-shaming, sexual objectification of women, trivialization of sexual assault, denial of widespread rape, and dismissal of the devastating impact of sexual violence.

Image by Markus Winkler from Pixabay

The following comments embody rape culture in America:

“In MOST cases (not all), the women raped are hoes dressed in some sleazy material and whine about being taking advantage of later.”

“There is no rape culture. There is such a small percentage of men that rape women, there cannot be a culture. [Rape] isn’t even remotely common.”

“It doesn’t matter if you urge or try to teach [men not to rape], they are going to do what they are going to do. It’s best to be prepared, it’s that simple.”

“To make the implication that a woman can dress and act how she wants and not expect a wolf to find her… is just damn ignorant… you don’t go flaunting fresh meat in front of a primal animal and expect it not to attack.”

The above quotes (edited for spelling/typos) are statements from two middle-aged men in response to a Facebook post. The Facebook post proclaimed that women are routinely urged to cover their drinks, to not walk alone at night, to carry pepper spray, etc., and then posed the question, “CAN WE PLEASE URGE MEN TO NOT SEXUALLY ASSAULT WOMEN?”

Ironically, the very comments intended to disprove rape culture provided proof of its existence (and ugliness).

Rape Culture in America

“Women are no more important than any other potential victims, but we are the primary targets of the messages and myths that sustain rape culture. We’re the ones asked to change our behavior, limit our movements, and take full responsibility for the prevention of sexual violence in society.”
Kate Harding (Author)

How common is rape and/or sexual assault in America?

To start, what are the statistics on sexual violence in the U.S.?

Every 73 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted.

According to the 2015 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey:

43.6% of American women have experienced some form of sexual aggression.
1 in 5 women are victims of attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.
Each year, there are an estimated 5,600,000 victims of sexual violence in the United States.

81.3% of women who experienced sexual violence said it first occurred prior to age 25.

According to the Association of American Universities (AAU) Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct:

1 in 4 undergraduate women were victims of sexual assault while enrolled in college (compared to 6.8% of undergraduate men).
41.8% of students experienced at least one incident of sexual harassment since enrollment.

Additionally, a 2015 study indicated that 20% of surveyed college men committed some form of sexual assault. Other researchers found that nearly 1 in 10 persons ages 21 and younger perpetrated some type of forced sexual violence.

According to the Uniform Crime Report from the FBI, there were an estimated 139,380 rapes (including attempted rapes) reported to law enforcement in 2018.

It should be noted that the Uniform Crime Report from the FBI under-represents actual incidents of rapes and does not account for other forms of sexual violence. Since most rapes are not reported to the police, the federal government relies on three data collection systems to measure sexual victimization: The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey, the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, and the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. (For additional sources of reliable data, look to peer-reviewed academic journals and credible sites such as RAINN.)

Per a 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice:

Only a third of all rape crimes are reported to the police.
Reasons for not reporting:
- Fear of retaliation (from either the perpetrator or society)
- Believing the police will not (or cannot) help
- Believing rape is a personal or shameful matter
- Not wanting to get the perpetrator in trouble

What’s more, reporting rape in itself can be traumatizing, a “second rape.” To avoid this, many women choose not to report.

The Impact of Sexual Violence

As reported by the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN):

Rape victims are at an increased risk for:
- Experiencing PTSD symptoms during the two weeks following the incident (94%)
- Contemplating suicide (33%)
- Attempting suicide (13%)
- Using illicit drugs
- Experiencing problems at work or school (38%)
- Experiencing relationship problems with family/friends (37%)

According to research and data from the 2011 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey:

The estimated lifetime cost of rape is $122,461 per victim, or a population economic burden of nearly $3.1 trillion over victims’ lifetimes.
Government sources pay an estimated $1 trillion (32%) of the lifetime economic burden.

What is rape culture?

The concept of rape culture was formulated in the 1970s as a feminist, sociological theory. Rape culture ideology explains how society normalizes male sexual violence while blaming the victim. Additional practices/attitudes that contribute to rape culture include slut-shaming, objectifying women, trivializing rape, denying that widespread rape exists, and minimizing the impact of sexual violence.

Normalizing Rape & Sexual Assault

“[Rape is] unfortunately the nature of the world we live in. Is it not?”

The above comment normalizes sexual violence – it endorses rape as an inevitable fact of life. As a result, emphasis is placed on teaching girls and young women self-defense, vigilance, and modesty. This allows for sexual violence prevention programs to teach “don’t get raped… instead of: don’t rape.” Meanwhile, preventative strategies such as early sex education and interventions for treating aggressive behaviors receive less attention.

For myself, I was taught to yell in a deep voice if assaulted and to not scream. (Supposedly, a high-pitched scream would sexually excite the perpetrator, but a low voice would turn him off.) Also, I carried my keys in hand at night… not so much as to open my car door in a rush, but to stab my attacker in the eye.

“Rape is one of the most terrible crimes on earth and it happens every few minutes. The problem with groups who deal with rape is that they try to educate women about how to defend themselves. What really needs to be done is teaching men not to rape. Go to the source and start there.”
Kurt Cobain

Years later, I took a self-defense class. It was both challenging and empowering. The instructor, before teaching any moves, stressed that to avoid being a victim, the best option is always, always… to run. Self-defense should be used as a last resort.

Self-defense may come in handy, but it’s not a solution to sexual violence. The ultimate goal is not to normalize or defend against, but to eradicate. Rape is not the norm.

Victim-Blaming & Slut-Shaming

“In MOST cases (not all), the women raped are hoes dressed in some sleazy material and whine about being taking advantage of later.”

In a single sentence, the above commenter blames the victim, slut shames, objectifies women (which he later refers to as “fresh meat”), and trivializes the harmful consequences of rape. He implies that “hoes” (i.e., women who enjoy frequent or casual sex) who wear immodest attire should expect or even deserve to be assaulted. He trivializes the harmful impact of sexual violence when he uses the word “whine,” as though rape is a detested chore, not a traumatic and life-altering experience.

Both victim-blaming and slut-shaming contribute to rape culture. What’s more, some women choose to not report sexual assault because they fear the backlash (being blamed or labeled as promiscuous).

Victim-blaming defined is the attitude that the victim of a crime, not the perpetrator, is responsible for the attack. It’s assumed that the victim did something to provoke the assailant or that they somehow deserved what happened (because of the way they were dressed, how they flirted, etc.)

“She told me that my rape was not my fault, that I should feel no shame, that – simple as it may sound – I hadn’t caused it. No one causes rape but rapists. No one causes rape but rapists. No one causes rape but rapists. It was true. And it had not been obvious to me. And hearing it from someone else, a professional, someone who should know, helped me believe that soon I would believe it.”
Aspen Matis (Author)

Characteristics and factors associated with blaming the victim include

Male characteristics:

Endorsement of traditional views of gender roles,
Acceptance of gender stereotypes (i.e., “It’s not ‘ladylike’ for women to desire sex” or “Women who resist are only playing ‘hard to get'”),
Conservative religious beliefs,
Politically conservative views,
Compulsive sexual behavior,
The belief that rape isn’t “real” if it occurs in a marriage or relationship, and
Believing rape myths to be true.

And other factors contributing to victim-blaming:

There is a perceived threat to the assailant’s masculinity,
The victim is wearing tight, revealing, or sexually suggestive attire,
The victim is viewed as promiscuous,
If either the victim or the attacker were intoxicated at the time,
It’s perceived that the victim did not resist or fight hard enough,
If the assailant uses little or no force,
Sexual objectification of women in society, and
The media’s portrayal of what constitutes “real” rape (i.e., “stranger rape” vs. date or acquaintance rape).

A more subtle form of victim-blaming is placing all the focus on victim with victim-focused (instead of perpetrator-focused) preventative tips. For example, if a woman is advised to avoid empty parking garages, never leave her drink unattended, etc., and then slips up (i.e., her appointment ran late and she has to walk to car alone or she leaves her drink when taking an urgent call during a date), she is faulted (and may blame herself) for her carelessness.

“Women don’t get raped because they were drinking or took drugs. Women do not get raped because they weren’t careful enough. Women get raped because someone raped them.”
Jessica Valenti, The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women

Only the rapist is at fault for committing a sex crime, never the victim, regardless of circumstances.

The definition of slut-shaming is “the practice of criticizing people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate expectations of behavior and appearance regarding issues related to sexuality.”

Slut-shaming seeks to humiliate, admonish, or degrade a person. Women are harshly judged for so-called loose sexual behaviors while men are not held to a similar standard.

Women as Sexual Objects

Objectification of women reduces them to sex objects that exist primarily for sexual pleasure. Interpersonal objectification is commonplace, and occurs in the form of unwanted body evaluation and/or advances (i.e., catcalls, leering, sexually suggestive remarks about a woman’s appearance, etc.) Sexual objectification also occurs in the media when women are depicted as sex symbols. Sex objectification is both harmful and dehumanizing.

Men who view females as sexual objects have a diminished ability to feel empathy for them and an increased rate of aggression towards women and girls. Research also indicates that men who objectify women or see them as animals are more likely to rape and sexually harass women. They’re also more likely to have negative views of female rape victims.

What’s more, women who are objectified may experience increased rates of mental illness; including depression, anxiety, and eating disorders; shame; and reduced productivity.

The Denial of Widespread Rape

We routinely reject unpleasant truths and information that threaten our worldview. This allows for the dismissal of commonplace rape and sexual assault in America. It’s easier to view rape as a rare and/or fully preventable occurrence.

Moreover, humans require more information to believe in something they do not want to believe. For example, if you deny widespread rape based on FBI stats alone or personal experience, you may not accept the reality without multiple, additional sources of information. And due to confirmation bias, you are unlikely to seek it out.

Rape culture normalizes sexual violence as a fact of life while at the same time dismissing how commonplace its occurrence is.

Trivializing Rape

Rape jokes and sexist humor trivialize sexual violence and encourage victim-blaming. Research indicates that exposure to sexist jokes may increase a man’s proclivity for rape. While no one is suggesting that rape jokes cause rape, they do contribute to rape culture.

What’s more, sexist humor may be a way to express real aggressive tendencies or prejudices against women under the guise of a joke.

Rape culture also trivializes the devastating impact of rape. To refer to rape as “just sex” or to tell someone to “get over it already” minimizes the severe consequences of sexual violence.

Traits Associated with Rape Culture

The acceptance of rape myths, which are damaging and unfounded beliefs about rape and sexual violence, contributes to rape culture.

What are some common rape myths?

Rape myths

It’s the victim’s fault due to her actions or appearance. (This is victim-blaming.)
Men rape women due to sexual desire and the need for sexual gratification.
If the woman is drunk or high, it isn’t rape.
Women who dress in revealing or tight clothes are “asking for it.”
If the woman doesn’t fight back, it isn’t rape. (In reality, severe trauma may cause a “freeze” response.)
Individuals that commit rape are unable to stop themselves (due to uncontrollable lust).
Most perpetrators are strangers.
Women commonly falsify rape out of spite or to get revenge. (An estimated 2-10% of rape allegations are false.)
Women frequently lie about rape to get attention.
Women frequently lie about rape when they regret having sex with someone.
Women secretly enjoy being raped.
Women can prevent rape by avoiding dangerous areas.
Only certain types of women get raped.
“Good guys” don’t rape.

“They are all innocent until proven guilty. But not me. I am a liar until I am proven honest.”
Louise O’Neill, Asking For It

Furthermore, there are certain assailant characteristics/beliefs that contribute to misconceptions about sexual violence, promoting rape culture.

Research indicates that the following traits/views/behaviors are linked to rape myth acceptance:

Drug and/or alcohol use
Hostile sexism toward women
Traditional gender-role stereotyping
Belief that men are dominant over women
Sex with prostitutes
Casual and/or self-permissive attitudes about sex
Narcissism
Lack of social conscience
Antisocial personality traits
Lack of knowledge about sex
Lower levels of education
Tendency to blame the situation or society
Religiosity (Note: This varies depending on the religion)

Rape Culture and Sexual Violence

How does rape culture contribute to sexual violence?

For one, men who subscribe to rape misconceptions are more likely to be perpetrators of rape. Research indicates that the acceptance of rape myths is a risk factor for sexual violence. Furthermore, researchers found that justifying a sexual assault with rape-supporting attitudes predicted future incidents of sexual aggression.

Sex objectification, specifically, is linked to increased incidents of rape and acceptance of sexual violence. What’s more, rape culture in the media predicts the frequency of rape and even influences the criminal justice system.

Bottom Line: Rape culture promotes sexual aggression. And if you contribute to rape culture, you’re contributing to sexual victimization in America.

“Standing behind predators makes prey of us all.”
DaShanne Stokes

Anti-Rape Culture

To create a culture of anti-rape, we must eradicate rape culture beliefs, practices, and attitudes. Furthermore, we must find a solution-focused approach that aims to eliminate or reduce sexual violence.

Empowerment/assertiveness, sexual assault resistance, and self-defense training programs for women can help to reduce incidences of rape and other forms of victimization. Learning self-defense can also help to increase confidence levels.

Additionally, anti-violence education plays a crucial role in dismantling rape culture. Evidence suggests that early education and strength-based prevention strategies, including school-based, community-based, and parent-based interventions, are effective at reducing sexual violence. High-school programs that provide social support may help to reduce incidences of sexual assault. However, research suggests that for prevention programs to be effective, they must be theory-driven and comprehensive with varied teaching methods.

For young adults (post-high school), ongoing educational strategies effectively reduce rape myth acceptance and sexual aggression. Educational training programs for college-aged men have successfully changed harmful attitudes and rape-acceptance beliefs that contribute to rape. One study found that web-based trainings aimed at college-aged men reduced campus rape. Moreover, bystander intervention programs may help to reduce sexual assault. College courses specifically focused on violence against women may also be effective at changing attitudes of both rape and rape victims.

According to the CDC, strategies for ending sexual violence include the following:

Promote Social Norms that Protect Against Violence
Teach Skills to Prevent Sexual Violence
Provide Opportunities to Empower and Support Girls and Women
Create Protective Environments
Support Victims/Survivors to Lessen Harms

An integrated approach that combines early prevention strategies, sex education, ongoing educational programs, and self-defense and empowerment training for women may be the key to creating a counterculture to rape culture, and ultimately eliminating widespread sexual victimization in America.

Conclusion

In sum, sexual violence against women is commonplace and underreported in America. Rape culture contributes to this issue by normalizing male sexual violence, victim-blaming, slut-shaming, sexually objectifying women, trivializing rape, denying the existence of widespread rape, and minimizing the harm caused by sexual violence.

As a way to reduce sexually violent crimes in America, we should focus on strategies that dismantle rape culture, target potential perpetrators, and teach women empowerment and assertiveness. An integrated approach is needed to eliminate rape and sexual assault.

In the very least, take a stand, educate yourself, stay informed, and don’t participate in rape culture!

References

American Medical Association (AMA). (2013). Nearly 1 in 10 young people report perpetrating sexual violence. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007162100.htm
Barnett, M. D., Sligar, K. B., & Wang, C. D. C. (2018). Religious affiliation, religiosity, gender, and rape myth acceptance: Feminist theory and rape culture. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(8), 1219–1235.
Baum, M., Cohen, D., & Zhukov, Y. (2018). Does rape culture predict rape? Evidence from U.S. newspapers, 2000–2013. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 13(3), 263-289.
Cadaret, M. C., Johnson, N. L., Devencenzi, M. L., & Morgan, E. M. (2019). A quasiexperimental study of the bystander plus program for changing rape culture beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519872981
Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims. American Psychologist, 63(8), 702-17.
Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Townsend, R., Lee, H., Bruce, C., & Thomas, G. (2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57, 131–136.
Cherniawsky, S., & Morrison, M. (2020). “You should have known better”: The social ramifications of victimization-focused sexual assault prevention tips. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520913650
Clonan-Roy, K., Goncy, E. A., Naser, S. C., Fuller, K. A., DeBoard, A., Williams, A., & Hall, A. (2021). Preserving abstinence and preventing rape: How sex education textbooks contribute to rape culture. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(1), 231–245.
Criminal Victimization, 2013 (U.S. Department of Justice)
Criminal Victimization, 2019 (U.S. Department of Justice)
Currier, D. M., & Carlson, J. H. (2009). Creating attitudinal change through teaching: How a course on “women and violence” changes students’ attitudes about violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(10), 1735–1754.
de Heer, B. A., & Jones, L. C. (2017). Investigating the self-protective potential of immobility in victims of rape. Violence and Victims, 32(2), 210–229.
Donde, S. D. (2017). College women’s attributions of blame for experiences of sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(22), 3520–3538.
Fischer, G. J. (1986). College student attitudes toward forcible date rape: I. Cognitive predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 457–466.
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. (2004). First- and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual Coercion. Violence Against Women, 10(3), 236–261.
Foubert, J. D., & Masin, R. C. (2012). Effects of the men’s program on U.S. Army soldiers’ intentions to commit and willingness to intervene to prevent rape: A pretest posttest study. Violence and Victims, 27(6), 911–921.
Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey | National Institute of Justice
Garrity, S. E. (2011). Sexual assault prevention programs for college-aged men: A critical evaluation. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 7(1), 40–48.
Georgetown University Medical Center. (2015). Interrupting cycle of violence before young perpetrators, victims reach adulthood. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150112110813.htm
Georgia State University. (2014). Web-based training can reduce campus rape, study concludes. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140915153615.htm
Gravelin, C. R., Biernat, M., & Bucher, C. E. (2019). Blaming the victim of acquaintance rape: Individual, situational, and sociocultural factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422
Greathouse, S. M., Saunders, J., Matthews, M., Keller, K. M., & Miller, L. L. (2015). A review of the literature on sexual assault perpetrator characteristics and behaviors. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
How to Avoid Victim Blaming – Harvard Law School HALT
Klaw, E. L., Lonsway, K. A., Berg, D. R., Waldo, C. R., Kothari, C., Mazurek, C. J., & Hegeman, K. E. (2005). Challenging rape culture: Awareness, emotion and action through campus acquaintance rape education. Women & Therapy, 28(2), 47-63.
Lisak, D., Gardinier, L., Nicksa, S. C., & Cote, A. M. (2010). False allegations of sexual assault: An analysis of ten years of reported cases. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1318-1334.
Martinez, T., Wiersma-Mosley, J. D., Jozkowski, K. N., & Becnel, J. (2018). “Good guys don’t rape”: Greek and non-Greek college student perpetrator rape myths. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 8(7), 60.
McCaughey, M., & Cermele, J. (2017). Changing the hidden curriculum of campus rape prevention and education: Women’s self-defense as a key protective factor for a public health model of prevention. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(3), 287–302.
Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359–375.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6/7), 449-456.
North Carolina State University. (2016). Attitudes toward women key in higher rates of sexual assault by athletes, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160602095206.htm
Peterson, C., DeGue, S., Florence, C., & Lokey, C. N. (2017). Lifetime economic burden of rape among U.S. adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52,(6), 691-701.
Prina, F., & Schatz-Stevens, J. N. (2020). Sexism and rape myth acceptance: The impact of culture, education, and religiosity. Psychological Reports, 123(3), 929-951.
Rapaport, K., & Burkhart, B. R. (1984). Personality and attitudinal characteristics of sexually coercive college males. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93(2), 216–221.
Rape Culture | Sexualized Violence Support and Information (Brandon University)
Rau, T. J., Merrill, L. L., McWhorter, S. K., Stander, V. A., Thomsen, C. J., Dyslin, C. W., Crouch, J. L., Rabenhorst, M. M., & Milner, J. S. (2010). Evaluation of a sexual assault education/prevention program for male U.S. Navy personnel. Military Medicine, 175(6), 429–434.
Romero-Sánchez, M., Megías, J. L., & Carretero-Dios, H. (2019). Sexist humor and sexual aggression against women: When sexist men act according to their own values or social pressures. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 886260519888518. Advance Online Publication.
Rooney, M. The effects of sexual objectification on women’s mental health. Applied Psychology OPUS.
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 734–746.
Seabrook, R. C., Ward, L. M., & Giaccardi, S. (2019). Less than human? Media use, objectification of women, and men’s acceptance of sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 9(5), 536 –545.
Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby-Clark, I. R., Radtke, H. L., & Hobden, K. L. (2015). Efficacy of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372(24), 2326–2335.
Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Hobden, K. L., Newby-Clark, I. R., Barata, P. C., Radtke, H. L., & Thurston, W. E. (2017). Secondary and 2-year outcomes of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 147–162.
Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., Chen, J. (2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief – updated release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Szymanski, D. M., Moffitt, L. B., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Sexual objectification
of women: Advances to theory and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 6–38.
Thacker, L. K. (2017). Rape culture, victim blaming, and the role of media in the criminal justice system. Kentucky Journal of Undergraduate Scholarship, 1(1), 89-99.
Thomae, M., & Pina, A. (2015). Sexist humor and social identity: The role of sexist humor in men’s in-group cohesion, sexual harassment, rape proclivity, and victim blame. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 187–204.
Thomae, M., & Viki, G. T. (2013). Why did the woman cross the road? The effects of sexist humor on men’s rape proclivity. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7(3), 250-269.
Trottier, D., Benbouriche, M., & Bonneville, V. (2021). A meta-analysis on the association between rape myth acceptance and sexual coercion perpetration. Journal of Sex Research, 58(3), 375–382.
Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2018 (FBI)
University of California – Los Angeles. (2015). Men who buy sex have much in common with sexually coercive men: Findings support decades of research. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150831163847.htm
University of Georgia. (2016). Narcissism linked to sexual assault perpetration in college, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329184953.htm
University of Pittsburgh. (2019). High social support associated with less violence among male teens in urban neighborhoods. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190913111348.htm
University of Vienna. (2018). Objectification of women results in lack of empathy: Empathetic brain responses reduced in sexualized representations of women, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180111090832.htm
Vasquez, E. A., Ball, L., Loughnan, S., & Pina, A. (2017). The object
of my aggression: Sexual objectification increases physical aggression towards women. Aggressive Behavior, 44(1), 5-17.
Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN
Vonderhaar, R. L., & Carmody, D. C. (2015). There are no “innocent victims”: The influence of just world beliefs and prior victimization on rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(10), 1615–1632.
Wegner, R., Abbey, A., Pierce, J., Pegram, S. E., & Woerner, J. (2015). Sexual assault perpetrators’ justifications for their actions: Relationships to rape supportive attitudes, incident characteristics, and future perpetration. Violence Against Women, 21(8), 1018–1037.
Weir, K. (2017). Why we believe alternative facts. Monitor on Psychology, 48(5). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/05/alternative-facts
Wikipedia contributors. (2020, December 22). Rape myth. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_myth&oldid=995643067
Wikipedia contributors. (2021, February 4). Slut-shaming. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slut-shaming&oldid=1004814383
Wikipedia contributors. (2021, February 6). Rape culture. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&oldid=1005164362
Wiley. (2017). Many rape victims experience involuntary paralysis that prevents them from resisting, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170607085350.htm

16 Best e-Newsletters for Therapists

11 Shares

This is a list of the 16 best e-newsletters for therapists and other mental health workers (selected for quality/relevancy of content and usefulness).

11 Shares

This is a list of the 16 best email newsletters for therapists, other mental health workers, students, and consumers. These e-newsletters were selected for quality/relevancy of content and usefulness of resources.

“Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.”
Albert Einstein

Please repost this and/or share with anyone you think could benefit from these resources!

16 Best e-Newsletters for Therapists

Newsletters are categorized based on target population: General/nonspecific and trauma-informed newsletters for therapists and counseling students, newsletters for addiction professionals, newsletters for both mental health professionals and consumers, and newsletters for research news.

For additional resources for therapists (posted on this site), see Free Online Education for Mental Health Professionals, Professional Membership Organizations for Mental Health Professionals, and Resources for Mental Health Professionals.

Mental Health Counselors & Students

General/nonspecific and trauma-informed e-newsletters

ACEs Connection Daily Digest

Site/Organization: ACEs Connection

Site Statement: “ACEs Connection is a social network that recognizes the impact of a wide variety of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in shaping adult behavior and health, and that promotes trauma-informed and resilience-building practices and policies in all families, organizations, systems and communities. We support communities to accelerate the science of adverse childhood experiences to solve our most intractable problems. We believe that we can create a resilient world where people thrive.”

Best for: News/articles about trauma and Webinar opportunities

Site/Organization: Center for Complicated Grief at Columbia School of Social Work

Site Statement: “Receive the latest in industry news, therapy techniques, and new developments in Complicated Grief. New articles are added and updated regularly.”

Best for: Free Webinar opportunities and news

Site/Organization: National Council for Behavioral Health

Site Statement: “The National Council for Behavioral Health is the unifying voice of America’s health care organizations that deliver mental health and addictions treatment and services. Together with our 3,381 member organizations serving over 10 million adults, children and families living with mental illnesses and addictions, the National Council is committed to all Americans having access to comprehensive, high-quality care that affords every opportunity for recovery.”

Best for: Webinar opportunities, trainings, news, and other resources

Psychiatric News Update

Site/Organization: American Psychiatric Association

Site Statement: “Psychiatric News Update is a weekly e-newsletter bringing you up-to-the-moment news about APA news; services, programs, and educational materials available to APA members; and links to the latest research reports in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Psychiatric News, and Psychiatric Services.”

Best for: News/research and training opportunities (free for members)

Psychiatry Advisor Update

Site/Organization: Psychiatry Advisor (from Haymarket Medical Network)

Site Statement: “Psychiatry Advisor offers psychiatric healthcare professionals a comprehensive knowledge base of practical psychiatry information and resources to assist in making the right decisions for their patients. Creating your free account with Psychiatry Advisor allows you access to exclusive content, including case studies, drug information, CME and more across our growing network of clinical sites.”

Best for: News and articles related to psychotropic medications, and training opportunities

Site/Organization: Society for the Advancement of Psychotherapy

Site Statement: “A strong voice for psychotherapy and home for psychotherapists, the Society for the Advancement of Psychotherapy is committed to preserving and expanding the theoretical and evidentiary base for psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic relationships, supporting life-long learning of psychotherapeutic skills, as well as making the benefits of psychotherapy accessible to all. The Society is an international community of practitioners, scholars, researchers, teachers, health care specialists, and students who are interested in and devoted to the advancement of the practice and science of psychotherapy. Our mission is to provide an active, diverse, and vital community and to generate, share, and disseminate the rapidly accumulating evidence base in clinical science and practice.”

Best for: News and research

Addiction Professionals

Addiction & Recovery eNews

Site/Organization: Association for Addiction Professionals (NAADAC)

Site Statement: “Addiction & Recovery eNews is a bi-weekly newsletter delivering trending and breaking news, innovations, research and trends impacting the addiction-focused profession to over 48,000 addiction professionals every other Friday.”

Best for: Training (both free and low-cost) opportunities, news, and employment postings

ASAM Weekly

Site/Organization: American Society of Addiction Medicine

Site Statement: “The ASAM Weekly is a source of timely, useful news briefings of top stories for addiction medicine combined with ASAM developments in education, advocacy, state chapter news and more. ASAM Weekly is a great way to keep informed and is delivered to the inboxes of ASAM members every Tuesday.”

Best for: News and articles about addiction medicine

Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation Emails – Resources for Professionals

Site/Organization: Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation

Site Statement: “The Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation is a force of healing and hope for individuals, families and communities affected by addiction to alcohol and other drugs… With a legacy that began in 1949 and includes the 1982 founding of the Betty Ford Center, the Foundation today also encompasses a graduate school of addiction studies, a publishing division, an addiction research center, recovery advocacy and thought leadership, professional and medical education programs, school-based prevention resources and a specialized program for children who grow up in families with addiction. Stay up-to-date on the latest addiction treatment trends, research and practices as well as news about Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation’s facilities, events and staff with Clinical Connection, [a] bi-monthly e-newsletter.”

Best for: Free Webinar opportunities, online courses, news, and podcasts

National Harm Reduction Coalition

Site/Organization: National Harm Reduction Coalition

Site Statement: “National Harm Reduction Coalition is a nationwide advocate and ally for people who use drugs. We are a catalyst and incubator, repository and hub, storyteller and disseminator for the collective wisdom of the harm reduction community.”

Best for: Resources, free Webinars, news

Partnership to End Addiction Emails (for Professionals or Family Members/Caregivers)

Site/Organization: Partnership to End Addiction

Site Statement: “Partnership to End Addiction is a result of the cohesive joining of two pioneering and preeminent addiction-focused organizations — Center on Addiction and Partnership for Drug-Free Kids. We combine our depth of expertise with our compassion-driven, hands-on approach to deliver solutions to individuals and families and proactively take action to incite productive change. Together, as Partnership to End Addiction, we mobilize families, policymakers, researchers and health care professionals to more effectively address addiction systemically on a national scale.”

Best for: Policy news and research

Mental Health Professionals and Consumers

Site/Organization: Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance

Site Statement: “DBSA provides hope, help, support, and education to improve the lives of people who have mood disorders. DBSA offers peer-based, wellness-oriented support and empowering services and resources available when people need them, where they need them, and how they need to receive them—online 24/7, in local support groups, in audio and video casts, or in printed materials distributed by DBSA, our chapters, and mental health care facilities across America.”

Best for: News and resources

Site/Organization: Mental Health America (MHA)

Site Statement: “Mental Health America (MHA) is the nation’s leading community-based nonprofit dedicated to addressing the needs of those living with mental illness and promoting the overall mental health of all. MHA’s work is driven by its commitment to promote mental health as a critical part of overall wellness, including prevention services for all; early identification and intervention for those at risk; integrated care, services, and supports for those who need them; with recovery as the goal.”

Best for: Webinars that offer certificates of attendance, news, recommended articles/podcasts, and downloadable toolkits

Research News

Site/Organization: Brain & Behavior Research Foundation

Site Statement: “The Brain & Behavior Research Foundation is a global nonprofit organization focused on improving the understanding, prevention and treatment of psychiatric and mental illnesses. The Foundation is committed to alleviating the suffering caused by mental illness by awarding grants that will lead to advances and breakthroughs in scientific research.”

Best for: News and Webinar opportunities

Recovery Bulletin

Site/Organization: Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital

Site Statement: “The Recovery Research Institute is a leading nonprofit research institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School, dedicated to the advancement of addiction treatment and recovery. The Recovery Bulletin is a free monthly e-publication summarizing the latest and best research in addiction treatment and recovery.”

Best for: Research news related to addiction and recovery

ScienceDaily Newsletters

Site/Organization: ScienceDaily

Site Statement: “ScienceDaily features breaking news about the latest discoveries in science, health, the environment, technology, and more – from leading universities, scientific journals, and research organizations.”

Best for: The latest research findings

Compiled by Cassie Jewell, M.Ed., LPC, LSATP

8 Strategies for Spotting Fake News

11 Shares

This article provides scientific and evidence-based strategies for spotting fake news and preventing the spread of misinformation.

11 Shares

According to Wikipedia, fake news is “false or misleading information presented as news. It often has the aim of damaging the reputation of a person or entity, or making money through advertising revenue.”

How can you spot false information, defend yourself against it, and prevent the spread of fake news? This is a list of 8 strategies for spotting fake news and identifying misinformation.

8 STRATEGIES FOR SPOTTING FAKE NEWS

“The news and the truth are not the same thing.”
Walter Lippmann (American Journalist)

Your Brain on Fake News

Many accept fake news as fact – providing that it matches up with their current beliefs. This is due to confirmation bias, the tendency to look for and accept information that supports and confirms (rather than rejects) existing beliefs. Confirmation bias occurs when people gather or remember information selectively, or when they decipher it in a biased manner.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CAN LEAD TO CONFIRMATION BIAS. ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, WHEN SITUATIONS INVOLVE CONFLICTING ATTITUDES, BELIEFS, OR BEHAVIORS, PEOPLE EXPERIENCE MENTAL DISCOMFORT. WHEN ONE’S ACTIONS OR THOUGHTS CONTRADICT THEIR BELIEFS, THEY MAY ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE DISCORD TO ALLEVIATE GUILT, SHAME, AND ANXIETY.
AN EXAMPLE OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS AN ANIMAL LOVER WHO FEELS GUILTY FOR EATING MEAT. AS A RESULT, THEY EXPERIENCE DISCOMFORT. TO REDUCE SHAME AND RESTORE A SENSE OF BALANCE, THEY MAY REJECT OR AVOID INFORMATION THAT PROMOTES VEGANISM OR CRUELTY-FREE LIVING.

Your brain happily receives and accepts information that aligns with your belief system while ignoring or distorting information that threatens your views. Research indicates that the effect is stronger for deeply ingrained and/or emotionally-charged biases and beliefs. Deep-seated biases/views that are formed early in life can be difficult to ‘unlearn’ because they reside in your unconscious mind.

To compensate for confirmation bias, a person must develop critical thinking skills and have a flexible (not rigid) thinking style. To challenge long-held (sometimes unconscious) prejudices, expose yourself to different viewpoints and perspectives. Also, question what you learned (or were told) in childhood.

Other ways to increase awareness are through assessment, such as the Implicit Association Test from Project Implicit, and training, such as the Implicit Bias Module Series (from the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity).

“By becoming self-aware, you gain ownership of reality; in becoming real, you become the master of both inner and outer life.“
Deepak Chopra (Indian-American Author & Alternative Medicine Advocate)

The Misinformation TRAP

A second reason our brains are easily influenced by inaccurate or misleading information (even when we know better) is the result of routine cognitive processes involved in memory and comprehension.

When our brains are flooded with large quantities of information (i.e., the onslaught of news stories from multiple sources), we’re wired to quickly ‘download’ material rather than critically evaluate and analyze. This is the brain’s attempt at preserving its more complex functions. Later, the brain pulls up the readily available misinformation first because it’s easier to retrieve.

Moreover, research indicates that we’re more likely to believe fake news when both accurate and inaccurate information are mixed together in a source.

To avoid the misinformation trap, critically evaluate information immediately, always consider the source, and be aware of the brain’s difficulty with processing information that’s a mix of both fact and fiction.

Emotional Reactions & ‘Gut Feelings’

Emotions play a role in how we receive and process new information. Fear and anger are especially influential. Unfortunately, many people stick with their initial reactions or feelings instead of questioning the validity of a source. Attitudes towards a news source may also influence our automatic reactions.

On the other hand, individuals who rely on concrete evidence are less likely to be swayed by fake news. Researchers found that the acceptance of falsehoods and conspiracy theories was linked to having faith in intuition and/or associating truth with politics and power. Trusting our gut leaves us susceptible to misinformation. Alternately, relying on evidence for spotting fake news makes us less likely to believe false information.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
John Adams

For spotting fake news and avoiding being misled, notice any strong reactions you have, consider how you feel about the source, and rely on fact, not feeling.

Political Affiliation & Other Influences

Political affiliation influences how we process information. One reason for this is that strong identification with a political party generates a sense of belonging and loyalty. This leads to valuing party ideals over accuracy. Both liberals and conservatives are more likely to believe false information when it aligns with their political party.

“Blind party loyalty will be our downfall. We must follow the truth wherever it leads.”
Dr. DaShanne Stokes (Sociologist and Social Justice Advocate)

What’s more, political affiliation may impact how likely we are to spread false news on social media. According to research, Republicans are less likely than Democrats to have confidence in fact-checkers, and are therefore more likely to share fake news.

Interestingly, political affiliation may also predict how we react to false information about potential threats or hazards. Researchers found that conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe fake warnings and that liberals are more likely to dismiss false information about endangerment or risk.

Regarding gender and age, some research suggests that men are more likely than women to spread misinformation on social media as are individuals over the age of 65.

When it comes to politics and political news, be aware that partisan identity may lead to believing and/or spreading misinformation. Political views may also impact how likely you are to respond to warnings about potential threats and endangerment. Gender and age are additional factors that may contribute to the spread of fake news.

Check Your Source!

When you utilize social media sites for news, you’re less likely to consider the source and more likely to be misled by fake news. Social media sites like Facebook provide users with entertainment (videos, memes, etc.), community, an online marketplace, job postings, news, and more. The intermixing of content is what makes it difficult to discern fiction from fact.

“The information you get from social media is not a substitute for academic discipline at all.”
Bill Nye (Science Guy)

For spotting fake news and reducing the impact of false information you encounter on social media, avoid using Facebook as your primary news platform, and when you do come across a questionable post, always check the source!

Closing Thoughts

In sum, there are many reasons why we’re susceptible to believing misinformation, but there are evidence-based strategies for spotting fake news to avoid being misled.

STRATEGIES FOR SPOTTING FAKE NEWS

1. 1) Use critical thinking
2. 2) Remain aware of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance
3. 3) Develop a flexible thinking style
1. 4) Increase awareness of your own biases and challenge your beliefs
2. 5) Rely on fact, not emotion or intuition
3. 6) Consider your political affiliation and other influences (such as gender and age)
4. 7) Avoid social media for news
5. 8) Always check the source!

See below for links to a list of fake news hits (from Buzzfeed) and lists of websites that promote false information (from CBS, Forbes, and Wikipedia).

Sites for Spotting Fake News

References
- American Psychological Association. (2018, August 10). Why we’re susceptible to fake news, how to defend against it [Press release]. http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/08/fake-news
- Cell Press. (2018, February 20). How political parties influence our beliefs, and what we can do about it. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180220123127.htm
- Cornell University. (2019, May 8). Source credibility is key to derailing fake news. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190508142454.htm
- McLeod, S. A. (2018, Febuary 05). Cognitive dissonance. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
- New York University. (2019, January 9). Fake news shared by very few, but those over 65 more likely to pass on such stories. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190109142618.htm
- Noor, I. (2020, June 10). Confirmation bias. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html
- Northwestern University. (2016, November 22). Why we rely on inaccurate information. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161122080756.htm
- NYU Tandon School of Engineering. (2020, April 28). Red-flagging misinformation could slow the spread of fake news on social media. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200428112542.htm
- Ohio State University. (2017, September 18). Reliance on ‘gut feelings’ linked to belief in fake news: Study finds political bias isn’t all that shapes how we perceive truth. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170918142157.htm
- Ohio State University. (2020, March 30). How social media makes it difficult to identify real news: Jumbling of content makes viewers less likely to check sources. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200330093419.htm
- University of California – Los Angeles. (2017, February 2). Political affiliation can predict how people will react to false information about threats: Studies show that conservatives believe untrue warnings more than liberals do. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170202141851.htm
- University of Colorado at Boulder. (2020, March 26). In politics and pandemics, trolls use fear, anger to drive clicks: Fake Facebook ads placed by Russians in 2016 received 9 times more clicks than typical ads. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200326155925.htm
- Wikipedia contributors. (2021, February 18). Fake news. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fake_news&oldid=1007554509

**My 2021 ‘Fake News’ Halloween costume was a hit!**

6 Tips for Avoiding Marketing Traps

6 Shares

Marketers use psychological tactics to influence, convince, and even deceive consumers. This article explores some of the lesser-know marketing traps and how you can avoid them.

6 Shares

Marketing Traps: How Advertisers Use Psychology to Sway

It shouldn’t come as a surprise when you Google “bathing suits,” only shortly thereafter to have swimwear ads litter your Facebook feed. Wikipedia defines marketing as “the business process of identifying, anticipating and satisfying customers’ needs and wants.” But what about deceptive or misleading marketing traps?

There’s an entire branch of research dedicated to understanding consumer behavior via psychological, technological, and economical principles. However, you may be less aware of misleading marketing traps or tactics intended to foster false trust or play on subconscious fears.

Here’s a real life example: Recently, I used DoorDash to order breakfast from Silver Diner. I was shocked when the total came to nearly $70. Luckily, my husband was too; he suggested going directly through the restaurant. I selected the equivalent menu items and it was $30 cheaper!! DoorDash not only raised entrée prices, but charged additional fees on top of the delivery fee and tip. To think, I wouldn’t have compared prices had my husband not been (duly) outraged; I almost fell victim to “brand trust.”

Consider the companies you trust. Why don’t you question their products, services, prices, etc.? Are you brand-washed?

To avoid misleading marketing traps, always compare prices, read reviews from verified buyers, avoid grocery shopping when you’re hungry, steer clear of end-of-aisles deals, buy off-season, etc.

This article explores a few lesser-known ways marketers influence consumers by using psychological principles (marketing tactic traps), and how to avoid them. When you, the consumer, know the science behind advertising strategies, you’re better equipped to make educated decisions (and will avoid feeling betrayed by a food delivery app!)

A false sense of health

Advertisers use health-related buzzwords like “gluten-free” or “organic” to lure buyers with an impression of being nutritious. In one study, consumers viewed items stamped with healthy-sounding catchphrases as healthier than non-stamped foods.

Real life example: Years ago, I accompanied a friend to the grocery store. In the dairy section, she grabbed a jug of whole milk. I knew she wanted to lose weight, so I suggested skim. Dubious, she expressed concern because it wasn’t “vitamin D-rich.” Had she consulted the nutrition facts instead of scanning labels, she would know whole and skim have equal amounts of the vitamin.

The Health “Buzzword” Marketing Trap

Avoid falling for the health buzzword marketing trap by reading nutrition facts and ingredients before buying. (Sure, those Fruit Loops are made with whole grain, but the first ingredient is still sugar!)

Beware of fast-paced music in a crowded store… it’s a trap!

Researchers found that consumers’ spending increased as the tempo of the music quickened. In addition to spending more, shoppers purchased additional items (instead of opting for fewer products at higher prices). Interestingly, this effect was only observable when the store was crowded.

To avoid this marketing trap, remain aware of your environment when shopping and if possible, go when crowds are thin (or at least wear ear buds).

An unconscious fear of dying may lead you to buy more bottled water – and water bottle companies capitalize on it!

(Um, what? I thought the occasional 7-Eleven purchase of Deer Park was a combination of laziness and convenience on my part, not an ominous and looming fear of my fragile mortality.)

The Bottled Water Marketing Tactic Trap

In 2018, researchers asserted that “most bottled-water advertising campaigns target a deep psychological vulnerability in humans, compelling them to buy and consume particular products. Bottled water ads specifically trigger our most subconscious fear [of death].” It was also suggested that bottled water symbolizes something safe and pure – compelling when you want to avoid health risks.

According to the study, bottled water appeals most to people who measure their personal value by their physical appearance, fitness levels, material and financial wealth, class, and status.

Whether or not this study withstands replication, consider a filter!

Don’t shop for beach gear on a sunny day

Save your shopping for poorer weather conditions. Researchers found that consumers place a higher value on associated products respective to the weather.

The rationale: It’s easier for someone to visualize the comfort of a fluffy beach towel or the shade of an umbrella when it’s hot and bright (compared to when it’s pouring rain), thereby increasing the desire to make a purchase. Interestingly, this seems to hold true for sunny or snowy conditions, but not rainy weather. It was speculated that rain gear is typically purchased to avoid unpleasant conditions, not to increase enjoyment.

Be wary of the weather when shopping for that beach trip or ski vacation in the mountains; you may end up spending more than intended.

Marketing’s subtle siren song is a hidden trap!

If you’re not one who’s influenced by the “logical persuasion” of advertisements, you may still be subconsciously enticed by the “non-rational influence.” Different kinds of advertisements evoke different types of brain activity.

Even the wisest consumer can be “seduced.” Marketers both overtly and subtly influence our buying behaviors. Your brain will unavoidably betray you at times; you can either accept this or become a hermit. (You may also consider shopping where there are lenient return policies, but be wary of policies that seem too lenient, as this may be a ploy.)

The relaxation trap– don’t get too comfortable!

A 2011 study indicated that relaxed consumers perceived items at a higher value when compared to their less-relaxed (although not stressed) counterparts.

If you’re a bargain-hunter, stay alert to how you’re feeling before entering a store or searching on Amazon; otherwise, you may think you’re getting a great deal when you’re not. (And if you use social media, know that ads may have more sway when you’re sleepy.)

In the midst of marketing traps, misleading ads, and #fakenews, stick with the facts and don’t be swayed.

For more research, see 5 Recent Research Findings on Health & Human Behavior.

5 Remarkable Research Findings in Health & Human Behavior

6 Shares

As a #researchNerd, I’m obsessed with new discoveries and scientific explanations, especially when it comes to human behavior. Here are five interesting studies that have been published this year (and it’s only April!)