*. 260 ( = 133 ), 20 69 (M = 41.39, SD = 11.20)., 5 (,,,, ).,,.,,.,. *. :,, (136-701) 145 Tel: 02-3290-2868, E-mail: sunwpark@korea.ac.kr
(,, 2010;,, 2005;,, 2013;, 2006).,,,,,, (, 2003;, 2011;, 2006).. 4. 2013 6 19,.,.,., 1993 841 2013 1,418 (, 2013). 2009 15,693 2013 22,310 (, 2013)., (, 1989;, 2011;,,, 2011;,,, 2010;,, 2006;, 2001; Abbey, McAuslan, & Ross, 1998; Johnson, Kuck, & Schander, 1997; Kopper, 1996; Maynard & Wiederman, 1997; Shearer, Hosterman, Gillen, & Lefkowitz, 2005).,.,, (Burt, 1980). (, )., (,, 2001). (, 2008), (,, 2002;,, 2005;, 2013)., (,, 2005). (, 2005;,, 2014).,., (, 2001), (,, 2014)., (,,, 2012;,,, 2012). (2010)
. (2009),.. (ambivalent sexism theory; Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001),,. (2006),.,.,,..,., (, 2007; Feild, 1978)., (, 2001; Feild, 1978; Krulewitz, 1981). (2001) (,,,, ).,.,,.., (, 2005;,, 1993), (, 2003)., (, 1998;, 2011), (,,, 2006).,,.,.,,, (,, 2002;,
2011;, 2006;, 2002;, 2003;, 2009).,,, (2012) (generation).,., (, 1989;,, 2010;,, 2012;, 2002;, 2003;,, 2005;,, 2013;, 2012; Koss & Gaines, 1993; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987).,, (,, 2011;,, 2006;,, 2001; Jones & Olderbak, 2014; Xenos & Smith, 2001)., (, 2007;,, 2006;,, 2001),.,,, (,,, 2014).,,..,. 20 60.,,.,.,.,, (, ).. (2013), 2013 1,418,, 1,205 (85%)
., (,,, 2010; Jackson, Cram & Seymour, 2000; Kaura & Lohman, 2007),, (, 2010).., 5,, 5.,,,,,. 300 (www.invight.co.kr),,., ( ), 40, 260 ( = 127, = 133 ). 41.39 (SD = 11.20), 20 69., 20 44, 30 75, 40 76, 50 65., 151, 34, 22, 28, 16, 9.,,,., ( ). ( 2 1 ).. A B,,,,
.. A B,., A B. B A A., A B A., B A., A B. B A, A B (A, A B ). 1) (, 1989;, 2000;, 1990; Bushman, Bonacci, Van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987) 5, 7. (1) :,? (2) :,? 1),,., (, 2013;, 2013). (3) : ( )? (4) : ( )? (5) : ( )?, B,,.., 5. 1. ( ),.,, 2. +1, 1, (mean centering).
(n = 127) (n = 133),?,? ( )? ( )? ( )? 3.63(1.40) 4.42(1.50) 4.02(1.50) 4.93(1.41) 5.04(1.44) 4.99(1.42) 4.24(1.55) 4.74(1.50) 4.50(1.54) 3.55(1.45) 4.43(1.35) 3.98(1.46) 4.25(1.16) 4.46(1.25) 4.36(1.21) 3.88(1.36) 4.44(1.29) 4.17(1.35) 4.63(1.17) 3.91(1.47) 4.27(1.37) 3.40(1.24) 3.81(1.32) 3.62(1.29) 4.05(1.34) 3.86(1.40) 3.95(1.37) 3.97(1.36) 4.60(1.46) 4.28(1.44) 2.85(1.55) 3.00(1.52) 2.93(1.53) 3.44(1.55) 3.78(1.69) 3.62(1.63) 4.15(1.36) 3.25(1.55) 3.70(1.52) 4.87(1.30) 5.44(1.24) 5.17(1.29) 4.49(1.37) 4.37(1.78) 4.43(1.59) 4.33(1.07) 3.54(1.16) 3.94(1.18) 4.05(0.65) 4.15(0.50) 4.10(0.58) 4.19(0.90) 3.85(0.93) 4.02(0.93). 2, 5.,, (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).,., ( 2),. 1,, F(1, 256) = 9.91, p =.002.,
,?,? ( )? ( )? ( )? F p η 2 β p R 2 29.32.000.103 -.32.000.102 6.33.012.024 -.12.044.014 3.60.059.014 -.10.098.009 4.94.027.019 -.14.020.020 11.13.001.042 -.20.001.040 4.28.040.016 -.07.224.005 16.81.000.062.24.000.059 0.92.338.004.24.000.059 12.17.001.045.18.002.032 55.51.000.178.42.000.172 4.56.034.018 -.06.293.003 1.73.190.007 -.15.006.024 73.61.000.223 -.46.000.212 0.94.334.004.17.001.030 18.95.000.069.24.000.057 2.22.138.009 -.08.152.007 9.44.002.036.25.000.061 16.05.000.059.24.000.058, F(1, 256) = 0.19, p =.664. ( 2),..,, β = -.22, p =.007., β = -.02, p =.803. 3., ( 2).,.,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. - -.02 -.14.07.10 -.08.01 2. -.23** -.45***.24** -.01.45*** -.37*** 3. -.26**.77*** -.24**.24**.27** -.54*** 4..43*** -.55*** -.50*** -.15.27**.27** 5. -.25**.60***.65*** -.48*** - -.15 -.63*** 6..45*** -.46*** -.43***.69*** -.54*** -.32*** 7..40*** -.84*** -.83***.79*** -.81***.77*** -. (n = 128), (n = 132). *p.05. **p.01. ***p.001., F(1, 256) = 14.86, p <.001.,, F(1, 256) = 0.79, p =.375., ( 2)....,, β = -.27, p =.001,, β = -.13, p =.159. ( ), ( 2),. 1,, F(1, 256) = 10.07, p =.002.,,, F(1, 256) = 3.14, p =.077.,., β =.42, p <.001., β =.06, p =.449. 2,
( )..,, F(1, 256) = 55.51, p <.001..,. 1, (M = 3.97) (M = 4.60), F(1, 256) = 6.06, p =.015. (M = 2.85) (M = 3.00), F(1, 256) = 0.33, p =.565.,,., β = -.21, p =.006., β =.10, p =.246. ( ) ( 2).,., 1,, F(1, 256) = 14.40, p <.001.,, F(1, 256) = 5.63, p =.018.,..,, β =.41, p <.001., β = -.07, p =.389..,, (recoding). (Cronbach s alpha =.61). ( 2),.. 1,, F(1, 256) = 25.49, p <.001., F(1, 256) = 0.43, p =.514.,.
2,, β =.49, p <.001.,., β =.01, p =.940..,.
,,,,.,,,.,,,. ( )..,. (, 1989;,, 2010;,, 2012;, 2002;, 2003;,, 2005;,, 2013;, 2012; Koss & Gaines, 1993; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). (Cooper, 1976; Darroch & Steiner, 1970; Jones & Olderbak, 2014)..,,.,.,.,., ( ).,, (, 2011;,, 2006),., (, 2007;, 2001;, 2002; Check & Malamuth, 1983).,,,
,. (,,, 2006).,,,.,. ( ),., (socialization) (Raffaelli & Ontai, 2001; Shtarkshall, Santelli, & Hirsch, 2007)..,,..,..,,.,,,.. (,,,, 2012;, 2014).,,,,,.. (2013). 2013. http://www.police
.go.kr/portal/main/contents.do?menuno=200197 2014, 10, 27., (2002).. 87-105. (2007)..,, (2006).. (1), 83-105. (2001).. (1998).. 5-72. (1989).. (2011).. (2), 13-27. (2011).., (2010).. (4), 759-777., (2011). :. (2), 171-183.,, (2011).,. 65-92.,, (2006).. (4), 377-397. (2013).. (3), 81-103. (2003).. (2008). :. (2), 519-536., (2012).. (2), 265-280. (2000).. (2003).. (2005).. (2011).. (2002).. (2001).. 6-43. (2003)..,, (2012).,. (2), 117-125., (1993).. (4), 1-21.,,, (2012).,
. (3), 323-345.,, (2010).,. (2), 249-257. (2009).. (2), 149-182., (2006). :. (1), 1-19.,, (2012).,,. (6), 79-107., (2005).,. (3), 23-40., (2001).,. (1), 97-116., (2014).,,,. (1), 48-56. (2013). ( ). (6), 2852-2861., (2005).. 7(2), 265-282.,, (2014).. (2), 25-40., (2013). :. (1), 45-68. (2012). :. (3), 347-361.,, (2010).. 147-179. (2002).. (2006). :,. 148-154.,, (2012).. (2), 5-23. (1990).. (1), 82-92. (2006). (2), 39-59. (2013). 2013. http://www.sisters.or.kr/ index.php/subpa ge/pds/1 2014, 10, 27. (2009).. Abbey, A., McAuslan, P., & Ross, L. T. (1998). Sexual assault perpetration by college men: The role of alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17(2), 167-195. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217-230. Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Van Dijk, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1027-1040. Check, J. V., & Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of
stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 344-356. Cooper, J. (1976). Deception and role playing: On telling the good guys from the bad guys. American Psychologist, 31(8), 605-610. Darroch, R. K., & Steiner, I. D. (1970). Role playing: An alternative to laboratory research? Journal of Personality, 38(2), 302-311. Feild, H. S. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(2), 156-179. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109-118. Jackson, S. M., Cram, F., & Seymour, F. W. (2000). Violence and sexual coercion in high school students' dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 15(1), 23-36. Johnson, B. E., Kuck, D. L., & Schander, P. R. (1997). Rape myth acceptance and sociodemographic characteristics: A multidimensional analysis. Sex Roles, 36(11-12), 693-707. Jones, D. N., & Olderbak, S. G. (2014). The associations among dark personalities and sexual tactic across different scenarios. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(6), 1050-1070. Kaura, S. A., & Lohman, B. J. (2007). Dating violence victimization, relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 22(6), 367-381. Kopper, B. A. (1996). Gender, gender identity, rape myth acceptance, and time of initial resistance on the perception of acquaintance rape blame and avoidability. Sex Roles, 34(1-2), 81-93. Koss, M. P., & Gaines, J. A. (1993). The prediction of sexual aggression by alcohol use, athletic participation, and fraternity affiliation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(1), 94-108. Krulewitz, J. E. (1981). Sex differences in evaluations of female and male victims' responses to assault. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(5), 460-474. Maynard, C., & Wiederman, M. (1997). Undergraduate students' perceptions of child sexual abuse: Effects of age, sex, and gender-role attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(9), 833-844. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(2), 186-196. Raffaelli, M., & Ontai, L. L. (2001). She's 16 years old and there's boys calling over to the house : An exploratory study of sexual socialization in Latino families. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 3(3), 295-310. Shearer, C. L., Hosterman, S. J., Gillen, M. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2005). Are traditional gender role attitudes associated with risky sexual behavior and condom-related beliefs? Sex Roles, 52(5-6), 311-324. Shtarkshall, R. A., Santelli, J. S., & Hirsch, J. S. (2007). Sex education and sexual socialization: Roles for educators and parents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39(2), 116-119. Xenos, S., & Smith, D. (2001). Perceptions of rape and sexual assault among Australian adolescents and young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(11), 1103-1119. 1 : 2014. 12. 05. : 2015. 02. 08. : 2015. 02. 09.
The Effect of Gender and Age on the Perception of Sexual Violence Sun Kyung Lee Yong Hoe Heo Sun W. Park Korea University We investigated how gender and age affect the perception of sexual violence. Participants whose age ranged from 20 to 69 read one of two scenarios about a dating couple. In one scenario, the man had sex with the woman against the woman's will at the end of the story. In the other scenario, the man did not attempt to have sex once realizing that the woman did not want to have sex. Participants then answered the following five items regarding the two characters in the scenario: sincerity of woman s refusal, woman s unpleasantness, woman s sexual satisfaction, man s violence, and man s masculinity. There were several significant two-way interactions between participant gender and condition, and between participant age and condition. It was found that male and old participants were more likely than their counterparts to score low on sincerity of woman s refusal, woman s unpleasantness, and man s violence, and score high on woman s sexual satisfaction and man s masculinity in the sex condition. No meaningful pattern was found in the no sex condition. Keywords : sexual violence, dating rape, gender difference, age difference