| Popis: |
Anecdotal observation of the #MeToo Movement suggests that mainstream audiences tend to respond favorably to high-status individuals who deny any wrongdoing when accused of sexual assault. However, in psychology research, little is known about perceptions of perpetrator stories and how these perceptions vary based on characteristics of the audience and the accused. In the proposed vignette-based experimental registered report study, we consider how psychological investment in an unequal status quo (i.e., system justification) might shape audience perceptions of a sexual assault perpetrator story, depending on the perpetrator’s social status and degree of atonement for his actions. Broadly, we hypothesize that high system justification beliefs will predict more positive evaluations of perpetrators (vs. victims), but especially when high-status perpetrators deny wrongdoing, and low-status perpetrators atone for harm done. In a 2 (perpetrator status: low, high) x 3 (perpetrator narrative atonement: low, medium, high) x continuous (participant system justification) between-subjects design, adult participants will be randomly assigned to read 1 of 6 first-person stories by a male protagonist who has been accused of sexual assault by a female acquaintance. Participants will then complete self-report questionnaires to evaluate their system justification beliefs and their perceptions of both perpetrator and victim. Study findings may have implications for addressing cultural stigma surrounding sexual assault victimization and promoting audience receptiveness to accountability in the aftermath of sexual assault perpetration. |
