Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale

1. Abstract

The Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale is a psychometric instrument developed by Gerd Bohner and colleagues (Gerger, Kley, Bohner, & Siebler, 2007) designed to assess contemporary, subtle, and covert cognitive schemas that serve to justify, minimize, or normalize sexual violence against women. In response to changing social norms that made the endorsement of classic, overt rape myths socially undesirable, the AMMSA scale was constructed to capture modernized manifestations of sexual aggression beliefs. Unlike earlier instruments—such as Martha Burt’s Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) Scale or the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) Scale—the AMMSA reflects ideological shifts analogous to the evolution from old-fashioned to modern sexism and modern racism.

The instrument consists of 30 items administered via a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Although the scale spans several thematic domains—including the denial of the scope of sexual violence, antagonism toward victims, beliefs about male sexual entitlement, naturalization of male sex drives, and trivialization of sexual coercion—it is psychometrically established as a robust, unidimensional measurement model. Psychometric validation studies conducted across German- and English-speaking samples demonstrate exceptional internal consistency (Cronbach’s $\alpha$ routinely exceeding .90, often ranging between .92 and .95) and high test-retest reliability ($r_{tt} > .80$). Confirmatory factor analyses confirm that a single higher-order factor adequately accounts for item covariance. The scale displays strong convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity, predicting victim-blaming attributions, perpetrator exoneration, juridical verdicts in acquaintance rape scenarios, and self-reported sexually aggressive tendencies, while exhibiting lower susceptibility to social desirability bias than traditional rape myth inventories.

2. Keywords

Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression, AMMSA Scale, Rape Myth Acceptance, Sexual Violence, Victim Blaming, Modern Sexism, Ambivalent Sexism, Psychometrics, Sexual Harassment, Perpetrator Exoneration, Gender Role Socialization

3. Authors

The AMMSA scale was conceptualized, constructed, and psychometrically validated by a research collaborative based in Germany and Norway:

• Heike Gerger, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Switzerland; formerly at Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany. Specialist in clinical psychology, meta-analysis, and social-cognitive determinants of health and aggression.
• Hotaka Kley, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany. Research expert in clinical psychology, cognitive behavioral processes, and experimental psychopathology.
• Gerd Bohner, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Social Psychology Unit, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany. Leading international authority on attitude theory, prejudice, social cognition, and the socio-cognitive underpinnings of rape myth acceptance. E-mail contact: [email protected].
• Frank Siebler, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. Methodologist and social psychologist concentrating on social cognition, attitude measurement, and quantitative modeling.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale is to provide researchers, clinicians, and forensic evaluators with a psychometrically sound, theoretically modernized instrument capable of detecting covert, socially acceptable cognitive schemas that legitimize sexual aggression. During the late 20th century, foundational scales such as Martha Burt’s (1980) Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) Scale and Payne, Lonsway, and Fitzgerald’s (1999) Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) Scale served vital roles in early feminist and social-psychological research. However, over subsequent decades, shifting cultural norms rendered the blatant, aggressive statements featured in these legacy measures (e.g., statements asserting that women secretly desire to be raped) highly susceptible to floor effects and social desirability distortions in mainstream populations.

As overt hostility became socially sanctioned and legally penalized, discriminatory attitudes toward sexual assault survivors did not vanish; rather, they transmuted into subtle, normative, and socially defensible beliefs. Modern myths about sexual aggression operate under the guise of common sense, biological essentialism, egalitarian skepticism, and critiques of perceived female vindictiveness. The AMMSA was expressly engineered to measure these contemporary belief systems without triggering immediate defensive rejection by respondents. By framing items around ambiguous dating scripts, the naturalization of male sexual urges, skepticism toward institutional support, and accusations of feminist overreach, the AMMSA provides a continuous, highly sensitive distribution of attitudes across diverse demographic cohorts.

In clinical and forensic domains, the AMMSA serves as an invaluable diagnostic and evaluative tool. It aids in assessing cognitive distortions among adjudicated sexual offenders, evaluating the efficacy of batterer intervention and sexual assault prevention programs, and exploring jury decision-making dynamics in acquaintance and marital rape trials. In social and experimental psychology, the AMMSA functions as a primary predictor and moderator in studies examining the processing of media violence, bystander intervention tendencies, objectification, and the psychological mechanisms underpinning gender-based violence.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the AMMSA scale is modern sexual aggression myths—defined as descriptive or prescriptive cognitive schemas, beliefs, and stereotypes regarding sexual assault, survivors, and perpetrators that serve to downplay, justify, or normalize male sexual violence against women within contemporary egalitarian normative contexts. While empirically best represented as a single, general dimension of myth acceptance, the construct encompasses several interrelated conceptual facets:

Denial of the Scope and Gravity of Sexual Violence

Modern myths frequently manifest as assertions that sexual violence is an exaggerated phenomenon or that society has become hyper-sensitive to harmless interpersonal dynamics. Items reflecting this facet capture the belief that women blow minor misunderstandings out of proportion (e.g., Item 16: “Many women tend to exaggerate the problem of male violence”) or that legal and organizational sanctions against harassment penalize ordinary courtship (e.g., Item 23: “The discussion about sexual harassment on the job has mainly resulted in many a harmless behavior being misinterpreted as harassment”). By portraying sexual violence as an overblown issue or a feminist rhetorical tactic, adherents diminish the perceived necessity of systemic intervention.

Antagonism Toward Victims and Accusations of False Reporting

Paralleling modern racial and gender resentment, this facet captures beliefs that women exploit allegations of sexual assault for secondary personal or political gain. Statements target scenarios where sexual assault claims are purportedly leveraged in divorce proceedings (e.g., Item 4: “To get custody for their children, women often falsely accuse their ex-husband of a tendency towards sexual violence”) or as vindictive responses to failed intimate relationships (e.g., Item 22: “Women often accuse their husbands of marital rape just to retaliate for a failed relationship”). This cognitive schema functions to cast immediate suspicion upon victim credibility, deflecting moral accountability from perpetrators.

Naturalization and Biological Essentialism of Male Sexuality

Modern sexual aggression schemas frequently draw upon reductive evolutionary or physiological notions of male drives. This facet conceptualizes male sexual desire as an uncontrollable, hydraulic impulse (the “steam boiler” metaphor), suggesting that men possess biological imperatives that override rational restraint once physical intimacy commences (e.g., Item 6: “It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time”; Item 21: “A man’s sexuality functions like a steam boiler – when the pressure gets to high, he has to ‘let off steam'”). These beliefs frame coercive acts not as violent abuses of power, but as unfortunate, biologically programmed inevitabilities.

Prescriptive Dating Scripts and Trivialization of Coercion

This dimension taps into traditional sexual script theory, positing implicit rules wherein male sexual aggression is anticipated and female resistance is framed as token or disingenuous. Items evaluate assumptions that women implicitly signal consent by entering private spaces (e.g., Item 9, Item 18) or that women routinely engage in sexual coyness (e.g., Item 15: “Women like to play coy. This does not mean that they do not want sex”). Furthermore, it blurs the boundary between consensual intimacy and non-consensual coercion in established partnerships (e.g., Item 17: “When a man urges his female partner to have sex, this cannot be called rape”; Item 20: marital rape ambiguities).

Skepticism Regarding Systemic Injustice and Belief in Institutional Over-Support

Modern myth acceptance also involves beliefs that victims of sexual violence already receive disproportionate or excessive institutional, psychological, and social resources compared to other crime victims (e.g., Item 7, Item 25, Item 28). Additionally, it encompasses the conviction that the judicial apparatus operates flawlessly, such that only “actual” perpetrators face just retribution (Item 30). This belief validates the status quo, inoculating the individual against recognizing institutional and systemic failures in the prosecution of sexual violence.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of the AMMSA scale is rooted in social cognition, attitude theory, and feminist psychometrics, primarily drawing upon modern prejudice frameworks and Ambivalent Sexism Theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996).

From Old-Fashioned to Modern Prejudice

The core conceptual architecture of the AMMSA directly parallels the evolution documented in racial and gender attitudes by social psychologists such as McConahay (Modern Racism), and Swim, Aikin, Hall, and Hunter (1995; Modern Sexism). Historically, prejudice was overt, explicit, and socially condoned. However, when explicit prejudice violates emerging egalitarian normative standards, prejudiced attitudes adapt. Rather than expressing blatant misogyny or crude assertions that rape victims “deserved” assault, modern prejudice surfaces through three tenets:

1. Denial of continuing discrimination: Asserting that gender-based violence and sexual harassment are no longer severe social problems.
2. Resentment toward targeted demands: Believing that women make illegitimate claims or gain unfair advantages through allegations of sexual assault.
3. Resentment toward institutional remedies: Believing that survivors receive excessive social benefits, counseling services, or institutional empathy at the expense of other societal priorities.

Ambivalent Sexism and Just-World Dynamics

The AMMSA is deeply integrated with Glick and Fiske’s (1996) Ambivalent Sexism Theory, which bifurcates gender attitudes into hostile sexism (overtly antipathetic views toward women who challenge male authority) and benevolent sexism (chivalrous, subjectively positive attitudes that nevertheless frame women as weak and dependent on male protection). Modern myths about sexual aggression draw heavily from both components: benevolent assumptions about appropriate romantic courtship scripts interact with hostile skepticism toward non-traditional, assertive women who seek legal restitution.

Furthermore, the scale operates within the framework of Melvin Lerner’s (1980) Just-World Hypothesis. When confronted with the terrifying reality of arbitrary sexual assault, individuals experience cognitive dissonance and existential threat. Endorsing modern myths—such as victim carelessness (Item 11) or female deceit (Item 3)—allows individuals to preserve the psychological illusion that the world is inherently orderly, predictable, and fair, and that innocent individuals are not victimized without personal fault or provocation.

7. Validity

Empirical validation of the AMMSA scale across international samples has substantiated high construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity (Gerger et al., 2007; Bohner et al., 2009; Süssenbach & Bohner, 2011).

Convergent Validity

The AMMSA demonstrates robust positive correlations with classic measures of sexual violence attitudes, while maintaining distinct psychometric advantages. In the initial validation studies by Gerger et al. (2007):

• AMMSA correlated strongly with Burt’s Rape Myth Acceptance Scale ($r = .74$ to $.81$).
• AMMSA exhibited high positive correlations with Payne et al.’s Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) Scale ($r = .78$ to $.84$).
• Substantial associations were documented with both subscales of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Hostile Sexism ($r = .65$ to $.73$) and Benevolent Sexism ($r = .35$ to $.48$).
• Moderate-to-strong correlations were observed with Modern Sexism ($r = .68$) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; $r = .45$ to $.55$), confirming that modern myth endorsement is nested within broader conservative and hierarchical ideological systems.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the AMMSA is separable from general socially desirable responding. While older scales such as Burt’s RMA frequently exhibit significant negative correlations with social desirability (reflecting participant awareness that overt myth endorsement is socially censured), AMMSA scores correlate minimally with Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scores ($r$ values typically between $-.08$ and $-.15$, non-significant in most samples). This establishes that the AMMSA successfully bypasses superficial impression management defenses.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The scale possesses remarkable predictive utility across multiple experimental and applied contexts:

• Victim Blaming and Perpetrator Exoneration: In experimental vignettes detailing date rape and acquaintance assault, participants scoring high on the AMMSA attribute significantly more blame, negligence, and intent to the victim, while attributing less culpability, intentionality, and legal guilt to the male perpetrator.
• Judicial Verdicts: In simulated jury research, AMMSA scores reliably predict mock-juror recommendations for acquittals or reduced prison sentencing for alleged rapists.
• Self-Reported Aggression Likelihood: Among male participants, AMMSA scores correlate positively with self-reported likelihood of sexually harassing, coercing, or raping a woman if assured of guaranteed anonymity and complete impunity from legal prosecution ($r = .40$ to $.55$; Bohner et al., 2009).

8. Reliability

The AMMSA scale exhibits exemplary psychometric reliability across cross-sectional, longitudinal, and multicultural investigations.

Internal Consistency

In the scale’s initial development and validation studies across German and English samples ($N > 1,200$; Gerger et al., 2007), internal consistency for the 30-item overall scale was exceptionally high:

• Original German validation samples: Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficients ranged from $.91$ to $.94$.
• English adaptation samples: Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficients ranged from $.92$ to $.95$.
• Subsequent studies across university student cohorts and general community populations in the UK, United States, and across European nations have consistently reported Cronbach’s $\alpha$ and McDonald’s $\omega$ values between $.91$ and $.96$.
• Item-total correlations for all 30 items uniformly exceed $.30$, with the vast majority falling between $.45$ and $.70$, indicating that each individual item contributes meaningfully and reliably to the aggregate construct.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments over intermediate time intervals demonstrate that the AMMSA captures enduring, trait-like ideological attitudes rather than transient situational states. Longitudinal evaluations across intervals of four to eight weeks have yielded test-retest correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) ranging from $.82$ to $.88$, demonstrating high temporal stability in the absence of targeted educational or therapeutic interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the AMMSA scale was scrutinized extensively during scale construction using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across independent development and validation samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial item selection from an initial pool of over 80 candidate items, principal axis factoring and principal component analyses revealed a dominant first unrotated factor accounting for a large proportion of total variance (typically between $32%$ and $40%$ across subsamples). The ratio of the first eigenvalue to the second eigenvalue consistently exceeded $4:1$ or $5:1$ (with the first eigenvalue frequently exceeding $10.0$ and the second remaining below $2.5$), providing compelling scree-plot and mathematical justification for a unidimensional solution. Although oblique rotations allow items to cluster into descriptive topical sub-domains (e.g., biological necessity, victim antagonism, downplaying risks), these sub-domains correlate so strongly with one another ($r > .60$ to $.80$) that secondary extraction yields no incremental psychometric utility over a single general factor.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses conducted by Gerger et al. (2007) and validated in subsequent structural equation modeling studies (e.g., Süssenbach & Bohner, 2011) confirmed that a single-factor higher-order model fits the empirical data well:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values routinely fall between $.90$ and $.95$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values consistently fall within acceptable boundaries, typically ranging from $.045$ to $.062$ (with $90%$ confidence intervals firmly below $.07$).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values remain below $.055$.
• Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) for the 30 items are robust, with almost all items loading between $.42$ and $.75$ on the general modern myths factor.

Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic metric and scalar invariance between the German and English language versions was supported, confirming that the psychological construct operates identically across linguistic boundaries.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale
• Authors: Heike Gerger, Hotaka Kley, Gerd Bohner, and Frank Siebler
• Year of Development: 2007
• Construct Assessed: Subtle, contemporary, and covert myth acceptance and legitimizing cognitive schemas regarding sexual violence
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire; available in paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, and online web formats
• Number of Items: 30 items
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = completely disagree
  • 2 = disagree
  • 3 = disagree somewhat
  • 4 = neutral
  • 5 = agree somewhat
  • 6 = agree
  • 7 = completely agree
• Scoring Protocol: All 30 items are positively keyed toward the acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression. There are no reverse-scored items in the standard 30-item instrument. The composite score is computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of all 30 responses (or alternatively, the sum score, ranging from 30 to 210). Higher average scores reflect higher levels of modern myth acceptance and greater tolerance of sexual aggression. A score of 4.0 represents the neutral midpoint.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The AMMSA scale was published in 2007 in the peer-reviewed journal Aggressive Behavior. The instrument is considered an open-access psychometric measurement tool for non-commercial academic, educational, and scientific research purposes. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for researchers utilizing the scale in empirical investigations.

Psychologists, researchers, and clinicians wishing to employ the instrument are encouraged to consult the original validation publication (Gerger et al., 2007) and provide appropriate bibliographic citation. For commercial applications, large-scale institutional assessments, or adaptations into unvalidated languages, permission should be sought directly from the corresponding author, Prof. Dr. Gerd Bohner, Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University.

12. References

• Bohner, G., Eyssel, J., Pina, A., Siebler, F., & Viki, G. T. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In M. A. H. Horvath & J. M. Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17–45). Willan Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843927051
• Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217
• Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2007). The Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33(5), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20195
• Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
• Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5
• Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its nature and assessment using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238
• Süssenbach, P., & Bohner, G. (2011). Acceptance of sexual aggression myths in a representative German sample: Structural invariance and scale comparison. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 5(2), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-2871
• Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)