The Rape Paradox: Interview with Dr. Kirstie Boyett
Dr. Kirstie Boyett is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Lamar University. She continues to look at the research her dissertation focused on through starting an Experimental Criminology Lab at her university.
This interview discusses her dissertation: The Rape Paradox: The Effect of Anti-Sexual Assault Policies on Gender and Sexual Assault Attitudes, Donations to Sexual Assault Campaigns, and Policy Compliance.
When did your interest in researching this area begin?
I’ve always viewed and experienced firsthand sexual violence being one of the most overlooked crimes in society. A quote that resonates with me is, “Everyone knows someone who has been raped, but no one knows a rapist.” This highlights the recognition of sexual violence’s prevalence, yet a reluctance to address the perpetrators or the societal factors that enable it. I refer to this phenomenon in my dissertation and research as the “rape paradox” —or the tension between society’s intolerance of rape and the trivialization of rape, victims, and the lack of prosecution of rapists in a male-dominated society.
My research agenda investigates this issue in two main areas: survivor-informed care and intervention strategies, and sexual violence prevention techniques. For my dissertation, I conducted an original, controlled experiment to assess the effectiveness of crime prevention education programs. Specifically, I analyzed whether the wording used in sexual violence prevention policies and training—such as those aligned with Title IX—unintentionally reinforces gender and rape myths, thereby undermining their intended purpose of preventing sex discrimination.
Your research looked at language in sexual assault policies. Specifically, how sex-positive versus sexual-assault-focused language and gendered versus gender-neutral language effected behaviors and attitudes around sexual assault. How did you expect the language used in sexual assault policy to impact attitudes?
As a social psychologist, I am keenly aware of the power of language. Language doesn’t just reflect our thoughts—it shapes them. It influences how we perceive the world, how we understand concepts, how we interact with others, and shapes our behavior.
In the case of sexual assault policies, I realized that the language used in these policies has the potential to shape both how individuals understand sexual violence and how they respond to it. For example, the way sexual assault is framed, the terms used to describe victims and perpetrators, and even the specific language in training materials can either reinforce or challenge existing gender stereotypes. These subtle cues can have a profound impact on how people think about issues like consent, victim-blaming, and the responsibility of institutions to address sexual violence.
I wanted to examine whether the language used in sexual assault policies inadvertently reinforces harmful myths or gender stereotypes, potentially undermining the very goals of these policies. This is especially important because Title IX policies are at the forefront of campus sexual violence prevention, so it is important to verify the wording in them is effective.
What previous research in the area helped you begin your own research?
My dissertation was heavily informed by the work of Dr. Justine Tinkler, whose findings suggest that sexual harassment policy interventions often activate traditional gender stereotypes rooted in gender beliefs (Tinkler et al., 2007; 2008; 2012; 2018), leading to negative responses to the trainings. I was also strongly influenced by the work of Drs. Cecilia Ridgeway and Shelley Correll on gender beliefs, as well as my dissertation chair, Dr. Jane Sell, whose research examines inequality in interactions based on status differences.
Building on Tinkler’s findings regarding resistance to sexual harassment policy trainings in the workplace, I predicted that anti-sexual assault policies might reinforce or strengthen traditional gender beliefs rather than reduce them. Research has shown that policies targeting behaviors associated with one group can provoke backlash. In this case, because men are often viewed as more sexually aggressive, policies aimed at reducing such behavior may be perceived as disproportionately targeting men. Additionally, since these policies emphasize criminalized actions, I anticipated that resistance could be even stronger. This means that, even if [straight, cis] men generally agree with the policy’s goals, they might subconsciously reject it due to its focus on gender and resistance to shifts in social hierarchy.
What was your research design?
I wanted to explore how language framing within Title IX policies—specifically, the use of gendered versus gender-neutral language and positive versus negative framing around sexual behavior—affects both gender beliefs and support for these policies. In my study, I created policy scripts inspired by actual Title IX policies, and I altered them to vary in the way they emphasized gender and/or sexual assault language. For example, some scripts framed the language around “negative sex,” or sexual assault language, while others used a “positive sex,” or healthy sex/sex-positive approach. This allowed me to investigate if, and how, certain framings might inadvertently reinforce traditional gender beliefs rather than reduce them.
To test this, I conducted an experiment with 150 self-identified heterosexual, white male participants who were randomly assigned to one of six conditions. These conditions included combinations of gendered or gender-neutral language with either sex-negative or sex-positive framing, plus two control groups exposed to a neutral academic dishonesty statement. This design allowed me to compare responses across groups and examine whether language nuances in the policy affected participants’ beliefs about gender and their support for or compliance with the policy.
One of my key hypotheses was that directly emphasizing gender in the policies might trigger resistance or even a “boomerang effect.” The idea here is that Title IX-inspired trainings, which often aim to uncover implicit gender biases and highlight rape as a gendered crime, might unintentionally reinforce existing gender beliefs if framed in a certain way. Given that gender is a unique status characteristic, this approach could inadvertently activate traditional stereotypes rather than challenge them. My study allowed me to assess whether carefully adjusting the language in policy communication could make these policies more effective and less prone to resistance.
What were your outcomes and results?
The results revealed that policy compliance was significantly affected by the language framing used. Specifically, policies that used sexual assault language—often with a negative framing—led to higher levels of compliance than those with gender-neutral or sex-positive language. Participants were more likely to support the policy, indicate they would comply with it, and report violations when exposed to sexual assault language.
Interestingly, this outcome was the opposite of my original hypothesis, which predicted that gender-neutral and consensual language would promote more equitable gender attitudes and higher compliance. It seems that sexual assault language aligns more closely with social norms and prompts a greater sense of responsibility and seriousness, which may explain the increase in compliance.
What are the policy implications you find most relevant?
The implications of these findings suggest that the language used in Title IX policies can play a critical role in shaping attitudes toward policy compliance. Specifically, the higher compliance associated with sexual assault language indicates that framing policies with direct references to sexual assault, as a serious crime, is important. This outcome suggests that institutions might benefit from policy wording that conveys the gravity of sexual assault, as it appears to resonate more with this group of participants (white, straight, cisgender men).
How do you hope research in this area will move forward?
To build on my dissertation findings, I am now investigating whether the surprising differences we observed were driven by the more punitive or harsher language in the policies, which may be influencing compliance in unexpected ways. Specifically, I'm examining whether this punitive tone, rather than the policies alone, affects attitudes and compliance levels.
Additionally, I plan to conduct pilot studies to test the effectiveness of Clery Act/Title IX training sessions that students are required to complete, rather than focusing solely on the policy texts. By taking this approach, I aim to gain a clearer understanding of how Clery Act and Title IX required trainings function—or fall short—in terms of effectiveness as experienced in practice. This will allow me to provide targeted recommendations to improve both the policies and the trainings.
In what other parts of our lives do you think sex-positive and gender-neutral language could be beneficial?
While my findings did not align with my expectations regarding the use of sex-positive language, I still strongly advocate for its broader application. Sex positivity, which emphasizes that all sex—when healthy and consensual—is a positive experience, can be transformative. A sex-positive framework shifts away from traditional, patriarchal, and phallic-focused language, moving instead toward a more inclusive, pleasure-focused approach (Khan, 2017).
This shift could be beneficial in many areas of our lives, including sex education, healthcare, and relationships, as it fosters open communication, promotes healthier attitudes toward sexuality, and encourages respect for individual autonomy and consent. By integrating sex-positive and gender-neutral language, we create spaces that are more inclusive, respectful, and supportive of diverse sexual identities and experiences.
I am deeply interested in the adoption of sex-positive terms in sex education and consent programming. A sex-positive framework shifts the focus away from the fear-based narratives that dominate much of current sex education, that hyperfocus on the potential dangers of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pregnancy, and sexual violence. While these issues are certainly important, when we frame sex solely as something negative or risky, it can complicate people's ability to communicate openly about it. I argue this lack of open communication can contribute to increased sexual violence and difficulties with consent, as individuals may feel uncomfortable discussing their boundaries, desires, and needs.
I appreciate that sex-positive approaches emphasize the importance of healthy, consensual, and pleasurable sexual experiences. By prioritizing the exploration of pleasure and mutual respect, we can help individuals understand that sexuality is not just about avoiding harm but also about fostering positive, fulfilling connections. This approach can empower people to engage in open, honest discussions about their desires, boundaries, and needs, making it easier to navigate intimate relationships safely and respectfully.
Is there anything else you’d like to say that we didn’t cover?
Thank you so much for allowing me to speak on a topic I’m so passionate about!
I’d like to stress the importance of continuing to examine and challenge the language and frameworks we use when discussing issues like sexual assault, consent, and gender. While my research focused on specific policy language, others in research and advocacy must consider the broader impact these conversations have in areas like education, the workplace, and social settings. There’s still much to learn about how language shapes beliefs, behaviors, and societal norms. Ultimately, fostering a more open and inclusive conversation around sex, gender, and consent can lead to healthier and more equitable outcomes for everyone.