Validating the Male Rape Myth Scale – Shortened Version (MRMS-SV): Examining Melanson’s Original Factorial Structure Among a Large Nationally Representative Sample of the UK

Abstract

Despite extensive use in research assessing myths around male sexual victimization, the factorial structure of Melanson’s 1999 Male Rape Myth Scale [MRMS] was never psychometrically validated, meaning the relevance of scale items and dimensionality remained untested. Recruiting a nationally representative sample of 4152 UK adults, dimensionality and construct validity of the 22-item MRMS and a modified 19-item shortened version (MRMS-SV) were investigated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Analysis was conducted separately for the complete, male only (n = 2006), and female only (n = 2146) samples. Results indicate scores are best captured by a unidimensional solution across all samples tested, using the modified 19-item MRMS-SV version. Excellent internal reliability was observed among each sample. Research using the MRMS-SV can be confident in the scale’s unidimensional validity.

Keywords

male rape myth scale [MRMS]male rape myth scale – shortened version [MRMS-SV]rape attitudes male victim-survivors confirmatory factor analysis composite reliability

The Crime Survey for England and Wales 2022 estimated that 0.2% of men aged 16 years and over had been a victim of rape (including attempts) since they were 16 years old (Office for National Statistics [ONS], 2023). Police recorded crime data highlights that men made up 14.5% of sexual offence victims, and 9% of rape victims recorded over the same period (ONS, 2023, Worksheet 18). When exploring the issue of male sexual victimization, there is a growing body of research which has explored myths and stereotypes surrounding men’s experiences of sexual violence and victimization (Pearson & Barker, 2018; Turchik & Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2021; Widanaralalage, 2024). Several measurement scales have also been developed “to accurately assess and compare myth acceptance across groups, as well as the predictors and outcomes of rape myth acceptive attitudes” (Hine et al., 2021, p. 2). The most widely used myth acceptance scale to specifically and solely address male rape myth acceptance was Melanson’s (1999) Male Rape Myth Scale (MRMS). Originally developed and published as a 22-item self-report scale, the tool made a substantive contribution to the assessment of myths pertaining to male rape victimization. In developing the MRMS as part of a PhD thesis, Melanson (1999) examined features of the scale’s validity including assessments of test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and criterion validity. However, the MRMS was never psychometrically validated considering the tools’ factorial solution (e.g., unidimentionality vs. multi-dimensionality), factorial invariance (e.g., does the scale function comparably between male and female respondents), nor the unique factor loadings of individual scale items in relation to the overall male rape myth construct. Recent studies have conducted factor analyses in developing a modified version of the MRMS (Hogge & Wang, 2022), and newly developed male rape myth inventories (e.g., by Hine et al., 2021). However, as many researchers continue to make use of Melanson’s (1999) original 22-item scale in assessing the prevalence of male rape myths among diverse groups and in evaluating the efficacy of interventions tasked with reducing such beliefs, there remains a pressing need to assess the tools factorial structure, factorial invariance, and the factor loadings of individual scale items among a large nationally representative sample. This article therefore makes a significant contribution to the literature by testing and psychometrically validating Melanson’s MRMS in this way.

The article is structured as follows; the first section critically explores male rape myths and Melanson’s MRMS, as well as discussing other male rape myth scales, providing context for the confirmatory factor analysis of the MRMS undertaken in this article. The second section details the study’s methods, analytical procedures, and results; and the third and final section considers the implications of this research.

Male Rape Myths and Melanson’s (1999) MRMS

Rape myths are “prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists” (Burt, 1980, p. 217) that have the effect of “minimizing rape as a serious concern, blaming victims, and defending perpetrators” (Hogge & Wang, 2022, p. 422). Male rape myths are stereotypes and false beliefs specifically relevant to cases where the victim is male, most frequently emerging in cases where the perpetrator is also male, but also where they are female (e.g., “Forced-to-Penetrate Myths”; Weare & Willmott, 2025). Male rape myths reflect “gender stereotypes and social norms regarding masculinity and male sexuality” (Turchik & Edwards, 2012, p. 213), including for example, expectations that men are strong, aggressive, and dominant. These expectations around men and masculinity are reflected in rape myths that disbelieve that men can be raped, blame the victim for failing to fight off their attacker, and minimize the severity of men’s experiences of sexual violence. Hegemonic masculinity is also heteronormative, with “constructions of masculinity [being] so closely connected to heterosexuality” (Turchik & Edwards, 2012, p. 213). The expectation of heterosexuality for men is reflected in myths that make homophobic assumptions about a male victim’s sexuality, such as they “must be gay” or have been acting in a “gay manner” to have been raped by another man, that “only gay men can be raped”, or conversely that “gay men cannot be raped” because they welcome all homosexual sexual encounters (Hine et al., 2021, p. 2).

The first scale developed to measure male rape myth acceptance was by Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1992). They created a twelve-item scale based on six rape myth statements, with each item being repeated for a male and a female perpetrator. The scale reflected three rape myth dimensions; “male rape cannot happen”, “male victims are to blame for their own rape”, and “getting raped doesn’t really upset men” (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992, pp. 86-87). The scale was administered to university students with them marking their agreement with the statements on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). As noted by Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1992) themselves, the study was intended to serve as a “preliminary investigation of beliefs about male rape” (p. 98), with them highlighting a need to “assess beliefs in male rape myths with a greater variety of measures” (p. 98). Thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that Chapleau et al. (2008) later “identified poor reliability and inadequate fit with the presumed three-factor model as serious threats to validity for the … measure” (Hogge & Wang, 2022, p. 423).

In 1999 Melanson developed the MRMS as part of a doctoral dissertation. The MRMS is a 22-item self-report scale that includes items that broadly relate to myths that; blame the victim (e.g., most men who are raped by a man are somewhat to blame for not escaping or fighting off the man), excuse the behavior of the perpetrator (e.g., women who rape men are sexually frustrated individuals), predetermine how and by whom real rape occurs (e.g., male rape is usually committed by homosexuals). Additional myths pertaining to male rape within the MRMS also surround perceptions related to masculinity (e.g., a man who has been raped has lost his manhood), sexuality (e.g., if a man told me that he had been raped by another man, I would suspect that he is homosexual), and harm-minimization (e.g., if a man obtained an erection while being raped, it probably means that he started to enjoy it). The scale was administered to university students with responses on the MRMS being measured on a six-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 6 = “Strongly Agree”) and two items (7 and 12) are reverse scored. Total original scale scores range from 22 to 132, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of male rape myth beliefs.

Despite being widely used by researchers since its creation (see, e.g., Davies et al., 2012; Willmott & Widanaralalage, 2024), the original MRMS has never been psychometrically validated in terms of the scales factorial structure (i.e., unidimentionality), factorial invariance (e.g., whether the scale functions comparably between male and female respondents), nor factor loadings of scale items (reflecting the unique contribution that each scale item makes to the overall male rape myth construct) either by Melanson or other researchers, within peer-reviewed published literature. Indeed, as Hogge and Wang (2022) recently point out there is a lack of reliable peer-reviewed research investigating the factor structure of the scale, despite the MRMS being frequently used as a unidimensional 22-item measure by researchers. Moreover, other male rape researchers note that the “process for development and determination of reliability of this scale has not been subjected to rigorous academic appraisal” (Hine et al., 2021, p. 4). Hine and colleagues (2021) also note that the sample used to validate the measure was “both too small (only 303 participants were utilized to assess and validate 80 potential items) and too homogenous (only undergraduate students were utilized)” (Hine et al., 2021, p. 4). There are however some recent examples of efforts to psychometrically validate the scale in larger non-WEIRD samples, albeit not in peer-reviewed published literature. For example, Geldenhuis (2023) who recruited 2536 South African college students to complete the MRMS to examine the tools’ factorial structure. Using exploratory techniques, the author reported finding that both a unidimensional and bi-factorial conceptualization of the MRMS met the threshold for acceptable model fit. This study provides a useful insight into the factorial structure of the MRMS both supporting and challenging Melanson’s original unidimensional conceptualization among non-Western populations. However, it is important to recognize that despite the impressive sample size, this was achieved through non-probabilistic sampling techniques among South African college students. Indeed, with a mean sample age 20 among a predominate female convivence sample, this factor analysis suffers from similar limitations to those previously pointed out by Hogge and Wang (2022) and Hine and colleagues (2021), despite being a substantial improvement on much factor analytical work that has come before it.

Recognizing the limitations associated with the MRMS, in 2022 Hogge and Wang updated the scale—creating the MRMS-R—by revising “the wording of 13 original items to improve clarity or improve construct representativeness” (Hogge & Wang, 2022, p. 424). They also added six new items to cover a wider range of male rape myths. The subsequent MRMS-R is a 16-item measure with two factors; “marginalization” and “victim culpability”. Construct validity testing was undertaken on the new version of the MRMS, the MRMS-R, however the authors chose not to confirm the factorial structure on the 1999 MRMS scale to assess whether Melanson’s original conceptualization of male rape beliefs was indeed valid. This is problematic given that Melanson’s (1999) 22-item conceptualization of the scale continued to be extensively used by researchers. Moreover, the validation of the MRMS-R occurred among a small opportunity sample of undergraduate students, meaning neither the original nor the revised conceptualization of the MRMS has ever been systematically validated among larger, nationally representative community samples. This is a subtle but important gap in existing literature if male rape myth tools are to be reliably used to assess population-level prevalence rates of male rape myth beliefs, not possible with non-probability opportunistic samples.

This article therefore assesses the construct validity, scale reliability, and factorial structure of Melanson’s MRMS. Despite more recent scales being developed, including Hine and colleagues (2021) Male Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (MRMAS) and the MRMS-R, due to their relative infancy, the original MRMS remains the most widely used measure of male rape myth acceptance within existing literature. It is therefore essential to ensure that the MRMS correctly assesses rape myths in the way that was originally proposed by Melanson when it was created. Validating the MRMS will allow us to confirm that what we know about the nature and extent of male rape myth endorsement, based on previous use of the MRMS in research, can be relied upon. Undertaking a validation process using large-scale probability sampling techniques will enable the MRMS to continue to be used in future research with confidence, enabling researchers to reliability assess male rape myth prevalence and how specific myths featured in the scale persist, reduce, or otherwise change over time.

Methods

Sample

Our sampling strategy involved commissioning the data collection service YouGov to assist in the recruitment of participants such that a diverse and nationally representative sample of UK adults could be obtained. YouGov is an international research data analytics company with more than three million registered UK users available to take part in survey-based research. At our request, YouGov employed stratified sampling techniques with participants proportionally recruited to complete our online survey based upon a range of sociodemographic variables including, age, biological sex, nationality, and social grade. Over the course of one day, 4315 UK adults completed our questionnaire. Participants self-reported biological sex data indicate that just over half of all participants were female (n = 2146; 51.7%) and the remaining respondents were male (n = 2006; 48.3%). Age data (measured categorically) indicate that 467 participants (11.3%) were aged 18–24, 661 (15.9%) were 25–34, 768 (18.5%) were 35–44, the remaining 610 (14.7%) were aged 45–54, with most respondents (n = 1646; 39.6%) aged 55 and above. Citizenship information indicate that most were English (84.1%), with a smaller nationally proportionate number of Scottish (8.3%), Welsh (4.9%), and Northern Irish citizens (2.6%). Combining responses to a number of questions such as occupation and personal income, YouGov calculate the social grade of all respondents. Here, more than half (n = 2374; 57.2%) were broadly categorized as “middle-class” (i.e., ABC1), with the remaining respondents (n = 1778; 42.8%) categorized as “working-class” (i.e., C2DE).

Measures

Male Rape Myth Scale (MRMS; Melanson, 1999) is a 22-item self-report scale developed to measure belief in myths and falsehoods which surround men’s experience of sexual victimization. Responses on the MRMS were measured on a six-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 6 = “Strongly Agree”) and two items (7 and 12) are reverse scored. Total original scale scores range from 22 to 132, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of male rape myth beliefs. However, following the analysis carried out below, the validated MRMS is best conceptualized as a modified 19-item unidimensional scale with no reverse scored items (items 7, 12, and 6 were removed due to low factor loadings) with total scale scores thus ranging from 19 to 114. This modified 19-item version of the original MRMS is what we here forth conceptualize as the Male Rape Myth Scale - Shortened Version (MRMS-SV).

Study Procedures

Participants identified and invited by YouGov were first informed about the sensitive nature of the study and survey questions which focused on sexual violence and rape myths. This was communicated to them using an online participant information sheet. Participants were informed here that should they decide to take part, they were permitted to omit any question that they felt uncomfortable answering and could withdraw their participation at any stage by simply exiting the browser, without the requirement to provide a reason for doing so. However, full completion of all survey items in the final dataset indicates that no participants choose to omit responding to any of the questions presented to them. In advance of taking part, participants were also provided with free and impartial UK support service organizations contact details (i.e., national telephone numbers and web addresses) should they wish to access such support, regardless of any requirement to take part in the research. Participants were informed before the onset of the survey that their data could not be withdrawn after the final questions were completed and their answers submitted, given that they were taking part anonymously. Participants that agreed to take part were then presented with a series of questions which included the MRMS. After completing the questionnaire, respondents were shown a study debrief that reiterated the research objectives and included further signposting to free support services. All procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines. Specifically, ethical approval for the study was obtained from the research ethics committee at Lancaster University (Ethics ID No: LWA7684; Approval date: 22.06.21). Study procedures also adhered with ethics policies as outlined in the British Psychological Society’s (BPS, 2021) code of human research ethics in that participants were provided with study information and provided informed consent to take part after reading such information. The privacy rights of respondents were observed at all times by anonymization of the responses that they provided.

Analytical Procedure

Construct validity and dimensionality of the MRMS were examined using traditional Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) techniques. CFA was considered the most appropriate theory-driven analytical technique in seeking to confirm Melanson’s (1999) conceptualization of the MRMS’s unidimensional solution. Unidimensional models were specified and tested using Mplus version 7.11, with Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR) estimation. A unidimensional model was tested with all 22 original MRMS items as well as a separate modified 19-item conceptualization examining whether scale items load onto a single factor as originally conceptualized by Melanson (1999). The overall fit of unidimensional models and the relative fit between models was assessed using a range of goodness-of-fit statistics. This includes the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Kline, 2015) and the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), where values above 0.90 indicate acceptable model fit, and values above 0.95 indicate good model fit (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), with 90% confidence intervals (CI), are also presented. Here, values below 0.08 indicate acceptable model fit and values below 0.05 indicate good model fit (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1974) was used to compare relative fit between competing models, with the smallest value indicating the best fitting model. Finally, with the potential for Cronbach’s alpha to over- or under-estimate internal consistency, composite reliability was computed in the present analysis using the formula provided by Raykov (1998). Values above 0.60 are considered acceptable (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000).

Results

Descriptive statistics and sex differences in MRMS scores are presented in Table 1. Results display that male participants expressed significantly higher endorsement of male rape myth beliefs than their female counterparts, though the degree of difference between sexes was small.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Gender Differences in MRMS Scores.

Variable	Full Sample	Male	Female	t (d)
Variable	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	t (d)
MRMS (22-items)	54.86 (15.62)	57.29 (16.27)	52.59 (14.63)	9.76*** (0.30)
MRMS (19-items)	40.57 (16.52)	44.07 (17.16)	38.21 (15.64)	11.42*** (0.36)

Note. *** = statistically significant at p < .001; d = Cohen’s d (0.2–0.49 = small difference).

Fit indices for the two unidimensional MRMS models—the 22-item original MRMS and the modified 19-item MRMS-SV—identified based on low factor loadings of three scale items, (discussed further below) were tested separately for males, females and the full sample. These results are presented in Table 2. First, we consider the overall model fit statistics for the unidimensional solution comprising of the original 22 items. According to the SRMR statistic, the unidimensional solution provided acceptable fit among the full sample, male only sample and female only sample. The RMSEA was acceptable for the full sample and males only, though not for the female only sample and the CFI and TLI statistics did not meet the criteria for acceptable model fit among any of the samples.

Table 2.

Fit Indices for the Original and Modified Version of the MRMS.

	χ² (df)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (95%CI)	SRMR
Original scale (22 items)
Full sample	35606.587 (231)	.849	.834	.078 (.077/.080)	.060
Male	16483.481 (231)	.854	.839	.077 (.074/.080)	.060
Female	19607.255 (231)	.835	.818	.083 (.080/.085)	.063
Modified scale (19 items)
Full sample	29964.821 (171)	.900	.887	.069 (.067/.071)	.041
Male	14033.827 (171)	.906	.894	.067 (.064/.070)	.039
Female	16386.489 (171)	.885	.871	.074 (.071/.077)	.048

Note. χ² = chi square goodness of fit statistic; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion.

The adequacy of the 22-item MRMS model can also be determined based on parameter estimates. As displayed in Table 3, the factor loadings for items 6, 7 and 12 were unacceptably low across all samples. These factor loadings were also negative, indicating that these items were inversely related to the construct of interest. Consequently, these items were removed from the scale.

Table 3.

Standardized Factor Loadings for the MRMS Original 22-Item Scale and Modified 19-Item Scale.

MRMS items	Original scale (22 items)			Modified scale (19 items)
MRMS items	Full sample	Male	Female	Full sample	Male	Female
Q1: Women who rape men are sexually frustrated individuals.	.56	.53	.57	.56	.53	.58
Q2: The extent of a man’s resistance should be a major factor in determining whether he was raped.	.70	.68	.70	.70	.68	.70
Q3: I would have a hard time believing a man who told me that he was raped by a woman.	.75	.77	.72	.75	.77	.72
Q4: Male rape is usually committed by homosexuals.	.59	.60	.56	.59	.60	.56
Q5: A man can enjoy sex even if it is being forced upon him.	.62	.58	.64	.62	.58	.64
Q6: Most men would not enjoy being raped by a woman.	−.27	−.22	−.30	-	-	-
Q7: Most men who are raped by a woman are very upset by the incident. [R]	−.37	−.35	−.38	-	-	-
Q8: Most men who are raped by a woman are somewhat to blame for not escaping or fighting off the woman.	.78	.78	.78	.78	.79	.78
Q9: Many men claim rape if they have consented to homosexual relations but have changed their minds afterward.	.62	.59	.63	.62	.60	.63
Q10: Any healthy man can successfully resist a rapist if he really wants to.	.79	.78	.79	.79	.78	.79
Q11: If a man obtained an erection while being raped, it probably means that he started to enjoy it.	.81	.80	.81	.81	.80	.81
Q12: It is a terrible experience for a man to be raped by a woman [R]	−.36	−.34	−.35	-	-	-
Q13: Most men who are raped by a woman are somewhat to blame for not being more careful.	.85	.83	.86	.85	.83	.86
Q14: If a man engages in necking and petting and he lets things get out of hand, it is his own fault if his partner forces sex on him.	.83	.81	.85	.83	.81	.85
Q15: No self-respecting man would admit to being raped.	.74	.73	.74	.74	.73	.74
Q16: If a man told me that he had been raped by another man, I would suspect that he is	.75	.74	.75	.75	.74	.75
Q17: Men who parade around nude in a locker room are asking for trouble.	.74	.70	.77	.74	.70	.77
Q18: A man who has been raped has lost his manhood.	.66	.64	.66	.66	.64	.66
Q19: Male rape is more serious when the victim is heterosexual than when the victim is homosexual.	.70	.71	.67	.70	.71	.67
Q20: Most men who have been raped have a history of promiscuity.	.80	.79	.80	.80	.79	.80
Q21: Most men who are raped by a man are somewhat to blame for not escaping or fighting off the man.	.82	.82	.81	.82	.82	.81
Q22: A man who allows himself to be raped by another man is probably homosexual.	.79	.78	.79	.79	.77	.79

Note. All factor loadings are statistically significant at ***p < .001.

Next, the unidimensional MRMS-SV solution was re-tested based on the remaining 19 items. As reported in Table 2, compared to the original 22-item scale, improvements were observed in all model fit statistics for the full sample, male only sample, and female only sample. This is evidenced by lower SRMR and RMSEA statistics, and higher CFI and TLI statistics. According to the RMSEA statistic, the 19-item unidimensional solution provides acceptable model fit across all samples. Meanwhile, the SRMR indicates good model fit for males, and acceptable model fit for the full sample and females. The CFI statistic indicated acceptable model fit for the full sample and males, but narrowly missed the criteria for acceptable model fit for females. Lastly, the TLI statistic narrowly missed the criteria for acceptable model fit for all samples. Overall, the 19-item MRMS unidimensional model was provided an adequate fit for the data among all samples.

As displayed in Table 3, all of the remaining 19 items showed statistically significant factor loadings (exceeding the 0.4 threshold) among the full sample, males only and females only. Discrepancies in the factor loadings between males and females were small (not exceeding .07), suggesting that the items indexed the intended latent construct similarly well across the sexes.

To assess the internal reliability of the MRMS-SV, tests of composite reliability were performed. Composite reliability estimates were excellent among the full sample (.96), females only (.96) and males only (.95).

Discussion

In the current study two alterative unidimensional models of the Male Rape Myth Scale were investigated, tested separately among the complete participant sample, male only sample, and female only sample. This included the original unidimensional 22-item MRMS as conceptualized by Melanson (1999) (i.e., where all 22 myth statements load onto a single general male rape myth acceptance factor) and an alternative unidimensional 19-item modified MRMS-SV conceptualized after removing three poorly performing items identified from examination of parameter estimates from preliminary analyses conducted (i.e., where 19 myth statements load onto a single general male rape myth factor). Analysis indicates that the best solution was the 19-item MRMS-SV (as indicated by all model fit statistics above) among all three samples tested. To ensure that the proposed unidimensional factorial structure of the scale was equally useful as an attitudinal assessment tool, valid among both males and female respondents, factorial invariance was also examined, and results indicate that overall, the MRMS-SV performed comparably, regardless of the sex of the respondents. The analysis conducted therefore largely supports Melanson’s (1999) original unidimensional conceptualization of the MRMS scale (albeit as a slightly modified 19-item shortened version of the scale known as the MRMS-SV) for reliably measuring myths and beliefs pertaining to male rape. The MRMS-SV can therefore confidently continue to be used by researchers assessing male rape myth acceptance, replacing the original 22-item version of the scale (the modified 19-item scale can be accessed in its entirety at the end of this article).

Study Strengths and Limitations

Like all cross-sectional research, this study is not without some limitations. Firstly, as the MRMS is a self-report attitudinal measurement tool, there is a risk of possible response bias. Alternative attitudinal and rape myth acceptance scales encounter similar challenges. For example, some research has begun to find differences in the views expressed by participants when making abstract endorsement of rape myth beliefs on such scales compared to when asked to make more informed, nuanced judgements about specific rape case scenarios (see Smith et al., 2022). However, unlike other studies where male rape myth scales are employed or validated among small, opportunistically recruited samples (e.g., Hine et al., 2021; Willmott & Widanaralalage, 2024), the sample utilized in this study is both large and representative. In fact, no prior study has ever used or validated the factorial structure of the original MRMS among a large and nationally representative sample of participants as was utilized in this study, allowing us to ensure the scales utility as an accurate assessment of male rape myth prevalence. This is especially significant within the context of male rape and sexual victimization, where limited research and understanding about men’s experiences of such violence persists. Another perceived limitation of this study surrounds the lack of data gathered surrounding male rape myth beliefs among groups whose gender-identity differs from their biological sex. As sociodemographic data of our respondents was obtained via already held YouGov data and not first-hand questions asked within our specific questionnaire, future studies should seek to capture a broader range of sociodemographic features of respondents including data related to gender identity and expression.

Finally, a further possible criticism of this study could be the lack of wider testing of multiple competing models of the MRMS for alternative multi-factorial solutions, especially given that other male rape myth inventories have proposed multidimensional solutions (e.g., Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992; Weare & Willmott, 2025). However, given that Melanson’s (1999) original scale was conceptualized with a unidimensional factorial structure and that this is how the scale has been used within almost all peer-reviewed published literature that implemented the tool, we felt it important to seek to confirm whether Melanson’s original theorized solution could be supported when using a large representative sample of Western respondents. In doing so we hope to have provided some post-hoc validation of the wealth of previous published literature that has conceptualized Melanson’s Male Rape Myth scale in this way. Nonetheless, future research would benefit from testing alternative multifactorial models of the MRMS when tested alongside other dominant and contemporary male rape myth scales which report a multidimensional factual structure, to offer a more nuanced theoretical insight into the broader theoretical concept of male rape mythology beyond any one inventory.

Implications

The continued utility of the 19-item shortened version of Melanson’s MRMS is significant for both research and practice. The MRMS-SV can be utilized to help determine beliefs held by jurors within the context of mock jury trial research. Within England and Wales, it is not possible to conduct research with genuine trial jurors due to legal provisions which prevent jurors from sharing details about their group deliberation processes and discussions (Juries Act, 1974, s20D). Consequently, mock jury trial research, when conducted with appropriate methodological rigor, represents the best method to gain insights into jury deliberations and decision making within England and Wales. Using the MRMS-SV within mock jury research allows researchers to ascertain the impacts that male rape myths may have upon jurors in their decision making, something which is particularly important within the context of low conviction rates in sexual offences cases (Willmott & Hudspith, 2024). Specifically, within the context of male rape cases, knowledge is limited in relation to jury decision making, with the majority of existing research being conducted in relation to female rape cases. Therefore, the MRMS-SV is essential in helping to further knowledge and understanding in relation to potential juror biases in rape cases involving male complainants.

The MRMS-SV can also be utilized to more reliably assess the prevalence of male rape myth acceptance amongst both the general public, as well as specific population groups, for example, criminal justice practitioners. This is important because it “provides an important and highly impactful route to improving the experiences of male victims” (Hine et al., 2021, p. 16). Indeed, understanding who endorses male rape myths within the context of criminal justice participants allows for appropriate and targeted interventions to be developed collaboratively with practitioners to minimize the impacts of these biases on decision-making and the experiences of male complainants within the criminal justice system. Especially important when working with male victims of gendered violence given the additional barriers that recent studies show these men continue to face (Pisano et al., 2025; Weare et al., 2024; Widanaralalage, 2024). The success of such interventions can also be evaluated utilizing the MRMS-SV to assess whether participants have benefitted from their involvement in such interventions, both in the short-term as well as longer term.

Conclusion

To conclude, this study goes some way towards confirming the continued utility and contribution of Melanson’s (1999) original conception of a unidimensional male rape myth scale, albeit with a shortened version of the scale. Alongside Melanson’s original attempts to validate features of the MRMS, including assessments of test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and criterion validity, our study extents upon this early work by confirming the construct validity of the 19-item MRMS-SV, alongside evidencing for the first time in peer-reviewed published literature the comparable utility of measure for reliability assessing both male and female respondents male rape myth beliefs. We hope that this study goes some way to corroborate the wealth of existing research which has made use of Melanson’s (1999) MRMS and assessing male rape myths as a unidimensional construct. Finally, following our analyses, we hope that future use of the shortened 19-item version of the inventory allows for more reliable male rape myth prevalence estimates to be assessed among community samples and evaluated following targeted interventions in a western context.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr Kathryn Sharratt who was employed as a Consultant Statistician during part of the analysis phase of the research project.

Author Contributions

Both authors (SW and DW) contributed to all stages of the research including; Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Roles/Writing - original draft; and Writing - review & editing

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by a Economic and Social Research Council (Lancaster University Impact Accelerator Award Grant [ES/LWA7684]).

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Dominic Willmott

Data Availability Statement

The complete validated version of the Male Rape Myth Scale – Shortened Version (MRMS-SV) with user instructions is available on request from the authors.

Author Biographies

Siobhan Weare is a Reader (Associate Professor) in Law at Lancaster Law School, Lancaster University, UK. Siobhan’s research is focused in the areas of criminal law and criminal justice and explores socio-legal responses to, and experiences of, male survivors of sexual violence.

Dominic Willmott is a Reader (Associate Professor) in Legal and Criminological Psychology in the Department of Criminology, Sociology and Social Policy at Loughborough University, UK and Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University in Wroclaw, Poland. Dominic’s research examines bias within criminal justice settings and specifically, the role of rape myths upon jury decision making.

References

Akaike

(1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.1974.1100705

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

British Psychological Society (BPS) . (2021). BPS code of human research ethics. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/bps-code-human-research-ethics

Burt

(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

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

Russell

B. L.

(2008). Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313529

Davies

Gilston

Rogers

(2012). Examining the relationship between male rape myth acceptance, female rape myth acceptance, victim blame, homophobia, gender roles, and ambivalent sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(14), 2807–2823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512438281

Diamantopoulos

Siguaw

J. A.

(2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated. London: Sage.

Geldenhuis

D. L.

(2023). Rape myth acceptance: Investigating the dimensionality of the Illinois rape myth acceptance scale and the male rape myth scale (Doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch University.

Hine

B. A.

Murphy

A. D.

Churchyard

J. S.

(2021). Development and validation of the Male rape Myth Acceptance Scale (MRMAS). Heliyon, 7(6), Article e07421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07421

10.

Hogge

Wang

(2022). Revising the male rape myths scale. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 23(4), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000405

11.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

12.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

13.

Melanson

P. K.

(1999). Belief in male rape myths: A test of two competing theories. Doctoral dissertation. Queen’s University.

14.

Office for National Statistics (ONS) . (2023). Sexual offence prevalence and victim characteristics, England and Wales. ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/sexualoffencesprevalenceandvictimcharacteristicsenglandandwales

15.

Pearson

Barker

(2018). Male rape: What we know, don’t know and need to find out—a critical review. Crime Psychology Review, 4(1), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744006.2019.1591757

16.

Pisano

Widanaralalage

Willmott

(2025). “We have to fight for our existence in the system”: Exploring the experiences of service providers for male victims and female perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 15(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-04-2024-0033

17.

Raykov

(1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169802200407

18.

Smith

Daly

Herriott

Willmott

(2022). State compensation as rape justice: Are public attitudes a legitimate foundation for reform of the UK’s criminal injuries compensation scheme? Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 6(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868020x16057277095797

19.

Steiger

J. H.

(1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4

20.

Struckman-Johnson

(1992). Acceptance of male rape myths among college men and women. Sex Roles, 27(3-4), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00290011

21.

Tucker

L. R.

Lewis

(1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291170

22.

Turchik

J. A.

Edwards

K. M.

(2012). Myths about male rape: A literature review. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 13(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023207

23.

Walfield

S. M.

(2021). “Men cannot be raped”: Correlates of male rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13-14), 6391–6417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518817777

24.

Weare

Hulley

Craig

(2024). Nobody believes you if you’re a bloke’: Barriers to disclosure and help-seeking for male forced-to-penetrate victims/survivors. International Review of Victimology, 30(3), 596–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580241238768

25.

Weare

Willmott

(2025). The Forced-to-Penetrate Myth Acceptance Scale (FTP-MAS): A new attitudinal tool for assessing myths that surround female perpetrated sexual violence against men. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 43(1), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2706

26.

Widanaralalage

(2024). Male rape: Prevalence, consequences, and myths. In Winder

Hocken

Lievesley

Harper

Blagden

Swaby

Banyard

(Eds.), Sexual crime: Victims and survivors (pp. 93–117). Springer.

27.

Willmott

Hudspith

(2024). Jury trials and rape myth bias: Examining the research evidence, stakeholder perspectives and effective solutions. In Monaghan

(Ed.), Contemporary challenges in the jury system: A comparative perspective (pp. 167–188). Routledge.

28.

Willmott

Widanaralalage

(2024). Male rape myths: Examining the role of victim empathy and socio-demographics in a cross-sectional sample of UK adults. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 76(1), 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2023.100645