In Part 1 we talked about the reasons the authors felt some of the existing research was not credible. They wrapped up their critique of the Kanin study with the following quote (and if you read Part 1, you can probably guess who they are going to cite):
As a result of these and other serious problems with the “research,” Kanin’s (1994) article can be considered “a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations” (Lisak, 2007, p. 1).
In contrast, when more methodologically rigorous research has been conducted, estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%.
Before I get into the primary study that they reference, let me give you an idea of just what kind of games they have in store for us. Here is what they say about the second study used to back up their 2-8% range:
For example, Clark and Lewis (1977) examined case files for all 116 rapes investigated by the Toronto Metropolitan Police Department in 1970. As a result, they concluded that seven cases (6%) involved false reports made by victims.
Ok, so we are back to using data from a single police department, in a single year, and in this case from about 40 years prior to when the article was written, but at least it is in the range they are claiming. They then go on to say this