Associations between sexual assault and romantic relationship functioning: A mixed-methods analysis

Abstract

Background: Research on the relation between sexual assault (SA) and romantic functioning has yielded inconsistent results. The goals of the current studies were to examine this association while addressing limitations of past research; assessing revictimization, multiple victimization, and assault timing; and examining whether this association was moderated by neuroticism, attachment orientations, or perceived partner responsiveness. Design and Methods: College students (Study 1; N = 437) and community members (Study 2; N = 566) completed measures assessing SA, romantic functioning, attachment, neuroticism, and partner responsiveness. Study 2 used a mixed-methods approach. Data were collected via online surveys in psychology courses (Study 1) and on Prolific (Study 2). Results: In Study 1, SA was not associated with romantic functioning and this association was not moderated by attachment or neuroticism. In Study 2, SA survivors reported significantly poorer relationship quality and less partner trust, but not less sexual satisfaction. However, significant effects were small. Partner responsiveness did not moderate these associations, and revictimization, multiple victimizations, and assault recency were not related to poorer functioning. In qualitative data, the most common response was that the SA had not affected participants’ relationships. Conclusions: Relationships may be one area in which SA survivors demonstrate resilience.

Keywords

Child abuse/mistreatment rape/sexual assault relationships resilience trauma

Introduction

In a recent nationally-representative sample, 21.3% of women reported a history of attempted or completed rape (Smith et al., 2018). Rates of sexual assault are also high among transgender and gender nonconforming individuals (approximately 25%; Cantor et al., 2015). Although many SA survivors are in romantic relationships, we know very little about the romantic experiences of survivors because most research has focused on the relations between SA and psychopathology (e.g., Dworkin et al., 2017). It is important to understand whether and how SA is associated with relationship functioning, especially given that relationship quality is positively related to well-being (Pfund et al., 2020; Proulx et al., 2007). Thus, the purpose of the present studies was to examine relations between SA and romantic relationship functioning across two disparate samples.

Sexual assault and relationship functioning

There are several reasons why SA may be associated with poorer relationship functioning. For example, survivors may feel that others cannot be trusted following an assault (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies [ISTSS], 2016). Survivors’ views of self and other could also be impacted, such as feeling that they are unlovable or that other people are dangerous, which may lead them to become distant, angry, or dependent on others (ISTSS, 2016). As such, it is reasonable to expect that SA survivors would experience lower relationship quality.

Nonetheless, a recent systematic review of 20 quantitative studies concluded that research on the association between SA and romantic relationship functioning in predominantly heterosexual couples has yielded inconsistent results (Vitek & Yeater, 2021). Although most studies found that sexual victimization was associated with poorer romantic functioning, several studies found no association. There are several potential explanations for inconsistent findings in current research as well as unexplored research questions that could help to explain the inconsistencies.

First, some of these inconsistencies may be due to the relationship construct that was assessed (e.g., overall relationship satisfaction vs. specific components of relationship quality). However, results were often inconsistent even when the same construct was measured. For instance, one study found that women who had experienced SA reported lower emotional and sexual intimacy, but not relationship quality (Rothman et al., 2021). Another study found that women who had experienced adult sexual assault (ASA) reported poorer relationship quality and less emotional intimacy, but not less sexual intimacy (Georgia et al., 2018).

Second, studies varied in their definition of SA. For example, some studies have used a broad definition of SA that included any kind of unwanted sexual contact (Georgia et al., 2018), whereas others used a narrower definition that only included attempted or completed rape (Miner et al., 2006). Broad definitions of sexual assault may lead to smaller effect sizes and obfuscate differences between types of SA. Additionally, most studies that examined the association between SA and romantic functioning assessed childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and not ASA. The limited number of studies that have examined ASA generally have found a negative relation between ASA and relationship functioning (e.g., Friesen et al., 2010) but more research is needed.

It is also unclear whether revictimization (i.e., having a history of both CSA and ASA; Walker et al., 2019) is associated with poorer romantic functioning. Revictimized individuals were at greater risk of developing mental health issues than survivors who reported only CSA or ASA (Classen et al., 2005). Thus, revictimized individuals may also be more likely to report relationship problems, but we are unaware of any study that has examined this. We also do not know whether individuals who have experienced more than one incident of ASA, often referred to as multiple victimizations (Messman-Moore et al., 2000), report poorer relationship quality than those who have experienced one incident of ASA.

Existing research also has not examined whether the recency of the SA was related to relationship functioning and assault timing typically has not been reported. More recent assaults might be associated with poorer relationship functioning than assaults that took place many years ago, given that posttrauma symptoms usually decline over time (Dworkin et al., 2023). Thus, sample differences also might have contributed to inconsistencies in the literature.

Finally, identifying moderators can also be useful in clarifying inconsistent relations in past research and can identify survivors who are more or less at risk of poorer relationship functioning (Vitek & Yeater, 2021). One potential moderator of the relation between SA and relationship satisfaction is attachment security, which has been identified as a source of resilience in trauma research (e.g., Grych et al., 2015). According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973), receiving consistent, sensitive care from close others predicts the development of secure attachment orientations, whereas receiving neglectful or inconsistent care the development of insecure (anxious or avoidant) attachment orientations. Secure attachment is associated with relying on close others for support, particularly in times of stress (Mikulincer et al., 2003). Moreover, secure attachment orientations moderated the association between childhood trauma and later depressive symptoms (Nowalis et al., 2022), with low levels of attachment anxiety (i.e., greater attachment security) attenuating the connection between childhood maltreatment and adult depressive symptoms. Given these findings, secure attachment may serve as a protective factor for individuals exposed to sexual violence.

Another potential moderator is neuroticism. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that people who scored higher on neuroticism tended to be less satisfied with their relationships (Sayehmiri et al., 2020) and were more likely to experience interpersonal conflicts and react to them with greater anger and depression (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995). Thus, SA survivors scoring higher in neuroticism may be more likely to react to distress related to their assault or in general, for instance, by lashing out at their romantic partner. Neuroticism has also been found to moderate the relation between trauma exposure and distress such that individuals scoring higher in neuroticism reported more distress (Yin et al., 2019). Thus, the relation between SA and relationship functioning may also be moderated by neuroticism.

Although we are examining the moderating roles of survivors’ psychological tendencies, perpetrators, and not survivors, are responsible for sexual violence. However, attachment orientations and neuroticism may partly shape survivors’ responses to sexual assault and explain differential outcomes.

The current studies

The aims of the current studies were to contribute to understanding inconsistent findings in research on the relations between SA and relationship functioning. Because behavioral science findings are often population- and context-dependent (Bryan et al., 2021), we conducted two studies. Study 1 examined the relation between sexual victimization broadly defined and both general and specific measures of romantic functioning and potential moderators of these relations. Study 2 conceptually replicated Study 1 and examined additional explanations for inconsistencies in the literature by using a narrower definition of sexual assault; assessing additional aspects of relationship functioning, revictimization, multiple victimization, and assault recency; and examining partner responsiveness as a potential moderator. Relative to Study 1, participants in Study 2 were more diverse in terms of age, geographical location, sexual orientation, gender identity, and ethnicity, and data were collected post- #MeToo. Finally, to better understand the experiences of survivors, in Study 2 we asked participants to describe in their own words how their assault impacted their current romantic relationship.

Study 1

In Study 1, we used an existing dataset from a college student sample to examine the association between SA (broadly defined as any unwanted sexual contact) and relationship functioning. We used a general measure of relationship quality and a measure of trust, given that trust may be impacted by SA (ISTSS, 2016). We also examined whether these associations were moderated by attachment orientation or neuroticism. We hypothesized that SA would be associated with lower romantic relationship quality and partner trust and that these associations would be moderated by attachment orientation and neuroticism with these associations being weaker among individuals who scored lower on attachment anxiety, avoidance, or neuroticism.

Method

The data were part of a larger study (Anders et al., 2012). Only measures relevant to the present study are reported below.

Participants and procedure

Data were collected from United States (U.S.) students at a large public university (n = 843) and a community college (n = 242) in the Minneapolis, MN metropolitan area in September-October 2010 and January-February 2011. Participants completed online surveys for extra credit in their psychology courses. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at both schools (STUDY0909P72352). Students had to be at least 18 years old to participate. Only participants who were women (given low reported rates of SA among men) and in a relationship at the time of the study were included (n = 437). Because we analyzed existing data, we could not do an a priori power analysis. See Table 1 for detailed demographic information on the full sample.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of both samples.

Study 1 (N = 537)	n	%	Study 2 (N = 566)	n	%
Partner gender			Gender
Man	416	95	Cisgender woman	528	93
Woman	19	4	Non-binary, genderqueer, agender, or genderfluid	32	6
Relationship status			Transgender man	2	<1
Dating	364	84	Transgender woman	7	1
Engaged	32	7	Questioning	9	2
Married	40	9	Sexual orientation
Race			Lesbian or gay	35	6
African American or black	14	3	Bisexual or pansexual	162	29
Asian or Asian American	55	13	Straight or heterosexual	356	63
Hispanic or latinx	10	2	Other (e.g., queer, asexual)	13	2
White or European American	340	78	Relationship status
Middle Eastern	3	1	Friends with benefits	4	1
Native American	2	<1	Casually dating	9	2
Multiracial	13	3	Seriously dating	150	27
Age			Living together	262	46
18–21	307	70	Engaged	21	4
22–30	103	24	Married	120	21
31–40	17	4	Race
Over 40	10	2	Asian American or Asian	39	7
			Black or African American	53	9
			Latinx or hispanic	55	10
			Middle Eastern or north African	4	1
			Native American, Hawaiian native/Pacific islander, or Alaskan native	10	2
			White or European American	469	83
			Employment
			Student	83	15
			Full-time employed	315	56
			Part-time employed	120	21
			Not employed	89	16
			Retired	14	2
			Temporarily laid off	3	1
			Education
			Some high school	5	1
			High school degree	78	14
			Associate’s degree	47	8
			Some college	141	25
			Bachelor’s degree	202	36
			Some graduate school	9	2
			Master’s degree	63	11
			Doctorate degree	21	4
			Household income
			Less than US$15,000	47	8
			US$15,000 - $34,999	98	17
			US$35,000 - $49,000	94	17
			US$50,000 - $75,999	127	22
			US$75,000 or more	200	35
			Age	35.3 (M)	12.5 (SD)
				32.0 (median)	18–78 (range)

Participants could select more than one response for some questions; these percentages sum to over 100%.

Measures

Sexual assault

Participants completed the Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ; Kubany et al., 2000) to assess SA. Four items assessed childhood sexual abuse, adolescent sexual assault, and adult sexual assault (e.g., “After your 18^th birthday: Did anyone touch sexual parts of your body or make you touch sexual parts of his or her body against your will or without your consent?”). If a participant indicated Yes to any of these experiences, they were placed in the SA group.

Relationship measures

The 18-item Perceived Relationship Quality Components inventory (PRQC; Fletcher et al., 2000) assessed overall relationship quality. This scale contains six subscales: relationship satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love. Each statement (e.g., “How connected are you to your partner?”) was answered on a 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely scale. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total score was .96.

Partner trust was assessed with the 17-item Partner-Specific Trust Scale (Rempel et al., 1985), which has three subscales: faith, dependability, and predictability. Participants indicated their agreement with each statement (e.g., “I can rely on my partner to keep the promises he/she makes to me”) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for total scores was .91.

Moderators

Adult attachment

Participants completed the 17-item Adult Attachment Questionnaire (Simpson et al., 1996), which assessed the degree of participants’ attachment anxiety (e.g., “I often worry that my partner(s) don’t really love me”) and avoidance (e.g., “I’m not very comfortable having to depend on other people”). Attachment security is indicated by lower scores on the anxiety and avoidance scales. Participants rated their agreement with each item from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alphas for attachment avoidance and anxiety scores were .84 and .81, respectively.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism was assessed with eight items from the 40-item short form of Goldberg’s Mini-Markers (Saucier, 1994). Participants rated how descriptive each adjective (e.g., “moody”) was of them on a 1 (extremely inaccurate) to 9 (extremely accurate) scale. Cronbach’s alpha was .79.

Data analysis plan

We followed the Journal Article Reporting Standards for quantitative studies (Appelbaum et al., 2018). Hypotheses and data analysis plans were pre-registered for both studies. The preregistration, survey materials, and analysis code can be found on the Open Science Framework (OSF) Web site (https://tinyurl.com/yc2zzx7y). Study 1 data cannot be shared because the consent form did not allow participants to consent to data sharing. All analyses were conducted in R (Version 2023.06.0 + 421). SA was effect coded (no SA = −1, either CSA or ASA = 1). To examine the relation between SA and relationship functioning, we conducted two Mann-Whitney U tests¹^,² with the relationship measures (i.e., PRQC, partner trust) as outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated via correlation coefficients, as recommended for nonparametric tests (Tomczak & Tomczak, 2014). We used Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman rank-order correlations because the univariate distributions of relationship quality and partner trust were not normally distributed. To examine whether these associations were moderated by attachment orientations or neuroticism, we conducted two multiple regressions. Each dependent variable was regressed on SA history, attachment and neuroticism, and the interaction between SA history and both attachment and neuroticism. Predictors were grand mean-centered. The residual plots revealed that the data met the assumptions of multiple regression (e.g., the multivariate residuals were normally distributed).

Results and discussion

Data diagnostics were performed prior to data analysis. There were 1–6 outliers (i.e., scores more than three standard deviations from the mean) in the PRQC, trust, and attachment anxiety variables, which were winsorized (i.e., changed to scores three standard deviations from mean). Using Little’s (1988) Missing Completely at Random test (MCAR), we failed to reject the null hypothesis that the data were MCAR, χ²(32) = 38.78, p = .19, and plotting the missing data using the finalfit package (Harrison et al., 2023) revealed no systematic missingness. Given that there were small amounts of missing data (<3%), they were handled using pairwise deletion for correlations and listwise deletion for regression. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations among variables.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations for study variables.

Study 1^a	Possible range	Observed range	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1.SV	0–1	0–1	0.3	0.5	—
2.PRQC	1–7	2.9–7	6.0	0.9	.04	—
3.Trust	1–7	2.1–7	5.5	0.9	−.03	.67**	—
4.Avoidance	1–7	1–6.6	3.3	1.1	.17**	−.32**	−.32**	—
5.Anxiety	1–7	1–6.8	3.4	1.1	.15**	−.33**	−.51**	.39**	—
6.Neuroticism	1–9	1.3–7.9	4.6	1.3	.08	−.18**	−.29**	.27**	.45**
Study 2^b
1.ASA	0–1	0–1	0.6	0.5	—
2.PRQC	1–7	1.6–7	5.8	1.1	−.13**	—
3.Trust	1–7	1–7	5.9	1.4	−.09*	.78**	—
4. Sexual satisfaction	1–5	1–5	3.4	1.0	−.03	.68**	.44**	—
5.Responsiveness	0–5	0–5	4.0	1.2	−.16**	.72**	.69**	.46**	—
6.Years since ASA^c		0–56	11.7	10.1	NA	−.11*	.00	−.07	−.08

Note. SV: sexual violence; PRQC: relationship quality; ASA: adult sexual assault.

^aN = 422–437.

^bN = 566.

^cn = 350. *p < .05. **p < .01.

About one-third of participants (31%, n = 135) reported at least one incident of either CSA or ASA; 24% (n = 106) reported CSA, consistent with prevalence rates found in prior meta-analyses (Barth et al., 2013) and 12% (n = 53) reported ASA. The rate of ASA in this study is similar to other estimates in college students (e.g., Goodman-Williams et al., 2023).

The Mann-Whitney U tests revealed no significant group differences between those with and without a history of SA in relationship quality³ or partner trust and effect sizes were very small (see Table 3)⁴. These results are consistent with other studies that have found no association between SA and relationship functioning (e.g., Miner et al., 2006). Moreover, none of the interactions were significant, meaning that neither attachment orientations nor neuroticism moderated the association between SA and relationship functioning (see supplemental Table A). This is counter to past research in which neuroticism (Yin et al., 2019) and attachment security (Nowalis et al., 2022) moderated the association between other forms of trauma exposure and psychopathology.

Table 3.

Results of Mann-Whitney tests.

Study 1	No SV (n = 302)		SV (n = 135)
Study 1	M	SD	M	SD	Z	95% CI [LB, UB]	p
PRQC	6.0	0.9	6.1	0.9	−0.85	[−.17, .06]	.39
Trust	5.6	0.9	5.4	1.1	0.65	[−.12, .25]	.52

Study 2	No ASA (n = 215)		ASA (n = 351)
Study 2	M	SD	M	SD	Z	95% CI [LB, UB]	p
PRQC	5.9	1.1	5.7	1.1	3.10	[.06, .39]	.002
Trust	6.1	1.2	5.8	1.4	2.02	[.00, .33]	.04
Sexual satisfaction	3.5	1.0	3.4	1.1	0.70	[−.08, .25]	.48

Note. SV: sexual violence; CI: confidence interval; LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound; PRQC: relationship quality; ASA: adult sexual assault.

Study 2

Study 2 used a mixed-method design and built on Study 1 in several ways. We focused on ASA because most existing research has focused on CSA and the relations between ASA and relationship functioning may be somewhat stronger than those between CSA and relationship functioning (Vitek & Yeater, 2021). We used a narrower definition of sexual assault that included attempted or completed rape, which may also increase the relation between ASA and relationship functioning (Vitek & Yeater, 2021). We also collected data from a larger, more diverse non-student sample that allowed us to distinguish among survivors with a history of ASA only and those who had been revictimized and multiply victimized and to assess the timing of the assault. In addition to assessing overall relationship quality and trust, we assessed sexual satisfaction given evidence that ASA was associated with lower sexual intimacy (Rothman et al., 2021).

We also examined perceived partner responsiveness as a potential moderator of the associations between SA and relationship functioning. Existing research has almost exclusively focused on characteristics of the survivor as moderators, which ignores the role that romantic partners may play in facilitating resilience following sexual assault. We focused on perceived partner responsiveness because it has been found to buffer the association between stressors and lower relationship quality (Balzarini et al., 2023). Thus, there may be a smaller relation between SA and relationship functioning among survivors with responsive partners than among those with less responsive partners. For example, responsive partners may be less likely to respond to survivors’ SA disclosures with blame or disbelief, responses that are typically related to poorer mental health (Ullman, 2023). Survivors who perceive their partners as more responsive may also feel that their partners are more understanding with regard to their feelings related to the SA or more generally, thereby promoting greater connectedness (Reis et al., 2017). We expected this to be a stronger moderator than attachment security or neuroticism because partner responsiveness is more proximal to the relationship.

Finally, we gathered qualitative data from survivors on how SA impacted their current romantic relationship to better understand the experiences of ASA survivors and to give further voice to marginalized survivors. We used an explanatory mixed-methods design in which qualitative data were collected to clarify and expand upon initial quantitative results (Almeida, 2018).

Our hypotheses were as follows. Hypothesis 1: Having experienced ASA will be associated with poorer romantic functioning (i.e., relationship quality, partner trust, sexual satisfaction) in participants’ current romantic relationship. Hypothesis 2: The association between ASA and romantic functioning will be moderated by perceived partner responsiveness, such that individuals who have experienced ASA and perceive their partners as being less responsive will report poorer romantic functioning than those who have experienced ASA and perceive their partners as more responsive. Hypothesis 3 and 4: Revictimization (CSA and ASA) and multiple victimizations (i.e., more than one ASA experience) will be associated with poorer romantic functioning. Hypothesis 5: Participants who report more recent sexual assault experiences will report poorer romantic functioning. Exploratory Question: What themes emerge when participants describe how being sexually assaulted has impacted their current romantic relationship?

Method

Participants and procedure

We conducted a power analysis in R using the pwr (Champely, 2020) and InteractionPoweR (Baranger et al., 2022) packages. Given the effect sizes in Study 1, a sample size of approximately 550 was needed to detect a small relation between sexual violence and relationship outcomes (f = .02) and a small interaction (r = .10) between sexual assault and the moderator (perceived partner responsiveness) at 1-β = .80 and α = .05. Our goal was to recruit 200 participants with a history of only ASA, 200 with a history of revictimization (CSA and ASA), and 200 with no history of SA (600 total). Participants had to be at least 18, currently residing in the United States, fluent in English, and have been in their current romantic relationship for at least one year. Cisgender men were excluded because they have low reported rates of SA (Smith et al., 2018). A brief prescreening survey was posted to Prolific, an online crowdsourcing platform, that assessed ASA and CSA history and confirmed that participants had been in their relationship for at least one year. All participants who met eligibility criteria and reported a history of ASA or revictimization were invited to participate in the full survey on a rolling basis (during May-June 2023). The first participants to complete the prescreening who reported no ASA or CSA were invited to take the full survey to serve as a comparison group. Participants (N = 1,700) were compensated US$0.24 for the prescreening survey and, of these, 1,051 were invited to complete the full survey. A total of 677 people participated in the full survey and were compensated US$2.00. Participants provided informed consent in the prescreening and full survey. All procedures were approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board (STUDY00018344).

Participants were removed prior to analysis if they devoted insufficient time to completing the survey (less than 3 minutes; n = 13), they had been in a romantic relationship for less than one year (n = 5), their Qualtrics Duplicate ID score was above 75 (n = 2), their Qualtrics Fraud Detection Score was over 30 (n = 13), they did not complete all of the ASA and CSA items (n = 50), and/or they reported experiencing only CSA (n = 27). This resulted in a final sample of 566: ASA only (n = 198), revictimized (n = 153), and no ASA or CSA (n = 215).

Participants had been in their current relationship for almost 10 years (M = 8.1, SD = 7.9). See Table 1 for full demographic information.

Measures

Sexual assault

We assessed ASA with a modified version of a measure originally developed for university students (Cantor et al., 2015). We changed the items to reflect a general versus university sample (e.g., “While you were attending [University]” to “Since you turned 18”). To conform with the CDC’s recommendations for sexual violence screening, we added an item for attempted rape while the survivor was passed out and/or intoxicated (Basile et al., 2014). The final scale contained four behaviorally-specific items that assessed (1) rape or (2) attempted rape through the use of actual or threat of physical force and (3) rape or (4) attempted rape through the use of alcohol or drugs. Participants reported how many times each experience had occurred (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 or more times).

Childhood sexual abuse (before age 18) was assessed with three items from the ACEs module (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). Each item (e.g., “How often did anyone at least 5 years older than you or an adult ever touch you sexually?”) assessed how often each experience occurred (“once” or “more than once” vs. “never”).

Participants were placed in the ASA group if they reported experiencing at least one ASA experience and in the revictimized group if they reported at least one ASA and CSA experience. Participants who reported any ASA experiences completed questions about their relationship to and gender of the perpetrator and when each experience occurred.

Relationship measures

Overall relationship quality was measured using the same scale as Study 1 (PRQC; Fletcher et al., 2000). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .97. To reduce participant burden, we assessed partner trust analyzing the 3-item trust subscale separately (α = .94). Sexual satisfaction was assessed with the 12-item New Sexual Satisfaction Scale short-form (NSSS-S; Štulhofer et al., 2011). Participants rated each item (e.g., “My body’s sexual functioning”) from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (extremely satisfied). Higher scores reflect higher sexual satisfaction (α = .96).

Moderator

Perceived partner responsiveness

We assessed perceived partner responsiveness using the 8-item Responsiveness and Sensitivity Scale short-form (Crasta et al., 2021). Items were rated from 0 (not at all) to 5 (completely). The insensitivity items (e.g., “[My partner] ignores my side of the story”) were reverse-scored so that higher scores reflected less insensitivity. Cronbach’s alpha was .96.

Qualitative data and coding

Participants who had experienced ASA were asked: “How do you think that this experience(s) has affected your current romantic relationship?” We used a conventional content analysis approach to code the responses, in which categories are extracted from the data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The first author read over the first 25 responses for both the ASA only and revictimized groups and generated 13 categories. After the initial codes were generated, the first author and a research team member each coded the first 40 responses with 95% agreement. Six research team members met to discuss the coding categories and decided to combine two categories and add two categories, for a total of 14 categories (see Table 5). The first 40 responses were coded again by the same two coders and two research assistants, with 91% agreement across the four coders. The same group of six research team members met again to discuss discrepancies between coding responses. In Round 3, each coder (first author and a research assistant) coded the next 40 responses, with 95% agreement. No discernable pattern of discrepancies was noted at that point, so the remaining responses were coded, with 95% agreement. Three research team members met one final time to discuss discrepancies and finalize the codes for each response. The categories were not mutually exclusive (i.e., multiple codes could be applied to each response).

Data analysis plan

The Study 2 preregistration, survey materials, data, and analysis code can be found at https://tinyurl.com/ntrsuvts. All analyses were conducted in R (Version 2023.06.0 + 421). SA history was effect coded (no ASA or CSA = −1, ASA = 1). To examine whether ASA history was associated with relationship functioning (Hypothesis 1), we conducted three Mann-Whitney U tests because the univariate distributions were not normally distributed. Effect sizes were calculated via correlation coefficients. For Hypothesis 2, the three relationship functioning measures were regressed on ASA history, perceived partner responsiveness, and their interaction. The residual plots revealed that the data met the assumptions of multiple regression (e.g., the multivariate residuals were normally distributed). Predictors were grand mean-centered.

To examine whether individuals with a history of revictimization (i.e., both CSA and ASA) reported poorer romantic functioning (Hypothesis 3), we conducted three Kruskal-Wallis tests. SA history was coded no SA = −1, ASA but not CSA = 0, revictimization = 1. Posthoc comparisons were conducted using Dunn tests and p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg method (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).

To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, we removed participants from analyses if they had no history of SA. Participants were placed into the multiple victimization group if they experienced attempted or completed rape more than once. Mann-Whitney tests were used to assess group differences. For each of the four ASA items experienced, participants wrote when the last incident occurred. A continuous variable was created that reflected the number of years since the most recent incident and Spearman’s rank-order correlations were calculated to examine the association between assault recency and relationship functioning (Hypothesis 5). We report Spearman rank-order correlations because relationship quality, partner trust, and sexual satisfaction were not normally distributed.

Results and discussion

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Data diagnostics were performed before data analysis. For the regression analyses, outliers on the PRQC (n = 8), trust (n = 11), and partner responsiveness (n = 7) scales were winsorized by changing them to scores three standard deviations from the mean. Outliers were not winsorized or removed for the nonparametric tests because they are robust to outliers (Bakker & Wicherts, 2014). Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for the Study 2 variables. Small amounts of missing data (n = 1) were handled using listwise deletion. With regard to ASA characteristics, 40% of participants who indicated that they had experienced ASA or revictimization were assaulted by a former romantic partner, 34% by a non-romantic acquaintance, 24% by a friend, 21% by a date, 15% by a stranger, 6% by their current romantic partner, 3% by a family member, and 1% by some other person (e.g., an authority figure). Almost all ASA survivors (99%) reported that they were assaulted by a cisgender man. Participants’ most recent sexual assault occurred an average of 12 years ago.

Sexual assault and romantic relationship quality

Participants with a history of ASA reported lower relationship quality and less trust in their partners; however, these effects were small (see Tables 2 and 3). The ASA and no ASA groups did not differ in sexual satisfaction.

Partner responsiveness did not moderate the association between ASA history and romantic functioning (see Table B in supplement)⁵. ASA history was no longer significantly associated with relationship quality or trust when perceived partner responsiveness was added to the regression models that tested the interactions. However, ASA history was associated with lower perceptions of partner responsiveness (see Table 2).

Revictimization and multiple victimization and romantic relationship quality

The first Kruskal-Wallis test found significant differences in relationship quality between the no ASA, ASA only, and the revictimized groups (both ASA and CSA; see Table 4). Posthoc comparisons revealed that participants with no ASA history reported higher relationship quality than the ASA only and revictimized groups. However, there were no significant differences between the ASA only and revictimized groups. There were also significant group differences in trust, with the revictimized group reporting lower partner trust than participants without an ASA history. There were no significant differences, however, between the ASA only group and either the revictimized group or the no ASA group. Finally, there were no significant group differences in sexual satisfaction. Effect sizes were small.

Table 4.

Results of study 2 revictimization Kruskal-Wallis tests.

	No ASA (n = 215)		ASA only (n = 198)		Revictimized (n = 153)		χ²(2, n = 566)	p	η²
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	χ²(2, n = 566)	p	η²
PRQC	5.9^a	1.1	5.7^b	1.1	5.7^b	1.2	9.63	.01	.01
Trust	6.1^a	1.2	6.0^ab	1.4	5.7^b	1.5	6.37	.04	.01
Sexual satisfaction	3.5^a	1.0	3.4^a	1.0	3.3^a	1.2	0.51	.77	.00

Note. Means with different superscripts differ at the .05 level. Post hoc comparisons were conducted using Dunn tests and p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. ASA: adult sexual assault; PRQC: relationship quality.

We conducted three Mann-Whitney U tests to examine whether there were differences in romantic functioning between participants who had experienced one (n = 85) versus multiple ASAs (n = 266). All between-group differences were nonsignificant (see supplemental Table C).

Assault timing

Assault timing was not significantly associated with sexual satisfaction or trust (see Table 2). Years since assault was negatively associated with relationship quality, such that more recent SA experiences were associated with higher quality, contrary to our hypothesis. To clarify this association, we conducted three exploratory regressions that controlled for participants’ age and relationship length, both of which were positively associated with years since assault (see Supplemental Table D). Controlling for age and relationship length, years since assault was not associated with relationship quality.

Qualitative data

The most common response to the question about how the assault had affected their relationship was that there had been no impact (see Table 5 e.g. responses and category frequencies). Specifically, slightly more than one-third of participants indicated that their assault experience(s) did not impact their romantic relationship or no longer impacted it because, for example, it happened many years ago or they recognized that their partner was a different person than the assailant. Participants also reported both negative and positive impacts on their relationship, with the most common negative change being that they were less interested in or uncomfortable with sex, and the most common positive change being that they felt more trust, understanding, or closeness in their relationship. For instance, some mentioned that the kind and patient way their partner reacted to their disclosure demonstrated that their partner truly cared about them and was trustworthy, or that their relationship was a safe space for vulnerability and honesty. On the other hand, some reported reduced trust in the relationship or felt that it was harder to feel close to their partner, noting that their assault experiences caused them to doubt the intentions of others or to feel that the assault hindered emotional intimacy. Further, some indicated that their partner was more cautious or respectful during sex, although this was not always interpreted positively by survivors. The remaining codes were endorsed by 5% or less of the sample. These included that survivors changed what they looked for in a relationship, experienced mental health challenges such as flashbacks, their partner became more protective, they had poorer body image, had a higher sex drive, and that their partner became more aware of women’s issues or sexual assault as an issue.

Table 5.

Qualitative results.

Theme	Frequency (%)	Example quote (no. of ASA incidents, ASA only or revictimized, perpetrator, sexual orientation, relationship status, gender, race)
No Impact
Has not impacted relationship or no longer is affecting relationship	35.33	“I don’t think it has affected my current relationship. I Understand that my partner is nothing like the person who tried to force himself on me.” (1 ASA, NRP, Bi+, living together, CisW, W)
	35.33	“My incident happened a long time ago. It has had no effect on my relationship with my wife.” (1 ASA, NRP, LG, married, CisW, W)
Changes to Sexual Relationship
Less interested in sex or uncomfortable with sex	19.37	“...Sex is very weird and almost dirty to me now. I have much less interest in it.” (2+ revictimized, NRP, H, seriously dating, CisW, L)
Less interested in sex or uncomfortable with sex	19.37	“I think I’ve been a little bit hesitant to engage in sexual activity in some occasional [sic] due to past trauma…” (2+ ASA, NRP, LG, living together, NB, A)
Partner more cautious or respectful during sex	6.27	“I think my partner is a little more nervous to initiate new things than he would be otherwise. He’s also a lot more careful with what he says.” (1 ASA, NRP, Bi+, seriously dating, NB, W)
Partner more cautious or respectful during sex	6.27	“The first couple of times that we had penetration sex or oral sex, my romantic partner was a little bit sensitive. He said he wanted to make sure that all activities were mutual even if forceful like we like it sometimes” (2+ revictimized, PRP, H, living together, CisW, W)
Higher sex drive or more interested in sex	<1	“I think at times I may be a little hyper-sexual as a result… I have to make sure that I accept sexual rejections for what they are instead of letting them make me feel like I’m unattractive. I think I have attached my self worth to sex a little bit so I have to make sure to work on that mentally.” (1 ASA, NRP, Bi+, married, CisW, W)
Changes to Relationship
More trust, understanding, or closeness in relationship	18.52	“It changed us from friends to lovers, then marriage which has lasted over 40 years. He gave me the ability to trust again, and was patient and supportive of my moods and emotions.” (1 ASA, NRP, H, married, CisW, W)
More trust, understanding, or closeness in relationship	18.52	“I feel like it has…brought us closer together. We talk about things more often and tell each other mostly everything.” (2+ revictimized, PRP, NRP, H, seriously dating, CisW, B)
Reduced trust in relationship	9.12	“My current partner took several couples counseling sessions to accept that I had been raped. Convincing a male partner that I did not bring this on myself has destroyed trust and sex between us.” (2+ revictimized, PRP, NRP, Bi+, living together, NB, W)
		“It makes me feel like I can’t trust anyone. I do trust my husband but it is limited and I am always ready for the unexpected.” (2+ revictimized, PRP, Bi+, married, CisW, B)
		“It made me feel violated in a way. My trust in him has been destabilized since then.” (1 ASA, CRP, H, seriously dating, CisW, L)
Harder to feel close to partner	7.98	“It’s made it hard for me to open up. In the beginning I was cold and distant even though I knew I liked him.” (2+ revictimized, NRP, Bi+, living together, CisW, B)
Harder to feel close to partner	7.98	“There is always a secret that I know about and he does not. He is not affected by it because he does not know (obviously) but I know. I feel that no one can ever truly know me if they do not know about this dark time in my past that I am ashamed of.” (2+ ASA, NRP, H, living together, CisW, W)
Partner more protective	1.71	“I believe it has made my partner more protective of what’s going on. He is more vigilant and aware of the dangers lurking.” (2+ revictimized, PRP, H, living together, CisW, B)
Changes to Self
Changed what survivor looked for in relationship	4.56	“It made me be more cautious when picking a partner.” (2+ ASA, NRP, H, seriously dating, CisW, W)
Changed what survivor looked for in relationship	4.56	“I think that the reason I am still in this relationship, even [though] I am not romantically and sexually happy with him, is due to what has happened to me in the past. I think that I feel this low interest in sex from his part towards me as somewhat comforting and safe but at the same time, of course, I would like a fulfilling and happy intimate relationship.” (2+ ASA, NRP, H, married, CisW, W)
Mental health challenges	2.56	“It hasn’t really affected my relationship much because there wasn’t really any consequences except my mental trauma.” (2+ ASA, NRP, Bi+, seriously dating, CisW, A)
Poorer body image	1.14	“The experiences have given me incredibly poor body image and feelings of being unworthy…I think it gets in the way of some things in my current relationship.” (2+ ASA, PRP, H, seriously dating, CisW, W)
Other
Other	4.27	“It has made me more conscientious about whether or not a person is using any type of medication that will lower their inhibitions and make them act in ways they normally would not act.” (2+ revictimized, PRP, H, living together, CisW, W)
Partner more aware of women’s issues or sexual assault	<1	“...It also made my partner more aware of the experiences of women.” (2+ ASA, NRP, Bi+, living together, CisW, W)
Not enough information to code	5.13	“I think it has affected my relationship only slightly.” (2+ revictimized, NRP, H, living together, CisW, W)

Note. The total percentage does not equal 100, as each individual response could be coded using multiple codes. ASA: adult sexual assault; 1: 1 incident of ASA; 2+: 2 or more incidents of ASA; NRP: non romantic partner perpetrator (including a date); CRP: current romantic partner perpetrator; PRP: past romantic partner perpetrator; Bi +: bisexual or pansexual; H: Heterosexual or straight; LG: lesbian or gay; CisW: cisgender woman; NB: nonbinary; W: White or European American; B: Black or African American; L: Latina/x; A: Asian or Asian American.

General discussion

The goal of the current studies was to examine associations between SA and relationship functioning. Specifically, in two studies, we sought to better understand inconsistencies in the literature by using both broad and narrow definitions of SA, assessing both general and specific relationship constructs, examining potential moderators, assessing revictimization and multiple victimizations, and examining the role of assault recency. Furthermore, Study 2 sought to conceptually replicate Study 1 to understand whether results held using a more diverse sample collected post the #MeToo movement.

Across both studies and using samples that varied in several characteristics, we found little to no association between SA and romantic functioning. Although ASA survivors reported poorer relationship quality and less trust in Study 2, these effects were very small and not significant when partner responsiveness was taken into account. Consistent with these findings, when participants were asked to describe whether and how being sexually assaulted had impacted their current romantic relationship, the most common response was that it did not. Participants often mentioned that this was because the assault took place many years ago or they recognized that their partner was not the person who assaulted them. Our results are not entirely surprising given the inconsistent results in Vitek and Yeater’s (2021) review and null findings in other studies (e.g., Miner et al., 2006). However, they are somewhat surprising given moderate positive associations between SA and psychopathology (Dworkin et al., 2017). Unlike many other forms of trauma, SA involves a violation of sexual autonomy and often a violation of trust. Nevertheless, many of the survivors in our sample reported having highly satisfying sexual and emotional relationships with their significant others as reflected by high mean scores on the relationship quality and sexual satisfaction measures. Given that resilience is often defined as average or healthy functioning after exposure to trauma (e.g., Masten, 2001), these findings suggest that many survivors demonstrate resilience in their relationships and that SA may have smaller effects on survivors’ relationships than on their mental health.

Whereas the most common open-ended response was that survivors felt being assaulted did not impact their relationship, participants also described both positive and negative changes to their relationship. For example, almost one in five survivors mentioned that they felt more trust, understanding, or closeness in their relationship as a result of being sexually assaulted. However, a similar number described feeling less sexual desire or uncomfortable with sex. Survivors also mentioned feeling less trustful or more distant in their current relationship, mental health challenges, and poorer body image. These themes have been identified in qualitative research (e.g., O’Callaghan et al., 2019). Other studies have shown that SA survivors report relatively equal numbers of positive and negative changes in relationships (Frazier et al., 2001).

Furthermore, we did not find evidence that the association between sexual assault and romantic functioning was moderated by neuroticism, attachment, or partner responsiveness. This is somewhat surprising given that neuroticism (Yin et al., 2019) and attachment anxiety (Nowalis et al., 2022) exacerbated the relation between trauma and distress and that partner responsiveness buffered the association between stressors and lower relationship quality (Balzarini et al., 2023). The lack of moderation provides further support for the lack of association between sexual assault and romantic functioning because no relation is found even when survivors report higher levels of neuroticism and attachment insecurity, or less responsive partners.

Although revictimized participants reported slightly poorer romantic functioning than those with no history of SA, survivors who had experienced a single incident of ASA reported similar functioning compared to survivors who had experienced multiple victimizations or revictimization, contrary to hypotheses. These findings are inconsistent with past research indicating that revictimization and multiple victimizations are associated with greater interpersonal sensitivity and hostility (Messman-Moore et al., 2000), and worse mental health (Classen et al., 2005). However, they are consistent with our overall pattern of results that SA is not strongly related to romantic functioning.

We also did not find that assault recency predicted romantic functioning when controlling for participants’ age and relationship length, contrary to our hypotheses. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine whether assault recency is related to romantic functioning. We predicted that survivors who had been assaulted more recently would report poorer romantic functioning, considering posttrauma symptoms usually decline over time (Dworkin et al., 2023). However, many participants mentioned in their open-ended responses that they believe their relationship was not impacted or is no longer impacted because their assault happened several years ago, revealing a discrepancy between our quantitative and qualitative findings. More research is needed to clarify how time impacts romantic functioning following sexual assault.

Limitations and future directions

Our studies had some limitations. Study 1 was slightly underpowered to detect interactions, and we were unable to differentiate between CSA, ASA, and revictimization due to the sample size. These problems, however, were rectified in Study 2, which had a larger sample and was adequately powered. Additionally, both studies primarily consisted of White, heterosexual, cisgender women. A lack of diversity is an issue in relationships research generally (Williamson et al., 2022), and may limit the generalizability of our conclusions. For instance, one study found that the relations between SA and emotional intimacy differed across racial-ethnic groups (Rothman et al., 2021). Additionally, we assessed sexual orientation but not partner gender. As women tend to be more supportive towards SA survivors in general (Ullman, 2023), survivors who are in relationships with women (vs. men) may experience better relational outcomes. Additionally, we did not examine how the identity of the perpetrator influenced the relation between SA and romantic functioning. Survivors who were assaulted by close others (e.g., past or former romantic partner) may experience poorer romantic functioning than individuals assaulted by those to whom they are not close (e.g., strangers). Moreover, Study 2 did not assess sexual coercion or unwanted sexual contact. We also did not collect information on participants’ disability status or participants’ gender identity in Study 1. Finally, although participants often mentioned no change or positive change to their relationships in their qualitative responses, these responses may have been biased by U.S. cultural norms that stress stoicism and resilience in the face of trauma (Delker et al., 2020).

Given the dearth of research on this topic, there are many important future research directions. First, future work should examine whether partner gender or ethnicity moderates the relation between SA and relationship quality. Second, behavioral measures of relationship quality (e.g., coding couple interactions) may shed further light on the relations between SA and relationship functioning. Third, dyadic studies are needed to understand the experiences of significant others (see Georgia et al., 2018). Fourth, more work is needed that examines the moderating role of the survivors’ relationship to the perpetrator and their romantic partners’ characteristics. For example, future work could examine partners’ stigmatizing beliefs regarding sexual violence or partners’ responses to survivors’ sexual assault disclosures. Finally, future work needs to use prospective longitudinal designs to examine the relationship trajectories of both survivors and their partners across time.

Conclusion

Across two different samples, we found little to no evidence that sexual violence is related to poorer romantic functioning. Consistent with the quantitative data, survivors’ most common qualitative response was that they felt that their assault did not impact their current romantic relationship. Survivors often mentioned that this was because their assault took place many years ago or that they recognized that their partner was not the person who assaulted them. Thus, many survivors appear to demonstrate resilience in their romantic relationships.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Associations between sexual assault and romantic relationship functioning: A mixed-methods analysis

Supplemental Material for Associations between sexual assault and romantic relationship functioning: A mixed-methods analysis by Abby I. Person, Patricia A. Frazier, Alicia M. Selvey-Bouyack, Samantha L. Anders, Sandra L. Shallcross, and Jeffry A. Simpson in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author’s note

Sandra L. Shallcross is currently affiliated with Restore Health Academy. A portion of these findings were presented at the annual meeting of the The Society for Personality and Social Psychology 2024.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was pre-registered. The aspects of the research that were pre-registered were the hypotheses, analysis plan, eligibility criteria, and study design and sampling plan (Study 2 only). The registration was submitted to the Open Science Framework (OSF) Web site (https://tinyurl.com/yc2zzx7y and ). The data used in Study 1 cannot be shared due to the wording of the consent form. The data for Study 2 will be posted once our study is accepted for publication. The (Study 2) data can be obtained at https://tinyurl.com/ntrsuvts or by emailing: perso204@umn.edu. The materials can be obtained at: https://tinyurl.com/yc2zzx7y (Study 1) and https://tinyurl.com/ntrsuvts (Study 2) or by emailing: perso204@umn.edu.

ORCID iDs

Abby I. Person

Patricia A. Frazier

Alicia M. Selvey-Bouyack

Jeffry A. Simpson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Almeida

(2018). Strategies to perform a mixed methods study. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1406214

Anders

S. L.

Frazier

P. A.

Shallcross

S. L.

(2012). Prevalence and effects of life event exposure among undergraduate and community college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027753

Appelbaum

Cooper

Kline

R. B.

Mayo-Wilson

Nezu

A. M.

Rao

S. M.

(2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191

Bakker

Wicherts

J. M.

(2014). Outlier removal, sum scores, and the inflation of the type I error rate in independent samples t tests: The power of alternatives and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 19(3), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000014

Balzarini

R. N.

Muise

Zoppolat

Di Bartolomeo

Rodrigues

D. L.

Alonso-Ferres

Urganci

Debrot

Bock Pichayayothin

Dharma

Chi

Karremans

J. C.

Schoebi

Slatcher

R. B.

(2023). Love in the time of COVID: Perceived partner responsiveness buffers people from lower relationship quality associated with COVID-related stressors. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(3), 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221094437

Baranger

D. A.

Finsaas

Goldstein

Vize

Lynam

Olino

T. M.

(2022). Tutorial: Power analyses for interaction effects in cross-sectional regressions. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5ptd7

Barth

B. L.

Heim

Trelle

Tonia

(2013). The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health, 58(3), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0426-1

Basile

K.C.

Smith

Breiding

Black

Mahendra

(2014). Sexual violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, version 2.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Benjamini

Hochberg

(1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

10.

Bolger

Zuckerman

(1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.5.890

11.

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.

12.

Bryan

C. J.

Tipton

Yeager

D. S.

(2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 980–989. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01143-3

13.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

S. H.

Townsend

Lee

Bruce

Thomas

(2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities. https://gag.academic.wlu.edu/files/2015/09/Report-on-the-AAU-Campus-Climate-Survey-on-Sexual-Assault-and-Sexual-Misconduct.pdf.

14.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . (2021). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/acestudy/BRFSS_ACEModuleQuestions_2021_508.pdf

15.

Champely

(2020). Pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis. R package version 1.3-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr

16.

Classen

C. C.

Palesh

O. G.

Aggarwal

(2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(2), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838005275087

17.

Crasta

Rogge

R. D.

Maniaci

M. R.

Reis

H. T.

(2021). Toward an optimized measure of perceived partner responsiveness: Development and validation of the perceived responsiveness and insensitivity scale. Psychological Assessment, 33(4), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000986

18.

Delker

B. C.

Salton

McLean

K. C.

Syed

(2020). Who has to tell their trauma story and how hard will it be? Influence of cultural stigma and narrative redemption on the storying of sexual violence. PLoS One, 15(6), Article e0234201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234201

19.

Dworkin

E. R.

Jaffe

A. E.

Bedard-Gilligan

Fitzpatrick

(2023). PTSD in the year following sexual assault: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 497–514. https://doi/org/10.1177/15248380211032213

20.

Dworkin

E. R.

Menon

S. V.

Bystrynski

Allen

N. E.

(2017). Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 56, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.06.002

21.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

(2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007

22.

Frazier

Conlon

Glaser

(2001). Positive and negative life changes following sexual assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(6), 1048–1055. https://doi.org/10.1037/AJ022-006X.69.6.1048

23.

Friesen

M. D.

Woodward

L. J.

Horwood

L. J.

Fergusson

D. M.

(2010). Childhood exposure to sexual abuse and partnership outcomes at age 30. Psychological Medicine, 40(4), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709990389

24.

Georgia

Roddy

Doss

(2018). Sexual assault and dyadic relationship satisfaction: Indirect associations through intimacy and mental health. Violence Against Women, 24(8), 936–951. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217727371

25.

Goodman-Williams

Dworkin

Hetfield

(2023). Why do rape victimization rates vary across studies? A meta-analysis examining moderating variables. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 71, Article 101839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101839

26.

Grych

Hamby

Banyard

(2015). The resilience portfolio model: Understanding healthy adaptation in victims of violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(4), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039671

27.

Harrison

Drake

Pius

(2023). Finalfit: Quickly create elegant regression results tables and plots when modelling. R package version 1.0.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=finalfit

28.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

29.

International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies . (2016). Trauma and relationships. https://istss.org/ISTSS_Main/media/Documents/ISTSS_TraumaAndRelationships_FNL.pdf

30.

Kubany

E. S.

Leisen

M. B.

Kaplan

A. S.

Watson

S. B.

Haynes

S. N.

Owens

J. A.

Burns

(2000). Development and preliminary validation of a brief broad-spectrum measure of trauma exposure: The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.2.210

31.

Little

R. J. A.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

32.

Masten

A. S.

(2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227

33.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

Long

P. J.

Siegfried

N. J.

(2000). The revictimization of child sexual abuse survivors: An examination of the adjustment of college women with child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and adult physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 5(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559500005001003

34.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Pereg

(2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024515519160

35.

Miner

M. H.

Flitter

J. M. K.

Robinson

B. B. E.

(2006). Association of sexual revictimization with sexuality and psychological function. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(4), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505285913

36.

Nowalis

Godleski

S. A.

Schenkel

L. S.

(2022). Attachment as a moderator in the relation between child maltreatment and symptoms of depression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3-4), NP1516–NP1543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520933050

37.

O'Callaghan

Shepp

Ullman

Kirkner

(2019). Navigating sex and sexuality after sexual assault: A qualitative study of survivors and informal support providers. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(8), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1506731

38.

Pfund

G. N.

Brazeau

Allemand

Hill

P. L.

(2020). Associations between sense of purpose and romantic relationship quality in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(5), 1563–1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520903807

39.

Proulx

C. M.

Helms

H. M.

Buehler

(2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x

40.

Reis

H. T.

Lemay

E. P.

Finkenauer

(2017). Toward understanding understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(3), Article e12308. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12308

41.

Rempel

J. K.

Holmes

J. G.

Zanna

M. P.

(1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95

42.

Rothman

Georgia Salivar

Roddy

Hatch

Doss

(2021). Sexual assault among women in college: Immediate and long-term associations with mental health, psychosocial functioning, and romantic relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19-20), 9600–9622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519870158

43.

Saucier

(1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8

44.

Sayehmiri

Kareem

K. I.

Abdi

Dalvand

Gheshlagh

R. G.

(2020). The relationship between personality traits and marital satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychology, 8(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-0383-z

45.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Phillips

(1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.5.899

46.

Smith

S. G.

Zhang

Basile

K. C.

Merrick

M. T.

Wang

Kresnow

Chen

(2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief – updated release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

47.

Štulhofer

Buško

Brouillard

(2011). The new sexual satisfaction scale and its short form. In Fisher

T. D.

Davis

C. M.

Yarber

W. L.

Davis

S. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 530–532). Sage.

48.

Tomczak

(2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences, 1(21), 19–25. http://www.wbc.poznan.pl/Content/325867/5_Trends_Vol21_2014_no1_20.pdf

49.

Ullman

S. E.

(2023). Correlates of social reactions to victims’ disclosures of sexual assault and intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211016013

50.

Vitek

K. N.

Yeater

E. A.

(2021). The association between a history of sexual violence and romantic relationship functioning: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1221–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020915615

51.

Walker

H. E.

Freud

J. S.

Ellis

R. A.

Fraine

S. M.

Wilson

L. C.

(2019). The prevalence of sexual revictimization: A meta-analytic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017692364

52.

Williamson

H. C.

Bornstein

J. X.

Cantu

Ciftci

Farnish

K. A.

Schouweiler

M. T.

(2022). How diverse are the samples used to study intimate relationships? A systematic review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(4), 1087–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211053849

53.

Yin

Liu

(2019). Neuroticism predicts a long-term PTSD after earthquake trauma: The moderating effects of personality. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00657

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB