Sexual Assault Characteristics and Perceptions of Event-Related Distress

Abstract

Sexual assault (SA) is a potent psychological stressor, linked to harmful mental health outcomes in both the short- and long-term. Specific assault characteristics can add to the toxicity of SA events. Although research has assessed characteristics of the assault itself (e.g., force, penetration), few studies have examined the larger socioenvironmental context in which SA takes place. This was the purpose of the present study. Young adults (N = 220; 80% female; 54% current students) reported on their most recent SA during college. Cross-sectional associations were tested via structural equation modeling to determine the contributions of socioenvironmental context and assault characteristics in predicting event-related distress. Socioenvironmental context from the most recent assault included assault setting, intoxication at the time of the assault, perpetrator relationship, and prior consensual sexual experiences with the perpetrator. We also examined assault characteristics, including physical force and penetration. Participants reported how upsetting the most recent assault was (a) at the time it occurred and (b) currently. Results revealed differential patterns for socioenvironmental context and assault characteristics based on the timing of distress (past or present). Notably, many of the socioenvironmental factors showed associations with distress above and beyond the powerful effects of physical force and penetration. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the unique factors that contribute to and maintain psychological distress in sexually victimized young adults.

Keywords

young adults college sexual assault assault characteristics psychological distress

Sexual Assault and Psychological Distress

Sexual assault (SA) includes nonconsensual sexual experiences ranging from unwanted contact to completed rape. For many young adults, the highest period of risk for SA coincides with the college years (ages 18-24; Rennison, 1999; Sinozich & Langton, 2014). Approximately one out of every five college women will experience an SA (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Humphrey & White, 2000; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009; Mouilso, Fischer, & Calhoun, 2012). Of those, upward of 25% to 30% will report an attempted or completed rape by the time that they leave college (Blayney, Read, & Colder, 2016; Sinozich & Langton, 2014).

SA is strongly associated with psychological distress, which can include fear, anxiety, depression, and/or posttraumatic stress symptoms (Gidycz & Koss, 1991; Klump, 2006; Nickerson et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2012). Psychological distress can result in harmful behavioral patterns, including risky drinking and sexual behavior as a means of coping with distress (Lindgren, Neighbors, Blayney, Mullins, & Kaysen, 2012; Littleton, Grills-Taquechel, Buck, Rosman, & Dodd, 2013; Miranda, Meyerson, Long, Marx, & Simpson, 2002). A small but growing literature has implicated specific features of SA that may contribute to and maintain psychological distress.

Sexual Assault Characteristics

Among the most widely investigated aspects of sexual assaults are assault characteristics, specific features of the unwanted sexual experience that may differentially influence psychological outcomes. Physical force and penetration (i.e., completed rape) are assault characteristics that have been most commonly explored. Force and penetration tend to reflect more severe victimization experiences and are strongly associated with later psychological distress (Brown, Testa, & Messman-Moore, 2009; French, Bi, Latimore, Klemp, & Butler, 2014; Perilloux, Duntley, & Buss, 2012; Weaver & Clum, 1995; Zinzow, Resnick, Amstadter, et al., 2010; Zinzow, Resnick, McCauley, et al., 2010). Beyond characteristics of the assault, other aspects of the context in which the assault occurred may also play an important role, yet these factors have seldom been explored.

The Socioenvironmental Context of Sexual Assault

Among the socioenvironmental factors surrounding college SA, the role of alcohol has received the most attention (for reviews, see Abbey, 2002; Testa & Livingston, 2009). Well over half of college sexual assaults involve alcohol use, typically by both the perpetrator and the victim (Abbey, Ross, McDuffie, & McAuslan, 1996; Testa & Livingston, 2009). Settings involving alcohol can place individuals in close physical proximity to potential perpetrators, thus increasing vulnerability for assault. These settings may also increase victimization risk by reducing an individual’s perceptions of SA cues within the environment (e.g., perpetrator drinking, sexual persistence, isolating from others; Davis, Stoner, Norris, George, & Masters, 2009; Norris, Nurius, & Graham, 1999).

Although it is clear that alcohol plays an important role in conferring risk, research on how alcohol use during the assault may lead to psychological distress has yielded mixed findings (e.g., Blayney et al., 2016; Littleton, Grills-Taquechel, & Axsom, 2009; Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2014; Zinzow, Resnick, Amstadter, et al., 2010; Zinzow, Resnick, McCauley, et al., 2010). Of this literature, some evidence suggests that alcohol’s pharmacological effects, particularly in cases of heavy drinking, may inhibit cognitive processing and memory consolidation at the time of assault (e.g., Zinzow, Resnick, Amstadter, et al., 2010). With less content to recall, lower levels of distress may follow. In contrast, other work suggests that alcohol involvement can increase the likelihood of more severe victimization experiences (e.g., injury, penetration; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, Livingston, & Koss, 2004; Ullman & Najdowski, 2010), resulting in higher levels of distress. One answer to this discrepant literature may lie in alcohol dose; that is, distress may be a function of how intoxicated the victim was at the time of the assault. Additional studies are needed to determine the dose-response effect of alcohol on psychological distress in young adults. Moreover, the majority of studies in this area have focused on postassault distress. Further knowledge may be gained by considering the effect of alcohol intoxication on victim’s distress at the time of the assault and how perceptions of distress may differ over time. More specifically, intoxication during the assault may take on a different meaning as individuals look back and try to make sense of what happened.

It has been widely observed that campus-based sexual assaults typically occur in convivial settings or social environments (apartments, bars/parties; Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, & McAuslan, 2001, 2004; Sinozich & Langton, 2014; Testa & Parks, 1996). Given the social contexts in which SA occurs, it is not surprising that the majority of perpetrators are known to victims (Cleere & Lynn, 2013; Fisher et al., 2000; Sinozich & Langton, 2014). This can include casual acquaintances, friends, or romantic partners. “Hook ups” or sexual encounters outside of committed relationships are common in college settings (Lewis, Atkins, Blayney, Dent, & Kaysen, 2013; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). These and other consensual sexual experiences are important in contextualizing risk for SA (e.g., Testa et al., 2004) and postassault reactions as prior relationships may differentially influence outcomes. Yet this aspect of SA seldom has been examined. Moreover, approximately three fourths of college SA victims continue to have a relationship with the perpetrator following the assault (Edwards, Kearns, Gidycz, & Calhoun, 2012), a factor that could have implications for ongoing appraisal of the event and psychological adjustment to the assault.

Only a handful of studies have examined the influence of assault setting or perpetrator relationship on psychological distress. In one of the few studies in this area, Culbertson, Vik, and Kooiman (2001) found that assaults occurring in a private setting (e.g., at home) were associated with lower perceptions of postassault safety. Other studies have found that stranger assaults were associated with greater postassault fear, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when compared with other victim–perpetrator relationships (acquaintance, romantic partner; Ullman, Filipas, Townsend, & Starzynski, 2006; Ullman & Siegel, 1993). Greater psychological symptoms following the assault have been found to predict victim’s later relationships with perpetrators (Edwards et al., 2012). As noted, much of this work has examined postassault psychological outcomes and has not considered the victim’s perceptions of distress experienced at the time of the assault or how these perceptions may differ over time. Moreover, no studies to our knowledge have provided an integrated examination of psychological distress as it relates to assault characteristics (e.g., force, penetration) and the context in which the assault took place (e.g., assault setting, alcohol involvement, relationship with the perpetrator). Uncovering the context and its link to assault-related distress not only helps to delineate patterns of risk, but also can shed light on factors that influence the psychological impact of unwanted experiences in young adulthood.

The passage of time is also an important factor that can contribute to perceptions of psychological distress. In the extant literature, our understanding of distress has typically been based on assessments conducted well after the trauma occurred. However, the way individuals come to understand an event can change with the passage of time (e.g., Ouimette, Read, & Brown, 2005). As such, the extent to which a SA may be perceived as distressing likely changes as the victim seeks to integrate, understand, and adapt to it. Other factors—including aspects of the assault or the context in which the assault took place—may influence these changes. This has important clinical implications that can assist clinicians in helping the client emotionally process aspects of the assault that may have become more salient over time. Yet, to our knowledge, very few studies have examined time-related differences in trauma-associated distress. Ideally, such an evaluation would be conducted in real time, with assessment occurring both immediately following the assault, as well as months or even years later. However, such assessment poses substantial practical and methodological challenges. Other methods may be used to shed light on contextual and assault-related effects on distress, and how such effects may differ over time.

The Present Study

To date, socioenvironmental context and assault characteristics have largely been explored through the lens of the victim–perpetrator relationship. Few studies have examined how the context in which the assault takes place may uniquely influence distress, and even fewer have focused on SA-related distress. The purpose of the present cross-sectional study was to determine what facets of college SA experiences contribute to perceptions of psychological distress. This study contains a number of unique contributions to the literature. First, we included socioenvironmental context to extend our knowledge of other unique predictors of distress. Second, we examined perceptions of distress both as victims recalled it at the time of the assault and as they are experiencing it now, which for many is during the completion of college. Third, perceptions of distress were related to the most recent college SA, rather than general levels of psychological distress. Finally, we assessed a number of assault characteristics within one model to provide a comprehensive evaluation of SA-related distress. From this, we forwarded the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Socioenvironmental context: Socioenvironmental context included assault setting, perpetrator relationship, prior consensual sex with the perpetrator, and intoxication at the time of the assault. It was hypothesized that sexual assaults occurring in intimate settings would be associated with higher psychological distress both retrospectively at the time of the assault and currently. Assaults perpetrated by strangers or those without a history of consensual sex would be associated with higher distress retrospectively at the time of the assault and currently. Finally, higher intoxication at the time of the assault was hypothesized to be associated with higher distress retrospectively at the time of the assault and currently.

Hypothesis 2: Assault characteristics: Assault characteristics included physical force and penetration. It was hypothesized that greater force and penetration would be associated with higher distress retrospectively at the time of the assault and currently.

Method

Participants and Procedures

The present study was drawn from a larger longitudinal study on developmental transitions, trauma exposure, and alcohol use in college students. Detailed information (i.e., eligibility criteria, recruitment process) for the larger study has been published elsewhere (for more information, see Read et al., 2012; Read, Ouimette, White, Colder, & Farrow, 2011). Briefly, three cohorts of incoming college students were recruited to take part in a web-based screening survey. A total of 3,391 students completed the screening and were invited to the baseline assessment. This sample included both trauma-exposed (n = 649) and a randomly selected sample of non-trauma-exposed (n = 585) individuals. Of those invited, 997 students completed the baseline and were assessed four times each year for up to 5 additional years (see Figure 1 for study timeline). Participants received gift cards for each completed survey. All procedures were approved by the University’s institutional review board.

Figure 1.

Study timeline.

Of the three cohorts included in the larger study, two cohorts (Cohorts 1 and 3) were followed into the fourth and fifth postmatriculation years. These students reported on college SA using the Sexual Experiences Survey (N = 665). Data for the present study were collected at the end of the fourth (Cohort 3) and fifth (Cohort 1) postmatriculation years. Time points were combined and analyses were conducted on cross-sectional data. At the time of the assessments (N = 665), approximately 5% (n = 36) of the total sample had dropped out of college, 51% (n = 336) were current college students, and 44% (n = 293) were college graduates. Of the 665 participants, 35% (n = 236) endorsed SA during college. This assessment included cumulative college SA experiences as well as the most recent assault. Sixteen participants (7%) reported that their most recent SA occurred after college. Given that the focus of the current study was on unwanted college experiences, these 16 participants were excluded from analyses, and the final sample comprised 220 young adults (79% female). Approximately 3% (n = 7) of the final sample had dropped out of college, 54% (n = 119) were current college students, and 43% (n = 94) had graduated from college. Ethnic composition of the final sample included 77% (n = 168) White, 9% (n = 20) Asian, 7% (n = 16) African American, 4% (n = 9) Hispanic/Latino, and 3% (n = 7) multiracial. The average age of participants was 23.04 years (SD = 0.21), and 95% (n = 210) identified as heterosexual.

Measures

College sexual victimization

Sexual victimization history

Sexual victimization was retrospectively assessed using a modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (R-SES; Testa et al., 2004). In this version, the original time period was changed from “since the age of 14” to “since the start of college” to focus on college victimization. Sexual assault included unwanted sexual contact, attempted rape, and completed rape (oral, vaginal, and anal) with response options ranging from 0 = 0 times to 4 = 4+ times. In addition, participants provided information on the year in college that the SA experience(s) occurred. Response options were dichotomized as 0 = no or 1 = yes for each year in college (first year in college through after college).

The most recent sexual assault

In addition to cumulative SA during college, participants also completed self-report questionnaires on the characteristics of the most recent assault. Socioenvironmental context included assault setting, perpetrator relationship, prior consensual sex with the perpetrator, and intoxication at the time of the assault. Assault characteristics included physical force and penetration.

Socioenvironmental context of the most recent sexual assault

Assault setting

Participants were asked to select the context in which the most recent assault occurred. Response options included 1 = bar, party, or social gathering that included alcohol, 2 = work, school, or public place, 3 = on a date or intimate situation, or 4 = other. “Other” responses were recoded to fit into one of the three settings (i.e., hotel room recoded to intimate situation).

Perpetrator relationship

Participants were then asked to describe who the perpetrator was to them. Response options included 1 = male stranger or person I just met, 2 = male friend or acquaintance, 3 = boyfriend or male dating partner, 4 = female stranger or person I just met, 5 = female friend or acquaintance, 6 = girlfriend or female dating partner, 7 = group of men, or 8 = group of women. Gender of the perpetrator was combined and responses were recoded to 1 = stranger, 2 = friend or acquaintance, 3 = dating partner.

Prior consensual sex with the perpetrator

Prior history of consensual sexual experiences with the perpetrator was assessed. Response options were dichotomized as 0 = no or 1 = yes.

Alcohol use

Participants were asked to report on the number of drinks they consumed as well as the number of drinks they believed the perpetrator consumed during the most recent assault. Participants were asked to type in a response for both questions to reflect number of drinks.

Subjective intoxication

Participants then reported how intoxicated they felt at the time of the assault. Response options were on a Likert-type scale of 1 = not at all intoxicated to 7 = extremely intoxicated.

Assault characteristics from the most recent sexual assault

Physical force

The amount of physical force used by the perpetrator during the assault was queried. Response options were on a Likert-type scale of 1 = no force at all to 7 = extreme force.

Penetration

Finally, participants were asked whether sexual intercourse occurred during the assault. Response options were dichotomized as 0 = no or 1 = yes.

Psychological distress from the most recent sexual assault

Distress at the time of the assault (past distress)

To assess past perceptions of distress for the most recent assault, participants were presented the question, “At the time this incident happened, how upsetting or traumatic was it for you?” Response options were on a Likert-type scale of 1 = not at all traumatic to 7 = the most traumatic thing possible.

Current distress

Participants were also asked to report current levels of distress from the most recent assault. Current distress was indexed by the question, “As you look back at this incident, how traumatic or upsetting is this incident to you now?” Response options were on a Likert-type scale of 1 = not at all traumatic to 7 = the most traumatic thing possible.

Data Management and Analyses

Variables were assessed for normality and outliers, with identified outliers recoded to the next highest, nonoutlying value (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Cross-sectional associations were tested via structural equation modeling using the statistical program Mplus, Version 7. Missing data accounted for less than 1% of the data set and maximum likelihood robust (MLR) was used in model estimation. The model was evaluated using four measures of fit: model chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A model was considered to have good fit if the CFI and TLI were greater than .95 and RMSEA was less than .05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 provides sample characteristics and Table 2 provides means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations. Half of the sample (n = 110; 50%) reported that the most recent assault occurred in the first or second year of college. There was a general decline in assaults over the first 3 years, followed by a dramatic increase during the fourth year of college. The majority of perpetrators of the most recent assault were male (n = 184, 84%), with 59% being friends/acquaintances, 25% being boyfriends, and 16% being strangers. Of the female perpetrators (n = 36; 16%), 56% being friends/acquaintances, 25% being girlfriends, and 19% being strangers. Twenty-nine percent of participants (n = 63) reported a history of consensual sexual experiences with the perpetrator. The majority of assaults occurred in drinking situations (n = 111; 50%) or intimate settings (n = 90; 41%). Across settings, approximately 60% of assaults involved alcohol (n = 133). On average, participants reported that they themselves consumed 2.95 drinks (SD = 3.38) and estimated that perpetrators consumed 3.50 drinks (SD = 3.64). On average, participants reported mild to moderate levels of perceived intoxication during the most recent assault (M = 2.95, SD = 2.13). Participants reported little physical force (M = 1.99, SD = 1.32), and nearly one third experienced penetration (29%; n = 64).

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics Related to the Most Recent College Sexual Assault.

	n (%)
College year that SA occurred
First year in college	60 (27)
Second year in college	50 (23)
Third year in college	39 (18)
Fourth year in college	55 (25)
Fifth year or later in college	16 (7)
Socioenvironmental context
Assault setting
Bar or party	111 (50)
Date or intimate situation	90 (41)
Work, school, or public place	18 (8)
Perpetrator relationship
Dating partner	55 (25)
Friend or acquaintance	128 (59)
Stranger	35 (16)
Prior consensual sex with perpetrator
Yes	63 (29)
No	157 (71)
Alcohol use
Neither victim nor perpetrator use	87 (40)
Victim use only	10 (5)
Perpetrator use only	12 (5)
Both victim and perpetrator use	111 (50)
Assault characteristics
Penetration
Yes	64 (29)
No	156 (71)

Note. Ns ranged from 218 to 220. SA = sexual assault.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Between Study Variables.

	M	SD	Range	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Assault setting	1.58	0.64	1-3	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2. Perpetrator relationship	2.09	0.64	1-3	.40***	—	—	—	—	—	—
3. Prior consensual sex	0.29	0.45	0-1	.25***	.58***	—	—	—	—	—
4. Perceived intoxication	2.95	2.13	1-7	−.58***	−.38***	−.16*	—	—	—	—
5. Physical force	1.99	1.31	1-6	.05	.06	.03	−.01	—	—	—
6. Penetration	0.29	0.46	0-1	.10	.19**	.28***	.08	.12t	—	—
7. Past distress	2.63	1.32	1-6	.05	−.07	−.17**	.07	.44***	.14*	—
8. Current distress	2.21	1.34	1-6	.11	.03	.06	.14*	.41***	.34***	.62***

Note. Ns range from 217 to 220. t p = .07.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model testing

We were interested in determining the role of socioenvironmental context and assault characteristics in young adults’ reports of past and current levels of event-related distress (see Figure 2 for hypothesized model). In preliminary analyses, we examined the effects of perpetrator gender and length of time since the assault as predictors of SA-related distress. Neither variable was found to predict distress (past or current), and so these variables were dropped from the final models. The hypothesized model (see Figure 3 for final model) showed excellent fit to the data, χ²(5) = 4.06, p = .541, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.01, and RMSEA = 0.00. It accounted for a moderate amount of variance in Distress at the time of the assault (R² = .25) and Current Distress (R² = .28).

Figure 2.

Hypothesized model.

Figure 3.

Final model.

Distress at the time of the assault (past distress)

Assault Setting (β = .13, p = .106), Perpetrator Relationship (β = .02, p = .793), and Intoxication (β = .11, p = .179) were not associated with Distress at the time of the assault. Prior Consensual Sex with the Perpetrator was associated with lower levels of Distress at the time of the assault (β = −.25, p = .001). Physical Force (β = .42, p < .001) and Penetration (β = .13, p = .043) during the most recent assault were associated with higher levels of Distress at the time of the assault.

Current distress

Assault Setting was associated with higher levels of Current Distress (β = .22, p = .003). That is, more intimate settings were predictive of higher distress. Perpetrator Relationship (β = −.02, p = .791) and Prior Consensual Sex with the Perpetrator (β = −.03, p = .743) were not associated with Current Distress. Higher Intoxication was associated with higher levels of Current Distress (β = .24, p = .001). Similar to Distress at the time of the assault, higher Physical Force (β = .38, p < .001) and Penetration (β = .27, p < .001) were associated with higher levels of Current Distress.

Discussion

This study adds to the extant literature on college sexual assault by examining the unique links between the socioenvironmental context, assault characteristics, and young adult’s perceptions of psychological distress related to their most recent sexual assault—both as they recalled it at the time of the event and as they are experiencing it presently. Differential patterns emerged for socioenvironmental context and assault characteristics based on the timing of distress (past or present). Notably, many of the socioenvironmental contexts that we examined showed associations with distress above and beyond the well-documented and powerful effects of physical force and penetration. Higher current distress was associated with assaults occurring in intimate settings and with higher levels of intoxication at the time of the assault. Two somewhat surprising findings emerged regarding the victim–perpetrator relationship. The first was that perpetrator relationship was not associated with distress. The second was that a history of prior consensual sex with the perpetrator was associated with lower distress at the time of the assault but was not associated with current distress. The implications of the current findings are discussed below.

Socioenvironmental Context

Consistent with prior research (Abbey et al., 2001, 2004; Sinozich & Langton, 2014; Testa & Parks, 1996), the majority of sexual assaults in this sample took place in social or intimate settings, such as parties, bars, or on dates. We found that assaults occurring in intimate settings (i.e., on dates) were associated with greater distress relative to other settings (i.e., parties, bars, other public places). This is consistent with the limited work conducted in this area (e.g., Culbertson et al., 2001). However, we only found this effect for current levels of distress; the path from assault setting to distress at the time of the assault was nonsignificant. This discrepancy may be a function of how an individual comes to think about the event over time. As time passes, victims of interpersonal violence may reflect back on the assault in an attempt to understand how and why it happened (e.g., Cromer & Smyth, 2010). This process of reflection can focus a victim’s attention to the context in which the assault took place (e.g., on a date) and the events that led up to it (e.g., going back to the dorm room to watch a movie). As such, ongoing appraisals and the meaning conferred from such processing may contribute to an increase in distress over time, and with time, aspects of the assault may take on greater emotional salience. For example, an individual assaulted on a date may reexamine the events of the evening through the lens of hindsight, which could lead to biased cognitive processing (e.g., hindsight bias, counterfactual thinking). Such processing may result in increases in distress over time by making the assault setting more salient and upsetting (“I shouldn’t have gone back to his or her dorm room”). Moreover, it is also likely that appraisals of the event could be influenced by a number of postassault outcomes, including self-blame, disclosure, and negative reactions from others. These factors would not have exerted an influence immediately during the event, but would become clear only over time. Further studies are needed to determine the facets of SA that victims derive the most meaning from and how this process may influence psychological outcomes over time.

Over half of assaults in this study involved alcohol, with the majority reporting both victim and perpetrator drinking. We found that higher intoxication was related to current distress but not distress at the time of the assault. Prior research on alcohol and later distress has been mixed, with some studies finding differences in distress and others not (e.g., Littleton et al., 2009; Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2014; Zinzow, Resnick, Amstadter, et al., 2010; Zinzow, Resnick, McCauley, et al., 2010). Higher intoxication during the assault may affect later distress in a number of ways, including memory impairment, self-blame, or negative social reactions (Littleton et al., 2009; Macy, Nurius, & Norris, 2006; Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2014; Zinzow, Resnick, Amstadter, et al., 2010). All of these could in turn influence the emotional processing of the experience to contribute to later psychological distress based on the meaning engendered from such processing. These findings illustrate the importance of considering the timing of distress (past vs. present) and suggest that the psychological impact of certain factors (e.g., assault setting, intoxication at the time of the assault) may unfold over time.

Consistent with prior work (Cleere & Lynn, 2013; Fisher et al., 2000; Sinozich & Langton, 2014), we found that overwhelmingly, perpetrators tended to be known to those they assaulted. This finding has important, yet underexplored implications for intervention work. Drawing from the bystander literature (e.g., McMahon & Banyard, 2012), the use of close friends (akin to a buddy system) may assist in reducing unwanted sexual experiences with known individuals through strategies like having a signal for friends to intervene and making a plan to go home together. While not explored in the present study, sexual communication skills may also assist in reducing unwanted experiences with individuals who are known to victims, helping young adults to better navigate the complex socioenvironmental context of the college environment. Yet, we did not find an association between perpetrator relationship and psychological distress. Prior literature has shown higher distress tends to be associated with stranger assaults (Ullman et al., 2006; Ullman & Siegel, 1993). We had a lower prevalence of stranger assaults in our sample, and this may have compromised our ability to find an association.

Finally, consensual sexual experiences with the perpetrator were associated with lower distress at the time of the assault. This finding may reflect how individuals conceptualize their unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., a bad hookup vs. sexual assault). Indeed, Cleere and Steven (2013) found that prior consensual sex with a perpetrator was associated with less serious labels of their unwanted sexual experiences. In light of these findings, we posit that assaults perpetrated by individuals who share a history of consensual sex may have been less likely to label the assault as such, and thus, may have experienced less distress at the time it occurred. Future studies should further examine how consensual sexual experiences with perpetrators influence psychological outcomes over time.

To our knowledge, no studies have comprehensively evaluated the role of socioenvironmental context in young adult’s unwanted sexual experiences during college. Results provide support for assessing socioenvironmental contextual features to improve our understanding of the psychological aftermath of victimization. Furthermore, given the findings presented here, more work is needed to delineate the progression of psychological responses to SA over time, and factors that may influence this process.

Sexual Assault Characteristics

As expected, physical force and penetration were consistent predictors of distress both as it was remembered at the time of the incident, and also currently. This finding was not surprising, given that these assault characteristics tend to reflect more severe victimization experiences, and have been shown to be robust predictors of psychological postassault adaptation. Thus, our results are in accordance with a larger body of research that has linked force and penetration to negative psychological outcomes and poorer functioning (Brown et al., 2009; French et al., 2014; Perilloux et al., 2012; Weaver & Clum, 1995; Zinzow, Resnick, Amstadter, et al., 2010; Zinzow, Resnick, McCauley, et al., 2010). What is notable in this study is that several of our socioenvironmental contextual variables predicted distress above and beyond these well-established influences. This highlights the significance of examining factors beyond just characteristics of the assault itself. In particular, we observed a pattern whereby socioenvironmental factors were significantly associated with current distress but not with distress as it was remembered at the time of the event.

Differences in Distress Over Time

One way to conceptualize the discrepancies between past and present distress is through the meaning making that can take place following an assault. Some data suggest that acknowledgment of unwanted experiences as SA may depend on certain contexts or assault characteristics, such as relationship history, alcohol use, and recency of the assault (Cleere & Steven, 2013; Kahn, Jackson, Kully, Badger, & Halvorsen, 2003; Littleton, Axsom, Breitkopf, & Berenson, 2006). Acknowledgment of SA has emotional consequences; those who experience a SA but do not label it as such are at risk for a host of negative behavioral outcomes, including problem drinking and revictimization (Littleton et al., 2006). Meaning making may also take place through a number of postassault experiences, including disclosure and social reactions from others.

For many individuals in our sample, the most recent assault took place early in college (i.e., first 2 years). On average, this was 1.95 years (SD = 1.39) prior to study involvement. This means that participants had ample time between the assault and participation in the study to reflect on their assault. As such, aspects of the event, including the socioenvironmental context in which the assault took place may have become more salient with time, and thus more likely to contribute to current levels of psychological distress. Moving forward, future studies examining socioenvironmental context and assault characteristics within the framework of the meaning-making process may help clarify why some individuals go on to experience negative psychological outcomes, while others do not.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study had limitations. The sample was largely White, female, and heterosexual. Therefore, our results may not generalize to other ethnic/racial groups, males, or sexual minorities. We relied on retrospective self-report for details related to the most recent SA during college. Use of self-report has its limits, as these data can be subject to memory biases due to the passage of time. Because of the cross-sectional nature of this study, we cannot make inferences about the temporal ordering of our variables of interest. Although it is logical to assume that socioenvironmental context and sexual assault characteristics predict psychological distress, it may also be the case that other mechanisms could also affect these processes, especially over time (e.g., cumulative SA experiences, negative reactions from others, other psychological symptoms). Furthermore, as reports of SA, past distress, and current distress were provided concurrently, it could be that current emotional state influenced recall of the events themselves and/or emotional distress associated with them at the time of the assault. Although the item order of the self-report questionnaire may have reduced this bias to some extent (e.g., order of items: socioenvironmental context, assault characteristics, distress at the time, current distress), the potential for recall bias to influence the current findings must be borne in mind. While this is a limitation to the current study, particularly in our evaluation of distress at the time of the assault, this is also a limitation for all studies in this area that assess assault-related distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, PTSD) beyond the immediate time period following the assault. Acute, postassault assessment may be especially challenging in young adult assault victims, as the majority of these victims do not report their assault to the authorities (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). As such, the majority of assaults may not come to light until much later. The findings from the present study, though preliminary, do highlight the need for further work geared toward understanding how individuals adjust to trauma over time, and how cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal factors may influence this adjustment. Thus, future research using prospective, longitudinal designs is needed to determine the predictive power of assault characteristics on psychological distress as these relationships unfold over time.

Conclusion

Sexual assault is common in young adults and has been linked to a number of negative psychological outcomes (Gidycz & Koss, 1991; Klump, 2006; Nickerson et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2012). Few studies have examined the influence of the socioenvironmental context of these assaults on event-related distress. Findings presented here suggest that the socioenvironmental context is an important influence on psychological outcomes, even after accounting for assault severity (i.e., force, penetration). With more research, we can come to understand whether and how the experience of SA may differ over time, and what factors influence these changes. These factors then can be targeted to reduce psychological distress. Reducing distress may ultimately decrease risk for negative trajectories in other areas of life, such as risky drinking and/or sexual behavior.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Craig Colder, Jacquelyn White, Ashlyn Swartout, Paige Ouimette, Sherry Farrow, Jennifer Merrill, and the UB Alcohol Research Lab for their contributions to study design and data collection. Most importantly, thank you to the participants for sharing their experiences.

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: Data collection and manuscript preparation was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Grant R01 DA018993, awarded to J. P. Read.

Author Biographies

Jessica A. Blayney received her BA from the University of Washington. She worked as a research coordinator in the Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors at the University of Washington from 2009 to 2012. During that time, she contributed to a number of publications on trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), risky sexual behavior, and alcohol use in college students. She began her clinical psychology training at State University of New York (SUNY) University at Buffalo in 2012, where she is currently working in the Alcohol Research Lab under the mentorship of Dr. Jennifer Read. Her research focuses on the intersection between sexual assault and alcohol use as well as the risk and protective factors associated with interpersonal trauma.

Jennifer P. Read received her PhD from Rhode Island University and her postdoctoral training at Brown University. Her research focuses on two interests: (a) psychosocial determinants of young adult alcohol use and (b) co-occurrence of PTSD and substance use. Her work on young adult drinking has examined both environmental and individual determinants of alcohol use using laboratory and survey methodology. In particular, her research examines how individual-level factors such as gender, affect, and alcohol cognitions (e.g., expectancies, motives) may account for differential responses to the social environment.

References

Abbey

(2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Suppl. 14, 118-128.

Abbey

Ross

L. T.

McDuffie

McAuslan

(1996). Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 147-169. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00669.x

Abbey

Zawacki

Buck

P. O.

Clinton

A. M.

McAuslan

(2001). Alcohol and sexual assault. Alcohol Research & Health, 25, 43-51.

Abbey

Zawacki

Buck

P. O.

Clinton

A. M.

McAuslan

(2004). Sexual assault and alcohol consumption: What do we know about their relationship and what types of research are still needed? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 271-303. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00011-9

Blayney

J. A.

Read

J. P.

Colder

(2016). The role of alcohol in college sexual victimization and post-assault adaptation. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8, 421-430.

Brown

A. L.

Testa

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2009). Psychological consequences of sexual victimization resulting from force, incapacitation, or verbal coercion. Violence Against Women, 15, 898-919. doi:10.1177/1077801209335491

Cleere

Lynn

S. J.

(2013). Acknowledged versus unacknowledged sexual assault among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2593-2611. doi:10.1177/0886260513479033

Cromer

L. D.

Smyth

J. M.

(2010). Making meaning of trauma: Trauma exposure doesn’t tell the whole story. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40, 65-72. doi:10.1007/s10879-009-9130-8

Culbertson

K. A.

Vik

P. W.

Kooiman

B. J.

(2001). The impact of sexual assault, sexual assault perpetrator type, and location of sexual assault on ratings of perceived safety. Violence Against Women, 7, 858-875. doi:10.1177/10778010122182794

10.

Davis

K. C.

Stoner

S. A.

Norris

George

W. H.

Masters

N. T.

(2009). Women’s awareness of and discomfort with sexual assault cues: Effects of alcohol consumption and relationship type. Violence Against Women, 15, 1106-1125. doi:10.1177/1077801209340759

11.

Edwards

K. M.

Kearns

M. C.

Gidycz

C. A.

Calhoun

K. S.

(2012). Predictors of victim-perpetrator relationship stability following a sexual assault: A brief report. Violence and Victims, 27, 25-32. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.25

12.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

French

B. H.

Latimore

T. G.

Klemp

H. R.

Butler

E. E.

(2014). Sexual victimization using latent class analysis: Exploring patterns and psycho-behavioral correlates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1111-1131. doi:10.1177/0886260513506052

14.

Gidycz

C. A.

Koss

M. P.

(1991). Predictors of long-term sexual assault trauma among a national sample of victimized college women. Violence and Victims, 6, 175-190.

15.

Bentler

P. M.

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

16.

Humphrey

J. A.

White

J. W.

(2000). Women’s vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 419-424. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00168-3

17.

Kahn

A. S.

Jackson

Kully

Badger

Halvorsen

(2003). Calling it rape: Differences in experiences of women who do or do not label their sexual assault as rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 233-242. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00103

18.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Klump

M. C.

(2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder and sexual assault in women. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 21, 67-83. doi:10.1300/J035v21n02_07

20.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57, 639-647. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649

21.

Lewis

M. A.

Atkins

D. C.

Blayney

J. A.

Dent

D. V.

Kaysen

D. L.

(2013). What is hooking up? Examining definitions of hooking up in relation to behavior and normative perceptions. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 757-766. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.706333

22.

Lindgren

K. P.

Neighbors

Blayney

J. A.

Mullins

P. M.

Kaysen

(2012). Do drinking motives mediate the association between sexual assault and problem drinking? Addictive Behaviors, 37, 323-326. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.10.009

23.

Littleton

H. L.

Axsom

Breitkopf

C. R.

Berenson

(2006). Rape acknowledgment and postassault experiences: How acknowledgment status relates to disclosure, coping, worldview, and reactions received from others. Violence and Victims, 21, 761-778. doi:10.1891/vv-v21i6a006

24.

Littleton

H. L.

Grills-Taquechel

Axsom

(2009). Impaired and incapacitated rape victims: Assault characteristics and post-assault experiences. Violence and Victims, 24, 439-457. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.24.4.439

25.

Littleton

H. L.

Grills-Taquechel

A. E.

Buck

K. S.

Rosman

Dodd

J. C.

(2013). Health risk behavior and sexual assault among ethnically diverse women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 7-21. doi:10.1177/0361684312451842

26.

Macy

R. J.

Nurius

P. S.

Norris

(2006). Responding in their best interests: Contextualizing women’s coping with acquaintance sexual aggression. Violence Against Women, 12, 478-500. doi:10.1177/1077801206288104

27.

McMahon

Banyard

V. L.

(2012). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13, 3-14. doi:10.1177/1524838011426015

28.

Miranda

R. J.

Meyerson

L. A.

Long

P. J.

Marx

B. P.

Simpson

S. M.

(2002). Sexual assault and alcohol use: Exploring the self-medication hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 17, 205-217. doi:10.1891/vivi.17.2.205.33650

29.

Mouilso

E. R.

Fischer

Calhoun

K. S.

(2012). A prospective study of sexual assault and alcohol use among first-year college women. Violence and Victims, 27, 78-94. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.78

30.

Nickerson

Steenkamp

Aerka

I. M.

Salters-Pedneault

Carper

T. L.

Barnes

J. B.

Litz

B. T.

(2013). Prospective investigation of mental health following sexual assault. Depression and Anxiety, 30, 444-450. doi:10.1002/da.22023

31.

Norris

Nurius

P. S.

Graham

T. L.

(1999). When a date changes from fun to dangerous: Factors affecting women’s ability to distinguish. Violence Against Women, 5, 230-250. doi:10.1177/10778019922181202

32.

Ouimette

Read

Brown

P. J.

(2005). Consistency of retrospective reports of DSM-IV Criterion A traumatic stressors among substance use disorder patients. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 43-51. doi:10.1002/jts.20009

33.

Paul

E. L.

McManus

Hayes

(2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76-88. doi:10.1080/00224490009552023

34.

Perilloux

Duntley

J. D.

Buss

D. M.

(2012). The costs of rape. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1099-1106. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9863-9

35.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Ullman

S. E.

(2014). Sexual assault-characteristics effects on PTSD and psychosocial mediators: A cluster-analysis approach to sexual assault types. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 7, 162-170. doi:10.1037/a0037304

36.

Read

J. P.

Colder

C. R.

Merrill

J. E.

Ouimette

White

Swartout

(2012). Trauma and posttraumatic stress symptoms predict alcohol and other drug consequence trajectories in the first year of college. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80, 426-439. doi:10.1037/a0028210

37.

Read

J. P.

Ouimette

White

Colder

Farrow

(2011). Rates of DSM–IV–TR trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder among newly matriculated college students. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 148-156. doi:10.1037/a0021260

38.

Rennison

C. M.

(1999). Criminal victimization 2000: Changes, 2000 with trends 1993-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

39.

Sinozich

Langton

(2014). Rape and sexual assault among college-age females, 1995–2013 (Special Reports). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

40.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

41.

Testa

Livingston

J. A.

(2009). Alcohol consumption and women’s vulnerability to sexual victimization: Can reducing women’s drinking prevent rape? Substance Use & Misuse, 44, 1349-1376. doi:10.1080/10826080902961468

42.

Testa

Parks

K. A.

(1996). The role of women’s alcohol consumption in sexual victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 217-234. doi:10.1016/1359-1789(95)00017-8

43.

Testa

VanZile-Tamsen

Livingston

J. A.

Koss

M. P.

(2004). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual aggression using the sexual experiences survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 256-265. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00143.x

44.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

(2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

45.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

Townsend

S. M.

Starzynski

L. L.

(2006). The role of victim-offender relationship in women’s sexual assault experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 798-819. doi:10.1177/0886260506288590

46.

Ullman

S. E.

Najdowski

C. J.

(2010). Understanding alcohol-related sexual assaults: Characteristics and consequences. Violence and Victims, 25, 29-44. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.25.1.29

47.

Ullman

S. E.

Siegel

J. M.

(1993). Victim-offender relationship and sexual assault. Violence and Victims, 8, 121-134.

48.

Walsh

Danielson

C. K.

McCauley

J. L.

Saunders

B. E.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

(2012). National prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder among sexually revictimized adolescent, college, and adult household-residing women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69, 935-942.

49.

Weaver

T. L.

Clum

G. A.

(1995). Psychological distress associated with interpersonal violence: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 15, 115-140. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(95)00004-9

50.

Zinzow

H. M.

Resnick

H. S.

Amstadter

A. B.

McCauley

J. L.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2010a). Drug- or alcohol-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape in relationship to mental health among a national sample of women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2217-2236. doi:10.1177/0886260509354887

51.

Zinzow

H. M.

Resnick

H. S.

McCauley

J. L.

Amstadter

A. B.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2010b). The role of rape tactics in risk for posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression: Results from a national sample of college women. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 708-715.