Disclosing Unwanted Pursuit Victimization: Indirect Effects of Negative Reactions on PTSD Symptomatology Among Undergraduate Women

Abstract

A growing literature has documented that negative social reactions to disclosures of sexual and intimate partner violence (IPV), such as victim blaming or disbelief, can negatively affect survivors’ recovery. However, despite growing recognition of the frequency of unwanted pursuit behaviors (UPBs; for example, stalking, excessive or threatening contact) following romantic relationships and their negative effects on survivors, research to date has not explored disclosures, social reactions, or their impacts among victims of UPBs. The purpose of the present study was to assess the frequency of disclosures of UPB victimization to various sources, social reactions received, and their associations with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among a sample of 318 undergraduate women (ages 18-24) who reported a breakup within the past 3 years, 59.7% (n =190) reported experiencing UPBs. Nearly all of the women (92.6%; n =176) who experienced UPBs disclosed their victimization to others. Among women who disclosed, the most frequent recipient of disclosure was a female friend (93.2%, n = 164) and women reported receiving higher mean positive than negative social reactions (p < .001). Results supported the hypothesized indirect effect of UPB victimization on PTSD symptoms through increases in negative social reactions (p < .001); these results suggest that negative social reactions to UPB victimization may increase the risk for PTSD symptomatology. By contrast, there was no indirect effect via positive social reactions (p = .205). Implications for research and clinical practice will be discussed.

Keywords

unwanted pursuit behaviors social reactions PTSD

Meta-analytic studies have demonstrated that deficits in social support following traumatic experiences are a critical risk factor for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Brewin, Andrews, & Valentine, 2000; Ozer, Best, Lipsey, & Weiss, 2003). Across the fields of sexual violence (SV) and IPV, research has indicated that the majority of survivors disclose their victimization (e.g., Sylaska & Edwards, 2014); however, they often receive a combination of emotional support and assistance (positive social reactions) and blame, disbelief, and minimization (negative social reactions; Ullman, 1996). These negative social reactions, in turn, have been associated with negative outcomes, including increases in PTSD symptoms (e.g., Schackner, Weiss, Edwards, & Sullivan, 2021). However, in addition to violence that occurs during romantic relationships, there is growing recognition that abuse persists after relationships end, in the form of unwanted pursuit behaviors (UPBs; that is, stalking and excessive or threatening contact), behaviors which have been uniquely associated with PTSD symptoms even when controlling for the influence of prior IPV victimization (e.g., Basile, Arias, Desai, & Thompson, 2004; Dardis, Strauss, & Gidycz, 2019). Despite growing awareness of the frequency of UPBs and its negative outcomes, there is a dearth of research on disclosure and social reactions to UPB victimization. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to assess the frequency of disclosures of UPB victimization to various sources, social reactions received, and their associations with symptoms of PTSD.

UPBs

Unwanted pursuit behaviors is a term used to describe a course or pattern of excessive and/or threatening unsolicited contact behaviors. These behaviors lie on a continuum of severity from excessive or threatening contact (e.g., following, making vague or implied threats) to physical violence (e.g., property damage, physical assault, harm to others or pets). In addition, these behaviors can occur either in-person (e.g., showing up unexpectedly at work or school) or through a technological medium (e.g., calling and emailing, cyber UPBs; Kamphuis, Emmelkamp, & Bartak, 2003; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen, & Rohling, 2000). UPBs are performed most frequently in response to the end of a relationship (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Nguyen, Spitzberg, & Lee, 2012); results of a meta-analysis indicated that nearly 80% of cases involved an aggressor and a victim who shared a previous relationship (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). These behaviors are similar to, and may overlap with, behaviors legally defined as stalking; however, legal definitions vary. The federal stalking statute (18 U.S.C. § 2261A) requires proof of perpetrator intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate the victim or another; by contrast, state policies do not frequently require intent but do present a standard that the victim (or a “reasonable person”) experiences fear (e.g., Nebraska, Maryland) or emotional distress (e.g., Arizona and Pennsylvania). Given these varied legal definitions, researchers often use terms such as UPBs to capture a range of behaviors that may or may not be recognized by legal definitions or standards, and/or when perpetrator intent is difficult to measure (Fox, Nobles, & Fisher, 2011). UPBs are also theorized to occur in the context of current or prior romantic relationships rather than from strangers, theoretically driven by desires to pursue and obtain intimacy with the victim (De Smet, Uzieblo, Loeys, Buysse, & Onraedt, 2015; Dutton & Winstead, 2006). Nevertheless, UPBs can include legally defined stalking behaviors in many locales once motives to harm emerge, or victims may experience fear or distress (De Smet, Loeys, & Buysse, 2012; Kamphuis et al., 2003).

When considering UPBs that occur following the termination of an intimate relationship, Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2000) found that 89% of their college-aged sample had experienced unwanted pursuit from their ex-partner. Whereas few gender differences in the frequency of UPBs among undergraduates have been documented (Dardis & Gidycz, 2017; De Smet et al., 2015; Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000), a number of studies have found that women have a higher propensity to evaluate UPBs as threatening and to identify themselves as victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Nguyen et al., 2012; Spitzberg, Cupach, & Ciceraro, 2010).

In addition, UPBs have been associated with a broad level of impact, ranging from social to psychological stress (Dutton & Winstead, 2011). Pertaining to negative psychological consequences, victims may endure PTSD symptoms, depression, and fear (Amar, 2006; Dardis et al., 2019; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Kamphuis et al., 2003; Nguyen et al., 2012). Furthermore, there is evidence that cyber and in-person UPBs each contribute uniquely to negative outcomes, even when including other forms of IPV in the model (Dardis et al., 2019) and that both violent and non-violent (i.e., excessive communication) forms of pursuit each exert unique effects on the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms (Kamphuis et al., 2003). Overall, these studies illustrate the unique effects UPBs have on mental health outcomes and additionally demonstrate the importance of understanding mechanisms of the associations between UPB victimization and PTSD symptomatology.

Social Support

The negative psychological effects that accompany UPBs prompt many to seek out support from others. Among prior studies of women who have experienced UPBs or stalking, between 53% and 97% sought support in some way (Buhi, Clayton, & Surrency, 2009; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Fissel, 2021; Flicker et al., 2011; Jordan, Wilcox, & Pritchard, 2007). For example, among a national sample, Flicker et al. (2011) found that 86.3% of women who experienced stalking sought support, and that stalking survivors requested assistance from more sources than survivors who experienced other forms of victimization, such as IPV and SV. Among a sample of undergraduate women, Dutton and Winstead (2011) reported that 96.8% of women who experienced UPBs sought out support in at least one way. Across these studies, the vast majority of women sought help from friends or family members (i.e., informal support; Buhi et al., 2009; Flicker et al., 2011). Among a national sample of victims of stalking and cyberstalking, increased fear and greater time missed at work were associated with increases in informal help-seeking (Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010, 2014). By comparison, rates of formal help-seeking (i.e., to police, campus authorities, and mental health supports) are less common; for example, between 1% and 19% of undergraduate women reported unwanted pursuit or stalking victimization to police (Buhi et al., 2009; Fisher et al., 2003; Jordan et al., 2007; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000). These differences in reporting to informal and formal sources are consistent with the broader SV and IPV literature, which has consistently documented that, whereas over 75% of survivors disclose to informal supports (Sylaska & Edwards, 2014; Ullman & Filipas, 2001), rates of formal disclosure are typically much lower, particularly among undergraduate women. For instance, within a national study of survivors of SV, just 2% of women reported SV to police and 4% to campus authorities (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003).

Social Reactions

Whereas the majority of women disclose violence to others, Ullman’s (1996) pioneering work in the field recognized that women received a range of reactions from those to whom they disclosed. Distinct from social support, social reactions play a key role in a survivor’s recovery process following sexual assault (Schackner et al., 2021; Ullman, 2010). Moreover, these reactions influence the way victims conceptualize the incident and their choice of coping strategies to employ (Edwards, Dardis, Sylaska, & Gidycz, 2015). Research has organized these social reactions into two broad categories, positive and negative social reactions, and has illustrated how each reaction produces divergent results.

Ullman (2010) describes negative social reactions as responses that invalidate the victim or fail to provide support, for example, blaming, attempting to distract, rejecting, or controlling the victim. Negative social reactions to disclosures are consistently associated with increases in PTSD symptom severity among survivors of IPV (Edwards, Dardis, Sylaska, & Gidycz, 2015; Flicker, Cerulli, Swogger, & Talbot, 2012; Levendosky et al., 2004; Schackner et al., 2021) and SV (Littleton, 2010; Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2014; Ullman, 2000; Ullman & Filipas, 2001; Ullman, Townsend, Filipas, & Starzynski, 2007). Furthermore, evidence has shown that survivors who report a higher frequency of sexual victimization and revictimization receive increased rates of negative social reactions (Najdowski & Ullman, 2011), suggesting that those with the greatest extent of victimization may bear an even greater burden when disclosing to others.

By contrast, positive social reactions encompass those reactions that include emotional support, tangible aid, and informational support, involving actively listening, acknowledging, believing, and validating the victim and their experience (Ullman, 2010). Regardless of their direct and immediate effect on the victim, studies evaluating the relationships between positive social reactions and negative mental health outcomes, such as PTSD, have yielded inconsistent results (Edwards, Dardis, Sylaska, & Gidycz, 2015; Flicker et al., 2012; Levendosky et al., 2004; Schackner et al., 2021; Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2016). Thus, whereas research consistently implicates negative social reactions in increasing PTSD risk, it remains unclear whether positive social reactions might mitigate PTSD risk.

Current Study

In sum, previous studies have demonstrated that the majority of survivors of SV and IPV disclose their experiences to others, and that negative social reactions to disclosures of SV and IPV are associated with negative psychological outcomes. Whereas UPBs are extremely common among young adults following the end of romantic relationships (e.g., Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000), few studies have assessed disclosures of UPB victimization, social reactions received, and their influence on psychological outcomes. If peers (and not mental health professionals) are the primary disclosure recipients and, further, if negative reactions are found to be associated with negative outcomes, programs should be created to target peer reactions to disclosure and to bolster social support following UPB victimization. Among a sample of undergraduate women, the present study assessed the frequency of disclosure of UPB victimization from a former partner and to whom survivors disclosed, as well as the indirect effects of UPB victimization on PTSD symptoms through positive and negative social reactions. In light of the prior literature, hypotheses included the following:

Hypothesis 1: The majority of women will disclose UPB victimization to others.

Hypothesis 2: Women will most frequently disclose to informal supports (friends) and less frequently to formal supports (e.g., police, mental health professionals).

Hypothesis 3: Negative social reactions will mediate the association between UPB victimization and PTSD symptoms, such that increased UPB frequency will be associated with increased reports of negative social reactions, and negative social reactions will be positively associated with increases in PTSD symptoms.

As research on the role of positive social reactions has been mixed, no a priori hypotheses with respect to its association with PTSD are ventured; however, this relationship will be explored.

Method

Procedure

Participants were recruited from the psychology research participant pool at a medium-sized U.S. Midwestern university between January 2014 and March 2015. They were eligible to participate if they were (a) 18 years or older and (b) had been in romantic relationships that had ended within the past 3 years. This time frame was selected to encourage reporting on recent relationships, thereby reducing recall bias. If multiple relationships had ended within the past 3 years, they were asked to select the one “most significant” to them. Students signed up online and were sent an email with the link to the survey. They were sent a reminder email at least 8 hr prior to the deadline. Following informed consent, participants completed the study online through the Qualtrics data collection system and received partial course credit for participation. All participants received a debriefing form, including a list of counseling centers with contact information. Median survey completion time was 67 min; however, participants could stop and start the survey at their choosing.

Participants

Characteristics of the sample are described in detail in Dardis et al. (2019), which assessed the contributions of in-person UPBs, cyber UPBs, and various forms of IPV on women’s psychological outcomes. We recruited 330 individuals; however, three individuals who were over the age of 24 were excluded (given our interest in young adult relationships). Given documented differences between LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) and heterosexual women with respect to stalking behaviors (Dardis, Shipherd, & Iverson, 2017; Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2011) and unique barriers to help-seeking for IPV among the LGB community (see Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal, 2015, for a review), we excluded the nine women who reported that their former partners were women (as we had insufficient cell sizes to test for these differences). The final sample included 318 women, ages 18 to 24 (M = 19.02, SD = 1.19), who reported prior relationships with men. The majority of participants were White, non-Hispanic (80.8%, n = 257), although 4.7% (n = 15) indicated that they were African American, 1.9% (n = 6) Latina/Hispanic, 6.6% (n = 21) Asian/Pacific Islander, 4.7% (n = 16) biracial/multiracial, 0.9% (n = 3) selected “Other,” and 0.3% (n = 1) declined to respond. The majority of women were in either their first (59.1%, n = 188) or second (23.9%, n = 76) year of college. On average, relationships reported on had ended 14.08 months (SD = 10.92) prior to the study and had lasted for an average of 20.22 months (SD = 14.25).

Overall, 59.7% (n =190) of women reported experiencing two or more UPBs (i.e., two separate types of UPBs, each at least once, or one UPB 2 or more times), the minimum required to be deemed a “repeated” pursuit; however, the mean number of UPBs experienced was 12.22 (SD = 12.62), and median was 8, with a range from 2 to 72 UPBs experienced. Among these women, the majority reported both cyber and in-person UPBs (72.1%; n = 137), 18.4% reported cyber UPBs only (n = 35), and 9.5% reported in-person UPBs only (n = 18). This study focuses on the 190 women who experienced UPBs. See Dardis et al. (2019) for more detail.

Measures

UPBs

UPBs were assessed using a combination of two measures to capture both in-person UPBs (Unwanted Pursuit Behavior Inventory [UPBI]; Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Palarea, 2006) and cyber UPBs (Controlling Partners Inventory–Self [CPI-S]; Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, & Knox, 2011). For each measure, participants are asked how often they experienced “any of the following unsolicited contact behaviors” from their ex-partners after their breakup, using behaviorally specific items. The original UPBI includes 26 items; however, the modified 18-item version reported in Dardis et al. (2019) was utilized, which removes three items that overlap with the CPI-S, as well as five other high-frequency items that women describe as causing very little distress (i.e., very low in ratings of annoyance and fear, such as “engage you in conversation in person”; for further details, see Dardis et al., 2019). A sample item is, “Wait outside of your home, work, or school.” The CPI-S includes 18 items assessing “unsolicited” electronic behaviors after the breakup (sample item: “make embarrassing, insulting, or threatening Facebook posts about you”). Responses for these measures were originally reported on a 5-point scale of 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (twice), 3 (3-9 times), and 4 (10 or more times). To reduce skew, items were recoded to be 0 (never), 1 (once), or 2 (2 or more times). The scale is summed, with higher scores indicating higher frequency of in-person unwanted pursuit (Cronbach’s α = .91).

History of physical, sexual, and psychological victimization

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) assessed participants’ experiences of three types of IPV victimization over the course of their prior relationship with the same partner who perpetrated UPBs: severe psychological (e.g., “My partner accused me of being a lousy lover”), physical (e.g., “My partner punched or hit me with something that could hurt”), and sexual (e.g., “My partner used force [like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon] to make me have sex”). Response options for each item are on a 6-point scale (ranging from “never” to “more than 20 times”) and, per the original author instructions, are coded to the midpoints for the response categories (Straus et al., 1996). Each of the three forms of abuse was summed, with higher scores indicating greater IPV victimization. In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale, comprising sexual, physical, and psychological abuse, is .96.

Posttraumatic stress symptoms

The 22-item Impact of Events Scale–Revised (IES-R; Weiss & Marmar, 1997) assessed symptoms of PTSD within the past 7 days, based on experiences of stressful life events. Items are rated on a scale from 0 = not at all to 4 = extremely. A sample item is, “I felt watchful and on-guard.” A summed scale was used, with higher scores indicating increased symptoms of PTSD. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .97.

Disclosure and social reactions

First, participants were asked, “With whom did you talk about these experiences?” and were provided a list of options (e.g., “male friend(s),” “female friend(s), “mother”), to which they could check all that apply or could check, “I did not talk to anyone about the experience.” To determine the immediacy of disclosure, participants were next asked, “Approximately how much time passed between the experiences and the time you first told anyone about them?” to which they could either answer “I did not talk with anyone about the experience,” or could select an amount of time since the experience (i.e., “immediately,” “a few days,” “1-3 months,” “3-6 months,” “6-12 months,” or “1 year or more”).

Next, individuals who reported disclosing UPBs to any sources answered the Social Reactions Questionnaire (Ullman, 2000), a 48-item quantitative measure assessing ways that disclosure recipients might respond to disclosures of violence. This measure includes a subscale of negative social reactions (26 items), including victim blaming, treating the victim differently, attempts to control or distract the victim, and egocentric reactions. Sample items include “told you that you were to blame or shameful because of this experience” and “avoided talking to you or spending time with you.” By contrast, the positive social reactions subscale (20 items) includes items assessing emotional support, believing the victim, and providing tangible forms of aid. Sample items include “listened to your feelings” and “helped you get information of any kind about coping with the experience.” Cronbach’s alpha for the Negative Social Reactions subscale was .94, and for the Positive Social Reactions subscale was .92.

Data Analysis

Frequencies of disclosure and disclosure recipients were examined. Bivariate correlations among variables of interest were assessed. Finally, ordinary least squares multiple regression with parallel mediation using the PROCESS macro (Version 3.1; Hayes, 2017) examined the direct and total effects of UPB victimization on PTSD symptoms, as well as indirect effects through positive and negative social reactions, while controlling for the influence of IPV victimization. The PROCESS macro enables simultaneous computation of each indirect effect and uses bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs; among 5,000 samples) to estimate the indirect effects.

Results

Frequency and Timing of Disclosure and to Whom Women Disclosed

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, 92.6% (n = 176) of the women who experienced UPBs reported disclosing to one or more individuals. With respect to the timing of the disclosure (Table 1), the majority first disclosed immediately after (51.1%) or within a few days of the UPBs (23.3%); just 11.3% disclosed 3 months or longer after the UPBs occurred. With respect to disclosure recipients (Table 1), women who disclosed told, on average 2.68 individuals (SD = 1.44), most frequently a female friend (93.2%) or their mothers (52.8%), followed by male friends (44.9%) or their sisters (30.1%). Considerably fewer women disclosed to formal supports, such as counselors/therapists (14.8%), law enforcement (2.8%), medical doctors (1.1%), or clergy (1.1%). Thus, Hypothesis 2, that women would disclose to informal supports more frequently than they would disclose to formal supports, was supported.

Table 1.

Frequency and Timing of Disclosure and to Whom Disclosed (N = 190).

Variable	% (n)
Disclosure (N = 190)
Yes	92.6 (176)
No	7.4 (14)
Timing of disclosure (N = 176)
Immediately after UPBs	51.1 (90)
A few days after UPBs	23.3 (41)
1-3 months after UPBs	12.5 (22)
3-6 months after UPBs	2.8 (5)
6-12 months after UPBs	5.1 (9)
1 year or longer after UPBs	3.4 (6)
No response	1.7 (3)
To whom disclosed^a (N = 176)
Female friend	93.2 (164)
Mother	52.8 (93)
Male friend	44.9 (79)
Sister	30.1 (53)
Brother	10.2 (18)
Father	16.5 (29)
Counselor/therapist	14.8 (26)
Law enforcement	2.8 (5)
Medical doctor	1.1 (2)
Clergy	1.1 (2)

Note. UPBs = unwanted pursuit behaviors.

The percentage do not add to 100, as multiple disclosure recipients were possible.

Frequency of Social Reactions and Bivariate Associations Among Variables of Interest

Results of a dependent-samples t test indicated that women who disclosed received more positive (M = 1.95, SD = 0.81) than negative social reactions (M = 0.78, SD = 0.68), t(172) = 17.73, p < .001, d = 1.35, to their disclosures. As shown in Table 2, UPB frequency was positively associated with PTSD symptoms (r = .38), and positively associated with both positive (r = .30) and negative (r = .54) social reactions. In turn, negative social reactions (r = .49) and, to a lesser degree, positive social reactions (r = .28) were positively correlated with PTSD symptoms.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Associations Among Variables of Interest.

Variables	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5
1. UPBs	11.34 (11.14)	1	.55*	.30*	.54*	.38*
2. IPV	23.67 (46.48)		1	.19*	.33*	.26*
3. Positive social reactions	1.95 (0.81)			1	.33*	.28*
4. Negative social reactions	0.78 (0.68)				1	.49*
5. PTSD symptoms	26.23 (22.89)					1

Note. UPBs = unwanted pursuit behaviors; IPV = intimate partner violence; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.

p < .05.

Association Between UPBs and PTSD, and Indirect Effects of Social Reactions

The results of a parallel mediation analysis conducted using ordinary least squares methods and the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Version 3.1; Hayes, 2017) are shown in Table 3 and Figure 1. The model accounted for 26.7% of the variance in PTSD symptoms. UPB victimization demonstrated a significant total effect on PTSD symptoms (p < .001), even when accounting for IPV victimization. Furthermore, UPB victimization was positively associated with both mediator variables (negative social reactions: p < .001; positive social reactions: p = .007), such that increases in UPB victimization were associated with increases in both positive and negative social reactions from disclosure recipients. In turn, increases in negative social reactions (p < .001), but not positive social reactions (p = .138), were associated with increases in PTSD symptoms. Bootstrapped CIs for the indirect effect of UPBs on PTSD symptoms through positive and negative social reactions were based on 5,000 bootstrapped samples. Only the indirect effect through negative social reactions was significant, based on a CI completely above zero and a significant normal theory test (p < .001; completely standardized indirect effect = 0.19, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.30]). The indirect effect through positive social reactions was non-significant (p = .205, completely standardized indirect effect = 0.03, 95% CI = [–0.01, –0.07]). Finally, in the presence of the indirect effects, the direct effect of UPB victimization on PTSD symptoms was non-significant (p = .157). Thus, consistent with Hypothesis 3, effects of UPB victimization on PTSD symptoms are partially explained by increases in negative social reactions.

Table 3.

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of the Parallel Multiple Mediator Model Assessing Associations Among UPB Victimization, Social Reactions, and PTSD Symptoms.

	Outcome
	Negative Social Reactions				Positive Social Reactions				PTSD Symptoms
	Path	B (SE)	t	p	Path	B (SE)	t	p	Path	B (SE)	t	p
Direct effects
UPB victimization	a₁	0.03 (0.01)	6.29	<.001	a₂	0.02 (0.01)	2.89	.007	c′	0.28 (0.20)	1.42	.157
IPV victimization	u₁	<0.001 (0.001)	0.64	.521	u₂	0.001 (0.002)	0.46	.645	u′	0.01 (0.04)	0.39	.700
Negative SR									b₁	12.73 (2.78)	4.58	<.001
Positive SR									b₂	3.01 (2.02)	1.49	.138
Model statistics	F(2, 166) = 33.01, p ≤ .001, R² = .285				F (2, 166) = 7.48, p ≤ .001, R² = .083				F (4, 164) = 14.93, p ≤ .001, R² = .267
Total effects
UPB victimization									c	0.75 (0.19)	3.94	<.001
IPV victimization									u	0.03 (0.04)	0.63	.530
Model statistics									F(2, 162) = 14.78, p ≤ .001, R² = .154
										B (SE)	95% CI	p
Indirect effects
Through negative SRs									a₁b₁	0.40 (0.12)	[0.20, 0.65]	<.001
Through positive SRs									a₂b₂	0.06 (0.04)	[–0.01, 0.16]	.205

Note. Bolded results are significant at p < .05. UPB = unwanted pursuit behavior; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder; B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; IPV = intimate partner violence; SR = social reactions; CI = confidence interval.

Figure 1.

Parallel multiple mediator model of the associations among UPB victimization, social reactions, and PTSD symptoms.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine disclosure, social reactions, and their contributions to PTSD symptoms among survivors of UPB victimization. First, it is clear that female friends (93.2%) and male friends (44.9%) are frequent recipients of disclosure; however, women also frequently disclosed to family members, most frequently their mothers (52.8%) or sisters (30.1%). By contrast, formal supports, such as counselors (14.8%) and law enforcement (2.8%), were disclosed to less frequently. These results are consistent with prior research examining disclosures of UPBs, SV, and IPV, such that the majority of survivors disclose their experiences (e.g., Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014) and, when doing so, are met with both positive social reactions (e.g., emotional support and assistance) and negative social reactions (e.g., blame, disbelief, and minimization; Ullman, 1996). In addition, the results of the current study support past findings which imply that informal supports bear much of the responsibility for initially supporting those who experience UPB victimization, because survivors are less likely to formally disclose to law enforcement, mental health supports, and campus authorities (Buhi et al., 2009; Flicker et al., 2011). Furthermore, women in the present study reported more average positive than negative social reactions from disclosure recipients. That is, women are generally reporting more frequent experiences of emotional support, validation, and tangible aid than they are reporting experiences of victim blame, disbelief, or invalidation.

However, whereas women received more positive than negative social reactions, negative social reactions (but not positive social reactions) were significantly associated with PTSD symptoms within a multivariate model. Specifically, increases in UPB victimization frequency exerted an indirect effect on PTSD symptoms through increases in negative social reactions. These results are consistent with prior SV and IPV research demonstrating significant deleterious effects of negative social reactions on psychological outcomes but non-significant or weak associations between positive social reactions and psychological outcomes (e.g., Edwards, Dardis, Sylaska, & Gidycz, 2015; Schackner et al., 2021). As noted by others (e.g., Edwards, Dardis, Sylaska, & Gidycz, 2015), in choosing disclosure recipients, women likely make informed choices and disclose to those from whom they anticipate support or help; it is therefore possible that positive social reactions are anticipated and normative and do not strongly influence psychological outcomes. By contrast, negative social reactions may be surprising and uniquely distressing.

We theorize that negative social reactions may be associated with PTSD symptoms for a number of reasons. First, receiving negative social reactions from trusted supports may lead survivors to isolate and cease future disclosures. This theory has been supported by research among survivors of sexual assault, among whom negative social reactions to initial disclosures served a silencing function on future disclosures (Ahrens, 2006). Social support is viewed as a key resilience factor, mitigating the risk for PTSD (Ozer et al., 2003), and relates specifically to a number of criteria for PTSD within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Specifically, negative social reactions may lead to detachment or estrangement from others (Criterion D6), withdrawal from social activities (Criterion D5), or increases in avoidance behaviors (Criteria C1 and C2). In addition, receiving negative social reactions such as victim blame, particularly from a trusted support figure, could create or reinforce self-blame among survivors for actions taken or not taken after UPBs, facilitating PTSD Criterion D3, inappropriate blame for the causes or consequences of traumatic events (APA, 2013), other negative beliefs about the self (e.g., “I am bad,”; Criterion D2), or persistent guilt and shame (Criterion D4).

Furthermore, it is notable that both positive and negative social reactions are positively associated with increased UPB victimization frequency. This result is consistent with prior IPV literature, in which individuals with increasing severity and frequency have been more likely to disclose more frequently and to more individuals (e.g., Sylaska & Edwards, 2014) and encounter a combination of positive and negative reactions (e.g., Turell & Herrmann, 2008). Therefore, one possibility is that women with more severe victimization have higher initial levels of symptomatology and seek out more social support to cope with distress. Given that the present study was cross-sectional, these temporal associations cannot be established. Another possible explanation for this association could be related to disclosure recipients’ emotional responses. Specifically, among a sample of disclosure recipients, Edwards and Dardis (2020) found that receiving disclosures of more severe IPV victimization was associated with increases in both self-reported negative and positive social reactions to the survivor and greater emotional distress (experienced by the disclosure recipient) during the disclosure. That is, hearing about intense victimization may overwhelm disclosure recipients’ coping resources, which could contribute to negative social reactions, for example, egocentric responses (i.e., displaying anger and personal distress), trying to change the subject or distract the victim, or trying to take control of the situation and tell the victim what she should do.

Limitations

Limitations of the present study include a homogeneous sample of young, heterosexual, White/non-Hispanic women who experienced and disclosed UPB victimization from male partners. The specificity of the sample precludes the ability to generalize the results to other populations; additional research is needed to understand how symptoms and social reactions of UPB victimization manifest in diverse populations with respect to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and age. The sample included women from a Psychology Research Pool, who may have more knowledge in areas of psychology that could affect their perspective on UPB victimization and social reactions to disclosures. A primary limitation of the present study was the use of a cross-sectional design, thus precluding our ability to assess temporal associations within our mediational model. Longitudinal designs are needed to clarify these temporal associations, including whether levels of survivor distress increase the likelihood of positive or negative social reactions. In addition, whereas negative social reactions were associated with current PTSD symptoms, future research should explore potential mechanisms of this association, such as coping strategies, self-blame, perceived control, or other factors. This study also utilized self-report measures exclusively, which rely on introspective ability and memory, and which may be prone to response bias. In asking about the timing of disclosure, future research should explicitly ask how much time passed between the onset of the first instance of UPBs and disclosure, as well as utilize qualitative questions to better assess how social reactions might have affected the survivor’s responses to ongoing UPBs.

Implications for Future Research

A number of recommendations for future research can be suggested based on the present study. First, the present results should be replicated within longitudinal designs to clarify temporal associations. Further research is needed to understand the impact of social reactions to disclosures following UPB victimization among populations diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and age. For example, reactions to UPB disclosures may vary based on how disclosure recipients perceive the severity of the behaviors. Perceptions of stalking behaviors have been found to vary based on gender identity and, to a lesser degree, cultural background (Chan & Sheridan, 2020; Sheridan, Arianayagam, & Chan, 2019). Results of the present study further suggest that research should examine the correlation between UPB victimization frequency and negative social reactions; as noted above, higher levels of victimization could lead to greater disclosure recipient distress. However, it is also possible that, with more frequent UPB victimization, women also disclose and seek social support more frequently, leading to compassion fatigue and more negative reactions from disclosure recipients. Thus, future research should explore whether the frequency of survivors’ disclosures moderates social reactions. Along similar lines, further research is needed to examine the recipients of the disclosure, including factors that might lead to increased likelihood of negative reactions, such as compassion fatigue or frustration with the survivor, personal history of victimization, emotional distress, or perceptions of lack of skill to assist the survivor. Such research could provide additional insight into the factors that may be influencing their tendency to respond unfavorably. Finally, qualitative and quantitative studies should examine whether negative social reactions, especially those that project victim-blaming tendencies, reinforce the victim’s sense of self-worth and self-blame, thereby exacerbating or reinforcing PTSD symptoms (e.g., Criterion D, negative beliefs about the self, causes or consequences of the events).

Implications for Intervention and Clinical Practice

The results of the present study also suggest several implications for intervention and clinical practice. Given that peers were found to be the primary disclosure targets, we concur with others (e.g., Edwards & Dardis, 2020; Edwards & Ullman, 2018) who have recommended universal social support strategies to target peer reactions to disclosures of violence. Edwards and Ullman (2018) piloted a 2-hr social support intervention on a college campus aimed toward reducing disclosure recipients’ negative social reactions. Following the intervention, there were significant decreases in anticipated negative social reactions, and significant increases in anticipated positive social reactions, to disclosures of IPV and SV. We believe such programming should include discussion of disclosures of UPBs as well. In addition, administering such programs universally could potentially influence more positive social norms about violence. Community members, parents, and formal supports all play an important role in the recovery of survivors of violence that can ultimately aid in limiting the negative effects of violence on our campuses and broader communities. Importantly, however, hearing of victimization from close friends and peers likely affects disclosure recipients as well. Thus, in addition to supplying information about the influence of their responses on the survivor’s well-being, future programs should consider educating disclosure recipients on the possibility of compassion fatigue or emotional burnout, which bears the potential of affecting responses or the ability to remain supportive, sympathetic, or empathetic.

Disclosure is a vulnerable personal decision; if the survivor is not met with positive support, it may have adverse effects on their self-esteem or sense of trust, and it may discourage future disclosure (e.g., Ahrens, 2006). Based on the present results, a woman who has experienced UPB victimization will be more likely to disclose to close friends and family, and less likely to seek out services from mental health professionals. This is concerning, as UPB victimization is associated with PTSD and other mental health outcomes (Dardis et al., 2019; Basile et al., 2004), for which survivors may benefit from counseling. In addition, given that negative reactions may increase PTSD symptoms, it is possible that the very women who could benefit most from treatment may be the most reticent to disclose to mental health professionals. We offer a few suggestions derived from a trauma-informed care approach (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2014). First, clinicians should be aware that women may not identify themselves as victims; behaviorally specific questions about victimization should be asked (e.g., “Did you find that your former partner ever contacted you or pursued you in unwanted ways?”). In addition, effective therapy hinges on empathy and a strong alliance between the clinician and client (Wampold, 2015); thus, clinicians should carefully attend to rapport building and build relationships characterized by trust and safety, empowering survivors to disclose openly, without judgment. While considering sources of social support in a survivor’s environment, clinicians should pay careful attention to the survivor’s preferences of to whom they disclose and empower them to make these decisions autonomously (Anyikwa, 2016; SAMHSA, 2014), while gently challenging internal conflicts related to self-blame or other negative beliefs that may have been magnified by responses received from informal supports. Mental health professionals should be aware of responses that convey blame assignment to the victim (e.g., “Why didn’t you just delete your Instagram account?”) and instead utilize treatment techniques aimed at shifting responsibility from the victim to the perpetrator. Moreover, given the potentially isolating effects of negative social support, addressing coping mechanisms in treatment can be helpful to assist individuals in managing symptoms, as well as improving their sense of self-efficacy (Pathé, Mullen, & Purcell, 2001; SAMHSA, 2014).

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.

ORCID iD

Christina M. Dardis

Author Biographies

Christina M. Dardis, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology and director of the Laboratory for Interpersonal Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies at Towson University. Research interests include predictors and correlates of stalking and cyberstalking victimization and perpetration, the role of social support in interpersonal violence, empowerment self-defense, and intersections between gender and violence.

Katie R. Davin, MA, received her Master of Arts in the Clinical Psychology program at Towson University. Her research interests are primarily in the realm of societal responses to violence, including factors that predict positive and negative social reactions to sexual assault and unwanted pursuit behaviors, and how social reactions affect survivors’ recovery.

Stephanie B. Lietzau is an undergraduate psychology major at Towson University. Her research interests lie in the negative outcomes of unwanted pursuit behaviors, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and self-injury.

Christine A. Gidycz, PhD, is a professor emerita in the department of psychology at Ohio University and director of the Laboratory for the Study and Prevention of Sexual Assault. Her research interests include predictors and correlates of sexual victimization as well as sexual assault prevention.

References

Ahrens

C. E.

(2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reactions on the disclosure of rape. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 263-274. doi:10.1007/s10464-006-9069-9

Amar

A. F.

(2006). College women’s experience of stalking: Mental health symptoms and changes in routines. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 20, 108-116.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Anyikwa

V. A.

(2016). Trauma-informed approach to survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13, 484-491. doi:10.1080/23761407.2016.1166824

Basile

K. C.

Arias

Desai

Thompson

M. P.

(2004). The differential association of intimate partner physical, sexual, psychological, and stalking violence and posttraumatic stress symptoms in a nationally representative sample of women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 413-421.

Brewin

C. R.

Andrews

Valentine

J. D.

(2000). Meta-analysis of risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 748-766.

Buhi

E. R.

Clayton

Surrency

H. H.

(2009). Stalking victimization among college women and subsequent help-seeking behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 57, 419-426. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.4.419-426

Burke

S. C.

Wallen

Vail-Smith

Knox

(2011). Using technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1162-1167. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031

Chan

H. C.

Sheridan

(2020). Is this stalking? Perceptions of stalking behavior among young male and female adults in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(19-20), 3710-3734. doi:10.1177/0886260517711180

10.

Dardis

C. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2017). The frequency and perceived impact of engaging in in-person and cyber unwanted pursuit after relationship break-up among college men and women. Sex Roles, 76, 56-72. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0667-1

11.

Dardis

C. M.

Shipherd

J. C.

Iverson

K. M.

(2017). Intimate partner violence among women veterans by sexual orientation. Women & Health, 57, 775-791. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2016.1202884.

12.

Dardis

C. M.

Strauss

C. V.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2019). The psychological toll of unwanted pursuit behaviors and intimate partner violence on undergraduate women: A dominance analysis. Psychology of Violence, 9, 209-220. doi: 10.1037/vio0000189

13.

De Smet

Loeys

Buysse

. (2012). Post-breakup unwanted pursuit: A refined analysis of the role of romantic relationship characteristics. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 437-452. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9437-1

14.

De Smet

Uzieblo

Loeys

Buysse

Onraedt

. (2015). Unwanted pursuit behavior after breakup: Occurrence, risk factors, and gender differences. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 753-767. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9687-9

15.

Dutton

L. B.

Winstead

B. A.

(2006). Predicting unwanted pursuit: Attachment, relationship satisfaction, relationship alternatives, and break-up distress. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 565-586. doi:10.1177/0265407506065984

16.

Dutton

L. B.

Winstead

B. A.

(2011). Types, frequency, and effectiveness of responses to unwanted pursuit and stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1129-1156.

17.

Edwards

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

(2020). Disclosure recipients’ social reactions to victims’ disclosures of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(1-2), 53-76. doi:10.1177/0886260516681155

18.

Edwards

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2015). Informal social reactions to college women’s disclosure of intimate partner violence: Associations with psychological and relational variables. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 25-44. doi:10.1177/0886260514532524

19.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Neal

A. M.

(2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5, 112-121. doi:10.1037/a0038656

20.

Edwards

K. M.

Ullman

S. E.

(2018). Preliminary data on an intervention to reduce negative social reactions to victims’ disclosures. Journal of College Student Development, 59, 105-110.

21.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6-38.

22.

Fissel

E. R.

(2021). The reporting and help-seeking behaviors of cyberstalking victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11-12), 5075-5100. doi:10.1177/0886260518801942

23.

Flicker

S. M.

Cerulli

Swogger

M. T.

Talbot

N. L.

(2012). Depressive and posttraumatic symptoms among women seeking protection orders against intimate partners: Relations to coping strategies and perceived responses to abuse disclosure. Violence Against Women, 18, 420-436. doi:10.1177/1077801212448897

24.

Flicker

S. M.

Cerulli

Zhao

Tang

Watts

Xia

Talbot

N. L.

(2011). Concomitant forms of abuse and help-seeking behavior among White, African American, and Latina women who experience intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 17, 1067-1085. doi:10.1177/1077801211414846

25.

Fox

K. A.

Nobles

M. R.

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Method behind the madness: An examination of stalking measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 74-84. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.12.004

26.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

27.

Jordan

C. E.

Wilcox

Pritchard

A. J.

(2007). Stalking acknowledgement and reporting among college women experiencing intrusive behaviors: Implications for the emergence of a “classic stalking case.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 556-569. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.07.008

28.

Kamphuis

J. H.

Emmelkamp

P. M.

Bartak

(2003). Individual differences in post-traumatic stress following post-intimate stalking: Stalking severity and psychosocial variables. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 145-156. doi:10.1348/014466503321903562

29.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Palarea

(2006). Unwanted Pursuit Behavior Inventory—Victim. In Thompson

M. P.

Basile

K. C.

Hertz

M. F.

Sitterle

(Eds.), Measuring intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization: A compendium of assessment tools (1st ed., pp. 148-149). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

30.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Palarea

R. E.

Cohen

Rohling

M. L.

(2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and Victims, 15, 73-90.

31.

Levendosky

A. A.

Bogat

G. A.

Theran

S. A.

Trotter

J. S.

von Eye

Davidson

W. S.

II . (2004). The social networks of women experiencing domestic violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 95-109. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040149.58847.10

32.

Littleton

H. L.

(2010). The impact of social support and negative disclosure reactions on sexual assault victims: A cross-sectional and longitudinal investigation. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 11, 210-217. doi:10.1080/15299730903502946

33.

Najdowski

C. J.

Ullman

S. E.

(2011). The effects of revictimization on coping and depression in female sexual assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24, 218-221. doi:10.1002/jts.20610

34.

Nguyen

L. K.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Lee

C. M.

(2012). Coping with obsessive relational intrusion and stalking: The role of social support and coping strategies. Violence and Victims, 27, 414-433.

35.

Ozer

E. J.

Best

S. R.

Lipsey

T. L.

Weiss

D. S.

(2003). Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder and symptoms in adults: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 52-73. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.52

36.

Pathé

Mullen

P. E.

Purcell

(2001). Management of victims of stalking. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 7, 399-406. doi:10.1192/apt.7.6.399

37.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Ullman

S. E.

(2014). Social reactions to sexual assault disclosure and problem drinking: Mediating effects of perceived control and PTSD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1418-1437. doi:10.1177/0886260513507137

38.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2010). The stalking victim’s decision to contact the police: A test of Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s theory of criminal justice decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 998-1005. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.001

39.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2014). Informal and formal help-seeking decisions of stalking victims in the United States. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1178-1194.

40.

Schackner

J. N.

Weiss

N. H.

Edwards

K. M.

Sullivan

T. P.

(2021). Social reactions to IPV disclosure and PTSD symptom severity: Assessing avoidant coping as a mediator. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), 508-526. doi:10.1177/0886260517727493

41.

Sheridan

Arianayagam

Chan

H. C.

(2019). Perceptions and experiences of intrusive behavior and stalking within a culture. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25, 381-395. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2018.1529233

42.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 64-86. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001

43.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

Ciceraro

L. D. L.

(2010). Sex differences in stalking and obsessive relational intrusion: Two meta-analyses. Partner Abuse, 1, 259-285. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.259

44.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

45.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Trauma-informed care in behavioral health services (TIP Series 57). Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved from https://store.samhsa.gov/product/TIP-57-Trauma-Informed-Care-in-Behavioral-Health-Services/SMA14-4816

46.

Sylaska

K. M.

Edwards

K. M.

(2014). Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 3-21. doi:10.1177/1524838013496335

47.

Turell

S. C.

Herrmann

M. M.

(2008). “Family” support for family violence: Exploring community support systems for lesbian and bisexual women who have experienced abuse. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12, 211-224. doi:10.1080/10894160802161372

48.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996). Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 505-526. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00319.x

49.

Ullman

S. E.

(2000). Psychometric characteristics of the Social Reactions Questionnaire. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 257-271. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00208.x

50.

Ullman

S. E.

(2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

51.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

(2001). Predictors of PTSD symptom severity and social reactions in sexual assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 369-389. doi:10.1023/A:1011125220522

52.

Ullman

S. E.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

(2016). Longitudinal relationships of social reactions, PTSD, and revictimization in sexual assault survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1074-1094. doi:10.1177/0886260514564069

53.

Ullman

S. E.

Townsend

S. M.

Filipas

H. H.

Starzynski

L. L.

(2007). Structural models of the relations of assault severity, social support, avoidance coping, self-blame, and PTSD among sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 23-37.

54.

Walters

Chen

Breiding

(2011). National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

55.

Wampold

B. E.

(2015). How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World Psychiatry, 14, 270-277. doi:10.1002/wps.20238

56.

Weiss

D. S.

Marmar

C. R.

(1997). The Impact of Event Scale–Revised (IES-R). In Wilson

J. P.

Keane

T. M.

(Eds.), Assessing Psychological trauma and PTSD: A practitioner’s handbook (pp. 399-411). New York, NY: Guilford Press.