Predictors of Disclosure Recipients’ Social Reactions to Victims’ Disclosures of Dating and Sexual Violence: A Longitudinal Study of College Students

Abstract

Dating violence (DV) and sexual violence (SV) are pernicious issues among college students that lead to deleterious outcomes, which are more likely when victims receive more negative social reactions (e.g., blaming the victim) and fewer positive social reactions to disclosure (e.g., providing emotional support). Most research studies have examined victims’ reports of social reactions to their assault disclosures, with only a few cross-sectional studies of predictors of disclosure recipients’ provision of positive and negative social reactions to victims. The purpose of the current study was to address these gaps in the literature. Participants were 481 college students (76.4% women, 89.2% White/Non-Hispanic) who reported being a disclosure recipient during the past six months (measured at Time 2 to cross-sectionally and longitudinally predict their social reactions to victims’ disclosures). Results suggested that both victim and disclosure recipient characteristics (e.g., gender, race), disclosure recipient perceptions of victims (e.g., empathy for victim, blame of victim, victims’ coping) and both disclosure recipient and victim behavior at the time of disclosure (e.g., drinking, distress) were related to disclosure recipient social reactions. These findings underscore the need for programs for potential informal disclosure recipients that target psychological variables (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder) and behavior at the time of disclosure, as well as their perceptions of victims more generally, in addition to improving their knowledge and ability to respond with positive social reactions and avoid negative social reactions.

Keywords

disclosure of domestic violence domestic violence reporting/disclosure sexual assault alcohol and drugs

Research continues to document the concerning rates of dating violence (DV) and sexual violence (SV) among college students (Banyard et al., 2013; Krebs et al., 2009; Straus, 2004). Dating and sexual violence (DSV) are related to a host of deleterious outcomes including mental health problems, physical and sexual health problems, and negative academic outcomes (Banyard et al., 2017; Carey et al., 2018; Kelley & Gidycz, 2017; Tansill et al., 2012). However, these deleterious outcomes are not inevitable.

Research suggests that the majority of victims disclose their sexual assaults to another individual, most commonly a friend or a family member (Sylaska & Edwards, 2014). The responses that victims receive to their disclosures have profound impacts on psychosocial and behavioral health outcomes. More specifically, individuals who receive negative social reactions (e.g., blaming the victim, not believing the victim, egocentric responses) in response to their disclosures report higher levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, problem drinking, and revictimization (Dworkin et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2015; Sigurvinsdottir & Ullman, 2015; Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2016). The literature is mixed regarding the impact of positive social reactions (e.g., believing the victim, offering tangible and emotional support) on victim recovery, with a recent meta-analysis finding that, whereas actual positive social reactions do not appear to be protective (Dworkin et al., 2019), perceptions that the reactions were positive were associated with less psychopathology.

Although a large body of literature has documented outcomes of various social reactions received in samples of victims (Dworkin et al., 2019), far less research has focused on understanding social reactions from the perspective of disclosure recipients (Edwards & Dardis, 2016). Moreover, preliminary research suggests that there is a disconnect between victim and significant others’ reports of social reactions, such that there is more agreement for positive social reactions but not negative social reactions (Davis & Brickman, 1996). Understanding the factors that predict negative and positive social reactions in disclosure recipients is sorely needed and can provide critical information that can be used to tailor intervention efforts for informal supports (used interchangeably with disclosure recipients). The purpose of the current study was to address this gap in the literature by utilizing a longitudinal methodology to assess predictors of disclosure recipients’ social reactions to victims of DSV in a sample of college students.

Theoretical Framework

The current study is guided by attribution theory, which has been used in a number of contexts to understand helping behaviors (Rudolph et al., 2004; Weiner, 1986, 1995). Attribution theory asserts that willingness to help a peer is most likely to occur when there are low attributions of responsibility for the individual’s negative circumstance and high levels of empathy. On the contrary, when there are high attributions of responsibility for the individual’s negative circumstance and low levels of empathy, helping is less likely to occur (Rudolph et al., 2004). In an attempt to expand attribution theory, Rudolph et al. (2004) suggested the inclusion of other factors that may be related to willingness to help such as the closeness of the relationship between the individual asking for help as well as the emotions of the person in need of help and the individual helping. Similar to previous research (Edwards & Dardis, 2016), we sought to further expand attribution theory to include additional constructs. More specifically, we sought to describe the frequency with which disclosure recipient–specific (i.e., gender, race, sexual orientation, age, DSV victimization history, PTSD, general alcohol use, victim empathy, and victim blame), victim-specific (i.e., gender, age, perceptions of how upset the victim has been during the past month, perceptions of how well the victim is coping with the experience), relationship-specific (i.e., victim-perpetrator closeness, disclosure recipient-victim closeness), and situation-specific (i.e., victim alcohol use at the time of the assault, victim distress at the time of the disclosure, victim alcohol use at the time of the disclosure, disclose recipient alcohol use at the time of the disclosure) variables that theory and/or research (the vast majority of which is cross-sectional) suggest are related to disclosure recipients’ social reactions to DSV disclosures (Edwards & Dardis, 2016; Kirkner et al., 2018; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014; Ullman, 2010; West & Wandrei, 2002).

Studies With Disclosure Recipients

We are aware of a handful of studies to date that have assessed correlates of disclosure recipients’ social reaction to DSV disclosures. In the only known study of college students that assessed actual social reactions, researchers documented that positive social reactions were cross-sectionally related to victim-specific characteristics (i.e., the victim being a woman, greater frequency of DV victimization), disclosure recipient–specific characteristics (i.e., greater frequency of DV victimization by the disclosure recipient, less accepting attitudes toward DV, lower perceptions of victim responsibility, more empathy for the victim), relationship-specific variables (i.e., a closer relationship with the victim, a less close relationship with the perpetrator), and one situation-specific variable (i.e., more emotional distress experienced by the disclosure recipient during the disclosure) (Edwards & Dardis, 2016). Conversely, negative social reactions were cross-sectionally associated with a combination of these factors, including disclosure recipient–specific factors (i.e., more accepting attitudes toward DV, higher perceptions of victim responsibility, greater frequency of DV victimization by the disclosure recipient), a less close relationship with the victim (relationship-specific), and more emotional distress experienced by the disclosure recipient (situation-specific) (Edwards & Dardis, 2016). However, victim-specific factors (e.g., victim’s gender or DV victimization frequency) were not significantly associated with negative social reactions. In a study that examined hypothetical reactions to a videotaped DV scenario among college students, West and Wandrei (2002) found that high perceived victim provocation and DV-accepting attitudes predicted greater victim blame and lower intentions to provide helpful intervention.

Extending beyond research with college students, Beeble et al. (2008) found, via a telephone survey with adults across 20 communities, that prior victimization and witnessing domestic violence as a child predicted likelihood of assisting others. Beeble et al. (2008) also found that victims were more likely to be helped by women, younger individuals, individuals who supported criminal justice interventions for perpetrators, and individuals who felt that domestic violence occurred frequently in their community, all providing further evidence that disclosure recipient–specific demographic and attitudinal factors may influence social reactions. Finally, Davis et al. (1995) found in a qualitative study of informal supports that informal supports’ distress predicted more unsupportive behaviors toward the victims (e.g., withdrawing from the victim).

Studies With Victims

In contrast to the relative dearth of studies examining disclosure recipients’ perceptions of social reactions, a number of studies with victims have examined how various victim-specific factors relate to receipt of negative and positive social reactions (as perceived by the victim). First, among a sample of 323 sexual assault victims, ethnic minority victims received more negative social reactions than did ethnic majority victims (Ullman & Filipas, 2001). In addition, one study found that women who experienced more severe sexual victimization received more negative social reactions to sexual assault (Ullman & Filipas, 2001); this is in contrast to the study above on disclosure recipients, in which victim-specific characteristics did not emerge as significant predictors of negative social reactions to DV (Edwards & Dardis, 2016). In a study with abused women residing at a domestic violence shelter, Goodkind et al. (2003) found that perceived reactions were related to the woman’s relationship with the assailant as well as perceptions of the victim’s well-being. Similarly, there is some research suggesting that more distressed victims may receive more negative social reactions. For example, in a longitudinal study of women recruited from DV, cases reported to law enforcement. DePrince et al. (2014) found that the victims’ PTSD symptom severity predicted one year later their perceptions of receiving negative social reactions from disclosure recipients. Paralleling these results, Ullman and Peter-Hagene (2016) studied sexual assault victims over three years and found PTSD symptoms predicted subsequent social reactions to disclosure and revictimized women had more PTSD symptoms and negative social reactions. Furthermore, in another longitudinal study of sexual assault victims, characterological but not behavioral self-blame predicted fewer positive reactions over time, whereas neither type of self-blame predicted negative social reactions over a one-year follow-up (Ullman & Najdowski, 2011).

Whereas situation-specific characteristics have not been frequently assessed in prior studies, among a sample of victims, Ullman and Filipas (2001) found that a greater extent of disclosure was related to fewer negative social reactions and more positive social reactions. Telling more people was related to more of all types of social reactions.

Finally, studies assessing victims’ perceptions of social reactions have infrequently focused on disclosure recipient–specific demographic factors; however, these studies have focused primarily on gender. For example, Bonnan-White et al. (2018) found in a study of college student victims that female disclosure recipients were more likely than male disclosure recipients to offer emotional support, distraction, and tangible aid. This echoes findings from other studies that women generally respond more positively and less negatively than men to DSV disclosures (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Iles et al., 2018). However, not all studies have documented associations between disclosure recipient gender and social reactions to disclosure (Edwards & Dardis, 2016). To our knowledge, no research has examined how disclosure recipient sexual orientation relates to the types of social reactions provided to victim disclosure.

The Role of Alcohol

In addition to more general positive and negative social reactions, more recent research has begun to examine alcohol-specific negative and positive social reactions. The majority of DSV incidents involve alcohol (Friend et al., 2011; Walsh et al., 2010). Alcohol-specific social reactions differ from general social reactions because they are specific to the survivor’s pre-assault alcohol use (Relyea & Ullman, 2015b). For example, a general negative social reaction might involve blaming the survivor for precipitating the assault, whereas a negative alcohol-specific social reaction would blame the survivor specifically because she was drinking prior to the assault. Alcohol-involved victimization experiences and more general problem drinking by victims are both related to increased negative social reactions, as reported by victims (Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2013; Ullman & Najdowski, 2011), although a study of college students did not show differences in social reactions by pre-assault drinking or level of intoxication (Littleton et al., 2009).

Consistent with attribution theory, disclosure recipients attribute more blame to victims if they were drinking at the time of the assault or are heavier drinkers in general (Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2013). By contrast, receipt of positive alcohol-specific social reactions was related to less self-blame (Relyea & Ullman, 2015b), indicating a possible protective effect of explicit non-blaming responses to drinking victims. In an exploratory study of 387 women disclosing pre-assault drinking (Lorenz & Ullman, 2016), those with more education and more violent assaults (i.e., victim-specific factors) received more negative alcohol-specific social reactions. These reactions were more common for those telling parents, police, or medical professionals. Women with less education received more positive and negative alcohol-specific social reactions. Disclosing pre-assault drinking in greater detail was related to positive alcohol-specific social reactions and greater alcohol impairment during assault was related to positive and negative alcohol-specific social reactions, suggesting a role of situation-specific factors in alcohol-related reactions as well.

To date, no research to our knowledge has examined how disclosure recipient alcohol use (in general) relates to the types of social reactions provided, nor has research examined how disclosure recipient alcohol use at the time of the disclosure(s) relates to the types of social reactions provided. Understanding these alcohol-related variables and their relationship to social reactions, especially from the perspective of disclosure recipients, could provide critical information to inform programming for disclosure recipients especially among college students where alcohol use is high (Slutske, 2005; White & Hingson, 2013).

Study Aims and Hypotheses

To date, a myriad of studies has examined correlates of social reactions. However, with a few exceptions much of this research has included victims, instead of disclosure recipients, and been cross-sectional instead of longitudinal. Understanding social reactions and predictors of social reactions from the perspectives of disclosure recipients is critical to inform programming with disclosure recipients to decrease negative social reactions and increase positive social reactions. Moreover, the fact that we examined many variables as prospective predictors of social reactions provides a more nuanced understanding of the temporal sequencing of variables under study. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to examine how various disclosure recipient–specific, victim-specific, relationship-specific, and situation-specific variables predict disclosure recipients’ responses to victim disclosure of DSV.

More specifically, we sought to describe the frequency with which disclosure recipients reported providing negative (general and alcohol-specific) and positive (general and alcohol-specific) social reactions in addition to descriptive information about disclosure recipient– specific (i.e., gender, race, sexual orientation, age, DSV victimization history, PTSD, general alcohol use, victim empathy, victim blame), victim-specific (i.e., gender, age, perceptions of how upset the victim has been during the past month, perceptions of how well the victim is coping with the experience), relationship-specific (i.e., victim-perpetrator closeness, disclosure recipient-victim closeness), and situation-specific variables (i.e., victim alcohol use at the time of the assault, victim distress at the time of the disclosure, victim alcohol use at the time of the disclosure, disclose recipient alcohol use at the time of the disclosure; Aim 1). Furthermore, we sought to examine the bivariate correlations among negative (general and alcohol-specific) and positive (general and alcohol-specific) social reactions and disclosure recipient–specific, victim-specific, relationship-specific, and situation-specific variables (Aim 2). Finally, using multiple regression analyses, we endeavored to identify the most robust predictors (i.e., disclosure recipient–specific, victim-specific, relationship-specific, and situation-specific variables) of negative (general and alcohol-specific) and positive (general and alcohol-specific) social reactions (Aim 3).

With regard to Aim 2, we hypothesized that compared to male disclosure recipients, female disclosure recipients would be more likely to provide positive social reactions and less likely to provide negative social reactions. We further hypothesized that the disclosure recipients’ victimization history would be positively related to more positive social reactions and less negative social reactions. We expected the following variables to be associated with more favorable responses to disclosure (i.e., more positive and fewer negative reactions): disclosure recipients’ victimization history, female gender, victim empathy, and closer relationships between victims and disclosure recipients. We expected the following variables to be associated with less favorable responses to disclosure (i.e., fewer positive and more negative reactions): victim blame, victim distress during disclosure, and victim alcohol use (both at the time of the assault and at the time of disclosure). Finally, we hypothesized the victim alcohol use (both at the time of the assault and at the time of the disclosure) would be related to more negative and fewer positive social reactions. For other variables (i.e., age, sexual orientation, perceptions of coping, disclosure recipient alcohol use), given the dearth of research, we did not venture a priori hypotheses. We did not have specific a priori hypotheses for Aim 3.

Method

Procedures

These data are part of a larger study assessing the impact of an intervention that trained individuals on how to respond to disclosures of DSV. Participants were recruited for the initial survey, and subsequently, if randomized to the intervention group, they were invited to the intervention. Given the intervention had no main effect on actual social reactions, we elected to include both treatment and control group participants in this article. Nevertheless, we controlled for condition in all models.

The study took place at a residential, medium-sized public university in the northeastern United States and received approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board. The university’s dean of students sent emails to randomly selected, full-time, undergraduate students on the behalf of the researchers. These emails were sent via mass email to 7,000 students in four batches across four weeks in the fall of 2018. Emails included information about the study and a direct link to an online (Qualtrics) survey. The email informed students that the survey was 20 minutes long and would ask about how they may have helped friends with difficult sexual and/or relationship experiences. Students who did not respond to this initial email were sent one to two reminder emails across two weeks for those who had not yet completed their survey.

We also sent an email from the research team to all professors at the university with classes greater than 60 students (n = 205), as identified by the course catalog. We provided all university professors study information with recruitment messaging. At least 11 professors confirmed with us that they forwarded information to their students, mostly by email, although it is likely that more did so without responding back to the research team. Upon professors’ request, we visited approximately five classrooms to pass on the information. Finally, we posted fliers in residence halls and other shared spaces about the study.

Overall, 1,831 students started the survey, of which 1,268 qualified for, consented to, and completed the survey. Of our final 1,268 participants, 78.4% (n = 994) were recruited via official email from the dean of students, 14.4% (n = 183) were recruited via a friend (i.e., a friend forwarded the study information), 4.9% (n = 62) were recruited via professors, 1.3% (n = 16) were recruited via fliers, 0.6% (n = 8) were recruited via the website, and 0.4% (n = 5) were recruited in another way (e.g., “Facebook”).

Participants first completed the baseline survey (Time 1). The follow-up survey (Time 2) occurred approximately 6 months after the baseline survey. We sent participants up to eight total text, email, and call reminders regarding the Time 2 survey. Of the 1,268 baseline participants, 889 participants completed the Time 2 survey, for a response rate of 70.1%. Participants were compensated with a US$15 gift card for completing Time 1 and a US$25 gift card for completing Time 2.

Participants

In the current article, we included 481 participants¹ (all undergraduates) who reported receiving a disclosure in the six months prior to the follow-up survey. The mean age of these 481 participants was 19.8 (age range 18–24, SD = 1.2). Of the sample, 25.2% were in their first year (n = 121), 26.2% second year (n = 126), 23.9% third year (n = 115), 23.7% fourth year (n = 115), and 1.0% fifth year or beyond (n = 5). Three-quarters of students identified as a woman (76.4%; n = 365), 23.6% identified as a man (n = 113), and 0.6% identified as gender variant and/or gender queer (n = 3). Participants were 91.2% White (n = 437), 4.0% Asian/Asian American (n = 19), 1.5% Black/African American (n = 7), 0.2% American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 1), and 3.1% Multiracial (n = 15). Moreover, 4.4% were Hispanic/Latino (n = 21). Compared to the general population demographics of the university, women were over-represented in the current study (the university is 55% women) and the racial composition was comparable (the university is 9% non-White students). Participants were 85.9% heterosexual/straight (n = 413), 7.5% bisexual (n = 36), 1.9% not sure (n = 9), 1.7% gay (n = 8), 1.0% lesbian (n = 5), 1.0% asexual (n = 5), 0.6% pansexual (n = 3), and 0.4% identified with another sexual orientation (e.g., demisexual; n = 2).

Participant attrition analysis

We conducted a series of chi-square and t-test analyses to compare, in general, participants who completed the Time 2 survey with participants not completing the Time 2 survey on Time 1 constructs. Prior to Bonferroni correction (Bland & Altman, 1995), at baseline, participants completing the Time 2 survey were more likely to be women, less likely to be a DV victim during their lifetime, less likely to be a SV victim during their lifetime, gave less negative social reactions, gave less negative alcohol-related reactions, and reported less victim blame. Groups did not differ on other variables.

Measures

Demographics

At Time 1, participants reported their age, race, and ethnicity (coded so 1 = White/non-Hispanic, 0 = non-White and/or Hispanic), year in college, gender (coded so 1 = man, 0 = woman), and sexual orientation (coded so 1 = sexual minority, 0 = heterosexual).

SV victimization

At Time 1, participants responded to two questions asking if they had ever, in their lifetime, experienced unwanted sexual contact or unwanted sexual intercourse (0 = no, 1 = yes), with the questions (Banyard et al., 2007), “In your lifetime, have you had sexual contact with someone when you didn’t want to?” and “In your lifetime, have you had sexual intercourse with someone when you didn’t want to?” Sexual intercourse was defined as “any form of sexual penetration including vaginal intercourse, oral sex, and anal intercourse,” and sexual contact was defined as “touching of genitals without a person’s permission (but there is no penetration).” Unwanted sexual intercourse/contact was defined as “those situations in which you were certain at the time that you did not want to engage in the sexual experience and you either communicated this in some way (e.g., you said no, you protested, you said you did not want to, you physically struggled, you cried), or you were intimidated or forced by someone or you were incapacitated (e.g., drunk, passed out).”

DV victimization

At Time 1, participants responded to four questions asking if they had ever, in their lifetime, experienced verbal, physical, or psychological DV (0 = no, 1 = yes), for example, “My partner insulted or swore or shouted or yelled at me.” These questions were taken from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus & Douglas, 2004).

Victim empathy and blame

At Time 1, participants responded to two items created for the current study on a scale from 1 =strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree: “I feel empathy for victims of intimate partner abuse and sexual assault. (Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.),” and “Victims of intimate partner abuse and sexual assault are at least partly responsible for what happened to them.”

Post-traumatic stress symptoms

At Time 1, participants responded to the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (Weathers et al., 2013). Participants who reported DSV in their lifetime answered questions about the most traumatic/emotional/intense experience of DSV in their lifetime, whereas participants who did not report DSV answered questions about the most traumatic/stressful experience in their lifetime. Twenty items such as “How much were you bothered by repeated, disturbing, and unwanted memories of the stressful experience?” were asked about the past month. Response items ranged from 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely. Final score was a sum of items. Reliability was α = .95 at Time 1.

Self-care

Participants responded to nine items (Hamby & Taylor, 2018) such as “Most days I take time to relax by spending time outside” and “At the end of a long day, I have ways to relax.” Response items ranged from 1 = not true about me to 4 = mostly true about me. Final score was a sum of items. Reliability was α = .65 at Time 1.

Alcohol use

At Time 1, participants were asked, “In the past 30 days, have you ever, even just one time, consumed any kind of alcoholic beverage?” Response options were 0 = no and 1 = yes. Standard drinks were defined for participants (e.g., 12 oz. beer, 5 oz. wine). Participants responded to the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ; Collins et al., 1985), which assesses the average number of drinks for each day of a typical week in the past 30 days (0 to 25+ drinks).

Experiences of disclosure and social reactions

At Time 2, participants responded to the item, “In the past six months, has someone (e.g., friend, acquaintance, family member, dating/romantic partner) told you they experienced any of the following?” This item was followed by 3 SV items (e.g., “someone [including, but not limited to, a romantic partner] used physical force, threats of physical force, alcohol/drugs to incapacitated to have sexual intercourse [oral, anal, vaginal]”) and 13 items of physical, verbal, and psychological DV (e.g., “their partner threw something at them,” “their partner refused to talk to them,” “their partner monitored their phone, email, social media account). Participants who received a disclosure (disclosure recipients) were asked how many disclosures they received. Because a second part of the study involved recruiting these disclosing survivors, we asked participants to answer the subsequent questions about a person who is over 18 and who was a student at the university where the study was held, if applicable.

Characteristics of victim and disclosure

At Time 2, disclosure recipients responded to questions about victim gender, age, how upset the victim has been (“In the past month, how upset has [initials] been about what happened to them?” from a scale of 1 = not at all upset to 5 = very upset), and how well the victim has been coping (“In the past month, how well, in general, has [initials] been dealing with what happened to them?” from a scale of 1 = very poorly to 5 = very well). These questions also included the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator when the victims’ DSV experience took place (coded so 1 = casual, serious, or ex-romantic partner, 0 = other), whether the victim had been drinking when the experience happened (coded so 1 = yes, 0 = no), how the disclosure happened (coded so 1 = they approached me, 0 = I approached them), the relationship between the victim and the disclosure recipient (coded so 1 = close friends or family, 0 = other), whether the victim was drinking at time of disclosure (coded so 1 = yes, 0 = no), and whether the disclosure recipient was drinking at time of disclosure (coded so 1 = yes, 0 = no).

Social reactions

At Time 2, participants responded to an initial version of the Social Reactions Questionnaire- Shortened (Relyea & Ullman, 2015b; Ullman et al., 2014). We performed exploratory factor analyses with half the sample, which suggested a two-factor solution. We then performed confirmatory factor analyses to confirm the two-factor solution. The two factors were negative reactions (10 items; e.g., “told them that they were irresponsible or not cautious enough”; “tried to take control of what they did/decisions they made”) and positive reactions (4 items; e.g., “listened to their feelings”). Response items ranged from 1 = never/extremely unlikely to 5 = always/extremely likely. Final score on the subscales was a mean of items. Reliability was α = .83 at Time 1 and α = .85 at Time 2 for negative reactions, and α = .70 at Time 1 and α = .70 at Time 2 for positive reactions.

Participants also responded to the Social Reactions Questionnaire-Alcohol (Relyea & Ullman, 2015a). This questionnaire includes two subscales: negative alcohol reactions (six items; e.g., “told them the experience was their fault because they were drinking when it happened”) and positive alcohol reactions (two items; e.g., “said that they should have been able to go out and have a drink without worrying about something like that happening”). Response items ranged from 1 = never/extremely unlikely to 5 = always/extremely likely. Final score on the subscales was a mean of items. Reliability was α = .89 at Time 1 and α = .89 at Time 2 for negative, and α = .57 at Time 1 and α = .61 at Time 2 for positive reactions.

Data Analysis Plan

For Aim 1, we conducted descriptive analyses to report the range, means, and standard deviations for continuous variables of interest and frequencies for categorical variables. Regarding Aim 2, we conducted Pearson’s r correlations. Finally, for Aim 3, we conducted linear regression analyses. Given the large number of independent variables in the regression analyses we only included those that were related at the bivariate level to each dependent variable (i.e., social reactions). Effect sizes for regression analyses are considered large if R² was greater than .25.

Results

Aim 1: Descriptive Statistics

Disclosure recipients reported providing more positive social reactions than negative social reactions, with the average positive general and alcohol-specific reactions being 3.93 and 3.07 on a scale from 1 to 5, and the average negative general and alcohol-specific reactions being 1.29 and 1.16 (Table 1). Furthermore, on average, empathy was high, whereas victim blame was low. With regard to the type of violence experienced by victims, 55.5% of participants (n = 481) received a disclosure in the six months prior to the follow-up survey; 16.8% of participants received a disclosure of SV (n = 149), 49.4% of participants received a disclosure of DV (n = 439), 12.3% of participants received disclosures of both DV and SV (n = 107).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables.

Variable	M	SD	Range
Negative social reactions (general)	1.29	0.46	1.00−4.10
Positive social reactions (general)	3.93	0.75	1.00−5.00
Negative social reactions (alcohol-specific)	1.26	0.51	1.00−3.56
Positive social reactions (alcohol-specific)	3.07	1.40	1.00−5.00
PTSD (DR)	15.33	15.71	0.00−66.00
Self-care (DR)	12.69	4.37	1.00−25.00
Empathy (DR)	4.30	0.96	1.00−5.00
Victim blame (DR)	1.73	1.10	1.00−5.00
Alcohol (DR)	7.76	7.77	1.00−41.00
Age (V)	22.24	2.50	16.00−51.00
Past month upset (V)	2.39	1.88	1.00−5.00
Adjustment (V)	3.79	1.06	1.00−5.00
Upset at time of disclosure (V)	3.23	1.16	1.00−5.00

Note. Disclosure recipient demographic information is reported in the “Participant” section of the article. DR = disclosure recipient, V = victim.

Regarding other categorical variables, 44.0% of disclosure recipients reported lifetime DV, and 42.4% of disclosure recipients reported lifetime SV. Furthermore, 18.5% of disclosure recipients reported disclosures from men. Regarding relationship-specific variables, 72.3% of disclosure recipients reported that the perpetrator was a romantic partner. Seventy percent of disclosure recipients reported that their relationship with the victim was close friends or family, as opposed to another relationship such as acquaintances, strangers, or coworkers. In terms of alcohol, 36.9% of victims were drinking at the time of the DSV situation, 17.7% of victims were drinking during the disclosure experience, and 11.4% of disclosure recipients were drinking during the disclosure experience. Finally, 22.0% of disclosure recipients reported that they approached the victim, and 78.0% of disclosure recipients reported that the victim approached them.

Aim 2: Correlates

At the bivariate level, negative social reactions (general) were associated with several disclosure recipient-specific characteristics (Table 2). For example, negative social reactions (general) were greater among non-white disclosure recipients and disclosure recipients who identified as men. Negative (general) social reactions were also positively associated with disclosure recipient PTSD and disclosure recipient victim blame. Conversely, negative social reactions (general) were inversely related to disclosure recipient empathy and disclosure recipient history of sexual violence victimization. Negative social reactions (general) were also positively associated with several victim-specific characteristics, including the victim being male and the victim being more upset during the past month, and inversely associated with perceptions of victim adjustment. Finally negative social reactions (general) were associated with some situational characteristics, including the victim drinking at the time of disclosure, the disclosure recipient drinking at the time of disclosure, and situations in which the disclosure recipient approached the victim (as opposed to the victim approaching the disclosure recipient).

Table 2.

Correlations Among Social Reactions and Study-Specific Variables.

Independent Variable	Negative SR (General)	Positive SR (General)	Negative SR (Alcohol)	Positive SR (Alcohol)
Condition	.040	.044	.023	−.037
Age (DR)	−.016	.065	.033	.009
White (DR)	−.192*	−.028	−.099	.107
Male (DR)	.138*	−.333*	.244*	−.135
LGBQ+ (DR)	−.073	.125*	−.136	.017
DV (DR)	.035	.095*	.021	.002
SV (DR)	−.135*	.090	−.237*	−.026
PTSD (DR)	.086⁺	.154*	−.003	.035
Self-care (DR)	−.033	.090⁺	.001	.154⁺
Empathy (DR)	−.185*	.082⁺	−.191*	.029
Blame (DR)	.229*	−.118*	.30*	−.247*
Alcohol (DR)	.076	−.059	.190*	.189*
Male (V)	.148*	−.245*	.219*	−.143⁺
Age (V)	−.020	−.136*	−.007	−.035
Upset Initial (V)	.048	.311*	.027	.126
Upset Month (V)	.091*	.188*	−.017	−.043
Adjustment (V)	−.177*	−.053	−.129	.089
V-P Closeness	−.066	.042	−.045	−.231*
V-DR Closeness	.014	.233	−.079	.112
Drinking during assault (V)	−.007	−.091	N/A	N/A
Drinking during disclosure (V)	.238*	−.083⁺	.377*	−.071
Drinking during disclosure (DR)	.227*	−.046	.390	.118*
DR approached V	.132*	−.093⁺	.210*	−.183*

Note. SR = social reactions; DR = disclosure recipient, V = victim, P = perpetrator, DV = intimate partner violence, SV = sexual violence.

p < .05. ⁺p < .10.

Positive social reactions (general) were positively related to several disclosure recipient–specific factors, including the disclosure recipient being a female, the disclosure recipient being a sexual minority, a history of DV (disclosure recipient), disclosure recipient PTSD, disclosure recipient self-care, and disclosure recipient empathy; by contrast, positive social reactions (general) were negatively associated with disclosure recipient victim blame. Positive social reactions were also associated with several victim-specific factors. Whereas older victims and victims who were male received fewer positive social reactions (general), victims who were perceived by disclosure recipients as being more upset (both at the time of disclosure and the past month) received more positive social reactions. Finally, few situation-specific variables were associated with positive social reactions; disclosure recipients provided fewer positive social reactions when victims were drinking at the time of disclosure, and when the disclosure recipient approached the victim (opposed to the victim approaching the disclosure recipient).

Negative social reactions (alcohol-related) were greater in the presence of several disclosure recipient–specific factors, for example, when disclosure recipients were male, did not have sexual violence victimization histories, reported more general alcohol use, and reported lower empathy and higher victim blame. Negative alcohol-related social reactions were also more common when victims were male, and when the victim was drinking during disclosure, and when the disclosure recipient approached the victim (opposed to the victim approaching the disclosure recipient).

Positive social reactions (alcohol-related) were positively associated with several disclosure recipient–specific factors, including disclosure recipients’ self-care, and general alcohol use and negatively associated with victim blame. Positive alcohol-related social reactions were also less common when the victim was a man (victim-specific factor). Positive alcohol-related social reactions were higher when the disclosure recipient was drinking during the disclosure and were less common when the disclosure recipient approached the victim (as opposed to the victim approaching the disclosure recipient). Finally, one relationship-specific factor (i.e., victim-perpetrator closeness) was negatively associated with positive social reactions (alcohol-related).

Aim 3: Predictors

The regression analysis predicting negative social reactions (general) was significant, F (12, 297) = 6.77, p < .001, R² = .22 (Table 3). In the presence of other predictors, three disclosure recipient-specific factors significantly predicted negative social reactions at follow-up. Specifically, the disclosure recipient being non-white predicted greater negative social reactions. Moreover, disclosure recipients who reported greater PTSD symptoms reported more negative social reactions. Disclosure recipients with more victim empathy reported less negative social reactions. Two victim-specific factors were also significantly associated with negative social reactions. Male victims received more negative social reactions and when disclosure recipients perceived the victims as coping poorly, they were more likely to provide negative social reactions. Finally, when disclosure recipients were drinking during the disclosure, they provided more negative social reactions. None of the relationship-specific factors were significantly associated with general negative social reactions.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Social Reactions.

Independent Variable	Negative SR (General) Beta, SE	Positive SR (General) Beta, SE	Negative SR (Alcohol) Beta, SE	Positive SR (Alcohol) Beta, SE
Condition (T1)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Age (DR) (T1)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
White (DR) (T1)	−.133*, .083	N/A	N/A	N/A
Male (DR) (T1)	.066, .065	−.155*, .098	.013, .130	N/A
LGBQ+ (DR) (T1)	N/A	.077, .113	N/A	N/A
DV (DR) (T1)	N/A	.050, .073	N/A	N/A
SV (DR) (T1)	−.068, .050	N/A	−.110, .095	N/A
PTSD (DR) (T1)	.111*, .002	.111*, .003	N/A	N/A
Self-care (DR) (T1)	N/A	.099⁺, .008	N/A	.116, .030
Empathy (DR) (T1)	−.141*, .026	.017, .041	−.067, .051	N/A
Blame (DR) (T1)	.083, .023	−.081, .035	.168⁺, .046	−.260*, .130
Alcohol (DR) (T1)	N/A	N/A	.185, .006	.230*, .016
Male (V) (T2)	.117⁺, .066	−.150*, .107	.082, .135	−.141, .344
Age (V) (T2)	N/A	−.055, .128	N/A	N/A
Upset initial (V) (T2)	N/A	.182*, .036	N/A	N/A
Upset month (V) (T2)	−.024, .025	.079, .035	N/A	N/A
Adjustment (V) (T2)	−.135*, .027	N/A	N/A	N/A
V-P closeness (T2)	N/A	N/A	N/A	−.158⁺, .247
V-DR closeness (T2)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Drinking during assault (V) (T2)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Drinking during disclosure (V) (T2)	.033, .086	−.078, .098	.247*, .099	N/A
Drinking during disclosure (DR) (T2)	.201*, .098	N/A	N/A	.129, .297
DR Approached V (T2)	.072, .059	.029, .094	.119, .107	−.099, .290

Note. Multicollinearity was well within the acceptable range (Hair et al., 1998; Ringle et al., 2015). SR = social reactions; DR = disclosure recipient, V = victim, P = perpetrator, DV = intimate partner violence, SV = sexual violence, T1 = measured at Time 1; T2 = measured at Time 2.

p < .05. ⁺p < .10.

The regression analysis predicting positive social reactions (general) was significant, F (13, 321) = 6.26, p < .001, R² = .21. In the presence of other predictors, three disclosure recipient–specific and two victim-specific factors contributed to general positive social reactions. Disclosure recipients provided more positive social reactions if they identified as a woman. Moreover, disclosure recipients who reported greater PTSD symptoms and engagement in more self-care (marginal) provided more positive social reactions. When the victim was a man, disclosure recipients reported less positive social reactions. When the victim was more upset at the time of the initial disclosure, disclosure recipients reported providing more positive social reactions.

The regression analysis predicting negative social reactions (alcohol-specific) was significant, F (8, 114) = 5.24, p<.001, R² = .28. In the presence of other predictors, disclosure recipients who reported more victim blame and who reported more alcohol use, in general, provided more negative alcohol-related social reactions. Finally, when victims were drinking at the time of the disclosure (situation-specific), disclosure recipients reported more negative alcohol-related social reactions.

The regression analysis predicting positive social reactions (alcohol-specific) was significant, F (7, 118) = 7.00, p<.001, R² = .21. In the presence of other predictors, disclosure recipients who reported less victim blame and more general alcohol use reported more positive alcohol-specific social reactions. Finally, participants who reported that the victim and perpetrator had a closer relationship reported less positive alcohol-specific social reactions.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine how various disclosure recipient–specific, victim-specific, relationship-specific, and situation-specific variables predict disclosure recipients’ responses to victim disclosure of DSV. Although at the bivariate level a number of correlates of various social reactions emerged, regression analyses identified the most robust predictors of negative social reactions (general and alcohol-specific) and positive social reactions (general and alcohol-specific). Overall, negative social reactions were low, and positive social reactions were high, which is promising. Nevertheless, the results suggested that social reactions to victims’ disclosure of DSV are complex and that there was little consistency in the regression models regarding which independent variables predicted the various types of social reactions.

Perceptions of DSV victims were related to some forms of social reactions. More specifically, individuals with less empathy were more likely to provide both general and alcohol-specific negative social reactions, which extends previous cross-sectional research findings on these associations (Edwards & Dardis, 2016). This finding suggests that programs that seek to increase empathy in students may be effective in helping to reduce negative social reactions. Victim blame also predicted more negative social reactions (alcohol-specific) and less positive social reactions (alcohol-specific), which suggests that programs that seek to reduce victim blame in the context of alcohol are sorely needed and may help to reduce negative social reactions and increase positive social reactions.

Demographic variables also emerged as important predictors of some types of social reactions. Disclosure recipients who identified as a race/ethnicity other than White/non-Hispanic were also more likely to provide negative social reactions, suggesting that these individuals may be especially important to target in programming, although future research is needed to better understand and replicate this finding. Participants were also more likely to provide male victims with negative social reactions and less likely to provide them with positive social reactions, which underscores the critical need for skills training around better assisting male victims in addition to addressing myths about male victims of DSV (Turchik & Edwards, 2012).

Psychological variables also predicted various forms of social reactions. More specifically, disclosure recipients’ self-reported PTSD symptoms were predictive of both positive and negative social reactions. It could be that individuals who are higher in distress are more dysregulated, and due to their own trauma histories are trying various forms of reactions when victims disclose instead of providing more consistent positive forms of support. Moreover, it is interesting that when victims were perceived as being upset, they were more likely to receive positive social reactions, but when victims’ adjustment was perceived as being poor, they were more likely to receive negative social reactions. These findings suggest that programs need to teach students about the range of victim responses to DSV and increase empathy for post-assault distress. Along these lines, programs may need to explicitly address the harmful myth that victims should “just get over it.”

This study revealed a novel finding that disclosure recipients tend to provide more negative reactions when they perceive victims to have difficulty coping, which is important given that many survivors engage in maladaptive coping post-assault. This finding may explain past research showing that survivors who engaged in more maladaptive coping were more likely longitudinally to later receiving negative reactions (Ullman & Relyea, 2016). Perhaps disclosure recipient’s perception that victims are having difficulty coping explains the association of victim maladaptive coping with subsequent negative social reactions from disclosure recipients. This also suggests that people need to be trained in particular about how to have empathy for, and provide support for, survivors who are having difficulty coping.

The current study was the first to document that disclosure recipients’ use of alcohol at the time of the disclosure predicted more negative social reactions (in general). Similarly, the victims’ use of alcohol at the time of disclosure predicted negative social reactions (alcohol-specific). Although understanding the explanatory mechanisms underlying these associations requires future research, one potential implication is that programs should encourage students to respond positively when the disclosure happens, give them the tools to do so when they and/or the victim are drinking, and explore reasons as to why their reactions are more negative and less positive when alcohol is involved during the disclosure experience. These findings also suggest that disclosure recipients may need to encourage the victim to talk about the experience when they are both sober, although this may be risky as it could come across to the victim as dismissive and be potentially harmful. Clearly, much more research is needed to understand and further unpack these findings.

It is interesting that the disclosure recipient’s alcohol use in general predicted both greater negative and positive (alcohol-specific) social reactions. Although speculative, it could just be that students who are drinking more overall are more likely to be involved in alcohol-related situations, including those involving DSV so they hear more disclosures and give more social reactions overall. Students who are heavier drinkers may be perceived as safer or just more accessible to tell for victims of DSV experiences, especially those involving alcohol, as they are part of the same drinking milieu or assumed to be supportive because they also drink. The findings of the current study raise many interesting questions about the role of alcohol in disclosure processes warranting further research.

Despite the contributions of the current study, several limitations should be noted. The sample lacked racial and ethnic diversity, and thus future research should include more diverse samples. A more diverse sample may have helped us make stronger conclusions about our finding regarding the association between race/ethnicity and social reactions. Also, the study was based on disclosure recipients’ self-reports, and there was likely some reporting bias, especially with regard to negative social reactions. Furthermore, although a strength of the study was its longitudinal design, the situation-specific and victim-specific variables were measured cross-sectionally. It is possible that the social reactions provided may have influenced, for example, perception of victim coping. Future research that uses more nuanced methodologies such as daily diary studies could capture the complexities of the disclosure process especially as it unfolds over time. We also did not measure victim empathy and victim blame specific to the situation, and thus more general victim empathy and victim blame may not be as salient to the provision of various social reactions, although one would expect that these more general attitudes would be related to more situation-specific attitudes. Also, as demonstrated in the attrition analyses, individuals who did not complete the Time 2 survey were higher at Time 1 in victim blame and negative social reactions. Given the large number of analyses presented in this article, we did not examine match versus mismatch in victim and disclosure recipient characteristics nor did we conduct analyses assessing whether social reactions varied by whether the victim experienced SV, DV, or both. These are important areas for future research.

In sum, results suggested that both victim and disclosure recipient characteristics (e.g., gender, race), disclosure recipient perceptions of victims (e.g., empathy, blame, coping) and both disclosure recipient and victim behavior at the time of disclosure (e.g., drinking) were related to disclosure recipient social reactions. Overall, disclosure recipient–specific factors and victim-specific factors contributed most consistently to positive and negative social reactions, with situation-specific and relationship-specific factors less consistent contributors to negative social reactions within multivariate models. These findings underscore the need for programs with potential informal disclosure recipients to both address their psychological functioning and behavior at the time of disclosure, as well as their perceptions of victims more generally, and to improve their knowledge and ability to respond with positive social reactions and avoid negative social reactions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors owe a great deal of gratitude to the participants for the time and energy spent on this study. We would like to thank Jania Marshall, Caroline Leyva, Robert Eckstein, and Jane Stapleton for their contributions to the larger study, as well as the 20+ research assistants and program facilitators at University of New Hampshire.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) (Grant #R34AA024849). Opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIAAA.

ORCID iDs

Katie M. Edwards

Christina M. Dardis

Notes

Author Biographies

Katie M. Edwards, PhD, is an associate professor of Educational Psychology and faculty at the Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families, and Schools at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Dr. Edwards’ interdisciplinary program of research focuses broadly on better understanding the causes and consequences of interpersonal violence, primarily intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault (SA) among adolescents and emerging adults. Dr. Edwards’ work has been funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Health, the Department of Justice, and the National Science Foundation. Dr. Edwards deeply values community partnerships grounded in participatory action principles, strong researcher and practitioner collaborations, and student engagement in all phases of the research.

Sarah E. Ullman, PhD, is professor of Criminology, Law, & and justice and affiliate professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is a social psychologist whose research concerns the impact of sexual assault and traumatic life events on women’s health and substance abuse outcomes and rape avoidance/prevention. She has received funding from the NIMH, NIAAA, and foundations for her research. She has conducted NIH-funded longitudinal studies of risk and protective factors for PTSD and substance abuse and other health-related outcomes in rape victims, and is currently co-investigator on an NIH grant to evaluate a social support network intervention for rape victims and their informal support networks. Dr. Ullman has published extensively about sexual assault, including a book entitled Talking About Sexual Assault: Society’s Response to Survivors by the American Psychological Association.

Emily A. Waterman, PhD, received her doctorate in human development and family studies from Penn State University. The goal of her research program is to prevent youth sexual and dating violence (SDV) and improve response to SDV, ultimately reducing the negative impact of SDV on youth. To support these goals, Waterman’s work spans the spectrum of translational research from discovery science (basic science about development, including risk and protective factors) to dissemination of preventive interventions. Her work focuses on both local and global contexts and is grounded in broader developmental theory and knowledge of the development of youth sexuality and intimate relationships.

Christina M. Dardis, PhD, is an assistant professor at Towson University. Her research focuses on risk factors and outcomes of IPV perpetration and victimization, including physical, sexual, and psychological IPV; stalking; and cyberstalking. She is particularly interested in the following topics: ways in which gender and gender roles influence victimization, perpetration, and outcomes of violence; norms and perceptions of violent behavior, and the use of social norms and bystander-based approaches for IPV prevention; social support and coping in the aftermath of violence, particularly how disclosures of violence and reactions received to disclosures can impact victim outcomes.

References

Ahrens

C. E.

Campbell

(2000). Assisting rape victims as they recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(9), 959–986. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015009004

Banyard

V. L.

Cohen

E. C.

Edwards

K. M.

Moynihan

M. M.

Walsh

Ward

(2013). Unwanted sexual experiences, stalking, and physical relationship violence: Six-month incidences among university and college students in New England. University of New Hampshire.

Banyard

V. L.

Ward

Cohn

E. S.

Plante

E. G.

Moorhead

Walsh

(2007). Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence and victims, 22(1), 52–70.

Banyard

V. L.

Demers

J. M.

Cohn

E. S.

Edwards

K. M.

Moynihan

M. M.

Walsh

W. A.

Ward

S. K.

(2017). Academic correlates of unwanted sexual contact, intercourse, stalking, and intimate partner violence: An understudied but important consequence for college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000102

Beeble

M. L.

Post

L. A.

Bybee

Sullivan

C. M.

(2008). Factors related to willingness to help survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1713–1729.

Bland

J. M.

Altman

D. G.

(1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. British Medical Journal, 310, Article 170.

Bonnan-White

Hetzel-Riggin

M. D.

Diamond-Welch

B. K.

Tollini

(2018). “You blame me, therefore I blame me”: The importance of first disclosure partner responses on trauma-related cognitions and distress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(8), 1260–1286.

Carey

K. B.

Norris

A. L.

Durney

S. E.

Shepardson

R. L.

Carey

M. P.

(2018). Mental health consequences of sexual assault among first-year college women. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 480–486.

Collins

R. L.

Parks

G. A.

Marlatt

G. A.

(1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, 53(2), 189–200.

10.

Davis

Taylor

Bench

(1995). Impact of sexual and nonsexual assault on secondary victims. Violence and Victims, 10(1), 73–78.

11.

Davis

R. C.

Brickman

(1996). Supportive and unsupportive aspects of the behavior of others toward victims of sexual and nonsexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(2), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626096011002008

12.

DePrince

A. P.

Welton-Mitchell

Srinivas

(2014). Longitudinal predictors of women’s experiences of social reactions following intimate partner abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(13), 2509–2523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513520469

13.

Dworkin

E. R.

Brill

C. D.

Ullman

S. E.

(2019). Social reactions to disclosure of interpersonal violence and psychopathology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 72, 101750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101750

14.

Edwards

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

(2016). Disclosure recipients’ social reactions to victims’ disclosures of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35, 53–76.

15.

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(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514532524

16.

Friend

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Eichold

B. H.

(2011). Same-day substance use in men and women charged with felony domestic violence offenses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(6), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811402768

17.

Goodkind

J. R.

Gillum

T. L.

Bybee

D. I.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2003). The impact of family and friends’ reactions on the well-being of women with abusive partners. Violence Against Women, 9(3), 347–373.

18.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5). Prentice Hall.

19.

Hamby

Taylor

Smith

Blount

(2018). Resilience portfolio questionnaire manual: Scales for youth. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11990/1704

20.

Iles

I. A.

Waks

Atwell Seate

Hundal

Irions

(2018). The unintended consequences of rape disclosure: The effects of disclosure content, listener gender, and year in college on listener’s reactions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518781799

21.

Kelley

E. L.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2017). Mediators of the relationship between sexual assault and sexual functioning difficulties among college women. Psychology of Violence, 7(4), 574–582.

22.

Kirkner

Lorenz

Ullman

S. E.

Mandala

(2018). A qualitative study of sexual assault disclosure impact and help-seeking on support providers. Violence and Victims, 33(4), 721–738.

23.

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(6), 639–647. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649

24.

Littleton

Grills-Taquechel

Axsom

(2009). Impaired and incapacitated rape victims: Assault characteristics and post-assault experiences. Violence and victims, 24(4), 439-457.

25.

Lorenz

Ullman

S. E.

(2016). Exploring correlates of alcohol-specific social reactions in alcohol-involved sexual assaults. Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma, 25(10), 1058-1078.

26.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Ullman

S. E.

(2013). Social reactions to sexual assault disclosure and problem drinking: Mediating effects of perceived control and PTSD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1418–1437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513507137

27.

Relyea

Ullman

S. E.

(2015a). Measuring social reactions to female survivors of alcohol-involved sexual assault: The social reactions questionnaire–alcohol. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(11), 164–1887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514549054

28.

Relyea

Ullman

S. E.

(2015b). Unsupported or turned against understanding how two types of negative social reactions to sexual assault relate to postassault outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313512610

29.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J.-M.

(2015). SmartPLS3. SmartPLS GmbH.

30.

Rudolph

Roesch

Greitemeyer

Weiner

(2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18(6), 815–848.

31.

Sigurvinsdottir

Ullman

S. E.

(2015). Social reactions, self-blame, and problem drinking in adult sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 192–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036316

32.

Slutske

W. S.

(2005). Alcohol use disorders among US college students and their non–college-attending peers. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(3), 321–327.

33.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811.

34.

Straus

M. A.

Douglas

E. M.

(2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and victims, 19(5), 507-520.

35.

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(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013496335

36.

Tansill

E. C.

Edwards

K. M.

Kearns

M. C.

Gidycz

C. A.

Calhoun

K. S.

(2012). The mediating role of trauma-related symptoms in the relationship between sexual victimization and physical health symptomatology in undergraduate women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(1), 79–85.

37.

Turchik

J. A.

Edwards

K. M.

(2012). Myths about male rape: A literature review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023207

38.

Ullman

S. E.

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

39.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

(2001). Predictors of PTSD symptom severity and social reactions in sexual assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14(2), 369–389.

40.

Ullman

S. E.

Najdowski

C. J.

(2011). Prospective changes in attributions of self-blame and social reactions to women’s disclosures of adult sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(10), 1934–1962.

41.

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(6), 1074–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514564069

42.

Ullman

S. E.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Relyea

(2014). Coping, emotion regulation, and self-blame as mediators of sexual abuse and psychological symptoms in adult sexual assault. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1104–1109. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1104

43.

Ullman

S. E.

Relyea

(2016). Social support, coping, and posttraumatic stress symptoms in female sexual assault survivors: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(1), 75–82.

44.

Walsh

W. A.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Ward

S. K.

Cohn

E. S.

(2010). Disclosure and service use on a college campus after an unwanted sexual experience. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 11(2), 134–151.

45.

Weathers

F. W.

Bovin

M. J.

Lee

D. J.

Sloan

D. M.

Schnurr

P. P.

Kaloupek

D. G.

… Marx

B. P.

(2018). The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM–5 (CAPS-5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation in military veterans. Psychological assessment, 30(3), 383.

46.

Weiner

(1986). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 94(2), 548–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

47.

Weiner

(1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for and theory of social conduct. Guilford Press.

48.

West

Wandrei

M. L.

(2002). Intimate partner violence a model for predicting interventions by informal helpers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(9), 972–986.

49.

White

Hingson

(2013). The burden of alcohol use: Excessive alcohol consumption and related consequences among college students. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 35(2), 201–218.