Explaining the Why in #WhyIDidntReport: An Examination of Common Barriers to Formal Disclosure of Sexual Assault in College Students

Abstract

Within the current study, we examined themes of college students’ reasons for choosing not to formally disclose (report) sexual assault. To complete this objective, we examined tweets (n = 1,297) that used the WhyIDidntReport hashtag in which a user also made reference (within the same thread) to being enrolled at a college or university during the time (and aftermath) of the assault. We deemed Twitter a particularly valuable platform, offering insight into the hidden figure of crime, as users described events, feelings, and perceptions after the event that led to them not formally disclosing. Further, it provides a large sample of cases of women and men who recognize their assault as an assault (at least in hindsight), while also providing open-ended, unstructured explanations of their rationales and motivations. Using an inductive approach, we established broad themes that were then refocused into common barriers of formal disclosure or the continuation of formal disclosure. Subthemes included anticipated social reactions (stemming from vicarious and direct experiences), internalized emotions, often stemming from social reactions (normalization, shame, and blame), victim and offender status, and victim-offender relationship. Three overarching premises were developed from the analysis including (a) victims’ internalizations of experiences and observations, (b) the interaction of social factors of the victim, offender, and the victim-offender relationship, and (c) the continual and compounded decision-making process of formal disclosure. These conclusions were then examined within theoretical models, including Black’s Behavior of Law Theory (specifically morphology and stratification), Overstreet and Quinn’s intimate partner violence stigmatization model, and Chaudoir and Fisher’s disclosure process model. Lastly, we provide programmatic recommendations, which includes retailoring current bystander intervention curricula to include more focus on social reactions and social support in anticipation of college students being recipients of sexual assault disclosures by friends and acquaintances.

Keywords

alcohol and drugs anything related to sexual assault reporting/disclosure sexual assault situational factors violence

Introduction

Formal disclosure¹ of sexual assault has become a prevalent topic of research and policy, particularly on college campuses. The risk of sexual assault for college-aged women (that is, 18–25), is approximately three times that of the female population younger than 18 and older than 25 (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). Further, sexual assault is vastly underreported across all age groups, with nonreporting estimates ranging from 40–60% (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019; Morgan & Truman, 2019; Rennison, 2002); yet, formal disclosure of sexual assault has yielded particularly low rates for college students, from 5% or less (Fisher et al., 2003; Koss et al., 1987) up to 17% (Sloan et al., 1997).

With some exceptions, past research on sexual assault reporting has focused predominantly on subsets of close-ended victimization surveys of college-aged women. Thus, there is a need for further research on the process of formal and informal disclosure through more open-ended mediums. To complete this objective, it was necessary to have a large sample of open-ended testaments of individuals who—at the very least in hindsight— recognized a past event as a form of sexual assault. For purposes of this study, we examined Tweets of users who described an assault (or the aftermath of an assault) that occurred while enrolled at universities and colleges, and also used the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport and its variations (#IDidNotReport, #IDidntReport, & #WhyIDidNotReport).

#WhyIDidn’tReport originated as a response to President Donald Trump’s tweet regarding Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. Specifically, preceding Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Trump took to Twitter to question the plausibility of Dr Ford’s assertions stating that if it “was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities…” (Trump, 2018). This prompted a response from survivors of sexual violence, using the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport to explain the complexities of the reporting process and its outcomes (actual and anticipated). According to Mosbergen (2018), during the time of this social movement, there was a 42% uptick in calls to the National Sexual Assault Hotline days after initial use of the hashtag (Mosbergen, 2018).

While powerful, #WhyIDidntReport builds on a foundation of hashtag feminism grounded within the #MeToo movement. In response to these social movements, researchers have found Twitter and other social media platforms to be valuable data sources for research on sexual-violence discourse, as it offers some depth and tremendous breadth into the experiences of a typically hard-to-access population (Bogen et al., 2018; Cravens et al., 2015; PettyJohn et al., 2019; Storer et al., 2018; Stubbs-Richardson et al., 2018). We believe this particular event of hashtag feminism provides insight into the disclosure processes among college-aged women and men, as well as the university culture and role of the institution in the process of informal and formal disclosure of college students.

Background

Sexual Assault in College

Research on sexual assault of college students has demonstrated its prevalence; however, establishing a rate of sexual assault amongst any population is challenging, given the varying operational definitions of sexual assault, timeline of data collection, sampling techniques, and sample size. For instance, when defining sexual assault as all forms of attempted or completed assault, research has demonstrated that approximately 15–25% of college women who experience sexual assault is (Fisher et al., 2000; Jordan et al., 2014; Krebs et al., 2007; Sinozich & Langton, 2014) compared to about 6% of college men (Krebs et al., 2007).

Studies have revealed mixed results on the effect of race on sexual assault victimization, with some demonstrating higher rates for white women (Koss et al.,1987; Krebs et al., 2009), while other studies have yielded higher risks for racial and ethnic minorities (Coulter et al., 2017; Gross et al., 2006; Porter & Williams, 2011). Moreover, those with physical disabilities and those who identify as LGBTQI (Porter &Williams, 2011) also may be at higher risk. Moreover, memberships in Greek organizations are associated with higher risk of both sexual assault perpetration and victimization (Martinez et al., 2018; Mellins et al., 2017). As previously stated, the majority of college students who experience sexual violence never formally report the assault to police, with some statistics showing that as few as 5% of college women report their assault to police (Belknap, 2010). Research has demonstrated that some of the most common reasons include fear of retaliation (by offender or others); not perceiving the assault as criminal (or, if perceiving it as a criminal act, not seeing it as a serious one); not classifying the assault as any form of sexual assault (Koss et al., 1987); viewing the assault as more personal and wanting to avoid getting others involved, or believing if they did report to law enforcement, that officers would not (or could not) take action against an alleged perpetrator (Fisher et al., 2003; Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019; Orchowski et al., 2013; Zinzow & Thompson, 2011). While reluctance to report stems from a belief that doing so will result in negative outcomes, this is further complicated by survivors’ fear of being blamed, dismissed, and/or stigmatized (Fisher et al., 2003; Sable et al., 2006; Walsh et al., 2010), as well as by situational factors of the assault, including alcohol use and having a relationship with the offender (Orchowski et al., 2013).

Disclosure Process and Campus Culture

Frameworks to explain reporting and disclosure have vastly distinct perspectives that rely upon individual, situational, and/or broad social foci. In their Disclosure Process Model, Chaudoir and Fisher (2010) argued that disclosure is continual, and is affected by avoidance or approach motivations, which vary due to mediating and moderating factors. The disclosure process can occur within one event or over time. An individual may give a small bit of concealed information as a trial of sorts, and that past disclosure for one event may affect disclosure for a later event. Chaudoir and Quinn (2010) found that for college students revealing stigmatized identities, there were two primary classifications of motivation: egosystem (self) and ecosystem (others—external).

Within their theory of Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPMT), Petronio (2002, 2004) has argued that individuals use metaphorical boundaries to discern between private and public information. Determining whether to disclose requires a calculus using a “rule-based management system” (Petronio, 2002, 2004), and when disclosures are high risk, individuals’boundary management is higher (Kennedy-Lightsey et al., 2012), which may result in increased selectivity in whom they confide. Those seeking to disclose often seek others with similar experiences, as well as certain personality characteristics that suggest their reactions will be supportive and caring (Lewis et al., 2011; Pluretti & Chesebro, 2015). In their study examining disclosure rationales for sexual assault victims within a CPMT framework, Pluretti and Chesebro (2015) found three overarching themes within individuals’ rationales to disclose: feeling urgency to disclose after an assault, wanting to be forthright, or seeking support from a disclosure recipient.

The risks and boundary management of disclosure can also be considered in context of stigmatization. For instance, within their Intimate Partner Violence Stigmatization (IPV Stigmatization) model, Overstreet and Quinn posit that three constructs are interwoven into decisions of victims to seek help. Cultural stigma refers to negative cultural beliefs embedded in society; anticipated stigma focuses on the anticipated negative reactions of others to disclosure; andstigma internalization refers to the victims’ internalization of negative beliefs (Overstreet & Quinn, 2013). IPV Stigmatization examines societal and victim beliefs of myths as well as the anticipated stigma of reporting (Storer et al., 2018). Research has demonstrated that anticipated stigma significantly influences victims’ decisions of disclosure (Miller et al., 2011), and nondisclosure, in turn, increases maladaptive coping and the likelihood of revictimization.

The majority of individuals who experience sexual assault disclose informally to at least one source, and those who disclose most often do so to approximately three sources (Ahrens et al., 2007; Ullman & Filipas, 2001a). Disclosure often serves as a precursor to formal reporting, as women more frequently disclose informally prior to reporting to the police (Ruback et al., 1984). Thus, social reactions may negatively or positively affect the likelihood of reporting victimization to the police. Typically, survivors receive a mix of both negative and positive social reactions (Starzynski et al., 2005). Those who disclose most often tell member(s) of their informal social networks including family, friends, and significant others (Ahrens et al., 2007; Fisher et al., 2003; Golding et al., 1989; Ullman, 1996). Disclosing to support services is considerably less common; however, those who choose to, most often do so for aid in their physical and mental health, and frequently wait until long after they were assaulted (Sable et al., 2006). The disclosure of traumatic events, likesexual assault, can be therapeutic (Botta & Pingree, 1997) and can aid in the creation of an informal social support network, which along with mental health treatment, can have a positive effect on posttraumatic growth (Hassija & Turchik, 2016), particularly when reactions are positive (Borja et al., 2006) and disclosures are informal (Ahrens et al., 2009; Starzynski et al., 2007; Ullman, 1996).

Studies on sexual assault within college-student populations have focused predominantly on internal barriers to formal disclosure, such as self-blame, minimization of the assault, and internalized stigma (Miller et al., 2011; Orchowski et al., 2013; Tillman et al., 2010; Zinzow & Thompson, 2011) and the campus environment itself. For instance, while reasons for underreporting are overall similar for college women and other adult women, Fisher (2000) noted one markedly distinct reason college women did not formally report their completed or attempted sexual assault: they were unsure how to do so.

Normalizing sexual violence is an integral part of the campus culture, ostensibly inevitable when its student culture has ingrained partying (Armstrong et al., 2006). Moreover, a culture that subscribes to the notion of “real rape,” is less likely to recognize physically nonviolent events as sexual assault (Kolivas & Gross, 2007). Cultures that recognize sexual assault solely in the confines of stereotypical rape are unable to depart from these traditional factors of physical violence, an unknown offender, and victim resistance (Estrich, 1987; Koss et al., 1987; Sasson & Paul, 2014). From the Classic Rape theory perspective, five factors may increase the likelihood of reporting: unlawful entry, weapon use, victim injury, physical resistance, and no prior relationship between the victim and offender (Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009; Ryan, 2011; Williams, 1984). Thus, any narrative of sexual violence that does not adhere to the traditional script may be met with disregard, signifying that those experiences just simply do not meet the standards of real rape (Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009). This is particularly harmful within the disclosure process, as disclosure recipients’ responses go beyond the scope of individual reaction and guidance. Further, the reactions often signify to the discloser cultural norms and beliefs surrounding the criminal event (Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009; Ruback et al., 1984). Ruback et al.’s (1984) model of help-seeking proposes that not only do others provide direct advice to victims, but they also inform victims of norms regarding the definition and severity of a criminal event.

Situational Factors and Sexual Assault Disclosure

Research has also demonstrated the importance of considering situational factors within the disclosure process, as these can affect the continued disclosure of assault. For instance, how a survivor perceives responses from individuals to whom they initially disclose (Clark et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2011), as well as whether a survivor and/or a discloser recipient is subscribing to rape myths (Paul, Kehn et al., 2014). Another factor that decreases the likelihood of continued disclosure is the time between an assault and first disclosure (Dworkin & Allen, 2018), as timely and positive intervention is important for sexual assault survivors’ long-term psychological health (Borja et al., 2006).

Recipients of sexual violence disclosure have great influence over survivors’ feelings as well as their subsequent actions (Pluretti & Chesebro, 2015). Sexual assault victims often experience negative reactions to disclosure (Herman, 2005). In one study, women who disclosed sexual assault to family and friends had predominantly negative reactions, including encouraging secrecy, victim blaming, and minimizing the seriousness of the assault. These types of negative social reactions to disclosure of sexual assault, even those that are “well intentioned” can have a negative psychological impact and increase self-blame (Ahrens, 2006). However, most often, survivors interpret social reactions positively (Campbell et al., 2001; Dworkin & Allen, 2018; Lorenz et al., 2018), particularly when a survivor was female (Lorenz et al., 2018), and reactions tend to be more positive with more in-depth disclosures (Ullman & Filipas, 2001b).

From a formal reporting perspective, Black’s (1976/2010, 2000) theory of the behavior of law is a common framework to examine variation in individuals’ mobilization of law. Black developed what is known as pure sociology: examining a social system to study human behavior through its structural artifacts (in this case, law) that embodied collective behavior. Thus, Black contended that by measuring the products of social action, one could examine a more objective measurable approach to studying human behavior. He purported that law is a dynamic and quantifiable means of social control that vary across space and time and are contingent upon five situational dimensions of social life: Stratification, the vertical aspect(victim and offender demographics representative of their status and their interaction), Morphology, the horizontal aspect (victim-offender relationship and the victim’s and offender’s relationship with others), Culture (victim and offender level of education and the interaction of the two), Organization (the frequency and perceived commonality of similar offenders), and Social Control (when and where an offense occurred).By quantifying each and examining its direction and location, one could explain the variance in the mobilization of the legal system. Black’s theory has been met with some controversy (Kuo et al., 2012), and studies that have tested the theory (wholly or partially) have yielded mixed results, particularly in context of sexual violence reporting (Brooks-Hay, 2020; Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009). Clay-Warner and McMahon-Howard (2009) tested Black’s theory alongside classic rape theory by examining cases of rape and attempted rape within the NCVS. The researchers found that the violence/seriousness of the incident had a significant effect on reporting, which coincides with past research (Felson et al., 1999; Fisher et al., 2003) and supports the stereotypes of “classic rape.” This is often because victims are able to recognize an event was an assault when it fits a stereotypical description indicating an assault actually occurred.

Similar situational factors have also demonstrated significant effects on social reactions to sexual assault. In line with the relational distance element of morphology (that is, the relationship between the victim and the offender): survivors of sexual assault are less likely to report an offender if they have a prior relationship with them (Gartner & Macmillan, 1995; Jones et al., 2009) and more likely disclose to family, friends, and professional service providers if their attacker was a stranger (Ullman & Siegel, 1993). Further, victims of interpersonal sexual assault are particularly prone to negative reactions (Kennedy & Prock, 2018), as disclosure recipients were more likely to react positively (that is recommended contacting health professionals) when an assault was acquaintance-based rather than when it was intimate-partner based (Suzuki & Bonner, 2017).

Black’s definition of stratification is, from a macro perspective, the presence of inequality within a society. He argued that the presence of law is more frequent for those societies with greater inequality and would serve those who were of higher stature. From a micro perspective, stratification can be conceptualized as a victim’s social status (age, gender, race, socioeconomic), as well as how a victim’s social status compares to that of an offender’s (Kuo et al., 2012). Moreover, stratification can be further contextualized with Black’s tenet of culture when examining victimization on college campuses, as education levels may attribute more significantly to social hierarchies within a university environment.

Social Media, Disclosure, and Sexual Violence

Social media has provided a rich data source in understanding sexual violence from victims’ perspectives as well as recording social movements in real time (Storer et al., 2018). Moreover, social media platforms record the process of disclosure and social reactions to said disclosure (Tichon & Shapiro, 2003), allowing others to observe these interactions, which ostensibly should improve observers’ understanding of sexual violence (Overstreet & Quinn, 2013; Storer et al., 2018).

Twitter, in particular, provides a valuable platform in responding to high-profile events of sexual violence that allow researchers to observe “the convergence of public and personal discourse” (Bogen & Orchowski, 2019). Researchers across multiple disciplines have used Twitter as a data source since the company’s founding in 2006, with some of the first studies examining public and political sentiment (Tumasjan et al., 2011). Most notably, however, has been public health research using Twitter to increase awareness of public health concerns (Thackeray et al., 2013), as well as a surveillance tool for chronic and acute ailments (Aramaki et al., 2011; Eichstaedt et al., 2015; Paul & Dredze, 2011; Paul, Dredze, & Broniatowski, 2014; Sinnenberg et al., 2017) and mental health disorders (Coppersmith et al., 2014, 2015; O’dea et al., 2017).

Sexual assault hashtags are used to help dispel myths and victim blaming, challenge patriarchal views, and are used as a form of “hashtag feminism” (Bogen & Orchowski, 2019; Keller et al., 2018; Mendes et al., 2018; Stubbs-Richardson et al., 2018) as well as “cyber justice” (O’Neill, 2018; Powell, 2015; Sills et al., 2016). The first notable hashtag regarding sexual assault was #NotOkay in response to the released recording of President Trump and Billy Bush during the 2016 election (Bogen et al., 2019; PettyJohn et al., 2019), which was followed by the #MeToo movement. Researchers have also examined the discussion of the aftermath of sexual violence within social media, including interpersonal violence (#WhyIStayed and #WhyILeft) (Cravens et al., 2015; Storer et al., 2018) and sexual assault reporting (#BeenRapedNeverReported) (Keller et al., 2018; Mendes et al., 2018).

It may seem contradictory to assess why victims of sexual assault did not disclose by studying online, informal disclosures. Posting about a sexual assault on social media or other online platforms is certainly a method of disclosure that involves both the initial act of disclosure along with social reactions from disclosure recipients (Tichon & Shapiro, 2003). However, the Internet can create what Suler (2004, 2005) referred to as the “online disinhibition effect” (p. 321). This is particularly evident within anonymous platforms, as one is able to seek social support with a lower risk of stigmatization (Andalibi et al., 2016), allowing those who are unable to disclose in “real life” to disclose to others in a virtual platform (O’Neill, 2018), which most often, victims seek for social support (Moors & Webber, 2013; Tichon& Shapiro, 2003) and have reported the virtual disclosure to have a “fundamental impact on interpersonal communication” (Walther & Parks, 2002). Online disclosers may also be seeking support from other disclosers, which can be a symbiotic process of support.

Methods

The purpose of the current study is to examine common themes in reasons why college students chose not to formally disclose a sexual assault. We examined tweets that used the WhyIDidntreport hashtag in which a user also made reference (within the same thread) to being enrolled at a college or university during the time (and aftermath) of they were assaulted. Twitter is a particularly valuable platform that could provide insight into the dark figure of crime(also referred to as the hidden figure of crime³; Biderman & Reiss, 1967), as users described events, feelings, and perceptions after the event that led to them choosing not to formally disclose. Further, it provides a large sample of cases of women and men who experienced sexual assault while enrolled at a university or college, and also (at least by the time of the social media disclosure) recognize their assault as an assault, while also providing open-ended, unstructured explanations of their rationales and motivations.

Data Source and Collection

Twitter is a social media and networking platform that allows users to microblog by limiting tweets to 140 characters or fewer (Ash et al., 2017). While popular among Internet-using adults (24% are on Twitter), it is particularly valuable when studying young adults, as 45% of 18-to-24-yearolds are Twitter users (Greenwood et al., 2016; Smith & Anderson, 2018). Race and gender of Twitter users is relatively representative of the USadult population; however, Twitter users have a higher income and education when compared to the general USadult population (Wojcik & Hughes, 2019).

Using Twitter Advanced Search (Garrett & Hassan, 2019), we collected users’ tweets (and threads) that included the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport and its variations (#IDidNotReport, #IDidntReport, & #WhyIDidNotReport) and words associated with college (university, college, and campus). Once we searched for tweets, these were then selected and imported into text files, which were then converted to Excel files. Tweets that were continued on threads were manually collected and paired with the initial tweet, and then we reclassified the thread as a single tweet. Each tweet (or thread) was then classified as a single case within NVivo, so that each tweet could be analyzed independently from other tweets.

The timeframe of tweets used in this study was April 2014 to June 2019. Data were initially collected in December 2018; however, we continued adding tweets using this hashtag until June 2019. This approach is distinct from other studies using Twitter data in that we examined tweets historically over a long period of time (from April 2014 to June 2019), examining tweets that occurred any time before the start and up to eight months after the height of the movement.³

Our initial data included 1,896tweets. We then excluded those that were duplicates, meaning they showed up twice because they included more than one keyword or hashtag (n = 24 tweets). We also excluded those that were inapplicable: general reflections of the news at that time, Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh, or the hashtag itself (n = 155), new source tweets (n = 54), and advertisements (n = 8). We also excluded any tweets that did not discuss a Twitter user’s own experience (n = 60) (that is, they discussed the experience of a friend or family member). (n = 60) or those that discussed experiences which did not occur while attending college (n = 297). Lastly, one tweet was excluded because it was not in English. Collectively, 599 tweets were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 1,297 tweets.

Analytic Technique

We used an exploratory approach and thematic analysis (Anderson, 2007; Lune & Berg, 2016), which occurred within multiple iterations, and has been purported as an appropriate method and analysis for succinct units of content (Cravens et al., 2015; Schreier, 2012). First, the researchers examined a subset of tweets (n = 400) to establish predominant themes (Lee et al., 2014). Within the first iteration, common themes were noted broadly by each researcher, and then these were discussed within a peer debriefing. At this time, we established general themes with two approaches: the focus of the tweet and the reasons for not formally reporting or formally disclosing. The focus of the tweet included six general themes: offender information, victim information, disclosure experiences (formal and informal), event information, and victim-offender information. Reasons for not formally reporting or disclosing included negative emotions (that is, fear, shame), not being aware they were sexually assaulted, fear of not being believed, the social status of a respondent or an offender, other personal issues, and negative direct or vicarious experiences with authorities. In the next iteration, one researcher (R1) used NVivo to establish more specific patterns and themes within each of the aforementioned general themes focusing on reasons of not formally reporting or disclosing, including offender status, victim status, victim-offender relationship, administrators and/or police, family, friends, and acquaintances, as well as specific internalized emotions such as self-blame, fear, and shame, as well as anticipated or actual outcomes of both informal and formal disclosure, including blame, disbelief, dismissal, and shame. The other two researchers (R2 & R3) reviewed these classifications to examine discrepancies and other latent patterns. This was followed by peer debriefing, in which the broad themes were discussed and confirmed. Using these themes, we then established our coding scheme by reframing our thematic approach in context of obstacles to formal disclosure or continuing with a formal disclosure process (that is pressing charges). We then reclassified our broad themes by examining direct and indirect barriers to formal disclosure of sexual assault. These variables were then operationalized (Krippendorff, 2004, 2009; Stemler,2015) and subthemes were classified under each broad theme. Once these themes and subthemes were established, one researcher (R1) coded the full sample of tweets using NVivo and Microsoft Excel. For purposes of interrater reliability, the data were then split between the other two researchers (R2 & R3), each coding half of the data (648&647 tweets, respectively). Any discrepancies were then noted. Overall, R1 & R2 had an agreement of 98.0% and R1 & R3 had an agreement of 98.2% across all themes (κ = .960&. 964, respectively). R1 then reviewed these differences and either changed them (when the differences were attributable to error) or the researchers wrote their rationales for their distinct coding, which was then discussed by the full research team.⁴

Results

Direct barriers to formal disclosure of sexual assault included anticipated reactions and outcomes, as well as internalized emotions stemming from direct (n = 44) and indirect (n = 33) experiences.⁵ Vicarious experiences were developed by observing others who had formally disclosed a sexual assault. At times, participants described their observations of the formal disclosure process when a close friend was sexually assaulted. Others wrote that their decision not to formally disclose stemmed from their university’s reputation for handling sexual assault cases, knowing that they did not want to put themselves in such an ordeal when it was unlikely their institution would do anything about it.

Because I saw what my best friend went through when she reported. Because reporting to my college or the police wouldn’t have brought justice. Because reporting would have exacerbated my trauma rather than doing anything to relieve it.

Because when my best friend DID report, she was laughed out of the police station and written off as “another college slut.” Because I saw why not being believed by the people who can help you did to her. Because I didn’t want that for myself.

Because my University’s protocol is so notoriously bad that even though I’ve been through multiple incidents I knew that my school is known for victim blaming, and I am not mentally strong enough to go through that.

Another theme to arise within direct barriers to formal disclosure was internalized emotions, including normalization/minimization of the assault, blame, and shame (n = 120). In some cases, they simply did not know the process to file charges or submit a formal complaint. Internalized shame and self-blame were prevalent within Twitter participants’ reasons for not formally reporting or disclosing (n = 613). Shame and self-blame were often compounded with other factors of vulnerability, including queer status, being a person of color, a new student, or believing they already had established a reputation that would work against them.

I was taught rape was a violent attack from a stranger. So in college, when a guy I liked ignored me saying “no, I’m not ready, please no” I blamed myself. I became depressed, almost lost my academic scholarship. It would take years before I could even recognize & accept that I’m a rape survivor. We have put the burden on victims for far too long, denying resources & help, absolving “boys” for assault by calling it normal behavior.

I was in denial about my rape for months afterwards, and by the time I had accepted that that was what it was, my university told me that reporting it would not do anything but make me more stressed and depressed.

It was my first college party & I was ashamed. I didn’t have a queer context for survival. My rapist became a big community artist & I was afraid of being shunned for ruining a young QPOC’s career by coming out. Told a few people & my suspicions proved true.

It was relatively common for Twitter participants to describe the experiences and social reactions when they did choose to informally or formally disclose(n = 369). Within informal disclosure, a number of participants described negative experiences and how these served as a hindrance to further disclosure (n = 158). While the hashtag was ostensibly intended to describe why individuals chose not to formally report, some used the hashtag as a platform to describe the negative experiences they had when they did report (or attempted to report) to police or formally disclose to other service providers or college employees/administrators (n = 174). Social reactions to both formal and informal disclosures were classified into four categories: normalization/minimization of the assault (n = 50, 26), shame or blame of the discloser (n = 75, n = 54), not believing the discloser or informing the discloser no one else would believe them (n = 46, 26), and discouraging the discloser from further formal or informal disclosure (n = 37, 63).⁶

Normalization was a common reaction from college friends who would inform the discloser that this was simply part of the college experience or advise them on how they should be reacting to the assault. Participants were also met with shaming statements from friends and family regarding their attributable role in the assault, which included not fighting back, drinking, or being irresponsible. This was further aggravated when a victim and offender had a current or previous relationship, or if an offender was perceived as someone having high stature.

My story was simple: I was told that you can’t be assaulted by a boyfriend. Because I wasn’t believed when I tried to tell my college friends what happened because “I was drunk.” Because I heard “you can’t rape the willing” from so many people in school

He was the student government president and the captain of his sports team and I was a measly little college freshman who was told that he’d never hurt a soul and I didn’t know what I was talking about

I was roofied and raped by the President of a fraternity at my school. Sorority leadership reported FOR me to my university. Kicked out of the sorority for my “false accusation.” Rapist admitted to what he did and graduated without consequences.

Themes of shame and blame also arose within formal disclosure, but often went beyond blame and shame for their role in the assault itself and were integrated in statements made by administrators regarding the impact that formal disclosure would have on the offender or the institution. Within informal disclosure, themes of shame and discouraging continued disclosure were also frequently accompanied by disbelief.

Because I did report it and got told that he was going to lose his soccer scholarship to our Christian college and “do you really want to do that to him?” And “did you actually say no or do you just think you did because you shouldn’t have done it”?

I did. The campus cop told me not to “ruin his life” over a “misunderstanding.”

Because I was an 18-yr old at a Christian college who when I told officials at @{University} I wasn’t believed, was blamed for being alone with the man & made to feel it was my fault. So no I didn’t report to the police for more of the same.

The university guidance counselor I talked to about my assault told me that realistically I didn’t have a case and it wasn’t worth the legal fight or fees. She was right, of course, but what a thing to hear from a mental health professional.

A prevalent theme throughout reasons to not formally disclose was victim status (n = 368), offender status (n = 273), and the victim-offender relationship (n = 170). These themes were interlaced throughout both informal and formal disclosure experiences, particularly within informal disclosure recipients discouraging formal disclosure, and social reactions that exerted both shame and blame on the victim. For some, their own social status combined with the offender’s and their relationship compounded one’s fear of the outcome of formal disclosure.

We were a well-known, well-liked, engaged couple at a small Christian university, and I didn’t want to disappoint all the people who “looked up to” our relationship. I didn’t think it was bad enough to call assault b/c there wasn’t actual penetration.

Victim status was evident throughout, as Twitter participants referred to themselves as “young” or a “new student” or “far away from home,” demonstrating a vulnerability. These descriptors were used to demonstrate why they believe the offense occurred in the first place and why they were reluctant to formally disclose, given they had little social status/capital and believed they had more to lose than gain by reporting.

Freshman year in college, and I know how college rape works. You endure excruciating victim-blaming from your peers, from the ADMINISTRATION, and from the courts. I regret not reporting, but at the time I didn’t feel that I had the confidence, support or strength.

I was a freshman in college and didn’t want my new classmates to think I asked for it and be labeled for the rest of my time there.

Offender status was often a reason that respondents provided for not formally disclosing because the participant either anticipated that the offenders’ status would make it unlikely that the outcome of reporting would lead to a positive outcome for the victim. Further, when they did formally or informally disclose, the offender status was often used as a reason to dissuade the victim from pressing formal charges or other methods of formal disclosure.

He was a star football player on the university team. I told the school social worker and the Dean. They told me not to report it. They said going to court would be too traumatic for me and besides, I had been drinking so no one would believe me.

I was beaten, raped & left naked on the side of the road by a football player, I told the university. Response: “What did you expect when u don’t kiss a football player on the first date…& besides honey, the alumni give money bc of fb not cheerleaders.”

The 2nd time it happened to me, there was booze involved and a college baseball player. When I told the dean after weeks of drunk blur, she told me to remember he played baseball and things would get uglier for me than him. He had a future.

The social stratification of the victim and offender often interacted. Most often, these participants described themselves with some vulnerable characteristic while the offender had social status, capital, or dominance that made them believe there would, at best, be no justice if they were to report; and at worst, would result in further victimization or isolation for the victim.

He was senior campus royalty. I was a naive, drunk sophomore. And worse than thinking they wouldn’t believe me, I thought they’d just tell me it was my fault since that’s what I told myself. For decades.

I was a lowly freshman in college. He was an upper-level classmate. Who was popular and on the rugby team. If the school wouldn’t support me. What’s the point if it’s only gonna ruin your reputation? At least I made it out ok. Though most don’t.

I was a freshman in college who had been drinking at a party. Didn’t want to walk home alone so I stayed with my group. Woke up to an offensive lineman on top of me. Was then ridiculed for being a ‘jersey chaser’. Dropped out of college due to depression.

The social overlap and relational distance between a victim and offender served as a particular form of dissuasion, as formal disclosure would have a ripple effect on the group of friends, and some participants believed that in time, they would be isolated from the group.

It was a friend in college. All of my friends were still friends with him even after they knew. If I had gone public, I would have lost all of my friends and had to change schools.

Because the majority of people in my circle in college admired this man. I would be the one ruining things by saying something. He even married two of my friends. Because when I finally did work up the nerve to say something, nothing changed.

Discussion

Within the current study, we examined why individuals who were sexually assaulted during college chose not to report an offense to authorities or formal support providers. By analyzing the qualitative data obtained from trending Twitter hashtags, this research contributes to the literature by illuminating the self-reported reasons for not formally disclosing, as well as the social reactions sexual assault victims have actually received or anticipated receiving from both informal and formal disclosure.

It is important to note that this study is not without its limitations. A key limitation is the lack of generalizability of Twitter users; and specifically, Twitter users who decided to share their experiences with this hashtag. Considering that the study aimed to capture college experiences, this population was more fitting (as compared to studies with a general population) as 45% of Twitter users are of traditional college age. However, our generalizability remains limited for two primary reasons: one, some users spoke retrospectively (demonstrating that the user who wrote the tweet was plausibly much older than 18–25); and two, we did not attempt to capture any sociodemographic information (including location) of users. An additional limitation within the study is response bias. Only Twitter users who had negative experiences and wanted to share those experiences through a public, online forum responded using this hashtag. Lastly, the length of a tweet (140 characters) is an important limitation noted in previous studies using tweets as the unit of analysis (Bogen et al., 2018; Garrett & Hassan,2019). Given this past limitation, our unit of analysis was threads, which allowed for more extensive coverage and multiple tweets from the same user using the same hashtag.

Theoretical Implications

The findings of this study revealed three overarching themes of sexual assault disclosure within the college environment: minimization and normalization of sexual violence, stratification of the victim and offender, and the prevalence of internalized and externalized shame. While all three are connected, shame permeates the other two themes and simultaneously serves as a link between normalization and stratification. This is even more complex when considering these themes through time and space, specifically through the lens of a disclosure process within the culture of a particular college campus.

Participants also emphasized the importance of social integration and status as well as the relationship and social overlap (that is, relational distance) of the victim and offender. Specifically, these factors had prevalent roles in impeding the initiation of formal disclosure or the process of continued disclosure. The findings of this study partially support the aspects of morphology within Black’s (1976/2010) Theory of the Behavior of Law, that is,the closer a victim is with their offender, and the more integrated that offender is within their social life, the less likely the victim may be to use pursue legal action against the offender. This proposition was supported within our findings, in which the victim-offender relationship (at times in conjunction with social standing, at other times independent from it) was another prominent theme throughout respondents’ tweets, particularly when there was strong social overlap between a respondent’s and offender’s friend group. Respondents described fearing that they would lose friends, or, at the very least, disrupt the current social group’s dynamics. This is also in line with past research, which has found that survivors of sexual assault are less likely to formally report or formally disclose if they have a prior relationship with their attacker (Jones et al., 2009), but more likely to disclose to family, friends, and professional service providers if their attacker was a stranger (Ullman & Siegel, 1993).

Two additional tenets of Black’s theory of law were prominent in respondents’ tweets: stratification and culture. The decision to report was affected by an offender’s status, and was further aggravated by a victim’s status, creating a clear interaction: the weight of an offender’s high social value on a respondent’s decision to formally disclose was further aggravated if they viewed their own social value as low. At times, this was presented as the power differential between a respondent and an offender (such as a college employee and a student); at others, the social standings were separate; yet both weighed against the decision to formally disclose (that is, an offender being a star college athlete and a respondent being a first-semester freshman).

The prevalence of stratification and morphology were apparent not only in a victim’s motivation to disclose but also in the reactions of formal and informal disclosure-recipients. These reactions were often intertwined with internalized and externalized factors of shame and exacerbated by individual and cultural adherence to strict stereotypes of classic rape. These results also demonstrate that direct and vicarious experiences of sexual assault and disclosure influence individuals’ beliefs about how their victimization would be treated by both informal and formal support providers. Specifically, if one observes pervasive practices or comments indicative of rape myths, this person may not only believe that among society, there is general acceptance of these myths, they may also accept these myths themselves. This may be further aggravated within a rape-supportive culture, which college campuses often create and propagate through direct forms of sexual violence as well as other sex-and gender-demeaning actions including harassment, jokes, and credence to rape myths (Keller et al., 2018). This culture is further exacerbated by gendered social activities and athletics that “reinforce{s} the hegemonic masculine ideas of male domination and female sexual objectification”(Ash et al., 2017). Moreover, rape-supportive culture normalizes rape in college, meaning that many students perceive it as a normal part of the college experience (Aronowitz et al., 2012), which in turn, means it is often not recognized as sexual assault (Sasson & Paul, 2014). This hinders survivors’ likelihood of formally reporting or disclosing, as they are less likely to anticipate support and confidentiality in the reporting process (Koss, 1992).

We can also examine the effects of the campus culture and environment through Black’s proposition of culture, albeit the application is somewhat convoluted. Specifically, culture is often measured by education at the macro and micro level, as Black argued that law would increase when education was lower, but that an individual with higher levels of education would be more likely to mobilize the legal system. Past research has yielded mixed support for this proposition (Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009; Golladay, 2017; Gottfredson & Hindelang, 1979). While we did not directly test Black’s propositions, there is a lacuna of literature demonstrating the vast underreporting of sexual assault on college campuses (Fisher, 2000; Krebs et al., 2007).

Our findings also demonstrated an overwhelming prevalence of shame: direct and vicarious experiences with shame in response to disclosure, which helped shape victims’ understanding of the collective values of those within their social environment. When victims consider social reactions and consequences to disclosure and reporting they are likely to internalize their culture’s beliefs, which may hinder help-seeking behaviors. This finding can be explained, in part, by the Intimate Partner Violence Stigmatization Model.Many students arrive to college with preconceived views of what college entails, including which experiences are perceived to be normal, including college rape culture (cultural stigma). In turn, victims of sexual assault are likely to internalize the negative stereotypes and stigmatized identities associated with the assault (stigma internalization) and anticipate that others will have similar beliefs and reactions. Together, these shape victims’ predicted reactions to disclosing the assault, and when victims perceive negative reactions (anticipated stigma), they will be hindered from disclosing the incident formally and receiving help.

These findings also supported the notion that decisions to formally disclose a sexual assault do not occur within one period of time; formal disclosure is a process compounded by both internal and external factors, including experiences and observed social reactions to informal disclosures (direct and vicarious) of sexual assault. The results of the current study demonstrate that positive disclosure experiences may lessen fear of disclosure, while negative reactions to disclosure may increase fear of future disclosure, which coincides with past literature on sexual assault disclosures (Clark et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2011).

Further, when considering the tenets of the Intimate Partner Violence Stigmatization model in conjunction with the Disclosure Process model, our findings also revealed a decision-making process within a shame continuum model, as the decision to disclose is influenced by internalized shame (Tillman et al., 2010) and anticipated shame that may be imposed by others. Once initial disclosure occurs, external shame (that is, shame imposed by others) follows (Kennedy & Prock, 2018). Thus, within survivors of sexual assault, the relationship between internalized stigma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder may be mediated by social support and social reactions to disclosure (Littleton, 2010; Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2014).

Program and Policy Implications

If we are to apply Black’s (2000, p. 347) argument of “reconceptualizing the action of a person or group as the action of a social entity such as law” in line with campus policies, this speaks to the lack of collective action on sexual assault that exists within the campus culture. Campus crime legislation has been criticized for being merely symbolic in practice, demonstrable by high variability in compliance and a lack of federal funding tied to the implementation or maintenance of programs and policies focused on sexual violence on college campuses (Griffin et al., 2017; McNeal, 2007; Woodward et al., 2016). Thus, the law speaks to the need for a culture shift on a college campus through a symbiotic process of changes within both social and legal factors.

Past literature has demonstrated the importance that current sexual violence prevention and risk reduction programs may have on sexual violence. Specifically, programs such as Green Dot and other bystander interventions have shown promising effects to reduce the cultural acceptance of violence and rates of victimization on college campuses (Coker et al., 2015). Stated differently, programs like Green Dot have the potential to have multilevel influence within cultural, interpersonal, and individual actions with universities.

The results from this study highlight how programs intended to serve as support systems (for formally and informally) may in fact serve as barriers to sexual assault reporting. Thus, it is imperative that colleges and universities consider this within context of programmatic design for sexual violence education, prevention, and risk reduction. Specifically, we recommend that current bystander programs consider adding additional training and awareness regarding social reactions to sexual assault. The underreporting of sexual assault further perpetuates a rape culture. Thus, if reactions to disclosures influence, at the very least, some survivors’ decisions to continue or cease disclosure, then providing more specific tools and tactics to how one should respond to a survivor of sexual assault is crucial. This could easily be integrated within current curricula by working with local rape crisis centers who train advocates. Moreover, it is imperative that bystander programs involve all stakeholders on college campuses, including students, faculty, staff, and administrators as our research found sexual assaults did not always occur exclusively between students. Therefore, we also recommend that future research focusing on sexual assaults on college campuses further examine the nuances between sexual assaults that occur between students and those which occur between a student and another stakeholder to determine whether bystander intervention trainings should be further tailored to specific groups.Finally, we would be remiss if we did not recommend a culture change in broader society; one which rejects rape myths and offers unbiased responses to sexual assault.

In sum, this study demonstrated that the disclosure process is complex and must consider both internal and external factors within time and space. Future research should work to examine the effects of social reactions and social dominance within disclosure of sexual violence, as well as examine distinctions between social reactions within informal and formal disclosure.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Vanessa Woodward Griffin

Author Biographies

Vanessa Woodward Griffin, Phd is an associate professor at the University of West Georgia. Her research focuses on sexual assault, campus crime, and sexual offending. Her work has been published in such journals as Justice Quarterly, Deviant Behavior, and Criminal Justice Review.

Ericka Wentz, Phd is an associate professor at the University of West Georgia. Her research focuses on police and prosecutorial discretion in sexual assault cases, as well as juvenile’s perceptions of the police. Her work has been published in such journals as Violence against Women, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, and Social Sciences.

Emily Meinert, BS is currently finishing her master’s degree in criminology at the University of West Georgia and will be pursuing her Ph.D. at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. Her research interests include victimization and sexual assault research.

References

Armstrong

E. A.

, Hamilton

, & Sweeney

(2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel, integrative approach to party rape. Social problems , 53(4), 483–499.

Black

(2010). The behavior of law. Bingley, West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing. (Original work published in 1976).

Chaudoir

S. R.

, & Quinn

D. M.

(2010). Revealing concealable stigmatized identities: The impact of disclosure motivations and positive first-disclosure experiences on fear of disclosure and well-being. Journal of Social Issues , 66(3), 570–584.

Estrich

(1987). Real rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Felson

R. B.

, Messner

S. F.

, & Hoskin

(1999). The victim-offender relationship and calling the police in assaults. Criminology , 37(4), 931–948.

Golladay

K.A.

(2017) Reporting behaviors of identity theft victims: An empirical test of black’s theory of law. Journal of Financial Crime , 24(1), 101–117.

Gottfredson

M. R.

, & Hindelang

M. J.

(1979). A study of the behavior of law. American Sociological Review , 44(1), 3–18.

Kolivas

E. D.

, & Gross

A. M.

(2007). Assessing sexual aggression: Addressing the gap between rape victimization and perpetration prevalence rates. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 12(3), 315–328.

Krebs

C. P.

, Lindquist

C. H.

, Warner

T. D.

, Fisher

B. S.

, & Martin

S. L.

(2009). The differential risk factors of physically forced and alcohol-or other drug-enabled sexual assault among university women. Violence and Victims , 24(3), 302–321.

10.

Ryan

K. M.

(2011). The relationship between rape myths and sexual scripts: The social construction of rape. Sex roles , 65(11-12), 774-782.

11.

Williams

L. S.

(1984). The classic rape: When do victims report?. Social Problems , 31(4), 459–467.

12.

Ahrens

C. E.

(2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reactions on the disclosure of rape. American Journal of Community Psychology , 38(3–4), 31–34.

13.

Ahrens

C. E.

Cabral

Abeling

(2009). Healing or hurtful: Sexual assault survivors’ interpretations of social reactions from support providers. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 33(1), 81–94.

14.

Ahrens

C. E.

Campbell

Ternier-Thames

N. K.

Wasco

S. M.

Sefl

(2007). Deciding whom to tell: Expectations and outcomes of rape survivors’ first disclosures. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 31(1), 38–49.

15.

Andalibi

Haimson

O. L.

De Choudhury

Forte

(2016). Understanding social media disclosures of sexual abuse through the lenses of support seeking and anonymity [Paper presentation].The 2016 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858096

16.

Anderson

(2007). Thematic content analysis (tca):Descriptive presentation of qualitative data. http://rosemarieanderson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ThematicContentAnalysis.pdf

17.

Aramaki

Maskawa

Morita

(2011). Twitter catches the flu: Detecting influenza epidemics using twitter [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

18.

Aronowitz

Lambert

C. A.

Davidoff

(2012). The role of rape myth acceptance in the social norms regarding sexual behavior among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing , 29(3), 173–182.

19.

Ash

Sanderson

Kumanyika

Gramlich

(2017). “Just goes to show how these hoes try to tear men down”: Investigating twitter and cultural conversations on athletic ability, race, and sexual assault. Journal of Sports Media , 12(1), 65–87.

20.

Belknap

(2010). Rape: Too hard to report and too easy to discredit victims. Violence Against Women , 16(12), 1335–1344.

21.

Biderman

A. D.

Reiss

A. J.

(1967). On exploring the” dark figure” of crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science ,374(1), 1–15.

22.

Bogen

K. W.

Bleiweiss

Orchowski

L. M.

(2019). Sexual violence is #notokay: Social reactions to disclosures of sexual victimization on twitter. Psychology of Violence , 9(1), 127–137.

23.

Bogen

K. W.

Millman

Huntington

Orchowski

L. M.

(2018). A qualitative analysis of disclosing sexual victimization by #notokay during the 2016 presidential election. Violence and Gender , 5(3), 174–181.

24.

Bogen

K. W.

Orchowski

L. M.

(2019). The utilization of social media to protest sexual violence. The Sexual Assault Report , 23(1), 1–11.

25.

Borja

S. E.

Callahan

J. L.

Long

P. J.

(2006). Positive and negative adjustment and social support of sexual assault survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress , 19(6), 905–914.

26.

Botta

A Pingree

(1997). Interpersonal communication and rape: Women acknowledge their assaults. Journal of Health Communication , 2(3), 197–212.

27.

Brooks-Hay

(2020). Doing the “right thing”? Understanding why rape victim-survivors report to the police. Feminist Criminology , 15(2), 174–195.

28.

Campbell

Ahrens

C. E.

Sefl

Wasco

S. M.

Barnes

H. E.

(2001). Social reactions to rape victims: Healing and hurtful effects on psychological and physical health outcomes. Violence and Victims , 16(3), 287–302.

29.

Chaudoir

S. R.

Fisher

J. D.

(2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin ,136(2), 236–256.

30.

Clark

Quadara

Wang

(2010). Insights into sexual assault perpetration: Giving voice to victim/survivors’ knowledge . https://doi.org/10.1037/e567102013-001

31.

Clay-Warner

McMahon-Howard

(2009). Rape reporting:”Classic rape” and the behavior of law. Violence and Victims , 24(6), 723–743.

32.

Coker

A. L.

Fisher

B. S.

Bush

H. M.

Swan

S. C.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

DeGue

(2015). Evaluation of the green dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women , 21(12), 1507–1527.

33.

Coppersmith

Dredze

Harman

(2014). Quantifying mental health signals in twitter [Paper presentation].Proceedings of the workshop on computational linguistics and clinical psychology: From linguistic signal to clinical reality, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

34.

Coppersmith

Dredze

Harman

Hollingshead

(2015). From adhd to sad: Analyzing the language of mental health on twitter through self-reported diagnoses [Paper presentation].Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Linguistic Signal to Clinical Reality, Denver, Colorado.

35.

Coulter

R. W.

Mair

Miller

Blosnich

J. R.

Matthews

D. D.

McCauley

H. L.

(2017). Prevalence of past-year sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students: Exploring differences by and intersections of gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity. Prevention Science , 18(6), 726–736.

36.

Cravens

J. D.

Whiting

J. B.

Aamar

R. O.

(2015). Why i stayed/left: An analysis of voices of intimate partner violence on social media. Contemporary Family Therapy , 37(4), 372–385.

37.

Dworkin

E. R.

Allen

(2018). Correlates of disclosure cessation after sexual assault. Violence Against Women , 24(1), 85–100.

38.

Eichstaedt

J. C.

Schwartz

H. A.

Kern

M. L.

Park

Labarthe

D. R.

Merchant

R. M.

Jha

Agrawal

Dziurzynski

L. A.

Sap

Weeg

Larson

E. E.

Ungar

L. H.

&Seligman

M. E. P.

(2015). Psychological language on twitter predicts county-level heart disease mortality. Psychological science , 26(2), 159–169.

39.

Fisher

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women . US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

40.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women (Research report).US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

41.

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(1), 6–38.

42.

Garrett

Hassan

(2019). Understanding the silence of sexual harassment victims through the# whyididntreport movement . arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00895.

43.

Gartner

Macmillan

(1995). The effect of victim-offender relationship on reporting crimes of violence against women. Canadian Journal of Criminology , 37, 393.

44.

Golding

J. M.

Siege

J. M.

Sorenson

S. B.

Burnam

M. A.

Stein

J. A.

(1989). Social support sources following sexual assault. Journal of Community Psychology , 17(1), 92–107.

45.

Greenwood

Perrin

Duggan

(2016). Social media update 2016. Pew Research Center , 11(2). https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/11/PI_2016.11.11_Social-Media-Update_FINAL.pdf

46.

Gross

A. M.

Winslett

Roberts

Gohm

C. L.

(2006). An examination of sexual violence against college women. Violence Against Women , 12(3), 288–300.

47.

Griffin

V. W.

Pelletier

Griffin

O. H.

Sloan

J. J.

(2017). Campus sexual violence elimination act: Saving lives or saving face? American Journal of Criminal Justice , 42(2), 401–425.

48.

Hassija

C. M.

Turchik

J. A.

(2016). An examination of disclosure, mental health treatment use, and posttraumatic growth among college women who experienced sexual victimization. Journal of Loss and Trauma , 21(2), 124–136.

49.

Herman

J. L.

(2005). Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence Against Women , 11(5), 571–602.

50.

Jones

J. S.

Alexander

Wynn

B. N.

Rossman

Dunnuck

(2009). Why women don’t report sexual assault to the police: The influence of psychosocial variables and traumatic injury. The Journal of Emergency Medicine , 36(4), 417–424.

51.

Jordan

C. E.

Combs

J. L.

Smith

G. T.

(2014). An exploration of sexual victimization and academic performance among college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 15(3), 191–200.

52.

Keller

Mendes

Ringrose

(2018). Speaking “unspeakable things”: Documenting digital feminist responses to rape culture. Journal of Gender Studies , 27(1), 22–36.

53.

Kennedy

A. C.

Prock

K. A.

(2018). “I still feel like i am not normal”: A review of the role of stigma and stigmatization among female survivors of child sexual abuse, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 19(5), 512–527.

54.

Kennedy-Lightsey

C. D.

Martin

M. M.

Thompson

Himes

K. L.

Clingerman

B. Z.

(2012). Communication privacy management theory: Exploring coordination and ownership between friends. Communication Quarterly , 60(5), 665–680.

55.

Koss

M. P.

(1992). The under detection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues , 48(1), 61–75.

56.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 55(2), 162.

57.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2007). The campus sexual assault (csa) study . National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.

58.

Krippendorff

(2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research , 30(3), 411–433.

59.

Krippendorff

(2009). The content analysis reader . SAGE Publications.

60.

Kuo

S.-Y.

Cuvelier

S. J.

Sheu

C.-J.

Chang

K.-M.

(2012). Crime reporting behavior and black’s behavior of law. International Sociology , 27(1), 51–71.

61.

Lee

J. L.

DeCamp

Dredze

Chisolm

M. S.

Berger

Z. D.

(2014). What are health-related users tweeting? A qualitative content analysis of health-related users and their messages on twitter. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 16(10), e237.

62.

Lewis

C. C.

Matheson

D. H.

Brimacombe

C. E.

(2011). Factors influencing patient disclosure to physicians in birth control clinics: An application of the communication privacy management theory. Health Communication , 26(6), 502–511.

63.

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(2), 210–227.

64.

Lorenz

Ullman

S. E.

Kirkner

Mandala

Vasquez

A. L.

Sigurvinsdottir

(2018). Social reactions to sexual assault disclosure: A qualitative study of informal support dyads. Violence Against Women , 24(12), 1497–1520.

65.

Lune

Berg

B. L.

(2016). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences . Pearson Higher Ed.

66.

Martinez

Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Becnel

(2018). “Good guys don’t rape”: Greek and non-greek college student perpetrator rape myths. Behavioral Sciences , 8(7), 60.

67.

McNeal

L. R.

(2007). Clery Act: Road to compliance. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education , 19(3–4), 105–113.

68.

Mellins

C. A.

Walsh

Sarvet

A. L.

Wall

Gilbert

Santelli

J. S.

Thompson

Wilson

P. A.

Khan

Benson

Bah

Kaufman

K. A.

Reardon

&Hirsch

J. S.

(2017). Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLoS One , 12(11), e0186471.

69.

Mendes

Ringrose

Keller

(2018). #metoo and the promise and pitfalls of challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism. European Journal of Women’s Studies , 25(2), 236–246.

70.

Miller

A. K.

Canales

E. J.

Amacker

A. M.

Backstrom

T. L.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2011). Stigma-threat motivated nondisclosure of sexual assault and sexual revictimization: A prospective analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 35(1), 119–128.

71.

Moors

Webber

(2013). The dance of disclosure: Online self-disclosure of sexual assault. Qualitative Social Work , 12(6), 799–815.

72.

Morgan

Truman

(2019). Criminal victimization, 2017 . National crime victimization survey, bureau of justice statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf

73.

Morgan

R. E.

Oudekerk

B. A.

(2019). Criminal victimization, 2018 . https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

74.

Mosbergen

(2018). National sexual assault hotline sees sharp surge in calls amid kavanaugh allegations. Huffington Post . https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rainn-national-sexual-assault-hotline-kavanaugh_n_5ba8b9a2e4b0375f8f9ebb02

75.

O’dea

Larsen

M. E.

Batterham

P. J.

Calear

A. L.

Christensen

(2017). A linguistic analysis of suicide-related twitter posts. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention , 38(5), 319.

76.

O’Neill

(2018). “Today i speak”: Exploring how victim-survivors use reddit. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy , 7(1), 44.

77.

Orchowski

L. M.

Untied

A. S.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2013). Factors associated with college women’s labeling of sexual victimization. Violence and Victims , 28(6), 940–958.

78.

Overstreet

N. M.

Quinn

D. M.

(2013). The intimate partner violence stigmatization model and barriers to help seeking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 35(1), 109–122.

79.

Paul

L. A.

Kehn

Gray

M. J.

Salapska-Gelleri

(2014). Perceptions of, and assistance provided to, a hypothetical rape victim: Differences between rape disclosure recipients and nonrecipients. Journal of American College Health , 62(6), 426–433.

80.

Paul

M. J.

Dredze

(2011). You are what you tweet: Analyzing twitter for public health [Paper presentation].Fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media,Barcelona.

81.

Paul

M. J.

Dredze

Broniatowski

(2014). Twitter improves influenza forecasting. PLoS Currents , 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.outbreaks.90b9ed0f59bae4ccaa683a39865d9117

82.

Petronio

(2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure : Suny Press.

83.

Petronio

(2004). Road to developing communication privacy management theory: Narrative in progress, please stand by. Journal of Family Communication , 4(3–4), 193–207.

84.

PettyJohn

M. E.

Muzzey

F. K.

Maas

M. K.

McCauley

H. L.

(2019). #howiwillchange: Engaging men and boys in the #metoo movement. Psychology of Men & Masculinities , 20(4), 612–622.

85.

Pluretti

Chesebro

J. L.

(2015). Managing privacy and the decision to disclose: Disclosures of sexual victimization. Communication Quarterly , 63(5), 550–567.

86.

Porter

Williams

L. M.

(2011). Intimate violence among underrepresented groups on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 26(16), 3210–3224.

87.

Powell

(2015). Seeking rape justice: Formal and informal responses to sexual violence through technosocial counter-publics. Theoretical Criminology , 19(4), 571–588.

88.

Rennison

C. M.

(2002). Rape and sexual assault: Reporting to police and medical attention, 1992–2000 . US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

89.

Ruback

R. B.

Greenberg

M. S.

Westcott

D. R.

(1984). Social influence and crime-victim decision making. Journal of Social Issues , 40(1), 51–76.

90.

Sable

M. R.

Danis

Mauzy

D. L.

Gallagher

S. K.

(2006). Barriers to reporting sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. Journal of American College Health , 55(3), 157–162.

91.

Sasson

Paul

L. A.

(2014). Labeling acts of sexual violence: What roles do assault characteristics, attitudes, and life experiences play? Behavior and Social Issues , 23, 35.

92.

Schreier

(2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice .SAGE Publications.

93.

Sidanius

Pratto

(2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression . Cambridge University Press.

94.

Sills

Pickens

Beach

Jones

Calder-Dawe

Benton-Greig

Gavey

(2016). Rape culture and social media: Young critics and a feminist counterpublic. Feminist Media Studies , 16(6), 935–951.

95.

Sinnenberg

Buttenheim

A. M.

Padrez

Mancheno

Ungar

Merchant

R. M.

(2017). Twitter as a tool for health research: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health , 107(1), e1-e8.

96.

Sinozich

Langton

(2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age females, 1995–2013 . US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice.

97.

Sloan

J. J.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(1997). Assessing the student right-to-know and campus security act of 1990: An analysis of the victim reporting practices of college and university students. Crime & Delinquency , 43(2), 148–168.

98.

Smith

Anderson

(2018). Social media use in 2018 . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/

99.

Starzynski

L. L.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

Townsend

S. M.

(2005). Correlates of women’s sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims , 20(4), 417.

100.

Starzynski

L. L.

Ullman

S. E.

Townsend

S. M.

Long

L. M.

Long

S. M.

(2007). What factors predict women’s disclosure of sexual assault to mental health professionals? Journal of Community Psychology , 35(5), 619–638.

101.

Stemler

S. E.

(2015). Content analysis. In Kosslyn

, Buchman

,& Scott

R. A.

(Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1–14).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0053

102.

Storer

H. L.

Rodriguez

Franklin

(2018). “Leaving was a process, not an event”: The lived experience of dating and domestic violence in 140 characters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518816325.

103.

Stubbs-Richardson

Rader

N. E.

Cosby

A. G.

(2018). Tweeting rape culture: Examining portrayals of victim blaming in discussions of sexual assault cases on twitter. Feminism & Psychology , 28(1), 90–108.

104.

Suler

(2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior , 7(3), 321–326.

105.

Suler

(2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies , 2(2), 184–188.

106.

Suzuki

Y. E.

Bonner

H. S.

(2017). Factors associated with college students’ responses to rape-disclosure scenarios: Influence of gender, rape characteristics, and opinions about health professionals. Journal of School Violence , 16(2), 160–172.

107.

Thackeray

Burton

S. H.

Giraud-Carrier

Rollins

Draper

C. R.

(2013). Using twitter for breast cancer prevention: An analysis of breast cancer awareness month. BMC Cancer , 13(1), 508.

108.

Tichon

J. G.

Shapiro

(2003). The process of sharing social support in cyberspace. CyberPsychology & Behavior , 6(2), 161–170.

109.

Tillman

Bryant-Davis

Smith

Marks

(2010). Shattering silence: Exploring barriers to disclosure for african american sexual assault survivors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 11(2), 59–70.

110.

Trump

D. J.

(2018). In @realDonaldTrump (Ed.), I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learndate, time, and place! [Tweet].Twitter.

111.

Tumasjan

Sprenger

T. O.

Sandner

P. G.

Welpe

I. M.

(2011). Election forecasts with Twitter: How 140 characters reflect the political landscape. Social Science Computer Review , 29(4), 402–418.

112.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996). Correlates and consequences of adult sexual assault disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 11(4), 554–571.

113.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

(2001a). Correlates of formal and informal support seeking in sexual assault victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 16(10), 1028–1047.

114.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

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

115.

Ullman

S. E.

Peter-Hagene

(2014). Social reactions to sexual assault disclosure, coping, perceived control, and ptsd symptoms in sexual assault victims: Social reactions and ptsd. Journal of Community Psychology , 42(4), 495–508.

116.

Ullman

S. E.

Siegel

J. M.

(1993). Victim-offender relationship and sexual assault. Violence and Victims , 8(2), 121–134.

117.

Walsh

W. A.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Ward

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.

118.

Walther

J. B.

Parks

M. R.

(2002). Cues filtered out, cues filteredin: Computer Mediated Communication and Relationships. In Miller

G. R.

(Ed.),Handbook of interpersonal communication(pp.529–563). SAGE Publications.

119.

Wojcik

Hughes

(2019). Sizing up twitter users . Pew Research Center.

120.

Woodward

V. H.

Pelletier

Griffin

O. H.

Harrington

J. R.

(2016). University policies and programs for crime prevention and awareness: An examination of online reports and resources. Criminal justice review , 41(2), 140–158.

121.

Zinzow

H. M.

Thompson

(2011). Barriers to reporting sexual victimization: Prevalence and correlates among undergraduate women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 20(7), 711–725.