Disclosure Recipients’ Perceptions Related to Helping Victims of Dating and Sexual Violence

Abstract

To date, research on social reactions to dating and sexual violence (DSV) disclosure has largely neglected the perspective of disclosure recipients. Moreover, few studies have explored disclosure recipients’ perceptions of the victim and perceptions of their own effectiveness in helping as well as the correlates of these perceptions. The purpose of this study was to address these gaps in the literature. Participants were 783 college students (73.0% female) who reported receiving a DSV disclosure in the past 6 months. Participants who provided more negative social reactions to victim disclosures were less likely to empathize with the victim and more likely to feel victim blame/burdensomeness and confusion/ineffectiveness in their responses. Conversely, those providing more positive social reactions were more likely to empathize with the victim and were less likely to report victim blame/burdensomeness and confusion/ineffectiveness. Further, recipients with a DSV victimization history were more likely to report empathy for the victim. Being a man and having higher post-traumatic stress symptoms were associated with greater victim blame/burdensomeness, while the victim approaching the recipient to disclose and DSV experiences that occurred long ago were associated with lower victim blame/burdensomeness. Finally, depressive symptoms, receiving disclosures from a stranger/casual friend, and less frequent discussion about the incident were significantly associated with increased confusion/ineffectiveness. These findings suggest that perceptions of the victim and helping effectiveness, and factors associated with them, may be promising targets of programs seeking to reduce negative and increase positive social reactions to DSV disclosures.

Keywords

disclosure recipient sexual violence dating violence perceptions of helping social reactions

Dating and sexual violence (DSV) continue to be major problems on college campuses (Edwards, Sylaska, 2015; Fedina et al., 2018; Krebs et al., 2007) and are associated with a host of deleterious mental health and academic problems for students (Banyard et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2009; Carey et al., 2018; Dworkin et al., 2017). DSV disclosures can be met with positive (e.g., emotional support) and negative (e.g., victim blaming) reactions (Edwards & Dardis, 2020; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014; Ullman, 2010). Negative social reactions can have adverse influences on victims, and predict post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and problem drinking (Ahrens, 2006; Dworkin et al., 2019; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2015; Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2013; Ullman et al., 2008). Conversely, positive social reactions from peers can ensure that victims feel supported and are connected to necessary resources (Filipas & Ullman, 2001), although positive social reactions are not necessarily associated with improved mental health outcomes (Dworkin et al., 2019).

While much of the research on social reactions to disclosure has focused on disclosure of sexual violence, qualitative research has confirmed that the types of reactions provided to dating violence survivors are largely similar (e.g., emotional support, tangible aid, and blame; Ahrens et al., 2021). Also, quantitative research shows that negative social reactions are similarly associated with negative psychological outcomes following dating violence (DePrince et al., 2014; Edwards, Dardis, 2015; Schackner et al., 2017; Sullivan et al., 2010). Thus, it is important to understand correlates of social reactions to disclosures of dating and sexual violence.

Although much is known about the impact of social reactions to DSV disclosures on victims, few studies have focused on understanding the experiences and perspectives of disclosure recipients (Edwards et al., 2022a; Edwards & Dardis, 2020). Studies find that 28%–51% of college students report receiving a disclosure of DSV during college, mostly from friends (Banyard et al., 2010; Edwards & Dardis, 2020; Paul et al., 2014). Disclosure recipients can experience distress at receiving a disclosure and find it difficult to support the victim (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Christiansen et al., 2012).

Perceptions of Victims and Effectiveness in Helping among DSV Disclosure Recipients

Research is needed to better understand disclosure recipients’ perceptions of how effective they are at helping and why they respond to disclosures of DSV the way that they do. To date, little research has been conducted on perceptions of helping, which includes disclosure recipients’ perceptions of victims and of the effectiveness of their helping efforts. One of several exceptions is Ahrens and Campbell (2000) study of perceptions of victims and helping effectiveness in a sample of 60 college students. They argued that an individual’s ability to react positively to a disclosure of DSV is likely impacted by a number of factors, including their perceptions of the victim and their own capacity to actually help the victim.

Perceptions about the victim include the recipients’ empathy for the victim, as well as the recipients’ perceptions of the victim’s blame/responsibility for their victimization (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000). Assessing perceptions of victim blame is significant given that expressing blame is one of the primary negative social reactions identified in research (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). In a study of friends, family, and other supporters of rape victims, 25% thought the victim was at least a little responsible and friends blamed the victim more than family members (Christiansen et al., 2012).

Also, disclosure recipients may be confused about how to help and whether they responded effectively to the disclosure (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000). In one of the few studies of disclosure recipients’ perceptions of their responses (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000), three-quarters of college student disclosure recipients felt positive about helping (e.g., perceived they were needed, the victim was thankful), however, a similar percentage felt uncertain about what the victim needed and how to help. In another study of supporters of rape victims, 76% found it at least a little difficult to support the victim and only 18% were “very much” satisfied with the support they provided (Christiansen et al., 2012). The association between disclosure recipients’ perceptions of helping and actual social reactions to disclosure has not been empirically examined. However, researchers suggest that having empathy for victims is related to positive social reactions, while confusion about how to effectively help the victim and perceiving the victim is to blame are associated with negative social reactions (Edwards & Dardis, 2020; Milliken et al., 2016; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014)

A small body of literature has examined characteristics of disclosure recipients that relate to perceptions of victims and helping effectiveness. For example, Ahrens and Campbell (2000) found that compared to women, men reported being less empathic, engaged in more victim blaming, were more often confused, and felt less effective at responding to friends’ disclosures of sexual assault. Conversely, recipients with a sexual assault history were more empathic and less victim-blaming than those without such histories (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000). In this same study, researchers found that longer friendships between disclosure recipients and victims were related to more positive disclosure impacts on their relationship (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000), pointing to the potential for victim–recipient relationship characteristics to impact perceptions of the disclosure experience. Building on Ahrens and Campbell (2000) findings, Banyard et al. (2010) surveyed 354 college students and found that men reported greater discomfort than women talking to friends disclosing an unwanted sexual experience and more concern that they were causing harm to their friend. Furthermore, men were more likely to perceive they were not supportive enough and felt burdened by their friends’ needs, whereas female students felt less confusion and ineffectiveness about responding to a friend’s disclosure (Banyard et al., 2010).

Other factors have been found to predict actual social reactions provided by disclosure recipients in response to disclosure of DSV and are likely also relevant to understanding disclosure recipients’ perceptions of the victim and their helping effectiveness. Situation-specific factors (e.g., frequency of dating violence incidents disclosed by the victim), individual factors about the recipient (e.g., gender), and relational factors (e.g., recipient–victim closeness) predict social reactions to DSV disclosures (Edwards & Dardis, 2020; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014). Research also finds that victim characteristics (e.g., gender, race), disclosure recipient perceptions of victims (e.g., empathy for victim, blame of victim, and victims’ coping) and both disclosure recipient and victim behavior at the time of disclosure (e.g., drinking, distress) are related to disclosure recipient social reactions (Edwards et al., 2022a).

Current Study

To date, only a few studies have focused on perceptions of victims and perceptions of helping effectiveness. The proposed study builds off this literature in several ways. First, existing research has mainly focused on perceptions of victims and helping effectiveness among friends. The present study moves beyond friends’ disclosures to include disclosure recipients less close to the victim (e.g., acquaintances). Moreover, existing studies had relatively small samples and did not include multiple correlates of perceptions of victims and helping effectiveness, both of which the current study addresses. Finally, previous research has not empirically examined how these perceptions relate to the actual negative and positive social reactions provided. In all, the current study extends previous research in several important ways that may help to understand factors leading to reduced negative and increased positive social reactions to victims.

There were two primary aims to this exploratory study: Aim 1 was to examine how positive and negative social reactions to disclosure relate to disclosure recipients’ perceptions of victims (i.e., victim empathy; victim blame/burdensomeness) and perceptions of helping effectiveness (i.e., confusion/ineffectiveness), while Aim 2 was to document disclosure recipients’ individual (i.e., age, race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, year in college, mental health symptoms, and DSV history), relational (i.e., victim–recipient relationship), and situational factors (i.e., relationship between victim and assailant, when the experience occurred, alcohol involvement in victim’s experience, how victim disclosed to recipient, victim upset during first disclosure to recipient, frequency of recipient and victim talking about the experience, and victim drinking during disclosure) that relate to disclosure recipients’ perceptions of victims and helping effectiveness. Given the exploratory nature of the study, no a priori hypotheses were made.

Method

Procedures

Data for this study comes from a larger study evaluating the impact of an intervention to train potential disclosure recipients to respond effectively to DSV disclosures (Edwards et al., 2022b). The study took place at a residential, medium-size 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. Emails were sent via mass email to 7000 students in four batches across 4 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 had not yet completed their survey after receiving this initial email were sent one to two reminder emails across 2 weeks.

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. Lastly, we posted fliers in residence halls and other shared spaces about the study. Given the multiple recruitment strategies used, data were checked for multiple responses by the same participant by checking for duplicate student email addresses and the same name being used multiple times in email addresses (e.g., johndoe@gmail.com; johndoe1@gmail.com). When duplicates were found, the first data point was retained, and all other duplicates were removed.

Participants consented to participate online and then completed the eligibility questionnaire; if eligible, they moved on to the survey. Overall, 1831 students started the survey, of which 1268 qualified for, consented to, and completed the survey. Analyses were conducted with data from 783 students who reported receiving a disclosure of DSV in the previous 6 months. All data presented in this paper were collected prior to the intervention.

Participants

Participants include 783 college students who reported receiving a disclosure of sexual violence and/or dating violence in the past 6 months. The mean age of participants was 19.56 (Range 18–24, SD = 1.23), and 70.05% of the sample had dated or been in a romantic relationship in the past 6 months. Table 1 includes information on participant demographics, including participant gender, race, ethnicity, year in school, and sexual orientation.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

	N	%
Gender
Woman Man Gender variant and/or gender queer Another gender (e.g., transgender male)	575 208 4 1	72.97 26.40 0.51 0.13
Year in college
First year Second year Third Year Fourth year Fifth year or beyond	228 189 189 174 8	28.93 23.98 23.98 22.08 1.02
Race
Asian/Asian American American Indian or Alaska Native Black/African American White Multiracial	35 3 8 712 25	4.47 0.38 1.02 90.93 3.19
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino	45	4.97
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay Lesbian Pansexual Asexual Another sexual orientation (e.g., demisexual) Not sure	673 67 9 8 8 4 4 12	85.41 8.50 1.14 1.02 1.02 0.51 0.51 1.52

Note. Analyses were limited to female and male college students (Women = 0, Man = 1). Analyses included dummy coded variables for race (White, non-Hispanic = 1) and sexual orientation (Sexual minority = 1). According to demographic statistics from the university where the sample was collected, the current sample was similar to that of the larger student body with the exception of women were overrepresented in the current study.

Measures

Experiences of Disclosure

Participants responded to the item, “In the past 6 months, has someone (e.g., friend, acquaintance, family member, and dating/romantic partner) told you they experienced any of the following?” This item was followed by three sexual assault 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, and vaginal]”) and 13 items of physical, verbal, and psychological dating violence (e.g., “their partner threw something at them,” “their partner refused to talk to them,” “their partner monitored their phone, email, social media account”).

Perceptions of Helping

Participants responded to two subscales from the Friends’ Perceptions of the Victims and the Assault questionnaire (i.e., Victim Responsibility, Empathy) and two subscales from the Friends’ Perceptions of their Assistance questionnaire (i.e., Confusion, Ineffectiveness; Ahrens & Campbell, 2000). Because the subscales used in the present study have not been psychometrically validated, we examined the factor structure of the items.¹ The final measure included three subscales with acceptable reliability that were thematically consistent with the proposed scales from the original measure: (1) empathy (3 items, e.g., “I felt I was able to understand what they were going through”; α = .72), (2) victim blame/burdensomeness (6 items; 4 blame (e.g., “I thought it was unwise to put themselves in that position”), 2 burdensomeness (e.g. “I felt burdened by their needs”); α = .83), and (3) confusion/ineffectiveness (6 items; 4 confusion (e.g., “I didn’t know what to do to help”), 2 ineffectiveness (e.g., “I felt that I wasn’t supportive enough”); α = .80). Response items ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Final score on the subscales was a mean of items.

Social Reactions

Participants responded to the Social Reactions Questionnaire - Shortened (Relyea & Ullman, 2015; Ullman et al., 2014). In a previous paper from the larger study, we performed a factor analysis confiming the two-factor solution that previous versions of the scale also found (Edwards et al., 2022b; Relyea & Ullman, 2015; Ullman et al., 2014). 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 = .80 for negative reactions and α = .70 for positive reactions.

Correlates of Perceptions of Helping: Individual Factors

Several individual characteristics of the disclosure recipient assessed included: demographics, victimization history, and mental health symptoms.

Demographic Characteristics

Demographics of the disclosure recipient assessed included: age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and year in college.

Sexual Violence (SV) Victimization

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, “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?” (Banyard et al., 2007; Ward et al., 1991). 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 didn’t want to; you physically struggled; you cried), or you were intimidated or forced by someone or you were incapacitated (e.g., drunk, passed out).” Responses for sexual contact and sexual intercourse questions were combined into one variable indicating lifetime SV victimization, which was reported by 42.78% (n = 335) of participants.

Dating Violence (DV) Victimization

Participants responded to four questions asking if they had ever, in their lifetime, experienced verbal, physical, or psychological dating violence (0 = no, 1 = yes), for example, “My partner insulted or swore or shouted or yelled at me.” These questions are from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus & Douglas, 2004). All items were combined into one variable indicating any lifetime DV victimization. In the present study sample, 46.19% (n = 358) of participants reported lifetime DV victimization.

Posttraumatic Stress (PTS) Symptoms

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 not reporting 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 with respect to the past month. Response items ranged from 0 = not at all to 4 = extremely. Final score was a sum of items. Reliability was α = .95 and participants had a mean of 15.79 PTS symptoms (SD = 16.54).

Depressive Symptoms

Participants responded to the modified, 7-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Mirowsky & Ross, 1990), with items such as “I felt that I could not shake off the blues.” Response items ranged from 0 = rarely or none of the time to 3 = most or all of the time. Final score was a sum of items. Reliability was α = .88 and the present sample reported a mean of 7.38 depressive symptoms (SD = 5.16).

Correlates of Perceptions of Helping: Relational and Situational Characteristics

Relational Characteristics of Disclosure

Relationship between the victim and disclosure recipient was assessed with several categories (e.g., friend [close]; stranger, acquaintance, friend [casual]) that were recoded into two categories indicating closeness of the relationship: (1) close friend, serious romantic partner, family member (70.57%, n = 530), and (2) stranger, casual friend, etc. (29.43%, n = 221).

Situational Characteristics of the Assault and Disclosure

Situational factors assessed included participant responses to three variables assessing assault characteristics and four variables assessing disclosure characteristics. Table 2 includes a description of each of the situational characteristics’ measures, response scales, and means or percentages as appropriate.

Table 2.

Situational Characteristics of the Assault and Disclosure.

Situational Characteristic [Label]	Response Scale	Response Rate/Average
Characteristics of the assault How long ago the experience took place [Time since DSV experience] Relationship between the victim and assailant [Victim/assailant were partners/casual partners] Victim alcohol use during their experience [Alcohol involved in incident]	13-point scale (1 = experience is ongoing/still occurring to 13 = 5+ years ago) Two categories: (1) Partner/ex-partner/casual romantic partner (2) Otheir relationships	M = 4.78 (between one and 2 months ago), SD = 2.81 73.37% (n = 551) 26.63% (n = 200) Yes: 33.44% (n = 202) No: 66.56% (n = 402)
Characteristics of the disclosure Who approached whom for the disclosure [Victim approached recipient] How upset the victim was during the first disclosure [Greater victim distress] How often the recipient has spoken with the victim about the experience [More frequent discussion] Victim drinking alcohol when they talked about the experience during disclosure [Victim alcohol use during disclosure]	Two categories: (1) I (recipient) approached the victim (2) They (the victim) approached me Five-point scale (1 = not at all upset to 5 = very upset) Five-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal)	25.90% (n = 179) 74.10% (n = 512) M = 3.21 (SD = 1.19) M = 2.68 (SD = 1.08) Yes: 11.80% (n = 78) No: 88.20% (n = 583)

Note. For clarity, we use shortened labels to refer to each of the situational characteristics throughout the paper. Labels are found in brackets next to each of the situational characteristics’ description.

Data Analysis Plan

We checked for skewness of all variables; skewness (absolute value) ranged from 0.34 to 1.40, which was within acceptable limits (Kim, 2013). For Aim 1 (examining associations between social reactions to disclosure and perceptions of helping), we calculated Pearson’s bivariate correlations to assess the associations between positive and negative social reactions and the perceptions of helping subscales (i.e., empathy, victim blame/burdensomeness, and confusion/ineffectiveness). For Aim 2 (examining correlates of perceptions of helping), we first conducted Pearson’s bivariate correlations of individual, relational, and situational factors with the perceptions of helping subscales (i.e., empathy, victim blame/burdensomeness, and confusion/ineffectiveness). Second, we conducted three multiple regressions predicting empathy, victim blame/burdensomeness, and confusion/ineffectiveness. Only significant variables in the bivariate correlations were included in multiple regressions. Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the many variables included in the models, the p < .01 level of significance was used.

Results

Aim 1: Associations between Social Reactions to Disclosure and Perceptions of Victim & Helping Effectiveness

Providing negative social reactions was associated with lower empathy (r = −.16, p < .001), greater victim blame/burdensomeness (r = .54, p < .001), and greater confusion/ineffectiveness (r = .15, p < .001). Providing positive social reactions was associated with greater empathy (r = .23, p < .001), lower victim blame/burdensomeness (r = −.22, p < .001), and lower confusion/ineffectiveness (r = −.14, p < .001).

Aim 2: The Relationship between Individual, Relational, and Situational Factors and Perceptions of Victim & Helping Effectiveness

Bivariate Associations

Regarding empathy, being a man was associated with lower empathy. Disclosure recipients’ greater PTS and depressive symptoms, their history of SV and DV victimization, the victim being a close friend/family member, and greater victim distress during the first disclosure were associated with greater empathy (Table 3).

Table 3.

Bivariate Correlations for Perceptions of Helping Subscales.

	Empathy	Victim Blame/Burdensomeness	Confusion/Ineffectiveness
Individual factors
Man White, non-Hispanic Age Sexual minority Year in college PTS symptoms Depressive symptoms Lifetime DV Lifetime SV	–.10 .03 .04 .07 .04 .13.16.20.23	.17 –.11 .06 –.04 .03 .12 .03 –.04 .06	.01 –.05 .01 .11 .00 .15.20 –.05 .02
Relational factors
Victim is close friend/family	.10	–.11	–.14
Situational factors
Victim is close friend/family Victim approached recipient Greater victim distress More frequent discussion Victim alcohol use during disclosure Time since DSV experience Victim/assailant were partners/casual partners Alcohol involved in incident	.07 .15 –.07 .05 –.03 .00 .00	–.27 –.07 .02 .02 –.12 .03 .01	–.05 .05 –.13 –.01 .04 –.01 .04

Note. Coefficients printed in bold are significant (p < .01).

Regarding victim blame/burdensomeness, being a man and greater PTS symptoms were associated with greater blame/burdensomeness. Being non-Hispanic White, a close friend/family member of the victim, the victim approaching the recipient to disclose, and a longer time since the DSV experience were associated with lower victim blame/burdensomeness.

Finally, regarding confusion/ineffectiveness, identifying as sexual minority, greater PTS symptoms, and greater depressive symptoms were associated with greater confusion/ineffectiveness. Being a close friend/family member of the victim and discussing the victim’s experience more frequently were associated with lower confusion/ineffectiveness.

Multiple Regression Model for Empathy

The model for empathy toward the victim was significant, F(7, 696) = 11.30, p < .001, and accounted for 10.21% of the variance (Table 4). Disclosure recipients with lifetime DV and SV victimization history reported higher empathy than disclosure recipients who were not DV and SV victims. Disclosure recipient gender, PTS symptoms, and depression symptoms were not related to empathy toward the victim. Of note, the victim being a close friend or family member and greater victim distress during the disclosure while not significant at the p < .01 level, were marginally significantly positively related to empathy toward the victim (p < .05).

Table 4.

Multiple Regression for Perceptions of Helping Subscales.

	B	SE	β	95% CI		p
	B	SE	β	LL	UL	p
Empathy
Man PTS symptoms Depressive symptoms Lifetime DV Lifetime SV Victim is close friend/family Greater victim distress	-.07 .00 .01 .22 .29 .16 .06	.08 .00 .01 .07 .07 .07 .03	-.03 .03 .08 .12 .16 .08 .09	-.22 -.00 -.00 .09 .15 .02 .01	.09 .01 .03 .35 .43 .31 .12	.40 .45 .09 <.01 <.001 .02 .02
Victim Blame/Burdensomeness
Man White, non-Hispanic PTS symptoms Victim is close friend/family Victim approached recipient Time since DSV experience	.26 –.21 .01 –.14 –.32 –.03	.07 .09 .00 .06 .06 .01	.16 –.09 .11 –.09 –.20 –.13	.13 –.37 .00 –.26 -.45 -.05	.39 –.04 .01 –.02 –.20 –.01	<.001 .02 < .01 .02 <.001 < .01
Confusion/Ineffectiveness
Sexual minority PTS symptoms Depressive symptoms Victim is close friend/family More frequent discussion	.13 .00 .02 –.24 –.08	.09 .00 .01 .07 .03	.06 .04 .16 –.14 –.10	–.04 –.00 .01 -.37 -.13	.31 .01 .04 –.11 –.02	.13 .38 < .001 < .001 < .01

Note. Rows printed in bold are significant (p < .01). LL is defined as the lower level of the 95% confidence interval. UL is defined as the upper level of the 95% confidence interval.

Multiple Regression Model for Victim Blame/Burdensomeness

The model for victim blame/burdensomeness was significant, F(6, 614) = 16.01, p < .001, and accounted for 13.53% of the variance (Table 4). Men and disclosure recipients with greater post-traumatic stress symptoms had greater victim blame/burdensomeness than women and disclosure recipients with fewer post-traumatic stress symptoms. Disclosure recipients approached by the victim had less victim blame/burdensomeness than those who approached the victim themselves. Disclosure recipients receiving a DSV disclosure that occurred less recently had less victim blame/burdensomeness, compared to those receiving a DSV disclosure that happened more recently. Being non-Hispanic White and the victim being a close friend or family, while not significant at the p < .01 level, were marginally related to less victim blame/burdensomeness (p < .05).

Multiple Regression Model for Confusion/Ineffectiveness

The model for confusion/ineffectiveness was significant, F(5, 696) = 11.91, p < .001, and accounted for 7.88% of the variance (Table 4). Disclosure recipients with greater depressive symptoms reported greater confusion/ineffectiveness. Disclosure recipients who were close friends/family members with the victim reported less confusion/ineffectiveness than those who were not close friends/family members with the victim. Disclosure recipients who had more frequent discussion about the victimization reported less confusion/ineffectiveness than did those who discussed the victimization less frequently. Disclosure recipient’s sexual orientation and PTS symptoms were not significantly associated with confusion/ineffectiveness.

Discussion

The present study highlights the importance of understanding disclosure recipients’ perceptions of both the victim and their own helping effectiveness. Regarding Aim 1, we found that disclosure recipients’ perceptions of the victim and helping effectiveness were significantly related to their positive and negative social reactions to disclosure. The finding that confusion/ineffectiveness was associated with more negative social reactions provided suggests that, at least to some extent, students are aware that the reactions they provided were not helpful. However, the temporal ordering of the relationship between perceptions of helping and social reactions is unclear. One possibility is that people who feel more confused/ineffective provide negative reactions as a result. The second possibility is that people who provide more negative reactions are more likely to feel more confused/ineffective as a result. These findings suggest that students need to be equipped with skills and training to respond positively and not negatively to victim disclosures and feel more confident in their ability to do so.

The finding that positive social reactions were associated with greater empathy and negative social reactions were associated with greater victim blame/burdensomeness suggests that disclosure recipients are conveying their perceptions of the victim to them (Bonnan-White et al., 2018). Therefore, one point of intervention might be to help disclosure recipients notice and identify these attitudes, try to challenge them, refrain from saying/doing harmful things and try to engage in supportive actions.

Turning to Aim 2, several individual characteristics of the disclosure recipient were significantly related to perceptions of helping. Consistent with previous findings (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard et al., 2010), men reported higher victim blame/burdensomeness. However, gender was not significantly related to empathy, which differs from previous research (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Edwards et al., 2022a). Therefore, it is possible that men’s ability to empathize with victims is not the mechanism by which they feel victim blame/burdensomeness. Further research with male disclosure recipients is needed to unpack these mechanisms.

Moreover, we found that symptoms of depression were associated with confusion/ineffectiveness. As depressive symptoms often include feelings of low self-worth and self-efficacy, it is unsurprising that those with higher depressive symptoms might also struggle with low perceived competence to cope with DSV disclosures. Similarly, PTS symptoms were significantly associated with victim blame/burdensomeness. It is important to note that PTS symptoms were not necessarily assessed in relation to the recipient’s own experience of DSV. While some participants answered the PTS checklist about a DSV experience, others without such experiences answered about a recent traumatic/stressful event. This suggests that it is not necessarily the case that disclosure recipients were experiencing distress as a result of being reminded of a personal experience, although victimization history was related to empathy. It is possible that disclosure recipients with higher PTS symptoms may feel more emotionally depleted and therefore feel more burdened by the victim’s disclosure. Disclosure recipients with higher PTS symptoms may also experience interpersonal difficulties or irritability that may lead them to feel burdened by the victim. It is also possible that negative cognitions about the self and the world (characterized in PTSD symptom cluster D; APA, 2013) contribute to victim blame. According to one cognitive theory of the development of PTSD, adherence to “just world beliefs” (i.e., beliefs that the world is fair and that people get what they deserve; (Lerner, 1980)) are violated by innocent victimhood; efforts to maintain belief in a just and fair world therefore lead to self-blame, contributing to risk for PTSD (Resick & Schnicke, 1993). These beliefs about one’s own blameworthiness may also extend to others: indeed, prior research shows that adherence to just world beliefs is positively associated with perceptions of victim blame (Furnham, 2003; Strömwall et al., 2013). Further research is needed to explore the pathways from just word beliefs to self and other blame. Programs should include mental health resources for participants both to support their own well-being and mechanisms for self-care in the context of receiving disclosures as well as their ability to effectively assist victims who disclose DSV.

The finding that previous DSV victimization experiences were related to victim empathy aligns with previous studies showing that disclosure recipients’ victimization history was associated with the recipient anticipating greater impacts on the victim’s life as a result of their experience and greater emotional distress in response to hearing disclosures of SV (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard et al., 2010). These results are perhaps not surprising given findings that DSV victims are more likely to report being a disclosure recipient and that history of DSV victimization is associated with more positive social reactions in response to disclosure (Edwards et al., 2022a; Paul et al., 2014). While the results show that one’s own victimization history is particularly useful in empathizing with DSV victims, programming must consider how to foster such empathy in those without victimization histories and provide resources to program participants reporting victimization histories.

The results of this study move beyond previous research examining perceptions of helping when the victim is a friend (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard et al., 2010), to consider instances where the victim is merely an acquaintance or stranger. Disclosure recipients in closer relationships with the victim were less likely than those in less close relationships to report confusion/ineffectiveness regarding their responses to victims. If a disclosure recipient is closer to the victim, they may better understand what types of reactions would help them and they may also have a longer relationship and be able to see whether their reactions help or not and have a greater investment in the victim’s welfare (Christiansen et al., 2012). In contrast, in a less close relationship, the encounter may be brief, so the disclosure recipient may not see the impact of their social reactions, leading to confusion over whether their behavior was helpful. The significance of the type of relationship has direct implications for developing interventions to promote positive responses to disclosure. It is necessary to consider how empathy can be fostered and recipients’ can feel greater confidence in their ability to respond to disclosures from individuals with whom they are less close. Given universities’ move towards bystander intervention programming as a means to prevent DSV by encouraging students to intervene regardless of whether they know the potential victim, it is imperative that programming foster empathy for those outside of recipients’ friendship networks.

There were several situational aspects of the disclosure that were associated with perceptions of helping. The victim approaching the recipient to disclose was associated with less victim blame/burdensomeness, and more frequent discussion about the incident was associated with less confusion/ineffectiveness. Approaching the victim about their experience is likely a distressing situation for the recipient because they might be uncertain about how the victim will feel about being approached and may potentially impact their ability to empathize with the victim. Moreover, it is possible that less frequent discussion limits the recipient’s ability to process what happened to the victim leading to less confidence in their ability to help the victim. The finding that disclosure recipients perceived less victim blame when the DSV occurred longer ago compared to more recently could be due to the fact that victims are likely more distressed regarding recent DSV (Dworkin et al., 2021). This could lead a disclosure recipient to feel a greater need to help the victim leading to increased burden. Assisting victims with decisions like whether to get a medical exam or report the incident to authorities might create more burden for recipients as opposed to disclosures with fewer expectations for direct, instrumental support.

There are several limitations to this study. First, the sample was not highly diverse in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Further research is needed to understand disclosure recipients’ perceptions of helping in more diverse populations, particularly given the importance of sociocultural contexts broadly, and systems of oppression in relation to help-seeking and recovery experiences (Dworkin & Weaver, 2021). For example, the gender and race of both the victim and disclosure recipient are related to social reactions to disclosure in that men tend to respond less supportively to sexual assault disclosures and women of color tend to receive more negative social reactions (Banyard et al., 2010; Ullman, 2021). Also, preliminary research suggests that sexual and gender minorities face additional barriers (e.g., fear of being outed) to disclosing DSV and that some groups of sexual minorities (e.g., bisexual women) may receive more negative social reactions to disclosure than other sexual minorities (Edwards et al., 2021). The sample size was too small to examine whether the observed relationships vary as a function of intersectional social identities. Future research is needed to further develop the perceptions of helping scale with more diverse populations. Second, given the study’s cross-sectional design, the relationship between social reactions and perceptions of helping cannot be interpreted temporally, which limits our ability to understand if social reactions cause perceptions of the victim and helping effectiveness or vice versa. We also cannot be certain that the individual, relational, and situational factors are not conflated with recipients’ social reactions. Also, there may be additional contextual details about the disclosure and DSV experience not captured in the present study. Qualitative research could provide a better understanding of the relationships found here as well as underlying mechanisms. Finally, we did not include all of the possible subscales from the Ahrens and Campbell (2000) measure assessing the experiences of disclosure recipients because this study’s data comes from a larger intervention study to promote positive social reactions to disclosure of DSV (see Edwards et al., 2022b), so subscales were selected based on intervention targets.

In conclusion, the findings of this study highlight how disclosure recipients’ perceptions of the victim and their own helping effectiveness are intertwined with the ways they respond to disclosures of DSV. Taken together, these results point to an array of factors that can be targeted in programming to reduce perceptions of victim blame/burdensomeness, increase victim empathy, and increase students’ confidence in their ability to respond in positive/helpful ways and avoid negative social reactions. Given the wide array of individual, relational, and situational factors that are associated with such perceptions, research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms by which these factors influence perceptions to inform interventions seeking to improve individuals’ reactions to DSV disclosures and reduce deleterious outcomes associated with victims receiving negative social reactions (Dworkin et al., 2019).

Endnotes

We began with 19 items and performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with one half of the sample using Promax rotation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) to allow for the expectation that factors would be correlated. The rotations indicated a three-factor solution: empathy; victim blame/burdensomeness; and confusion and ineffectiveness. We eliminated four items that had cross loadings above .20 on more than one factor and used a minimum loading threshold of .45 (Hair et al., 1998). Next, to examine model fit we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with the second half of the sample not used for the EFA. Although the model’s chi-square was significant (significant chi-square tests are common among models with large sample size, even in cases of good model fit; Gatignon, 2010; Kyriazos, 2018), χ²(87) = 166.79, p < .001, the remaining fit statistics indicated acceptable model fit (RMSEA = .051, CFI = .943).

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jania Marshall, Caroline Leyva, Jane Stapleton, Robert Eckstein, Prentiss Phillips, Victoria Stanek, Allison Depuy, Drew Doyle, Lianna Nawn, Meredith Baker, Nicole Westfall, Lauren Flynn, Hannah Nordstorm, Kristina Kalla, Michael Green-Kelsey, Abi Beaulieu, Eleonora Giovine, Ross Jones, and Sarah Russo for their assistance with this project.

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: Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute of Health (NIH), Grant # 5R34AA024849-03. Manuscript preparation was supported by Grant # R00AA026317 (Dworkin). The findings and implications presented in this paper do not represent the official views of the NIH.

ORCID iDs

Victoria A. Mauer

Katie M. Edwards

Emily A. Waterman

Christina M. Dardis

Lindsey M. Rodriguez

Sarah E. Ullman

Author Biographies

Victoria A. Mauer, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral research associate at the Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families, and Schools at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Her work broadly focuses on prevention and intervention programming that seeks to prevent sexual and partner violence and promote positive youth development.

Katie M. Edwards, Ph.D., 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 and sexual assault among youth. She has published over 120 papers and book chapters on these topics, and has funding from CDC, NIH, DOJ, and NSF.

Emily A. Waterman, Ph.D., is a faculty member in developmental psychology at Bennington College. 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.

Christina Dardis, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor at Towson University research focuses on risk factors and outcomes of IPV perpetration and victimization, including physical, sexual, and psychological IPV, stalking and cyberstalking. She is also interested in how disclosures of violence and reactions received to disclosures can impact victim outcomes.

Emily R. Dworkin, Ph.D., is an Acting Assistant Professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine. The central goal of her program of research is to mitigate the development of psychopathology after sexual assault and other forms of trauma by targeting the social, community, and cultural contexts in which recovery unfolds.

Lindsey Rodriguez, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg. She conducts research that will ultimately be used to design, develop, and evaluate empirically-based interventions to help individuals and their partners struggling with addictive behaviors or other relationship-related stressors.

Sarah Ullman, Ph.D., is Professor of Criminology, Law, &, 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.

References

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), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9069-9

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

Ahrens

C. E.

Dworkin

E. R.

Hart

A. C.

(2021). Social reactions received by survivors of intimate partner violence: A qualitative validation of key constructs from the social reactions questionnaire. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320975663

American Psychiatric Association (APA) . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

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, 35(20-21), 4375–4392. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000102

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Walsh

W. A.

Cohn

E. S.

Ward

(2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334407

Banyard

V. L.

Ward

Cohn

E. S.

Moorhead

Walsh

(2007). Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence and Victims, 22(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1891/vv-v22i1a004

Bonnan-White

Hetzel

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515615141

Campbell

Dworkin

Cabral

(2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women's mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334456

10.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431915

11.

Christiansen

Bak

Elklit

(2012). Secondary victims of rape. Violence & Victims, 27(2), 246–262. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.2.246

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(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101750

14.

Dworkin

E. R.

Jaffe

A. E.

Bedard-Gilligan

Fitzpatrick

(2021). PTSD in the year following sexual assault: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211032213

15.

Dworkin

E. R.

Menon

S. V.

Bystrynski

Allen

N. E.

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

16.

Dworkin

E. R.

Weaver

T. L.

(2021). The impact of sociocultural contexts on mental health following sexual violence: A conceptual model. Psychology of Violence, 11(5), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000350

17.

Edwards

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

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

18.

Edwards

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2015a). 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

19.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Barry

J. E.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Cohn

E. S.

Walsh

W. A.

Ward

S. K.

(2015b). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514535260

20.

Edwards

K. M.

Mauer

V. A.

Huff

Farquhar-Leicester

Sutton

T. E.

Ullman

S. E.

(2021). Disclosure of sexual assault among sexual and gender minorities: A systematic literature review . [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families, and Schools, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

21.

Edwards

K. M.

Ullman

S. E.

Waterman

E. A.

Dardis

C. M.

(2022a). Predictors of disclosure recipients’ social reactions to victims’ disclosures of dating and sexual violence: A longitudinal study of college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5–6), 2633–2658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520938511

22.

Edwards

K. M.

Waterman

E. A.

Ullman

S. E.

Rodriguez

L. M.

Dardis

C. M.

Dworkin

E. R.

(2022b). A pilot evaluation of an intervention to improve social reactions to sexual and partner violence disclosures. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5–6), 2510–2534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520934437.

23.

Fedina

Holmes

J. L.

Backes

B. L.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016631129

24.

Filipas

H. H.

Ullman

S. E.

(2001). Social reactions to sexual assault victims from various support sources. Violence and Victims, 16(6), 673–692.

25.

Furnham

(2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00072-7

26.

Gatignon

(2010). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In Statistical Analysis of Management Data (pp. 59–122). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1270-1_4.

27.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

28.

Kim

H.-Y.

(2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52

29.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2007). The campus sexual assault (CSA) study final report. Creative Media Partners, LLC.

30.

Kyriazos

T. A.

(2018). Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General. Psychology, 9, 2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126.

31.

Lerner

M. J.

(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. (pp. 9–30). Springer.

32.

Milliken

Paul

L. A.

Sasson

Porter

Hasulube

(2016). Sexual assault disclosure recipients' experiences: Emotional distress and changes in the relationship with the victim. Violence & Victims, 31(3), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00144

33.

Mirowsky

Ross

C. E.

(1990). Control or defense? Depression and the sense of control over food and bad outcomes. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31(4), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513499022

34.

Orchowski

L. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2015). Psychological consequences associated with positive and negative responses to disclosure of sexual assault among college women: A prospective study. Violence Against Women, 21(7), 803–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215584068

35.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.917651

36.

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(8), 1418–1437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513507137

37.

Relyea

Ullman

S. E.

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

38.

Resick

P. A.

Schnicke

(1993). Cognitive processing therapy for rape victims: A treatment manual. Sage.

39.

Schackner

J. N.

Weiss

N. H.

Edwards

K. M.

Sullivan

T. P.

(2017). Social reactions to IPV disclosure and PTSD symptom severity: Assessing avoidant coping as a mediator. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), 508–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517727493

40.

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, 507–520.

41.

Strömwall

L. A.

Alfredsson

Landström

(2013). Blame attributions and rape: Effects of belief in a just world and relationship level. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02044.x

42.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2010–2035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354503

43.

Sullivan

T. P.

Schroeder

J. A.

Dudley

D. N.

Dixon

J. M.

(2010). Do differing types of victimization and coping strategies influence the type of social reactions experienced by current victims of intimate partner violence? Violence Against Women, 16(6), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210370027

44.

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

45.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using Multivariate Statistics, (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

46.

Ullman

S. E.

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

47.

Ullman

S. E.

(2021). Correlates of social reactions to victims’ disclosures of sexual assault and intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211016013

48.

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

49.

Ullman

S. E.

Starzynski

L. L.

Long

S. M.

Mason

G. E.

Long

L. M.

(2008). Exploring the relationships of women's sexual assault disclosure, social reactions, and problem drinking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1235–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314298

50.

Ward

S. K.

Chapman

Cohn

White

Williams

(1991). Acquaintance rape and the college social scene. Family Relations, 40(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/585660

51.

Weathers

F.W.

Litz

B.T.

Keane

T.M.

Palmieri

P.A.

Marx

B.P.

Schnurr

P.P.

(2013). The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Scale available from the National Center for PTSD at http://www.ptsd.va.gov.