Disclosing Sexual Victimization Online and In-Person: An Examination of Bisexual+ and Heterosexual Survivors

Abstract

Bisexual+ (bisexual, pansexual, queer, attraction to more than one gender) people are at elevated risk for sexual victimization relative to their heterosexual counterparts. Disclosure of sexual victimization and social reactions received upon disclosure can play a major role in recovery following an assault. Using an online survey, the current study examined whether bisexual+ and heterosexual survivors of sexual victimization (N = 657) varied in disclosure of victimization, the type of disclosure (in-person vs. online via #MeToo), and receipt of various social reactions to disclosure in person and online. A chi-square test examined differences in disclosure and differences in types of disclosure (in-person only vs. MeToo across sexual identity). MANOVAS were used to examine whether in-person and online reactions varied across sexual identity. Bisexual+ survivors were more likely to disclose sexual victimization relative to heterosexual survivors. Among those who disclosed, bisexual+ survivors were more likely to disclose in person only whereas heterosexual survivors were more likely to disclose online via #MeToo. Whereas we did not find any significant differences for in-person reactions, we did find significant differences for online social reactions using #MeToo. Heterosexual survivors received higher turning against reactions (e.g., avoided talking to you or spending time with you) and more unsupportive acknowledgment relative to bisexual+ participants. Whereas bisexual+ participants received less turning against reactions and unsupportive acknowledgment during #MeToo/online disclosure, they were also less likely to disclose using #MeToo. Findings suggest that bisexual+ and heterosexual people vary in the way they disclose sexual victimization, and in how they are responded to when disclosing in person and online.

Keywords

bisexual plurisexual sexual victimization disclosure social reactions #MeToo

Sexual violence occurs across the lifespan on a continuum of severity, ranging from unwanted sexual touching to attempted or completed rape (Basile et al., 2007). Supporting survivors of sexual victimization in recovery is of high public health priority given the range of psychological and other health consequences commonly associated with the experience (Dutton, 2006). Of note, common consequences of sexual victimization include depression (Acierno et al., 2002), anxiety (H. Littleton & Ullman, 2013), alcohol use (Resnick et al., 2012), as well as suicide attempts and mortality (Kimerling et al., 2016). The societal cost of sexual violence—including both medical and criminal justice costs—is also vast; with an estimated cost of $122,461 per victim, and an economic population burden of $3.1 trillion (Peterson et al., 2017).

Rates of sexual victimization are particularly high among individuals who identify as bisexual+ (i.e., defined as attraction to more than one gender: bisexual, pansexual, queer; Canan et al., 2019; Lorenz & Ullman, 2016; Walters et al., 2011). Most research examining sexual victimization among bisexual+ individuals is focused on bisexual women (as opposed to bisexual+ women, men and people with varying gender identities), with numerous studies documenting higher rates of sexual victimization among bisexual women compared to heterosexual women (Canan et al., 2019; Lorenz & Ullman, 2016; Walters et al., 2011). For example, the 2010 U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that 46% of bisexual women reported rape, and 75% reported sexual coercion or unwanted sexual contact, which far exceeded rates of these forms of violence among heterosexual (17% and 47%) women (13% and 43%) (Walters et al., 2011). Whereas far less research has focused on sexual victimization among bisexual+ men, a nationally representative study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that 47% of bisexual men report sexual violence compared to 21% of heterosexual men (Breiding et al., 2013).

Greater severity of sexual victimization (Hequembourg et al., 2013) combined with the cumulative impact of minority stress (Meyer, 2003) are hypothesized to contribute to higher levels of psychological distress (i.e., depression, anxiety, alcohol use) found among bisexual women compared to heterosexual women (Feinstein & Dyar, 2017; Kerr et al., 2013; D. Kerr et al., 2015). Problematically, studies focusing on recovery following sexual victimization as well as other areas of health research have often ignored the experiences of sexual minority individuals or failed to consider how the experiences of sexual minority individuals may be different from individuals who identify as heterosexual (D. L. Kirk et al., 2023). Research that examines recovery from sexual victimization among bisexual+ individuals is therefore of high public health importance.

Whether an individual discloses sexual victimization, and how others respond to disclosure, is a vital component of the recovery process (Ullman, 2000). Although few individuals report sexual victimization to an authority, such as the police (Orchowski et al., 2009), individuals often talk to someone they know about the experience (Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012). Specifically, research suggests that 88% of college women with a history of sexual victimization share the experience with peers via in-person disclosure (Fisher et al., 2003). Less is known regarding the extent to which individuals who experience sexual victimization share their experience online; however, prior social media studies suggest that survivors do often use social media—including Twitter or Facebook—to share their experience with others (Bogen, Bleiweiss, et al., 2021; Bogen, Orchowski & Ullman, 2021)

Although the #MeToo movement originated during 2006 with Tarana Burke’s use of the term via MySpace (JustBe Inc., 2006), the hashtag #MeToo “went viral” in 2017 as a way to disclose sexual victimization online. Specifically, after the New York Times published a report detailing allegations of sexual harassment against Harvey Weinstein (Kantor & Twohey, 2017), actress Alyssa Milano posted on Twitter: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted, write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet” (Sayej, 2017). Milano’s post resulted in over 85 million social media posts with the hashtag #MeToo over the span of 45 days (Sayej, 2017). These posts spanned social media platforms, with the majority of posts on Twitter and Facebook (Gorissen et al., 2023; Suk et al., 2023; there is some understanding regarding why individuals took to social media to share their experience during this time [see Bogen, Orchowski & Ullman, 2021]). Specifically, research examining the utilization of #MeToo suggests that social media posts using the hashtag #MeToo were often aimed at raising awareness about the prevalence of sexual violence, and also building community commitment to holding perpetrators accountable for their harms and crimes (Bogen et al., 2019; Bogen, Bleiweiss, et al., 2021; Bogen, Orchowski, & Ullman 2021). Whereas the #MeToo movement resulted in widespread disclosure of sexual victimization via online platforms over the course of a year, there is some evidence that overall online disclosures decreased following the initial “viral” wave of disclosures in 2017 (Gorissen et al., 2023). Nonetheless, several studies point toward broader impacts of #MeToo beyond calling attention to the prevalence of sexual violence (Alaggia & Wang, 2020; Mendes et al., 2018). For example, Maier’s (2023) study of rape victim advocates’ perspectives of #MeToo found that individuals described #MeToo as “more of a ‘movement’ than a ‘moment’” (p. 336). Other studies suggest that #MeToo lead to an increase in reporting of sexual crimes (Levy & Mattsson, 2023), as well as an increase in the likelihood that individuals label a past experience of sexual victimization as an assault experience (Jaffe et al., 2021).

A limited body of research to date has examined how disclosure of sexual victimization—whether in person or online—varies as a function of sexual identity. Several studies suggest that sexual minority people tend to disclose experiences of intimate partner violence at higher rates compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Dank et al., 2014; Edwards et al., 2015; Freedner et al., 2002; Renzetti, 1988). A recent systematic review found that bisexual women compared to heterosexual women disclose at higher rates and that sexual minorities were more likely to disclose to mental health professionals (Edwards et al., 2022). The review also found that sexual minority survivors are more likely to disclose to formal sources relative to heterosexual survivors. Whereas these findings apply only to in-person disclosure, it is important to note that overall sexual minorities are more likely to disclose to people they have close and personal relationships with. Although speculative, this may inherently make it difficult for sexual minorities to disclose online—where individuals can respond to content anonymously.

In addition to examining how patterns of disclosure vary as a function of sexual identity, research is also needed to examine how social reactions to disclosure vary as a function of sexual identity. Broadly, individuals receive a range of negative and positive responses to disclosure of sexual victimization when sharing their experience in person (see Dworkin et al., 2019 for a review) or online/via social media (Bogen et al., 2019; Bogen, Bleiweiss, et al., 2021; Bogen, Orchowski, & Ullman 2021). Common positive reactions to in-person disclosure include providing tangible aide or resources, providing emotional support to the survivor, whereas negative reactions to in-person disclosure include providing responses that attempt to control a survivor’s decisions, blaming the survivor, distracting from the survivor’s experience, or focusing on oneself instead of the survivor (Ullman, 2000). Although research examining social reactions to online disclosure of sexual victimization is still growing, individuals who share experiences of sexual victimization on online forums do often receive a wide range of positive and negative responses (Bogen, Orchowski, & Ullman, 2021).

Informed by stress and coping theories (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Flannery Jr., 1990; Frazier et al., 2004; Guay et al., 2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Thoits, 1986), numerous studies have sought to examine ways in which social reactions to disclosure influence healing among survivors of sexual violence. To date, the majority of studies addressing the impact of social reactions to disclosure focus on the impact of in-person disclosure of trauma. Negative reactions to in-person disclosure of sexual victimization contribute to worsened self-blame, PTSD, depression, drinking to cope, problem drinking, and increased risk for sexual revictimization (Jacques-Tiura et al., 2010; H. L. Littleton, 2010; Matthews, 2011; Orchowski et al., 2013; Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2013; Relyea & Ullman, 2015; Ullman, 1996; Ullman & Najdowski, 2011; Ullman et al., 2007). On the other hand, research is mixed regarding the impact of positive social reactions to in-person disclosure of sexual victimization. Specifically, some studies document a significant association between positive social reactions to in-person disclosure and lower levels of self-blame, PTSD, depression, drinking to cope, problem drinking, and revictimization (Orchowski et al., 2013; Relyea & Ullman, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2010; Ullman, 2000; Ullman & Najdowski, 2011), and other studies reveal small or nonsignificant associations between positive social reactions to in-person disclosure and these outcomes (Andrews et al., 2003; Ullman, 2000; Ullman et al., 2006). Given the potential for individuals, specifically individuals with minority identities to experience trolling (Diakopoulos & Naaman, 2011) or hostile commenting (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012) on online sexual victimization disclosure posts, examining whether various social reactions to disclosure of sexual victimization on online/social media contexts vary by sexual identity is warranted.

Prior social reactions work based on in-person disclosure has found that bisexual women receive fewer positive reactions relative to heterosexual women (Long et al., 2007). On the other hand, Sigurvinsdottir and Ullman (2016) found that bisexual women received greater positive social reactions than heterosexual women during one wave of a longitudinal study, but there were not significant differences at the other two waves of the longitudinal study. Similarly, there have been mixed findings around negative social reactions with some studies finding that bisexual women receive greater negative social reactions than heterosexual women (Sigurvinsdottir & Ullman, 2016) whereas other studies have found no differences in negative social reactions based on sexual identity groups among women (Long et al., 2007). No prior work has compared differences in online social reactions based on sexual identity.

Current Study

In light of the aforementioned research, the purpose of the present study was to further understand differences in disclosure (yes/no), differences in types of disclosure (in-person only vs. online MeToo disclosure), and differences in reactions across sexual identity. The study was specific to disclosure using #MeToo, and did not specify the platform that an individual used to disclose their experience. Since bisexual+ experience sexual victimization at higher rates relative to heterosexual people, it is important to examine bisexual+ survivors’ experience of disclosure and social reactions, separately. As such, the study had three research aims: (1) to examine whether disclosure (yes/no) varied among bisexual+ participants versus heterosexual; (2) to examine whether types of disclosure varied among bisexual+ participants versus heterosexual; and (3) to examine whether reactions varied across sexual identity.

Hypothesis 1: Bisexual+ participants would be more likely to disclose their sexual victimization experiences relative to heterosexual participants.

Hypothesis 2: Bisexual+ participants would be more likely to disclose in person and less likely to disclose via #MeToo relative to heterosexual participants.

Hypothesis 3: Bisexual+ participants would receive fewer positive reactions and more negative reactions relative to heterosexual participants.

Methods

Participants

Participants were from a larger online study conducted during February 2020—February 2022 on disclosure of sexual victimization in person and online via #MeToo (n = 767). Since we were primarily interested in comparisons across bisexual+ and heterosexual participants, 104 participants were excluded because they did not identify as either bisexual+ or heterosexual. An additional six participants were excluded because they did not report a history of sexual victimization as assessed via the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss et al., 2007). The final sample consisted of 657 participants who identified as bisexual+ or heterosexual.

In terms of sexual identity, 54% of the participants identified as bisexual+ (n = 355) and 46% identified as heterosexual (n = 302). Most of the participants identified as cisgender women (75.8%, n = 498), 12.2% identified as non-binary (n = 80), 7% cisgender men (n = 46), 2.7% transgender men (n = 18), .3% as transgender women (n = 2), 1.2% as other (n = 8), and five participants selected “prefer not to answer.” In terms of race/ethnicity, most of the participants were White (68.5%, n = 450), followed by 11% identifying as Hispanic/Latina/o (n = 72), 7.6% as Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 50), 5.5% as Black (n = 36), 4.6% as Native American (n = 30), 4.3% as Multiracial (n = 28), 1.5% as Other (n = 10), and two people preferred not to answer questions on racial/ethnic identity. Participants could select more than one racial/ethnic identity.

Participants were mostly college educated, 29.7% completed a bachelor’s degree (n = 195), 25.3% some college (n = 166), 19.2% a master’s degree (n = 126), 8.8% associate degree (n = 58), 2.9% doctorate/professional degree (n = 19), and 1.7% post-doctoral training (n = 11). The remaining participants reported having obtained a high school diploma or equivalent (7.5%, n = 49), 2.1% completed trade school (n = 14), and 3% completed some high school or less (n = 19).

Procedure

To be eligible for the study participants had to be: (1) 18 years of age or older, and (2) self-identify as a survivor of an unwanted sexual experience, and (3) reside in the United States. Participants were recruited nationally in the United States through social media. Each participant was compensated with a $10 Amazon gift card. Data was collected and stored through an anonymous online survey, RedCap, a secure web-based research application, was used to collect and store survey data. To exclude random response, scammers, and bots, participants were asked to check a reCAPTCHA box prior to accessing survey items. Additionally, a quality control check was conducted to evaluate the quality of each response. This included individually checking each response and identifying responses that had inconsistent responses, suspected ballot stuffing, and suspicious response patterns. If responses had at least one quality response concern, they were excluded from the final sample size. A total of 1,191 responses were collected and only 767 responses (64.3%) passed the quality control check. All study protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Sexual Identity

The following item assessed for sexual identity, “What is your sexual orientation?” Response options included: straight/heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, other, and prefer not to answer. Participants that identified as gay (n = 27), lesbian (n = 45), asexual (n = 14), and preferred not to answer (n = 13) were excluded. Participants that identified as “other” (n = 38) were examined by the first author and were recoded into the bisexual+ category if they fit a bisexual+ (attracted to more than one gender) sexual identity. Only 33 participants were recoded into the bisexual+ category. They included the following identities: queer (n = 27), bisexual (n = 1), bisexual/demisexual (n = 1), demisexual (n = 3), and heteroflexible (n = 1). Participants that identified their identity as “don’t really have one,” “idk,” “I’m not sure,” and “questioning” were excluded. Participants that were bisexual (n = 219) and pansexual (n = 75) were collapsed into one bisexual+ category. The final bisexual+ identity included 323 participants.

Sexual Victimization

The Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form (SES-SFV; Johnson et al., 2017; Koss et al., 2007) was used to determine whether participants had a history of sexual victimization. The SES-SFV is a self-report measure that assesses experiences of unwanted sexual contact since the age of 14. This measure provides a five-level categorization to measure victimization severity as follows (1) no experience, (2) unwanted sexual contact (i.e., touching the private areas or sexual organs of another’s body or removing clothes without their consent but not attempting sexual penetration (3) sexual coercion (i.e., authority, continual arguments, or pressure was used to coerce the woman into engaging in oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse) (4) attempted rape (i.e., physical force, alcohol, or drugs was used to attempt sexual intercourse), (5) rape (i.e., alcohol, drugs, or physical force was used to coerce the woman into engaging in oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse). The SES-SFV is a valid and reliable measure of sexual victimization and is the gold standard measure in sexual victimization research (Johnson et al., 2017; Koss et al., 2007). For the current study, people had to report having any sexual victimization experience (i.e., unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, attempted rape, or rape).

Disclosure of Sexual Victimization

One item asked, “Earlier in the survey, you shared that you had an unwanted sexual experience. Have you told anyone about this experience? Please indicate whether you told anyone in person (only), online via #MeToo (only), both in person and online via #MeToo, or never (not at all).” The item included the following response options: (1) “No, I did not disclose online via #MeToo nor have I told anyone in person,” (2) “Yes—I disclosed in person, but NOT online via #MeToo,” (3) “Yes—I disclosed online via #MeToo but NOT in person,” and (4) “Yes—I disclosed in person AS WELL AS online using #MeToo.” For the purpose of examining Aim 2, this categorical variable was coded as follows: (0 = no disclosure, 1 = in-person disclosure only, 2 = online disclosure via #MeToo (any MeToo disclosure).

In-person Social Reactions to Disclosure

The Social Reactions Questionnaire-Shortened (SRQ-S; Ullman et al., 2017) was used to understand the in-person reactions participants received after they disclosed their sexual victimization experiences. The questionnaire asked, “The following is a list of reactions that other people sometimes have when responding to a person with this experience. Please indicate how often you experienced each of the listed responses from other people.” The measure is comprised of 22 items and three subscales: turning against, unsupportive acknowledgment, and positive reactions. Response options were presented on a 5-point Likert scale from Never (1) to Always (5). Subscale scores were calculated using the average of subscale items which created a continuous variable for each subscale. In the current sample, the SRQ-S turning against subscale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .89) as so did the SRQ-S unsupportive acknowledgment subscale (α = .81). The SRQ-S positive reactions also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .77) and was relabeled as “general emotional and informational support” to differentiate the items from other assessments of online social reactions. Online Social Reactions to Disclosure. A brief 24-item questionnaire developed for the purpose of this study assessed additional social reactions that are unique to any online spaces (OSRQ). The SRQ measure was modified to indicate that we were referring to online social reactions. Similar to the SRQ, response options were presented on a 5-point Likert scale from Never (1) to Always (5). Subscale scores were calculated using the average of subscale items which created a continuous variable for each subscale. In the current sample, the OSRQ-S online-turning against subscale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .92) as so did the OSRQ-S online-unsupportive acknowledgment subscale (α = .90). The OSRQ-S positive reactions also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .77) and was relabeled as “online-general emotional and informational support” to differentiate the items from other assessments of online social reactions

Data Analytic Plan

Bivariate correlations among all study variables were conducted (see Table 1). A chi-square test of independence was used to examine differences in disclosure (Aim 1). MANOVA’s were used to examine different types of disclosure by sexual identity (Aim 2) and whether reactions varied across sexual identity (Aim 3). There was no missing data in this dataset.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations for All Study Variables.

Study Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Sexual identity	—	.02	.01	−.05	−.21	−.11	−.31**
2. SRQ-S: Turning against		—	.75**	−.31**	.53**	.06	.35**
3. SRQ-S: Unsupportive acknowledgment			—	−.07	.56**	.24**	.57**
4. SRQ-S: General emotional and informational support				—	.00	.34**	.14
5. Online SRQ-S: Turning against					—	.18*	.84**
6. Online SRQ-S: Unsupportive acknowledgment						—	.41**
7. Online SRQ-S: General emotional and informational support							—

Note: SRQ-S = Social Reactions Questionnaire—Shortened.

Correlation significant at the .05 level. **Correlation significant at the .01 level.

Results

Aim 1: Differences in Disclosure Across Sexual Identity

A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between sexual identity and disclosure (dichotomous). The relationship was significant, X² (1, N = 657) = 21.20, p < .001. Bisexual+ participants were more likely to disclose (n = 323; 91%) relative to heterosexual participants (n = 236; 78.1%). Heterosexual participants were more likely to not disclose (n = 66; 21.9%) relative to bisexual+ participants (n = 32; 9%).

Aim 2: Differences in Types of Disclosure (In-person Only vs. #MeToo) Across Sexual Identity

A subsample of participants (n = 559) who disclosed was used for the following analyses. This subsample included participants who disclosed in person only (n = 386) and participants that disclosed via #MeToo (n = 173). Participants that did not disclose (n = 98) were excluded.

A chi-square test performed to examine the relationship between sexual identity and types of disclosure (in-person only vs. #MeToo). The relationship was significant, X² (1, N = 559) = 8.74, p = .003. Bisexual+ participants were more likely to disclose in person (n = 239; 74%) relative to heterosexual participants (n = 147; 62.3%). Additionally, heterosexual participants were more likely to disclose via MeToo (n = 89; 37.7%) relative to bisexual participants (n = 84; 26%). See Table 2 for further disclosure breakdown by sexual identity.

Table 2.

Differences in Types of Disclosure Among Bisexual+ and Heterosexual Participants.

Sexual Identity	Bisexual+	Heterosexual	Total
In-person only	239	147	386
Online via #MeToo	84	89	173
Total	323	236	559

Note. #MeToo disclosure also includes people that combined both in-person and using #MeToo.

Aim 3: Differences in Reactions across Sexual Identity

A subsample of participants (n = 559) who disclosed was used for the following analyses. Participants that did not disclose either online or in person were removed from analyses (n = 98). The sample was further separated into any in-person disclosure (n = 508). This total included participants that had disclosed in person only (n = 386) and participants that had disclosed in person as well as online using MeToo (n = 122). A MANOVA was conducted among the 508 participants who disclosed in person. Sexual identity was the independent variable and the in-person SRQ-S subscales turning against, unsupportive acknowledgment, and general emotional and information support were the dependent variables. A MANOVA revealed that there were no significant differences in social reactions among participants who disclosed their sexual victimization experience in person for turning against reactions, p = .583, unsupportive acknowledgment reactions, p = .828, and general emotional and information support reactions, p = .223.

A second MANOVA was conducted among the 173 participants who disclosed online using MeToo. Sexual identity was the independent variable and the three online SRQ-S subscales turning against, unsupportive acknowledgment, and general emotional and information support were the dependent variables. The MANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in online social media reactions among participants who did any online disclosure of their sexual victimization experiences for online-turning against, F (1, 162) = 7.74, p = .006, $η_{p}^{2} = . 043$ and online-unsupportive acknowledgment, F (1, 172) = 17.80, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 094$ but not for online-general emotional and information support reactions, F (1, 172) = 2.25, p = .135, $η_{p}^{2} = . 013$ . Follow-up t-tests indicated that heterosexual participants received higher online-turning against reactions (M = 2.13, SD = 0.93) relative to bisexual+ participants (M = 1.75, SD = 0.88). Heterosexual participants also received more online-unsupportive acknowledgment (M = 2.31, SD = 1.023) relative to bisexual+ participants (M = 1.71, SD = 0.83).

Discussion

Bisexual+ individuals experience sexual victimization at exponentially higher rates compared to heterosexual individuals (Canan et al., 2019; Lorenz & Ullman, 2016; Walters et al., 2011). Disclosure of sexual victimization and reactions received upon disclosure play a role in recovery from sexual victimization (Dworkin et al., 2019; McTavish et al., 2019). Further, the advent of social media and #MeToo movement has provided an additional avenue to disclose and potentially receive harmful (or helpful) responses to disclosure (Bogen et al., 2019; Bogen, Bleiweiss, et al., 2021). However, limited research has examined differences in disclosure and social reactions received upon disclosure to both in-person and online disclosures among bisexual+ and heterosexual survivors (Bogen, Orchowski, et al., 2021; Gorissen et al., 2021). This is the first study that characterizes differences in disclosure experiences among bisexual+ and heterosexual survivors.

Hypothesis 1

Consistent with hypothesis 1, findings suggest that bisexual+ individuals are more likely to disclose experiences of sexual victimization compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Results are consistent with prior studies that show that sexual minority individuals tend to disclose any form of interpersonal victimization such as intimate partner violence at higher rates compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Dank et al., 2014; Edwards et al., 2015; Freedner et al., 2002; Renzetti, 1988). Our findings are consistent with prior research comparing rates of disclosure of sexual victimization among heterosexual survivors and bisexual survivors which found that bisexual survivors were more likely to disclose sexual victimization compared to heterosexual survivors (Moschella et al., 2020). Future research is needed to investigate why bisexual+ individuals tend to disclose at higher rates. Prior research indicates that receiving positive responses to disclosure of sexual victimization, greater awareness of sexual victimization as well as availability of resources facilitate increased disclosure among sexual minority individuals (Jackson et al., 2017; Ollen et al., 2017). However, it is important to note that these prior studies combined all sexual minority individuals in one group. Thus, future research should investigate why bisexual+ individuals disclose sexual victimization at a higher rate relative to their heterosexual counterparts.

Hypothesis 2

However, when comparing rates of disclosure across sexual identity by type of disclosure (in-person vs. online), findings revealed a more nuanced pattern. When comparing survivors who only disclosed in person, findings suggest that bisexual+ individuals were more likely to disclose in person (and not via—MeToo) relative to heterosexual individuals, a pattern consistent with prior literature and in support of hypothesis 2 (Moschella et al., 2020). In contrast, comparison of rates of disclosure among survivors who have only disclosed online via MeToo reveal that heterosexual survivors were more likely to only disclose online via #Metoo relative to bisexual+ survivors. Thus, findings suggest that whereas bisexual+ survivors engage in overall higher rates of disclosure compared to heterosexual survivors, the type of disclosure differs between the two groups. Bisexual+ survivors are more likely to disclose in person, compared to heterosexual survivors. Further, heterosexual survivors are more likely to disclose online using #MeToo compared to Bisexual+ survivors.

The current study is the first to examine differences in rate of disclosure by in-person and online type of disclosure. Although speculative, several reasons may explain why bisexual+ individuals are less likely to disclose online using #MeToo. Firstly, barriers to disclosure overall may be particularly salient for bisexual+ individuals within the context of online disclosure. These barriers include sexual minority individuals not being out about their identity, their victimization experience not conforming to the gendered stereotypical definition of sexual victimization, or not wanting to increase negative perceptions of the sexual minority community (Edwards et al., 2022; Ollen et al., 2017; Pérez & Hussey, 2014; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014). Another reason for reduced disclosure on #MeToo by bisexual+ survivors is the underlying heteronormativity of the movement. The #MeToo movement has been criticized for working largely to address heteronormative gendered power dynamics that contribute to increased sexual violence among cisgender heterosexual women (Ison, 2019; Villa & Alcalde, 2022). Less has been done to increase awareness of violence occurring outside of White cis- and heteronormative relations, an omission Tarana Burke the founder of #MeToo movement has addressed as occurring because of societal conditioning to respond to the vulnerability of cisgender White women (Warfield, 2018).

Hypothesis 3

Contrary to our expectations, hypothesis 3 was not supported. Findings suggest that no significant differences were found in social reactions received to in-person disclosure between bisexual+ and heterosexual survivors. However, heterosexual survivors received more online negative social reactions compared to bisexual+ survivors. These findings reflect the mixed findings that are echoed in prior literature as well (for review see Edwards et al., 2022). Specifically, whereas one study found that bisexual women report receiving fewer positive reactions to disclosure of sexual victimization compared to heterosexual women (Long et al., 2007), another study reported that bisexual women receive more positive social reactions than heterosexual women (Sigurvinsdottir & Ullman, 2016). Similar patterns of mixed findings are found for negative social reactions as well. Whereas one study reported bisexual women receive more negative social reactions than heterosexual women (Sigurvinsdottir & Ullman, 2015, 2016), another study found no difference among sexual identity groups regarding negative social reactions (Long et al., 2007).

One reason for Aim 3 study findings on social reactions and types of disclosure would be lack of assessment of unique negative social reactions that bisexual+ people may receive upon disclosure. For example, as opposed to broader negative social reactions assessed by the Social Reactions Questionnaire (Ullman et al., 2017), bisexual+ survivors may instead receive stimgatizing responses that are unique to bisexual identitiy, referred to as binegativity (Brewster & Moradi, 2010; Roberts et al., 2015). Such responses may involve enacting stereotypes associated with bisexual people such as the stereotypes that bisexual people are promiscous, hypersexual, and broadlly sexually irresponsible (Flanders et al., 2016; Serpe et al., 2020). Binegativity is associated with adverse outcomes among bisexual survivors (Salim et al., 2022). Relatedly, a recent study found that having a history of child sexual abuse predicted hazardous drinking only for bisexual women who experienced binegativtiy (McConnell & Messman-Moore, 2019). Thus, it could be possible that bisexual+ survivors may also experience binegativity upon disclosure of victimization. Although speculatively, binegativity experienced by bisexual+ survivors upon disclosure of sexual victimization may explain the disproportionately greater levels of PTSD, depression, and hazardous drinking observed among bisexual survivors, compared to heterosexual survivors (Hughes et al., 2010; Long et al., 2007; Sigurvinsdottir & Ullman, 2015). Future research should further investigate the phenomonon of binegativity-involved responses to disclosure of victimization.

Implications for Survivors

Whereas we did not assess for binegativty in our study, we strongly believe that it might have played a significant role in the disclosure experiences of bisexual survivors and certainly requires attention in future studies. Given that experiencing binegativity is a unique experience for bisexual+ people, it might be beneficial to train and educate mental health professionals on how to appropriately respond to sexual victimization disclosure from bisexual+ participants. In particular, bisexual+ people can greatly benefit from toward having access to health care providers that do not harmfully reinforce any bisexual stereotypes. Training mental health proessionals would be consistent with culturally sensitive care. Having access to culturally sensitive care can only be beneficial to bisexual+ survivors. Additionaly, based on our study findings, disclosure experiences are different based on sexual identity; in other words, not all survivors are disclosing equally and attention needs to be directed toward negative reactions received in person as well as reactions received online. Reactions received online are even more concerning given the possibility of trolling (Diakopoulos & Naaman, 2011) or hostile commenting (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012).

Limitations and Future Directions

Study findings should be interpreted in the context of limitations. First, the current study characterized differences in disclosure patterns only among people with a bisexual+ or heterosexual sexual identity. Due to low sample sizes of other sexual identity groups such as lesbian/gay, differences in disclosure patterns across all sexual identity groups were not examined. Future studies would benefit from examining these differences to develop a comprehensive understanding of disclosure patterns among survivors of different sexual identities. Along this vein, gender differences in disclosure patterns were not analyzed. One study on online disclosures of sexual victimization found significant differences in online responses to disclosure based on the gender of the survivors (Lowenstein-Barkai, 2021). Thus, future studies should seek to investigate gender differences in disclosure patterns.

It should also be noted that this study was specific to online disclosure using #MeToo, and did not specify the platform that an individual used to disclose their experience. Prior research suggests that most online disclosures of sexual victimization during the #MeToo movement occurred via Twitter and Facebook (Gorissen et al., 2023). Now that the “viral” moment of #MeToo has passed, research is needed to examine the prevalence and frequency of online disclosure, and whether individuals continue to use the hashtag #MeToo when disclosing to express solidarity with the movement. Given that the current study was specific to disclosure using #MeToo, findings may not be generalizable to online disclosure outside of this context.

Additionally, differences in disclosure (online vs. in-person) can bring about selection bias given that survivors get to choose who they will disclose to in person but that is not feasible when disclosing online. Given the novelty of assessing online disclosure, validated measures for social reactions to online sexual victimization such as the one in this study have not been statistically validated or formally developed. It is also important to note that a majority of the sample was White and as such our findings might not generalize to survivors that are racial/ethnic minorities. Future work can greatly benefit from examining differences based on racial/ethnic identity. We also did not collect information on participant’s age, gender of the perpetrator, or relationship between survivor and perpetrator. Lastly, whereas the current study investigated disclosure patterns, the impact of disclosure and responses received on survivor’s mental health and recovery were not examined. Future longitudinal studies would benefit from examining the impact of online disclosures and responses received on survivor’s mental health.

Conclusion

The current study aimed to characterize differences in disclosure patterns and social responses received to disclosure of sexual violence among bisexual+ and heterosexual survivors. Results indicate the bisexual+ survivors are more likely to disclose in person whereas heterosexual survivors are more likely to disclose online. Further, heterosexual survivors are more likely to receive negative responses to disclosure when disclosing online using #MeToo. Further investigation is required to examine unique stigmatizing responses to disclosure of sexual victimization experiences among bisexual+ survivors.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Training support was provided to Dr. Gabriela López (T32 AA007459, PI Monti; K99 AA030079, PI López).

ORCID iDs

Gabriela López

Prachi Hemant Bhuptani

Lindsay Marie Orchowski

Author Biographies

Gabriela López, Ph.D., is an Investigator at the Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies at Brown University’s School of Public Health. Her research focuses on the intersection of alcohol use and sexual assault among bisexual+ women.

Prachi Hemant Bhuptani, Ph.D., is a post-doctoral research associate at Rhode Island Hospital. Her research focuses on the investigation of ecological factors and processes underlying experiences of shame following sexual victimization. Additionally, her work also focuses on examining the impact of shame on the psychological well-being of survivors.

Lindsay Marie Orchowski, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor (Research) at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, within the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior. She is a Staff Psychologist with Lifespan Physicians Group at Rhode Island Hospital within the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health. Her research program centers around the development and evaluation of sexual assault prevention programs.

References

Acierno

Brady

Gray

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

Best

C. L.

(2002). Psychopathology following interpersonal violence: A comparison of risk factors in older and younger adults. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 8(1), 13–23.

Alaggia

Wang

(2020). “I never told anyone until the# metoo movement”: What can we learn from sexual abuse and sexual assault disclosures made through social media? Child Abuse & Neglect, 103, 104312.

Andrews

Brewin

C. R.

Rose

(2003). Gender, social support, and PTSD in victims of violent crime. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(4), 421–427.

Basile

K. C.

Chen

Black

M. C.

Saltzman

L. E.

(2007). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence assault among U.S. adults, 2001-2003. Violence and Victims, 22(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007781553955

Bogen

K. W.

Bleiweiss

K. K.

Leach

N. R.

Orchowski

L. M.

(2021). # MeToo: Disclosure and response to sexual victimization on Twitter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), 8257–8288.

Bogen

K. W.

Bleiweiss

K. K

Orchowski

L. M.

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

Bogen

K. W.

Orchowski

L. M.

Ullman

S. E.

(2021). Online disclosure of sexual victimization and social reactions: What do we know? Women & Therapy, 44(3–4), 358–373.

Breiding

M. J.

Chen

Walters

M. L.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. NISVS.

Brewster

M. E.

Moradi

(2010). Perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice: Instrument development and evaluation. Journal of counseling psychology, 57(4), 451.

10.

Brown Survivors. Yes Magazine. https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2018/01/04/me-too-creator-tarana-burke-reminds-us-this-is-about-black-and-brown-survivors

11.

Canan

S. N.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

Bradley

Blunt-Vinti

(2019). Differences in lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women’s experiences of sexual assault and rape in a National U.S. sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), 9100–9120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519863725

12.

Cohen

Wills

T. A.

(1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

13.

Dank

Lachman

Zweig

J. M.

Yahner

(2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(5), 846–857.

14.

Diakopoulos

Naaman

(2011). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM.

15.

Dutton

M. A.

Green

B. L.

Kaltman

S. I.

Roesch

D. M.

Zeffiro

T. A.

Krause

E. D.

(2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 955–968.

16.

Dworkin

E. R.

Brill

C. D.

Ullman

S. E.

(2019). Social reactions to disclosure of interpersonal violence and psychopathology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 72, 101750.

17.

Edwards

K. M.

Mauer

V. A.

Huff

Farquhar-Leicester

Sutton

T. E.

Ullman

S. E.

(2022). Disclosure of sexual assault among sexual and gender minorities: A systematic literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1608–1623. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211073842.

18.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Neal

A. M.

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

19.

Feinstein

B. A.

Dyar

(2017). Bisexuality, minority stress, and health. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-017-0096-3

20.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

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

21.

Flanders

C. E.

Robinson

Legge

M. M.

Tarasoff

L. A.

(2016). Negative identity experiences of bisexual and other non-monosexual people: A qualitative report. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 20(2), 152–172.

22.

Flannery Jr.

R. B

. (1990). Social support and psychological trauma: A methodological review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3(4), 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02039590

23.

Frazier

P. A.

Tix

A. P.

Barron

K. E.

(2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115

24.

Freedner

Freed

L. H.

Yang

Y. W.

Austin

S. B.

(2002). Dating violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: Results from a community survey. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 469–474.

25.

Gorissen

van den Berg

C. J.

Bijleveld

C. C.

Ruiter

Berenblum

(2021). Online disclosure of sexual victimization: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15248380211043831.

26.

Gorissen

van den Berg

C. J.

Ruiter

Bijleveld

C. C.

(2023). Sharing unwanted sexual experiences online: A cross-platform analysis of disclosures before, during and after the# MeToo movement. Computers in Human Behavior, 144, 107724.

27.

Guay

Billette

Marchand

(2006). Exploring the links between posttraumatic stress disorder and social support: Processes and potential research avenues. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(3), 327–338.

28.

Hequembourg

A. L.

Livingston

J. A.

Parks

K. A.

(2013). Sexual assault and associated risks among lesbian and bisexual women. Violence Against Women, 19(5), 634–657.

29.

Hughes

T. L.

Szalacha

L. A.

Johnson

T. P.

Kinnison

K. E.

Wilsnack

S. C.

Cho

(2010). Sexual victimization and hazardous drinking among heterosexual and sexual minority women. Addictive Behaviors, 35(12), 1152–1156.

30.

Ison

(2019). ‘It’s not just men and women’: LGBTQIA people and# MeToo. In # MeToo and the politics of social change (pp. 151–167). Springer.

31.

Jackson

M. A.

Valentine

S. E.

Woodward

E. N.

Pantalone

D. W.

(2017). Secondary victimization of sexual minority men following disclosure of sexual assault: “Victimizing me all over again. . ..” Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(3), 275–288.

32.

Jacques-Tiura

A. J.

Tkatch

Abbey

Wegner

(2010). Disclosure of sexual assault: Characteristics and implications for posttraumatic stress symptoms among African American and Caucasian survivors. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 11(2), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299730903502938

33.

Jaffe

A. E.

Cero

DiLillo

(2021). The# MeToo movement and perceptions of sexual assault: College students’ recognition of sexual assault experiences over time. Psychology of violence, 11(2), 209.

34.

Johnson

S. M.

Murphy

M. J.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2017). Reliability and validity of the sexual experiences survey–short forms victimization and perpetration. Violence and Victims, 32(1), 78–92.

35.

JustBe Inc. (2006). https://justbeinc.wixsite.com/justbeinc/home

36.

Kantor

Twohey

(2017). Harvey Weinstein paid off sexual harassment accusers for decades. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html

37.

Kerr

Ding

Burke

Ott-Walter

(2015). An alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use comparison of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual undergraduate women. Substance Use & Misuse, 50(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.980954

38.

Kerr

D. L.

Santurri

Peters

(2013). A comparison of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual college undergraduate women on selected mental health issues. Journal of American College Health, 61(4), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.787619

39.

Kimerling

Makin-Byrd

Louzon

Ignacio

R. V.

McCarthy

J. F.

(2016). Military sexual trauma and suicide mortality. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(6), 684–691.

40.

Kirk-Provencher

K. T.

Spillane

N. S.

Schick

M. R.

Chalmers

S. J.

Hawes

Orchowski

L. M.

(2023) Sexual and gender minority inclusivity in bystander intervention programs to prevent violence on college campuses: A critical review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 24(1): 110–124.

41.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

Ullman

West

White

(2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357–370.

42.

Lapidot-Lefler

Barak

(2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443.

43.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.

44.

Levy

R. E.

Mattsson

(2023). The effects of social movements: Evidence from# MeToo. Available at SSRN 3496903.

45.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299730903502946

46.

Littleton

Ullman

S. E.

(2013). PTSD symptomatology and hazardous drinking as risk factors for sexual assault reassault: Examination in European American and African American women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(3), 345–353.

47.

Long

S. M.

Ullman

S. E.

Long

L. M.

Mason

G. E.

Starzynski

L. L.

(2007). Women’s experiences of male-perpetrated sexual assault by sexual orientation. Violence and victims, 22(6), 684–701.

48.

Lorenz

Ullman

S. E.

(2016). Alcohol and sexual assault assault: Research findings and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 82–94.

49.

Lowenstein-Barkai

(2021). #Me(n)Too? online social support toward male and female survivors of sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), NP13541–NP13563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520905095

50.

Maier

S. L.

(2023). Rape victim advocates’ perceptions of the# MeToo movement: Opportunities, challenges, and sustainability. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1–2), 336–365.

51.

Matthews

K. C.

(2011). Social reactions to disclosure, attributions of responsibility, and shame as predictors of psychological adjustment in sexual assault survivors [Dissertation, Idaho State University].

52.

McConnell

A. A.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2019). Hazardous drinking, antibisexual prejudice, and sexual revictimization among bisexual women: A moderated mediation model. Psychology of Violence, 9(5), 526.

53.

McTavish

J. R.

Sverdlichenko

MacMillan

H. L.

Wekerle

(2019). Child sexual abuse, disclosure and PTSD: A systematic and critical review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 92, 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.04.006

54.

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.

55.

Meyer

I. H.

(2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological bulletin, 129(5), 674.

56.

Moschella

E. A.

Potter

S. J.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2020). Disclosure of sexual violence victimization and anticipated social reactions among lesbian, gay, and bisexual community college students. Journal of Bisexuality, 20(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2020.1715910

57.

Ollen

E. W.

Ameral

V. E.

Palm Reed

Hines

D. A.

(2017). Sexual minority college students’ perceptions on dating violence and sexual assault. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 112.

58.

Orchowski

L. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2012). To whom do college women confide following sexual assault? A prospective study of predictors of sexual assault disclosure and social reactions. Violence against Women, 18(3), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212442917

59.

Orchowski

L. M.

Meyer

D. H.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2009). College women’s likelihood to report unwanted sexual experiences to campus agencies: Trends and correlates. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(8), 839–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770903291779

60.

Orchowski

L. M.

Untied

A. S.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2013). Social reactions to disclosure of sexual assault and adjustment among survivors of sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(10), 2005–2023.

61.

Pérez

Z. J.

Hussey

(2014). A hidden crisis: Including the LGBT community when addressing sexual violence on college campuses. Center for American Progress.

62.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Ullman

S. E.

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

63.

Peterson

DeGue

Florence

Lokey

C. N.

(2017). Lifetime economic burden of rape among U.S. Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(6), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.014

64.

Relyea

Ullman

S. E.

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

65.

Renzetti

C. M.

(1988). Violence in lesbian relationships: A preliminary analysis of causal factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(4), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626088003004003

66.

Resnick

H. S.

Walsh

McCauley

J. L.

Schumacher

J. A.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Acierno

R. E.

(2012). Assault related substance use as a predictor of substance use over time within a sample of recent victims of sexual assault. Addictive Behaviors, 37(8), 914–921.

67.

Roberts

T. S.

Horne

S. G.

Hoyt

W. T.

(2015). Between a gay and a straight place: Bisexual individuals’ experiences with monosexism. Journal of Bisexuality, 15(4), 554–569.

68.

Salim

S. R.

Eshelman

L. R.

Messman

T. L.

(2022). Binegativity exacerbates the effects of sexual victimization disclosure on posttraumatic stress and drinking among bisexual women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(21–22), NP19939–NP19960.

69.

Sayej

(2017, December 1). Alyssa Milano on the #MeToo movement: “We’re not going to stand for it anymore.” https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/dec/01/alyssa-milano-mee-too-sexual-harassment-abuse

70.

Serpe

Brown

Criss

Lamkins

Watson

(2020). Bisexual women: Experiencing and coping with objectification, prejudice, and erasure. Journal of Bisexuality, 20(4), 456–492.

71.

Sigurvinsdottir

Ullman

S. E.

(2015). The role of sexual orientation in the victimization and recovery of sexual assault survivors. Violence and victims, 30(4), 636–648.

72.

Sigurvinsdottir

Ullman

S. E.

(2016). Sexual orientation, race, and trauma as predictors of sexual assault recovery. Journal of Family Violence, 31(7), 913–921.

73.

Sullivan

T. P.

Schroeder

J. A.

Dudley

D. N.

Dixon

J. M.

(2010). Do differing types of assault and coping strategies influence the type of social reactions experienced by current victims of intimate partner violence? Violence Against Women, 16(6), 638–657.

74.

Suk

Sun

Farías

Kwon

Ghosh

Borah

Mini

D. S.

Correa

(2023). ‘Think global, act local’: How# MeToo hybridized across borders and platforms for contextual relevance. Information, Communication & Society, 1–22.

75.

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.

76.

Thoits

P. A.

(1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 416–423.

77.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996). Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(4), 505–526.

78.

Ullman

S. E.

(2000). Psychometric characteristics of the social reactions questionnaire. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(3), 257–271.

79.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

Townsend

S. M.

Starzynski

L. L.

(2006). Correlates of comorbid PTSD and drinking problems among sexual assault survivors. Addictive Behaviors, 31(1), 128–132.

80.

Ullman

S. E.

Najdowski

C. J.

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

81.

Ullman

S. E.

Relyea

Sigurvinsdottir

Bennett

(2017). A short measure of social reactions to sexual assault: The social reactions Questionnaire-Shortened. Violence and Victims, 32(6), 1096–1115.

82.

Ullman

S. E.

Townsend

S. M.

Filipas

H. H.

Starzynski

L. L.

(2007). Structural models of the relations of assault severity, social support, avoidance coping, self-blame, and PTSD among sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 23–37.

83.

Villa

P.-I.

Alcalde

C. M.

(2022). # MeToo, Just a Hashtag? In # MeToo and beyond: Perspectives on a global movement (p. 220). University Press of Kentucky.

84.

Walters

Chen

Breiding

(2011). National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010: findings on assault by sexual orientation. NISVS.

85.

Warfield

(2018, January). #MeToo Creator Taran Burke reminds us this is about black and brown survivors. Yes Magazine. https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2018/01/04/me-too-creator-tarana-burke-reminds-us-this-is-about-black-and-brown-survivors