Communicating a History of Sexual Trauma: Partner Responses to Women's Disclosure

Abstract

The study aimed to understand how women who experienced sexual trauma but are now in a healthy relationship perceive their partners’ responses to their disclosure of sexual trauma. Forty-one women completed an in-depth semi-structured phone interview. Responses were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, identifying two overarching themes and six subthemes. The results provide a voice to the needs and preferences of women who experienced sexual trauma, but are navigating communication in a healthy relationship. Given that most women disclosed their experiences with partners, this sample provides valuable insight for clinicians, interventionists, and partners of survivors to navigate supportive interactions.

Keywords

sexual trauma disclosure social reactions social support intimate partner

Communicating a History of Sexual Trauma: Partner Responses to Women's Disclosure

With amplified public recognition of sexual misconduct due to social movements (e.g., #MeToo, TIME'S UP) and mass media campaigns (e.g., It's On Us, No More), disclosures of sexual trauma have surfaced publicly and interpersonally. Scant work has focused on the experiences of adult survivors navigating disclosures with intimate partners (e.g., de Montigny Gauthier et al., 2019). Given that sexual experiences are perceived as a taboo topic (Rankin & Bustle, 2008), it is crucial to gain a clearer understanding as to how partners respond to disclosures of sexual trauma. Our goal was to examine the disclosure experiences of women with a history of sexual trauma, focusing on the reactions of current partners with whom they are in a healthy relationship. The primary question of interest revolves around delineating what a supportive reaction from a partner looks like when women disclose their sexual trauma experiences. Given that most of these women navigated the disclosure of their sexual trauma experiences with current partners, these data provide valuable insight for practicing clinicians, interventionists, and partners of survivors to inform and navigate supportive interactions.

Sexual Trauma in Intimate Relationships

Sexual trauma is an umbrella term to capture any trauma related to being sexually violated by another individual, including child sexual abuse (CSA), sexual assault (SA), and intimate partner violence (IPV). This broad definition considers experiences of sexual violence, characterized as either an attempted or completed sexual act without a partner's consent or where there is an inability to refuse (Breiding et al., 2015), including a wide range of behaviors from forced penetration to verbal intimidation to forced viewing of pornography. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey purports upwards of 10 million people in the U.S. experience violence inflicted by an intimate partner (Smith et al., 2017). Nearly 1 in 11 women have been raped by a current or former partner during their lifetime, and these traumatic experiences can have lasting impacts on survivors (Breiding et al., 2014).

Sexual trauma survivors experience a host of mental, physical, and behavioral health outcomes (Black, 2011). Bennice et al. (2003) found that sexual abuse inflicted by an intimate partner significantly predicted posttraumatic stress disorder, even after controlling for physical abuse. The physical health of a survivor may suffer with regard to neurological conditions (e.g., chronic migraines, seizures), cardiovascular conditions, urogenital conditions (e.g., chronic pelvic pain, sexually transmitted infections [STIs], sexual dysfunction), and digestive tract issues (Coker et al., 2000; Staples et al., 2012; Vives-Cases et al., 2011). Behavioral concerns such as increased substance use to cope with trauma also arise (Carbone-Lopez et al., 2006; Vives-Cases et al., 2011). It is essential to examine strategies to reduce the negative health outcomes for sexual trauma survivors. One communicative method identified to reduce the impact and minimize the burden of sexual trauma for survivors is social support (Belknap et al., 2009; Coker et al., 2003). However, access to social support is dependent on supports knowing about the sexual trauma experience. Generally, romantic partners are a strong source of social support. Yet, we know little about partners' initial reactions and subsequent support attempts in response to the disclosure of sexual trauma (Ahrens et al., 2009). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the disclosure of sexual trauma and romantic partners’ responses to help minimize the burden of sexual trauma.

Communicating Relational History

Self-Disclosure

Self-disclosure is defined as the act of revealing personal information about oneself to others (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977). The information an individual reveals can impact the development, maintenance, and potential deterioration of a relationship (Derlega et al., 1993). Self-disclosure is typically viewed as a rewarding form of communication, associated with higher relationship quality (Brunell et al., 2007). Although the benefits of self-disclosure are vast, including increased trust, liking, attraction, and mental health outcomes (Rosenfeld, 1979), disclosure is accompanied by relational risks. An individual may grapple with threats to oneself such as potential shame, embarrassment, loss of control and safety, and stigmatization, as well as threats to the relationship (Afifi & Steuber, 2009; Petronio, 2002). Although all disclosures have repercussions, information considered to be private should be evaluated more carefully in terms of maximizing benefits and avoiding risks (Petronio, 2002).

Sexual Trauma

Given that sexual experiences are considered a private and taboo topic in intimate relationships (Rankin & Bustle, 2008), a history of sexual trauma can add an additional layer of complexity to self-disclosures. A taboo topic is conceptualized as a topic that is perceived as “off limits” by one or more individuals engaged in an interaction (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985). Past research directs attention to common categories of taboo topics including extra-relationship activities, relationship norms, prior relationships, negatively valanced disclosures, negative life experiences, dating experiences, and prior sexual experiences (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985; Guerrero & Afifi, 1995a, 1995b). Anderson et al. (2011) found that prior sexual experiences were often not discussed between relational partners due to beliefs that the past should be in the past, information about prior sexual experiences could harm the current relationship, and the information may instigate negatively valanced feelings including sadness and resentment. In turn, these negative feelings can lead to a decrease in relational satisfaction among intimate partners and potentially relationship dissolution (Afifi & Guerrero, 2000; Anderson et al., 2011). Thus, intimate partners may rationalize engaging in topic avoidance as a means to avoid relationship conflict or protect relationship comfort.

Topic avoidance is “a goal-oriented communicative behavior where individuals strategically keep a conversation away from a certain foci” (Dailey & Palomares, 2004, p. 472). Given that sexual trauma aligns with common aforementioned off-limit topics, women with a history of sexual trauma may perceive this as a taboo topic, anticipate negative reactions, and conceal their thoughts and feelings. Sexual trauma is a painful topic (Jones et al., 2018) and finding ways to disclose to an intimate partner can be challenging. Equally difficult is the uncertainty and anticipation of how the partner will respond to this disclosure. Despite the scarcity of research investigating partner reactions to sexual trauma survivors’ disclosure, past research has examined the reactions of informal supports in the context of IPV and SA.

Disclosures of Sexual Trauma

A survivor's disclosure is broadly defined as any conversation in which the survivor communicates information about the violence occurring in a relationship with another individual (Sylaska & Edwards, 2014). There are common features among informal social support providers, as well as the disclosure processes. Approximately 75% of IPV survivors disclose experiences with violence to informal supports including friends, family, classmates, coworkers, neighbors, and/or partners (Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Fanslow & Robinson, 2010); however, <25% of disclosures are to romantic partners (Ahrens et al., 2009). About half of survivors disclose exclusively to informal supports, rather than accessing help from formal supports (e.g., doctors, law enforcement, counselors, advocates; Prosman et al., 2014), and the common recipients, specifically in the context of SA, include friends and family (Ahrens et al., 2009; Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Fanslow & Robinson, 2010). Survivors who experience severe IPV or higher frequency of violence are more likely to disclose (Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Fanslow & Robinson, 2010). In cases where young adult female survivors decided to withhold this information, Mahlstedt and Keeny (1993) found that survivors believed romantic relationship matters are private and feared friends would try to control their relationships. Other scholars found that disclosure of violence gives the recipient a great deal of power, which can be helpful or harmful, depending on how the recipient initially responds, provides support, and uses the information in the future (Pluretti & Chesebro, 2015).

Researchers have made a concerted effort to identify initial social reactions—defined as the verbal and nonverbal responses to disclosures (Ullman, 2010)—of supports to the disclosure of IPV and SA (Edwards et al., 2015). Despite the fact that many informal supports are well intended in their reactions and support efforts in response to disclosure, social reactions are often mixed in nature (Starzynski et al., 2005; Ullman, 2010).

Positive Reactions

Across the literature, it is evident that emotional support is perceived as the most helpful and desired reaction from the survivors’ perspective (Edwards et al., 2012; Trotter & Allen, 2009). Edwards et al. (2015) found that believing and validating the survivor's feelings were helpful responses. Goodkind et al. (2003) also found that actively listening to the survivor, providing feedback, and facilitating activities were perceived by survivors as beneficial. Additionally, advice in the form of suggestions is labeled as a positive response only when it is requested by the survivor (Lempert, 1997). In the context of SA disclosure, Orchowski et al. (2013) found that if a disclosure recipient initially responds with a supportive reaction, these reactions were associated with seeking subsequent emotional support. Thus, initial reactions are crucial because they open the window of opportunity for ongoing supportive interactions. Positive, emotionally supportive reactions help decrease the amount of distress experienced by survivors (Campbell et al., 2009).

Negative Reactions

Blaming and stigmatizing the survivor are two reactions consistently deemed negative throughout the literature in part because they both overtly reframe the survivor as the problem (Ullman, 2000; Ullman & Filipas, 2005). Another negative reaction is attempting to take control of the survivor's decision making (de Montigny Gauthier et al., 2019; Ullman & Filipas, 2005; Weisz et al., 2007), which treats the survivor in an infantilizing manner (Relyea & Ullman, 2015). While this may be intended to be helpful from the disclosure recipient's standpoint, when the advice is forceful and unsolicited, this stifles empowerment for the survivor (Sylaska & Edwards, 2014). Furthermore, when a disclosure recipient minimizes the seriousness of the sexual violence, discourages communication about the sexual violence, or provides egocentric responses, these reactions are ultimately perceived as harmful to the well-being of survivors (Goodkind et al., 2003; Ullman & Filipas, 2005).

Negative reactions to the disclosure of IPV have been linked to posttraumatic stress symptoms, lower quality of life, and increased severity of depression (Ahrens et al., 2010; Edwards et al., 2015; Goodkind et al., 2003), whereas positive reactions are associated with overall improved well-being (Goodkind et al., 2003). Additionally, negative reactions from informal supports have been associated with relationship deterioration; stigmatizing reactions are perceived as the most harmful (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012; Ahrens et al., 2009).

Although there is a clear understanding of the importance of disclosure and reactions from informal supports as this can lead to continued social support, limited research has focused explicitly on intimate partners’ responses to the disclosure of CSA, IPV, SA, and sexual trauma more broadly. A recent study conducted by de Montigny Gauthier et al. (2019) examined 70 couples in which one partner reported experiencing CSA and disclosed these experiences to their partner. The authors quantitatively examined (a) survivor-perceived response to childhood sexual abuse disclosure using a modified version of Ullman’s (2000) social responses questionnaire; and (b) both partners’ self-reported sexual and relationship satisfaction. Using dyadic data, de Montigny Gauthier et al. (2019) found that positive survivor-perceived partner responses to disclosure--specifically, emotional support--were associated with higher levels of sexual satisfaction for both partners. With regard to negative perceived partner responses to disclosure, when survivors felt stigmatized or treated differently, this was associated with lower relational satisfaction for both partners. This study provides evidence that the valence of responses to disclosure can impact sexual satisfaction and relational satisfaction. Furthermore, de Montigny Gauthier et al.’s findings align with past research supporting the notion that high satisfaction with communication about topics related to sexual behavior were positively associated with sexual satisfaction, communication satisfaction, and marital satisfaction (Cupach & Comstock, 1990; Wheeless et al., 1984).

The Present Study

The current study aimed to understand the perceived reactions of intimate partners in the context of women disclosing their sexual trauma experiences to a partner with whom they share a healthy intimate relationship. Without disclosure, an intimate partner will not be able to engage in supportive communication, the verbal and nonverbal behavior used to provide help to others experiencing stressors (MacGeorge et al., 2011); the social support sexual trauma survivors may need or desire from an intimate partner will not be possible without the disclosure. Additionally, response to the disclosure from a romantic partner sets the stage for future support interactions. If a survivor discloses their history of sexual trauma, it is crucial to understand what responses from partners are helpful and unhelpful to guide effective support strategies to improve survivor well-being and strengthen their relationship. Since prior research has mainly focused on friends and family as informal supports, the present study is exploratory in nature and aimed to answer women's responses to the following question: “What does a ‘good’ or supportive reaction [in regard to disclosing assault/abuse/trauma] from a partner look like to you?"

Method

Participants

Following approval of the study protocol from the institutional review board at the University of Kentucky , 41 women were recruited to participate in semi-structured phone interviews as part of a larger study on sexual trauma and sexual health. The duration of the interviews ranged between 28 and 78 min (average 42 min). Participants were recruited through online advertisements as well as posters placed around a midsized city, home to a midsized university in the southeast region of the United States. Although most participants resided in the United States, others lived in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. To qualify as a participant, an individual had to meet four criteria: (a) self-identified gender identity as a woman; (b) over the age of 18 years; (c) self-identified as having experienced sexual trauma; (d) self-identified as currently being in a “healthy” intimate relationship at the time of participation.

Participants were between the ages of 18 and 55 years (average age of 29 years). The majority of the sample identified as heterosexual (n = 27; 65.8%), with a strong minority of participants identifying as bisexual (n = 5, 12.2%), lesbian (n = 1; 2.4%), pansexual (n = 2; 4.9%), queer (n = 4; 9.8%), and questioning (n = 2; 4.9%). All but two of the participants were in a relationship with a man at the time of data collection (one participant was in a relationship with another woman and the other was in a relationship with a nonbinary partner), and the average relationship length was 50.78 months (4.23 years) with a range from 3 months to 29 years. A minority of our participants (n = 3, 7.3%) indicated that they were in a polyamorous relationship. The majority of participants self-identified as White, with 20% identifying as a racial or ethnic minority including AfroLatina, Asian, Black, Filipino, Jewish, or Hispanic. With regard to sexual trauma, 71% of participants reported experiences after the age of 12 years, 25% experienced sexual trauma before the age of 12 years, and 4% reported experiences both before and after the age of 12 years.

Procedure

Interested participants who viewed the study advertisement were prompted to email the primary investigator to schedule an interview where they were screened for eligibility. The primary investigator conducted all the interviews via phone regardless of geographical location to provide methodological consistency. Participants were free to skip any questions they felt uncomfortable or unprepared to answer. Participants were compensated with a $20 online gift card. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. All identifying information was removed from the transcripts and participants’ names were replaced with pseudonyms.

Analytic Process

We approached the data inductively using reflexive thematic analysis (see Braun & Clarke, 2013) to focus specifically on the experiences described by women with a history of sexual trauma. Both authors closely read over the transcripts several times to get acquainted with the data. Then, the coauthors created a series of codes identified from the interviews to provide insight into the research question. Next, the codes were classified into themes and an interactive process of generating, defining, naming, and revisiting the data was followed. Further revisions led to the compilation of a master list of themes and subthemes.

Through this analytic process, we identified two overarching themes for labeling partner reactions to disclosure. The first theme, positive reactions, was responses from an intimate partner perceived as helpful and supportive (see Table 1). Four distinct subthemes comprise the positive responses to sexual trauma disclosures: (a) engaging in emotional support; (b) respecting conversational boundaries; (c) respecting physical boundaries; and (d) engaging in appraisal support. The second theme, negative reactions, refers to responses from intimate partners perceived as harmful, hurtful, or maladaptive for sexual trauma survivors (see Table 2). Two subthemes comprise the negative reactions enacted by partners of sexual trauma survivors: (a) attempting to take control; and (b) minimizing the abuse/avoiding conversations.

Table 1.

Positive Reactions to Sexual Trauma Disclosure.

Subtheme	Description	Additional example quote
Emotional support	Partner expressing empathy, showing care and acceptance, listening to the individual's feelings, and simply being there.	“I think a good reaction in my experience, from my partner, a lot of it is just active listening and silence.”
Respecting conversational boundaries	Partner understanding and respecting conversational limitation for the sexual trauma survivor, including not making it about them (the partner).	“And if they have told them, you know, I think it's important to ask questions about it, and how can I help avoid those negative feelings that come up, is there something I can do to make you feel more comfortable, are there things you’d rather me not talk about? I feel like sometimes in the past, I’ve told a boyfriend before and the questions that he asked were really just insensitive, and so I think letting the victim lead conversation is really important.”
Respecting physical boundaries	Partner understanding and respecting physical limitations for the sexual trauma survivor.	“Yeah, I think … I’m trying to think exactly if there was at that he did. He didn't … no, he didn't really do anything. I think that helps too, if he would’ve been … I guess I didn't want any type of physical contact at the time, when I was telling him, so I think the fact that he didn't, helped me.”
Providing reappraisals	Partner providing constructive feedback to help to interpret the event and revise perspective.	“And of course, yeah, if victim blaming happens a supportive partner would try to negate that and cut it off before it goes too deep.”

Table 2.

Negative Reactions to Sexual Trauma Disclosure.

Subtheme	Description	Additional example quote
Attempting to take control	Partner reacting by trying to control the survivor's behaviors or trying to force conversation about the trauma.	“And his response was you need to cut all of these people out of your life and it kind of undermined the goals of my therapy…”
Minimizing the importance of sexual trauma/avoiding conversations	Partner downplays the severity of the sexual trauma experience or avoids conversation entirely.	“Whereas, in previous relationships, when I’ve disclosed, I get everything from a flurry of ‘Oh my god, are you okay? That must have been so hard,’ to ‘Well, are you sure it wasn't your fault?’”

Results

Positive Reactions to Disclosure

Emotional Support

Emotional support is conceptualized as a partner expressing empathy, showing care and acceptance, listening to the individual's feelings, and simply being there for the sexual trauma survivor. Participants consistently indicated that a partner who expressed emotional support was positive for the relationship. Kate, 37, conveyed her partner's willingness to listen was important immediately following the initial disclosure of sexual trauma: “Well it really helped that he listened. He didn't interrupt or anything like that, even to ask clarifying questions. He was just listening the entire time. I guess he was quiet which made me feel more comfortable talking. He waited until I had stopped for a while before responding.”

Sarah, 24, reflected on how her partner continued to express empathy in subsequent conversations:

He originally came from a place of like, “I can't believe this happened to you and I’m mad that it happened to you and I wanna do something about it.” So that was nice from a sense, in terms of feeling protected and safe and that kind of effect, but then afterwards there was a lot of reassurance in terms of “this doesn't make me see you differently and this is something that happened to you, not a product of your behavior.”

Future support attempts were also discussed. One facet of emotional support that surfaced included a partner listening, but actively avoiding extreme emotional displays, avoiding egotistical responses, and holding their own composure, as 25-year-old Justine described:

He knows he has had to check himself a couple times. He does get upset when I tell him things, just because he loves me and it hurts him to know that that was done to me, and that we did press charges and the legal system kind of fucked everything up. Even though my abuser pled guilty he went on to commit other violent sex crimes, things like that. That does upset him, but he knows that when I am talking to him face-to-face, that's not the time to show being upset, when we’re having that face-to-face time and discussing it.

One caveat, however, was that emotional support was beneficial as long as pity was not attached to the partner's response. Abby, a 20-year-old participant, explained her perspective:

I don't like people to feel sorry for me. So, the way that my partner handled it, I could not have asked for it to be handled better, because it was like, “Surely I’m sorry it happened to you,” but then it was immediately flipped to like, “How are you doing this? Like you’re so strong because of this. I don't know how you can be so intimate and then like let me in on this.” So, I think a good reaction is like not just like a pitiful like, “I’m just so sorry it happened to you, da da da.” But like, “Sure, I’m sorry, but let me help empower you, and show you that like this world isn't just full of people like that,” like you can be loved and respected.

Understanding and Respecting Conversational Boundaries

Participants frequently mentioned the concept of boundary setting. Boundaries can be bifurcated into two subthemes: conversational boundaries and physical boundaries. Conversational boundaries are conceptualized as a partner respecting the limitations a survivor has in communicating about certain topics in a conversation, while understanding these limitations are not about the current partner. Rather, these limitations are tied to the trauma experienced in the past. Mel, 28, elucidated how important it is for survivors to take the lead in directing conversations:

… you know, I think it's important to ask questions about it, and how can I help avoid those negative feelings that come up, is there something I can do to make you feel more comfortable, are there things you’d rather me not talk about? I feel like sometimes in the past, I’ve told a boyfriend before and the questions that he asked were really just insensitive, and so I think letting the victim lead conversation is really important.

Katarina, 22, noted respecting conversational boundaries also included not overreaching with support and inundating the survivor with questions:

Supportive, not overly nosy, respecting what you say, listening to it. I’m not really at a point where I want like, “Oh my God, what happened? Are you okay? How can I help?” So, it's nice when they don't go overboard with the support and they’re just sitting there and just listening and saying, “Okay, I understand. What do you need from me?”

Understanding and Respecting Physical Boundaries

In addition to respecting the conversational boundaries concerning sexual trauma experiences, the women mentioned that physical boundaries were crucial to support in their relationships. Physical boundaries are best conceptualized as respecting the limitations of engaging in physical contact with the survivor. These limitations with physical contact were tied to the past sexual trauma, yet ever present in current partnerships. Hannah, 21, discussed how her partner was cognizant of physical boundaries while she disclosed details of her sexual trauma experiences: “He was apologizing for it. Not that he kept his distance, but he was more careful about putting his arm around me or anything like that when I was telling him.” A 29-year-old survivor, Margo, explained how her spouse reacted to physical limitations due to the sexual trauma:

My husband, in the beginning of our relationship knew that sometimes he should hug me and sometimes if he went to hug me, I would flinch and I would be like “Don't touch me.” And he knew that that wasn't something that he should be offended by. So just having a partner with an open mind and an understanding that not every action is personal. It's really, really important. So yeah. So being open and understanding, and knowing how you can best support your traumatized partner because it's not a one-size-fits-all approach.

In this excerpt, Margo clearly articulates her spouse's ability to respect physical limitations to intimacy, understanding that this is an ongoing challenge due to her sexual trauma experiences.

Providing Reappraisals

Reappraisals are conceptualized as providing constructive feedback to help interpret the event and/or revise the sexual trauma survivors’ perspective of the violence they experienced. Some women discussed how partners reiterated that the sexual trauma experienced was in no way justifiable. Sarah, 24, recounted how her partner helped her view the assault in a different light and combat negative emotions associated with experiences: “Him kind of being able to verbalize things that I wouldn't necessarily have been able to in terms of assault and blame in the situation, and things I may have internalized or I did internalize. He was able to verbalize and kind of say, ‘That's not the healthiest way of thinking about it and that's not how I see it. …’” Callie, 24, provided an example of when a partner's reappraisal could help reframe and counteract self-blame:

… especially if the person's making self-victim type blaming comments, like oh, “I could have done this or that,” or “I’m so stupid because I could have done this or that.” I think a partner who's supportive would counteract those kinds of comments and be like “there's nothing you did wrong, you’re not at fault, this and that. The fault lies with the person who did it, or this and that.”

Negative Reactions to Disclosure

The interviews predominately yielded reports of more positive reactions than negative reactions from intimate partners, though some did have negative experiences when disclosing their history of sexual trauma to their partners.

Attempting to Take Control

Some partners of sexual trauma survivors communicated their need to control either the situation conversationally by forcing unwanted communication about the sexual trauma experienced or by trying to control the survivor's behaviors. Holly, a 25-year-old participant, explained why her partner's attempts to take control were problematic for her personal and relational well-being:

I think it's really common for a partner to want to take control. I think it's out of a protective urge but a big part of my past is that I have had to regain control of my life because people have taken that control out of my life by, you know, raping me and sexually harassing me and molesting or whatever else. [Those traumatic experiences are] control removal and I need the control to be in my, on my end. I need to feel close but … this is what I need for myself, you can be a part of it or not.

This quote exemplifies how the sexual trauma removes control and a partner trying to control conversations about those experiences further exacerbates these feelings of powerlessness. Holly also recounted her partner's attempt to control her behavior:

I disclosed it, he was very … he wanted to control. For example, one of my earliest experiences of sexual molestation was with family. And it was something that was very hard for me that I had worked through, through therapy and I had managed to repair some relationships that were really important to me to repair.… And his response was you need to cut all of these people out of your life and it kind of undermined the goals of my therapy …

Nicole, 42, recalls her wife's reaction when her sexual trauma is the topic of discussion:

I feel like the best kind of reaction is not asking a million questions, not trying to rehash the whole thing or … My wife is in law enforcement, so she always wants to go kill the person, go maim him or whatever, maybe not that, because that's not super helpful.

Although Nicole's wife is not telling her what to say or how to behave, this reaction places more emphasis on the partner's needs, rather than focusing on the needs of the survivor.

Minimizing the Importance of Sexual Trauma/Avoiding Conversations

In addition to attempting to take control, partners may minimize the importance of the sexual trauma. This subtheme is conceptualized as the partner downplaying the severity of sexual trauma or avoiding conversation altogether. Partners may downplay the importance of the disclosure by focusing on details less related to their partner's experiences that are egocentric in nature: “I have had experience in the first decade that I was dealing with, or facing this or whatever, people talk about themselves when I shared this. What they would do, how they feel about it, if they believe it or not, whatever. That is not a supportive response.”

Mel, 28, recounts frustration with her partner's insensitivity concerning her sexual trauma: “… it just felt, not that he didn't believe me, but that it wasn't affecting me as badly as it was. I don't know. It put me off a lot when he said something like that.” Kate, who is 37 years old, noted the most common reaction from past partners: “I had told some other people before him, and the general reaction was just like ‘Oh, okay. Well, we’ll just kind of sweep this under the rug and ignore it.”

It is important to recognize not all women disclosed their sexual trauma experiences to their partners. Rebekah, 37, describes why disclosure did not occur even if support was desired: “Well, I mean, everybody's always kind of shocked, when I first tell them, so that's one reason why I don't like telling people. … I don't like that moment when the person feels shocked and they don't know what to do.”

These stories illustrate that partners, although they may intend for their responses to the sexual trauma disclosure to be supportive, are not consistently beneficial for survivors. Additionally, partners may be tempted to take an egocentric approach to responding, even with the best of intentions, while other partners may communicate that they view sexual trauma experiences as less significant. Nonetheless, the women interviewed perceived these reactions as harmful, both to healing and to their relationships.

Discussion

This article draws upon the accounts of partner disclosure from women who have a history of sexual trauma but are now in healthy intimate relationships. The study aimed to understand how these women perceive responses to their disclosure of sexual trauma to an intimate partner. Analyzing the interview data using a reflexive thematic analysis, we found that current partners’ responses were prominently perceived as positive; however, consistent with past literature on informal supports’ social reactions to SA and IPV disclosures, some accounts of partner reactions were mixed in nature (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012).

Overall, women reported more positive than negative reactions from current partners, and this may be due in part to the inclusion criteria of being in a healthy relationship during data collection. With regard to positive partner reactions to disclosure, partners provided various types of emotional support, which is consistent with previous research that examined reactions and support from informal supports of SA and IPV survivors (Edwards et al., 2012, 2015). That is, participants generally appreciated when their partner listened openly to their disclosure, expressed empathy, and were perceived as being “there for them” when disclosing information concerning the sexual trauma or navigating the impacts of the sexual trauma.

Similarly, participants articulated a positive response to their partner's ability to understand and respect boundaries. With sexual trauma, participants expressed the importance of emotional boundaries when navigating conversations, as well as physical boundaries concerning physical intimacy. Although past research examined informal supports responding to disclosures in egocentric ways (e.g., taking the lead, refocusing on themselves and their emotional response; Relyea & Ullman, 2015), the current study provides insight into navigating physical boundaries specific to romantic partners’ support after disclosing experiences of sexual trauma, and replicated these results in this population. Another reaction consistent with previous literature was the provision of appraisal support in which the partner provides feedback to help to interpret the event and revise the survivor's perspective (Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993). The women discussed how partners attempted to change their perspective when engaging in self-blame talk for the sexual trauma experiences. Rather than saying nothing or agreeing, partners would try to combat these thoughts by reassuring the survivor that the sexual trauma they endured unjustifiable.

One support response we did not find in the current study but that does have some prior research support was tangible support, or the act of assisting an individual with tasks such as providing transportation, financial assistance, or connections to other resources (e.g., counseling; Goodkind et al., 2003). However, this may not have surfaced because most participants were further removed from their experiences of sexual trauma and thus may have not felt that this type of assistance was needed or expected from current partners. However, if the disclosure does happen more temporally close to the experience of sexual trauma, these tangible acts of service may be helpful and may be a way to clearly express care and love for a partner.

Consistent with prior research, some negative reactions included the perception that some partners tried to take control of the situation when women disclosed their experiences of sexual trauma (de Montigny Gauthier et al., 2019; Relyea & Ullman, 2015). This need for control was conveyed in the current study when partners attempted to dominate or force conversations about the sexual trauma, tell the survivor how she should act, or even wanting to take matters into their own hands by confronting the person(s) who inflicted the trauma. Women who received these more controlling responses from partners consistently and overtly indicated that these reactions were not helpful in the healing process, negatively impacted the relationship, and in some cases were harmful. Other unsupportive responses uncovered in the current study included women who revealed that some partners either did not fully recognize the gravity of the sexual trauma experience(s) and/or they completely circumvented the conversation.

Contrary to previous research on disclosure of IPV, SA, or CSA, which indicate blame as a common reaction (Sylaska & Edwards, 2014), the women in this study did not report partners blaming them for their sexual trauma experiences. The interviews predominately yielded reports of positive reactions, which is likely due in part to the study advertisement indicating that women needed to be in a healthy relationship to participate. Perhaps individuals who experienced negative partner reactions were less likely to be in a relationship or be interested in participating.

Practical Implications

The current study provides valuable perspectives for clinicians working with women who have a history of sexual trauma. Clinicians would benefit from increased awareness of the responses that survivors of sexual trauma receive from their intimate partners and the impact of these reactions on the survivor's psychosocial well-being and the relationship. Furthermore, formal support providers such as clinicians have the opportunity to mitigate psychosocial consequences associated with negative reactions from intimate partners, and this research provides context for understanding women's experiences. Ideally, clinicians may consider including the current partners in the survivor's treatment and provide partners with suggestions to effectively navigate support. This consideration is consistent with previous research which documents the benefits of including informal support providers (e.g., romantic partners) in therapy with trauma survivors, as well as the negative impact of unsupportive communication on survivors' progress with therapy (Ullman, 2010). Therefore, we recommend that it is crucial to equip formal support providers with the necessary knowledge and training to work with survivors and their partners. Beyond clinical implications, health interventions designed to enhance the supportive environment for sexual trauma survivors should highlight the common, but negative responses of informal support providers and encourage enacting the positive responses identified.

Limitations and Future Directions

One limitation is that the current study focused on self-identified women's experiences with sexual trauma and did not provide the opportunity for participation by men or others who did not identify as a woman. Although women are at a higher risk for victimization than men, they are not necessarily at a higher risk than transgender, genderqueer, or other gender-nonconforming individuals. It may well be that partner responses to the disclosure of sexual violence may be different for men due to the lower rates of sexual violence experienced by men and the stigma that comes with that. And partner responses for transgender, genderqueer, or other gender-nonconforming individuals may also look different than those for women. Therefore, it is worthwhile for future studies to assemble the voices of men and other gender identities who are navigating sexual trauma disclosures with intimate partners.

A second limitation is the retrospective nature of the study, as asking participants to recount disclosures and subsequent partner responses allows for potential memory bias. Future research should consider using methodologies to follow survivors longitudinally to better understand disclosure and initial reactions, as well as document continued supportive interactions. Relatedly, researchers should assess partners’ reasoning for providing certain reactions. These data could equip clinicians and interventionists with information with regard to the partners’ intentions, self-reports of reactions, and gain a better understanding of the support they feel capable of providing. Because partners may not perceive their reactions as inherently negative, it would be beneficial to advise partners on the distinctions between helpful, positive reactions and reactions that appear helpful but have harmful impacts. As previously mentioned, participants were required to currently be in a healthy relationship to participate, which may have led to self-selection bias. Moreover, those who have higher relational satisfaction may have been more inclined to participate than women less satisfied with their current partners.

Conclusion

Data from the current study underscore the experiences of women who have survived sexual trauma and their perceptions of intimate partners’ reactions to disclosures of sexual trauma. This study gives a voice to the needs and preferences of women with a history of sexual trauma who are now in healthy relationships. Notably, the reactions and subsequent social support discussed in the interviews were primarily positive, although this was not always the case. Future research should investigate how to incorporate the data on social reactions from partners in therapy for women who have a history of sexual trauma. Additionally, it is important for researchers to approach understanding this process of disclosure and ongoing support longitudinally to examine how supportive interactions evolve over the course of the relationship.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We express deep gratitude to the women who shared their lived experiences with us through this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kaylee M. Lukacena

Author Biographies

Kaylee M. Lukacena is a research development manager at the Center for Social and Behavioral Science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a PhD candidate at the University of Kentucky. Her research examines the role of communication in the design/evaluation of health messages and interpersonal health contexts. She is committed to addressing social and behavioral issues including identifying approaches to prevent violence and strategies to support survivors of interpersonal violence.

Kristen P. Mark is the Joycelyn Elders Endowed Chair and professor in Sexual Health Education in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Minnesota Medical School. Her research focuses on the intersection of sexuality and relationships through improving sexual communication, sexual and relationship satisfaction, addressing sexual desire issues and desire discrepancy, sexual trauma, consent, and the importance of healthy sexual development to overall health.

References

Afifi

T. D.

Steuber

K. R.

(2009). The revelation risk model (RRM): Factors that predict the revelation of secrets and the strategies used to reveal them. Communication Monographs, 76(2), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750902828412

Afifi

W. A.

Guerrero

L. K.

(2000). Motivations and underlying topic avoidance in close relationships. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing secrets of private disclosures (pp. 165–180). Erlbaum.

Ahrens

C. E.

Aldana

(2012). The ties that bind: Understanding the impact of sexual assault disclosure on survivors’ relationships with friends, family, and partners. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13(2), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2012.642738

Ahrens

C. E.

Cabral

Abeling

(2009). Healing or hurtful: Sexual assault survivors’ interpretations of social reactions from support providers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01476.x

Ahrens

C. E.

Stansell

Jennings

. (2010). To tell or not to tell: The impact of disclosure on sexual assault survivors’ recovery. Violence and Victims, 25(5), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.5.631

Anderson

Kunkel

Dennis

M. R.

(2011). ‘Let’s (Not) talk about that’: Bridging the past sexual experiences taboo to build healthy romantic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48(4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.482215

Ansara

D. L.

Hindin

M. J.

(2010). Formal and informal help-seeking associated with women’s and men’s experiences of intimate partner violence in Canada. Social Science and Medicine, 70(7), 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.009

Baxter

L. A.

Wilmot

W. W.

(1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2(3), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407585023002

Belknap

Melton

H. C.

Denney

J. T.

Fleury-Steiner

R. E.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2009). The levels and roles of social and institutional support reported by survivors of intimate partner abuse. Feminist Criminology, 4(4), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085109344942

10.

Bennice

J. A.

Resick

P. A.

Mechanic

Astin

(2003). The relative effects of intimate partner physical and sexual violence on post-traumatic stress disorder symptomatology. Violence and Victims, 18(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.1.87

11.

Black

M. C.

(2011). Intimate partner violence and adverse health consequences: Implications for clinicians. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(5), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827611410265

12.

Braun

Clarke

(2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.

13.

Breiding

M. J.

Basile

K. C.

Smith

S. G.

Black

M. C.

Mahendra

R. R.

(2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, version 2.0. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

14.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization--National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance summaries, 63(8), 1–18.

15.

Brunell

A. B.

Pilkington

C. J.

Webster

G. D.

(2007). Perceptions of risk in intimacy in dating couples: Conversation and relationship quality. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(1), 92–118. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.1.92

16.

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

17.

Carbone-Lopez

Kruttschnitt

Macmillan

(2006). Patterns of intimate partner violence and their associations with physical health, psychological distress, and substance use. Public Health Reports, 121(4), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100406

18.

Coker

A. L.

Bethea

King

M. R.

McKeown

R. E.

(2000). Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 9(5), 451–457. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1001/archfami.9.5.451

19.

Coker

A. L.

Watkins

K. W.

Smith

P. H.

Brandt

H. M.

(2003). Social support reduces the impact of partner violence on health: Application of structural equation models. Preventive Medicine, 37(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00122-1

20.

Cupach

W. R.

Comstock

(1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590072002

21.

Dailey

R. M.

Palomares

N. A.

(2004). Strategic topic avoidance: An investigation of topic avoidance frequency, strategies used, and relational correlates. Communication Monographs, 71(4), 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000307443

22.

de Montigny Gauthier

Vaillancourt-Morel

M. P.

Rellini

Godbout

Charbonneau-Lefebvre

Desjardins

Bergeron

(2019). The risk of telling: A dyadic perspective on romantic partners’ responses to child sexual abuse disclosure and their associations with sexual and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 45(3), 480–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12345

23.

Derlega

V. J.

Chaikin

A. L.

(1977). Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01885.x

24.

Derlega

V. J.

Metts

Petronio

Margulis

S. T.

(1993). Self-disclosure. Sage.

25.

Edwards

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2015). Informal social reactions to college women’s disclosure of intimate partner violence: Associations with psychological and relational variables. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514532524

26.

Edwards

K. M.

Kearns

M. C.

Gidycz

C. A.

Calhoun

K. S.

(2012). Predictors of victim-perpetrator relationship stability following a sexual assault: A brief report. Violence and Victims, 27(1), 25–32. http://dx.https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.25

27.

Fanslow

J. L.

Robinson

E. M.

(2010). Help-seeking behaviors and reasons for help seeking reported by a representative sample of women victims of intimate partner violence in New Zealand. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(5), 929–951. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509336963

28.

Goodkind

J. R.

Gillum

T. L.

Bybee

D. I.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2003). The impact of family and friends’ reactions on the well-being of women with abusive partners. Violence Against Women, 9(3), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801202250083

29.

Guerrero

L. K.

Afifi

W. A.

(1995a). What parents don’t know: Topic avoidance in parent-child relationships. In T. J. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 219–245). Erlbaum.

30.

Guerrero

L. K.

Afifi

W. A.

(1995b). Some things are better left unsaid: Topic avoidance in family relationships. Communication Quarterly, 43(3), 276–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379509369977

31.

Jones

A. C.

Robinson

W. D.

Seedall

R. B.

(2018). The role of sexual communication in couples’ sexual outcomes: A dyadic path analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12282

32.

Lempert

L. B.

(1997). The other side of help: Negative effects in the help-seeking processes of abused women. Qualitative Sociology, 20(2), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024769920112

33.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Burleson

B. R.

(2011). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 317–354). Sage.

34.

Mahlstedt

Keeny

(1993). Female survivors of dating violence and their social networks. Feminism & Psychology, 3(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353593033003

35.

Orchowski

L. M.

Untied

A. S.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2013). Social reactions to disclosure of sexual victimization and adjustment among survivors of sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(10), 2005–2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512471085

36.

Petronio

(2002). The boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press.

37.

Pluretti

Chesebro

J. L.

(2015). Managing privacy and the decision to disclose: Disclosures of sexual victimization. Communication Quarterly, 63(5), 550–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1078826

38.

Prosman

G. J.

Lo Fo Wong

S. H.

Lagro-Janssen

A. L.

(2014). Why abused women do not seek professional help: A qualitative study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 28(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12025

39.

Rankin

Bustle

. (2008, November). Should relational history be discussed? An application and extension of communication privacy management. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

40.

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

41.

Rosenfeld

L. B.

(1979). Self-disclosure avoidance: Why I am afraid to tell you who I am. Communication Monographs, 46(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757909375991

42.

Smith

S. G.

Chen

Basile

K. C.

Gilbert

L. K.

Merrick

M. T.

Patel

Walling

Jain

(2017). National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

43.

Staples

Rellini

A. H.

Roberts

S. P.

(2012). Avoiding experiences: Sexual dysfunction in women with a history of sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(2), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9773-x

44.

Starzynski

L. L.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

Townsend

S. M.

(2005). Correlates of women’s sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence & Victims, 20(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.20.4.417

45.

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

46.

Trotter

J. L.

Allen

N. E.

(2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Domestic violence survivors’ experiences with their informal sources. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3-4), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9232-1

47.

Ullman

S. E.

(2000). Psychometric characteristics of the social reactions questionnaire: A measure of reactions to sexual assault victims. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(3), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00208.x

48.

Ullman

S. E.

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

49.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

(2005). Gender differences in social responses to abuse disclosures, post-abuse coping, and PTSD of child sexual abuse survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(7), 767–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.01.005

50.

Vives-Cases

Ruiz-Cantero

M. T.

Escribà-Agüir

Miralles

J. J.

(2011). The effect of intimate partner violence and other forms of violence against women on health. Journal of Public Health, 33(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq101

51.

Weisz

A. N.

Tolman

R. M.

Callahan

M. R.

Saunders

D. G.

Black

B. M.

(2007). Informal helpers’ responses when adolescents tell them about dating violence or romantic relationship problems. Journal of Adolescence, 30(5), 853–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.09.004

52.

Wheeless

L. R.

Wheeless

V. E.

Baus

(1984). Sexual communication, communication satisfaction, and solidarity in the developmental stages of intimate relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 48(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318409374158