Timing of Sexual Assault Disclosure: A Study of College Women

Abstract

The present study examined correlates of immediate (within 48 h) and delayed (after 48 h) sexual assault disclosure among a sample of 83 college women who experienced sexual victimization since age 14. The use of physical resistance and experiencing a “freeze response” was positively associated with delayed disclosure. Identifying the perpetrator as a friend/acquaintance, compared to a was a romantic partner, increased the likelihood of immediate disclosure. Other individual characteristics (i.e., assault characteristics, a history of childhood sexual abuse, attitudes towards seeking help, and sexual assertiveness) and microsystem-level characteristics (i.e., perceived social support) did not impact the timing of disclosure.

Keywords

disclosure sexual assault delayed disclosure college women

Sexual assault is a pervasive problem (Breiding et al., 2015). Although individuals of all ages are at risk for sexual victimization, empirical studies suggest that the risk for sexual assault is concentrated in adolescence and young adulthood, that is, between the age of 14 and 24 (Finkelhor et al., 2014; Humphrey & White, 2000). The high prevalence of sexual assault is particularly concerning given the number of psychological consequences for survivors (Dworkin et al., 2017). A history of lifetime sexual assault often has a more substantial impact on psychological functioning compared to other types of trauma (Kelley et al., 2009). A history of adolescence and adult sexual assault, that is, an assault experienced after the age of 14, is also associated with several negative health outcomes, including physical injuries, gynecological complications, and gastrointestinal problems (Pegram & Abbey, 2019; World Health Organization, 2013). Given the prevalence and consequences of sexual assault, understanding ways to support sexual assault survivors in accessing resources and treatment is of critical public health significance.

Although most adolescent and adult sexual assault (aged 14 and above) survivors disclose their assault to at least one or more informal or formal support providers (Ahrens et al., 2007; Filipas & Ullman, 2001; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012), there is considerable variability in when individuals choose to disclose. A seminal study on survivors with a lifetime history of sexual assault found that some survivors talk to someone (formal or informal) about the experience immediately, and many others wait days, weeks, months, or years to disclose (Ullman, 1996). Despite the variability in the timing of sexual assault disclosure, immediate and timely disclosure of the assault is important for several reasons. Delaying disclosure may result in delayed medical treatment for injuries sustained during the assault (Ahrens et al., 2010; Ullman & Filipas, 2001). Delayed disclosure of sexual assault also limits an individual's ability to have evidence collected, which can assist in the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrator (Smith et al., 2000). Lastly, survivors with a lifetime history of trauma often begin the process of making meaning of the trauma immediately after the assault (Park, 2010). Immediate disclosure of adult sexual victimization may allow survivors to receive supportive responses from informal or formal support providers, which may serve to promote healing (Ahrens et al., 2007). Accordingly, research that identifies factors associated with the timing of sexual assault disclosure can be utilized to develop interventions aimed at better supporting individuals who experience sexual victimization.

Existing research investigating the timing of disclosure defines “delayed disclosure” in various ways. Some studies operationalize immediate disclosure as telling someone, formal or informal, about the experience within 12 h of the assault (e.g., Miller et al., 2002). Other studies identify immediate disclosure as telling someone within 24 h of the assault (e.g., Koçtürk & Billinger, 2020), or within a week of the assault (Bicanic et al., 2015). Notably, research suggests that most women who experience lifetime sexual victimization disclose within 48 h of the assault (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Ullman, 1996).

The theoretical frameworks utilized to understand the correlates of delayed disclosure also vary. Several studies have utilized ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1992) to explore correlates of immediate (<48 h from the assault) and delayed (>48 h from the assault) disclosure by considering individual, assault-specific, and micro-systems characteristics that influence the timing of disclosure (e.g., Hébert et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2000). Among adolescent and adult samples, a history of child sexual abuse (CSA) is consistently positively associated with delayed disclosure of sexual assault (Malloy et al., 2021; Ullman, 1996). Studies among adult and adolescent samples report a mean delay in disclosure ranging from 3 to 18 years (Hébert et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2000). Notably, given that many cases of CSA occur at a very young age, and are perpetrated by a family member, 60–80% of survivors of CSA do not disclose their victimization experiences until adulthood (Hébert et al., 2009; Paine & Hansen, 2002). While the speculative, early experience of CSA may also influence the time it takes for women to disclose experiences of victimization that occur in adolescence or adulthood.

Individual characteristics—such as one's overall likelihood of seeking psychological help, or level of sexual assertiveness—are also likely to influence the timing of disclosure, particularly among adult and adolescent samples. Attitudes towards seeking psychological care are an important predictor of whether an individual will disclose interpersonal issues or substance use issues to formal sources such as a counselor (e.g., Vogel et al., 2005; Vogel & Wester, 2003). Although attitudes towards seeking psychological help have yet to be examined as a correlate of the timing of sexual assault disclosure, given that disclosure is a form of help-seeking behavior, one can expect that a favorable attitude towards seeking psychological help would be positively associated with immediate disclosure of victimization. Assertiveness is also overlooked when examining correlates of the timing of sexual assault disclosure. Sexual assertiveness is defined as the degree to which a person is openly able to communicate their thoughts, choices, and feelings about their sexuality (Morokoff et al., 1997). Sexual assertiveness is associated with other forms of disclosure among women (e.g., sexual function and sexual satisfaction; Attaky et al., 2020; Jacobs & Kane, 2011; McNicoll et al., 2017); however, no study has examined the impact of sexual assertiveness on the timing of sexual assault disclosure. Given that individuals who are high in sexual assertiveness are more openly able to communicate feelings and thoughts regarding their sexual life, it is expected that these individuals are more likely to disclose an assault immediately.

Several assault characteristics are also associated with the timing of sexual assault disclosure among both survivors of sexual abuse in childhood and sexual assault in adulthood. The victim–perpetrator relationship appears to be crucial in predicting the timing of disclosure. Among studies on both adolescents and young adults (aged 12–25) with a lifetime history of assault, closeness to the perpetrator is positively associated with delayed disclosure (e.g., Bicanic et al., 2015; Koçtürk & Bilginer, 2020; Kogan, 2004; Rickert et al., 2005). Similar findings are reported for children who have experienced sexual abuse such that children who were sexually abused by a family member and felt greater responsibility for the abuse took longer to disclose (Broman-Fulks et al., 2007; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Sjöberg & Lindblad, 2002; Smith et al., 2000).

Substance use during the assault also appears to be related to the timing of disclosure among adolescent and adult samples, although findings are mixed. Specifically, whereas one study among survivors of adolescent sexual assault (aged 15–18) found that a survivor's substance use at the time of assault did not impact the timing of disclosure (Koçtürk & Bilginer, 2020), another study on survivors of adolescent and young adult sexual assault (age 12–25) found that survivors who used substances during the assault were more likely to disclose immediately (compared to those who did not use substances; Bicanic et al., 2015). Ullman (1996) reported that among survivors with a lifetime history of sexual assault, the perpetrator's use of substances during the assault was associated with immediate disclosure. These studies highlight the importance of considering substance use at the time of the assault in concert with other factors in research examining the timing of disclosure.

To our knowledge, no study to date has examined how the use of various resistance strategies impacts the timing of disclosure. Commonly, resistance strategies are divided into three broad categories: physical resistance (e.g., run and fight), verbal resistance (e.g., yell and reason), or a “freeze response” (e.g., going cold; Sit & Schuller, 2018; Starzynski et al., 2007; Ullman, 1996). Overall, it is expected that survivors whose assault experiences did not conform to the stereotype that sexual assault involves active physical resistance by a victim would delay disclosure, because survivors of these assaults may anticipate that others would not believe their account (Griffin et al., 2021).

A survivor's sense of self-blame for an assault may also impact the timing of disclosure among college women who report a history of sexual victimization. A higher perceived level of personal responsibility for an assault is a powerful silencer of disclosure among adult samples (e.g., Ahrens et al., 2010). Studies consistently suggest that higher levels of perceived responsibility predicted delayed disclosure among children with a history of CSA (Kellogg et al., 2020; Xiao & Smith-Prince, 2015). In fact, children with a history of CSA (aged 11 and below) were 2.7 times more likely to have delayed disclosures when they endorsed any level of responsibility for the abuse (Kellogg et al., 2020). However, this relationship is understudied among adolescent samples. One study in an adolescent sample (aged 12–17) found that levels of personal responsibility for an assault did not predict disclosure timing of victimization across the lifespan (Kellogg et al., 2020). Attributing responsibility is a cognitive task that may change across the developmental period depending on the age at which the assault takes place. Examining the timing of disclosure among women who experience victimization in late adolescence to young adulthood (i.e., between age 14 and the start of college) may yield different results.

Whereas lack of perceived social support also hinders the disclosure of trauma to formal or informal sources (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015), little is known about its impact on the timing of sexual assault disclosure. While speculative, it is feasible that individuals with higher levels of perceived social support would be more likely to immediately disclose their assault, and that individuals with lower levels of support would prolong disclosure, if they choose to disclose at all. Only one study to our knowledge has examined the association between social support and the timing of assault disclosure and found that perception of social support from family and community did not impact when adolescents chose to disclose their assault to formal or informal sources (e.g., Koçtürk & Bilginer, 2020). Given the paucity of research to date examining social support and the timing of assault disclosure, additional research is warranted.

Present Study

The current study examined the correlates of delayed disclosure of adolescent sexual assault among a sample of first year college women with a history of sexual victimization since age 14. First year college women are ideal for inclusion in research addressing sexual violence given the high rates of victimization during this time of college (Follingstad et al., 2022). Potential correlates of the timing of disclosure aligned with ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1992), and included individual, assault-related, and micro-systems characteristics. The present study adds to the literature in several ways. Specifically, research examining the timing of disclosure has yet to consider the role of relevant individual characteristics such as attitudes toward seeking professional help and sexual assertiveness. Further, whereas assault-level characteristics such as the relationship to the perpetrator are positively associated with delayed disclosure in adolescent samples (Bicanic et al., 2015), research has overlooked how other assault-level characteristics (e.g., the type of resistance used at the time of the assault and the survivor's perceived level of responsibility for the assault) might impact the timing of sexual assault disclosure. Further, only one study to date has examined the perception of social support—a microsystem characteristic—as a correlate of the timing of disclosure, with findings suggesting that perceived social support did not influence the timing of disclosure (Koçtürk & Bilginer, 2020).

Accordingly, the current study advances research on sexual assault disclosure by examining the association between several individual-level, assault-specific, and microsystem-level factors, and the timing of sexual assault disclosure among a sample of college women who experienced sexual victimization since the age of 14. Various potential classifications of “delayed disclosure” were considered. Although 72 h is sometimes recommended as the window of time within which a survivor is recommended to seek a medical exam to gather evidence that may assist in the investigation and prosecution of the crime, guidelines for evidence collection widely vary, with standards of 24, 48, 72, and 96 h (and more) recommended in some locales (Archambault, 2007). Without an evidence-based standard for operationalizing delayed disclosure, we defined delayed disclosure as telling someone about the experience after 48 h, given that most women disclose within this time frame (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Ullman, 1996). The following specific hypotheses were proposed. Specifically, conditional effects (i.e., controlling for all other predictors when examining the association between each factor and delayed disclosure) are hypothesized for each correlate.

Hypothesis 1: Examination of assault-related factors

1a. Victim’s and perpetrator’s use of substances will not increase the odds of delayed disclosure.

1b. The use of verbal and physical resistance will reduce the odds of delayed disclosure.

1c. The endorsement of a “freeze response” will increase the odds of delayed disclosure.

1d. A closer relationship with the perpetrator will increase the odds of delayed disclosure.

1e. Higher levels of responsibility for the assault will increase the odds of delayed disclosure.

Hypothesis 2: Individual factors

2a. CSA history will increase the odds of delayed disclosure.

2b. Negative attitudes towards seeking psychological help will increase the odds of delayed disclosure.

2c. Lower sexual assertiveness will increase the odds of delayed disclosure.

Hypothesis 3: Micro-system factors

3a. Higher levels of perceived social support will reduce the odds of delayed disclosure.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited as a part of a larger study assessing the effectiveness of a sexual assault reduction and resistance education program for college women (citation removed for masked review). A total of 650 women volunteered to participate in the study, which was conducted prior to the #MeToo movement. Only women in the control group of the larger study (n = 374) completed the measures utilized in the current analyses. Rates of prior victimization did not vary between groups at baseline, and there were no differences in recruitment methods between groups. Within the control group, women were included in this secondary analysis if they indicated a history of adolescent sexual victimization since the age of 14 and indicated that they told someone about the assault (n = 100). Of the women in the study sample, most participants disclosed to a friend (96%, n = 96), followed by siblings (17%, n = 17), or a parent (11%, n = 11). Most of the participants were 18 years old (89%, n = 89; range = 17–19). Most participants identified as Caucasian (94%, n = 94). The remaining identified as Black (2%, n = 2), Pacific Islander (1%, n = 1), and “Other” (3%, n = 3). Almost all participants identified as “not Hispanic or Latino” (98%, n = 98) and heterosexual (98%, n = 98). Almost half of the participants were dating casually (48%, n = 48) or involved in a long-term monogamous relationship (43%, n = 43). Whereas some participants did not know their parents’ yearly income level (29%, n = 29), the annual family income of participants who provided this information was distributed as follows: over $100,000 (22%, n = 22), $75,001–$100,000 (10%, n = 10), $50,001–$75,000 (20%, n = 20) and under $50,000 (19%, n = 19).

Measures

Participant Characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the study sample were assessed via a brief survey. The items assessed age, annual family income, race, sexual orientation, and dating status.

History of Adolescent Sexual Victimization

Unwanted sexual experiences were assessed through the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss & Oros, 1982). The survey includes a series of 10 behaviorally specific questions that assess sexual behavior across several dimensions. The survey assessed unwanted sexual experiences from the age of 14 to the time of the assessment. Experience of adolescent sexual victimization was classified according to the most severe experience reported, ranging from unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, attempted rape, and rape. The Sexual Experiences Survey is commonly utilized in studies of sexual victimization and demonstrates good reliability (Koss & Gidycz, 1985) and validity (Gylys & McNamara, 1996).

Assault Characteristics, Resistance Tactics, and Disclosure

Based on the assault characteristics questionnaire developed by Layman, Gidycz, and Lynn (1996), several questions were added to the end of the Sexual Experiences Survey to assess characteristics and disclosure of the most severe assault reported. These questions were utilized in prior program evaluation studies (Gidycz et al., 2006; Orchowski et al., 2008). Regarding the most severe victimization experience, women were asked to indicate the characteristics of the assault (substance involved, perpetrator type, resistance tactics used, and victim's perceived level of responsibility). One variable assessed victim alcohol and/or drug use at the time of the assault (i.e., “0” = not using alcohol and/or drugs; “1” = using alcohol and/or drugs). A separate item assessed the victim's report of alcohol and/or drug use by the perpetrator at the time of the assault (i.e., “0” = not using alcohol and/or drugs; “1” = using alcohol and/or drugs). Another item required to indicate if the perpetrator was a romantic partner, friend, or stranger. One-item question assessed the victim's perceived level of responsibility. Specifically, participants were asked, “How much responsibility do you feel for what happened” and were required to respond on a 4-point Likert scale (“0” = not at all or a little to “4” = very much). A series of 10 items was assessed for different resistance (physical, verbal, and freeze response) tactics used at the time of the assault. Two items assessed physical resistance, which includes “physically struggling” or “running away.” Seven items were assessed for verbal resistance, including “reasoning with man”, “pleading with man”, “quarreling with man”, “crying”, “screaming for help”, “saying no clearly”, and “making an excuse.” Finally, one item, “turning cold,” was assessed for freeze response (Gidycz et al., 2008). Participants were required to respond either with a “Yes” or “No” to each tactic. When participants responded “Yes” to any physical resistance, they were coded as “1”. When participants responded “No” to all physical resistance strategies, they were assigned a code of “0”. Similar scoring was followed for verbal resistance and experiencing a “freeze response”.

Disclosure of the assault was assessed by a single item question that asked, “Did you discuss the experience with anyone?” and the response options provided were “Yes or “No.” A follow-up question, “How long after the experience was it when you first discussed this event?” was administered to assess the timing of disclosure. Participants could choose the following response options: did not tell, do not remember, that night/immediately, next day, within a week, within a month, within 3 months, 4 months to a year, over 1–2 years, over 2 years or more. Finally, the recipient of disclosure was assessed by the question “Who of the following individuals did you discuss the event with?” Participants were required to respond either with a “Yes”, “No”, or “N/A” to the following options: mother, father, siblings, male friend, female friend, counselor, and other.

Childhood Sexual Victimization

Unwanted sexual experiences prior to age 14 were assessed through the Childhood Sexual Victimization Questionnaire (Finkelhor, 1979). Participants answer “yes” or “no” to indicate whether they have had a series of 13 sexual experiences during childhood. A series of three follow-up questions ascertain the relationship to the person involved, the age of the individual involved, and the main reason why the woman participated in the experience. In accordance with other researchers’ criteria (i.e., Briere & Runtz, 1987, 1988), any participant noting a sexual experience before the age of 14, with a person 5 years or older than the individual, and/or where some form of coercion was used to obtain the participation of the individual, and/or the other person was a caregiver or authority figure was classified as sexually victimized in childhood. Risin and Koss (1987) reported that the scale demonstrates adequate reliability and validity. Almost one-quarter of the participants (24%, n = 24) indicated a history of childhood sexual victimization.

Attitudes Toward Seeking Psychological Care

Attitudes toward seeking professional help were assessed with the Attitudes Towards Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale—Short Version (Fischer & Farina, 1995). Participants respond to items such as “I would want to go to a therapist if I were worried or upset for a long period of time” along a 4-point scale, ranging from “disagree” to “agree”. Higher scores are indicative of more positive attitudes towards seeking psychological care. Reliability and validity of the scale are reported across several studies (Fischer & Farina, 1995; Fischer & Turner, 1970; Vogel et al., 2005). Cronbach's alpha for the scale in the current sample was .71.

Sexual Assertiveness

The Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire for Women (Walker, 2006) assessed assertiveness in sexual situations. The questionnaire includes 30 items, which are rated along a 5-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The scale includes four subscales: (a) relational sexual assertiveness, (b) sexual agency, (c) sexual standards, and (d) sex-related negative affect. For the current study, only the relational sexual assertiveness subscale was utilized. Cronbach's alpha for the relational sexual assertiveness subscale was .92.

Perceived Social Support

Perceived social support was assessed with the Social Provisions Scale (Curtona & Russell, 1987). Items from the scale assess various domains of social support. For example, one item is as follows: “There are people I know will help me if I really need it”. Items are rated along a 4-point continuum, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Higher scores reflect higher perceptions of social support. According to Curtona and Russell (1987), the scale demonstrates adequate reliability and validity. Cronbach's alpha for the subscale at baseline was .74.

Procedures

The research was approved by the local Institutional Review Board. Data were collected at a medium-sized Midwestern University. Only first year college women were eligible to enroll in the research. Study participants were recruited from first year college residence halls. The study was advertised via posters within the residence hall. Students living in the residence halls also received email correspondence about the study from Residence Life staff as well as members of the research team. The study was advertised as research addressing dating and social experiences. Research participation was voluntary, and all participants completed written informed consent. Study consent and survey administration were facilitated by trained graduate student research assistants who identified as women. Participants were informed that they could skip any question they did not feel comfortable answering and could leave the study at any time. Surveys were completed via paper and pencil questionnaires. Participants completed the assessments in large study halls or group meeting rooms within the residence halls. Chairs were spaced out along the room to provide enough space for participants to answer the questions confidentially. After completing the questionnaires, participants returned the assessment to the research assistants in a sealed manila envelope and were provided with a list of resources, including where to seek counseling as well as campus resources for reporting sexual assault. Participants were compensated $20 for their time. No participants declined to enroll in the research or left the study before completing the questionnaire. No adverse events were reported during study facilitation.

Data Analysis Plan

Univariate associations among assault-level characteristics (victim's perceived level of responsibility for the assault, victim's use of substances, perpetrator's use of substance, physical resistance, verbal resistance, freeze response, and relationship to the perpetrator), individual-level factors (CSA history, victim's attitude towards seeking help, and sexual assertiveness), and microsystem-level factor (perceived social support) were examined via chi-squares and t-tests. A single binomial logistic regression model was calculated. Delayed disclosure (0 = disclosing before 48 h from the assault, 1 = disclosing after 48 h after the assault) was entered as the dependent variable. Individual and microsystem-level characteristics were included as predictors. Individual-level characteristics included CSA history (0 = no history of CSA, 1 = CSA history), victim's attitude towards seeking help, sexual assertiveness, and assault characteristics: victim's perceived level of responsibility for the assault and victim's use of substances (0 = no substance used, 1 = use of alcohol or drugs), perpetrator's use of substances (0 = no substance used, 1 = use of alcohol or drugs), physical resistance (0 = no physical resistance used, 1 = physical resistance used), verbal resistance (0 = no verbal resistance used, 1 = verbal resistance used), and freeze response (0 = no freeze response, 1 = victim froze). Three dichotomous variables also assessed the relationship to the perpetrator. The first one measured whether the perpetrator was a stranger (0 = friend or romantic partner, 1 = stranger), and the second one measured whether the perpetrator was a friend (0 = romantic partner or stranger, 1 = friend). The microsystem-level characteristic included was perceived social support.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Of the 100 women in the study sample, 75.1% (n = 83) indicated that they remembered when they disclosed. Of the 83 women who remembered when they disclosed, 55.4% (n = 46) disclosed immediately or the next day whereas the remaining (n = 37, 44.6%) disclosed 48 h after the assault. Little over half of the survivors in the sample (n = 45, 54.2%) did not use substances during the assault, whereas over half of the perpetrators (n = 44, 53%) were reported to have used substances at the time of the assault. One-third of the survivors in the sample (n = 28, 33.7%) reported “freezing” during the assault, whereas very few (n = 6, 7.2%) reported not resisting during the assault. One-third (n = 28, 33.7) reported using physical resistance, whereas more than three-quarters (n = 65, 78.3%) reported using verbal resistance. Almost half of women identified the perpetrators as a romantic partner (n = 38, 45.8%) followed by friends/acquaintances (n = 32, 38.6%), and then strangers (n = 13, 15.7%). Approximately one-quarter of the sample (n = 22, 26.5%) endorsed a history of CSA. The most common recipients of sexual assault disclosure by survivors in the sample were female friends (n = 69, 83.1%) followed by male friends (n = 43, 51.8%) and siblings (n = 16, 19.3%). The mean, standard deviations, and range of the continuous study variables are included in Table 1.

Table 1.
Univariate Associations.

Chi-square test of independence among assault-level, individual-level factors, and delayed disclosure

Factors Χ ²

Victim's use of substances 15.70*

Perpetrator's use of substances 8.56

Freeze response 2.17

Physical resistance 5.07*

Verbal resistance .79

Stranger perpetrator 2.89

Friend perpetrator 5.71*

CSA history .35

Bivariate correlations among assault-level, individual-level factors, and delayed disclosure

Factors 1 2 3 4

1. Delayed disclosure - - - -

2. Survivor's perceived level of responsibility −.07 - - -

3 Attitudes towards psychological help −.16 −.02 - -

4. Sexual assertiveness .17 −.32** −.20 -

5. Perceived social support .17 −.07 −.16 .25*

Note. Chi-Square tests of independence were conducted for categorical factors. Bivariate correlations were conducted for continuous factors.

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Univariate Associations

Eight distinct chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relation between categorical variables and delayed disclosure (See Table 1). Significant univariate associations were obtained between delayed disclosure and victim's use of substances, the perpetrator's use of substances, physical resistance, and friend perpetrator. Univariate associations between delayed disclosure and remaining factors (CSA history, stranger perpetrator, freeze response, and verbal resistance) were non-significant. Next, a series of bivariate correlations were conducted to examine the relationship between delayed disclosure and continuous variables (see Table 1). Delayed disclosure was not associated with any factors. Sexual assertiveness was negatively associated with the victim's perceived level of responsibility for the assault as well as positively associated with perceived social support.

Multivariate Logistic Regression

The logistic regression model was significant (see Table 2). Specifically, the use of physical resistance and endorsement of a “freeze response” at the time of the assault increased the odds of delayed disclosure, even after controlling for other predictors. Further, the odds of disclosing immediately were higher when the perpetrator was identified as a friend/acquaintance, compared to romantic partners or strangers, even after controlling for other predictors. No other significant differences in the timing of disclosure emerged based on the relationship to the perpetrator. Despite significant univariate associations, the survivor's and the perpetrator's perceived levels of intoxication were not associated with the timing of disclosure in the presence of other predictors. Similarly, the use of verbal resistance and the survivor's perceived level of responsibility were not associated with the timing of disclosure, in the presence of other predictors. In addition, a history of CSA, attitude towards seeking psychological care, sexual assertiveness, and extent of perceived social support were not associated with the timing of disclosure, after controlling for other predictors.

Table 2.
Predictors of Delayed Sexual Assault Disclosure among College Women.

Predictors X (df) Nagalkarke²

41.78 (12)*** .62

B SE Wald Exp (B) 95% CI

Victim's use of substances −2.02 1.36 2.60 .11 .01–1.60

Perpetrator's use of substances −.75 1.29 .34 .47 .04–5.92

Freeze response 1.80* .86 4.38 6.05 1.12–32.62

Physical resistance 3.31 1.21 7.45 27.34 2.54−294.13

Verbal resistance .67 1.40 .23 1.95 .12–30.29

Stranger perpetrator −.2.74 1.53 3.20 .06 .003–1.30

Friend perpetrator −2.98 1.12 7.03 .05 .006–.46

Survivor's perceived level of responsibility .52 .45 1.37 1.70 .70–4.07

CSA history −.50 .96 .27 .60 .09–3.95

Attitudes towards psychological help −.02 .06 .17 .98 .87–1.09

Sexual assertiveness −.08 .04 2.85 .93 .85–1.01

Perceived social support .04 05 .59 1.04 .94–1.15

Variables Mean SD Range

Survivor's perceived level of responsibility 2.50 .98 3 (1–4)

Attitudes towards psychological help 24.38 6.31 27 (10–37)

Sexual assertiveness 55.52 11.61 43 (27–70)

Perceived social support 84.93 10.26 63 (33–96)

Note. Standardized beta, standard errors, Wald's coefficients, Odds Ratios, and 95% Confidence Intervals are reported. Significant predictors are bolded. The minimum and maximum values of continuous variables are included alongside the range.

p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.

Discussion

The current study advances our understanding of the predictors of the timing of sexual assault disclosure in several ways. A sample of first-year college women with a history of sexual victimization since the age of 14—and who remembered when they disclosed—was classified as having disclosed within 48 h of the assault or after 48 h following the assault. Analyses extend past findings regarding the timing of disclosure by examining individual-, assault-level, and micro-system factors that may relate to the timing of disclosure. Analyses also examined the potential role of several factors that have not previously been investigated in relation to disclosure timing, including assault resistance strategies, social support, and individual characteristics such as sexual assertiveness and attitudes towards seeking psychological care.

Results indicated that a significant portion of the sample (n = 37, 44.6%) disclosed 48 h after the assault. Findings suggest that delayed disclosure is common among college students and are in line with prior studies (Kellogg et al., 2020; Koçtürk & Bilinger, 2020). Results are also concerning because delayed disclosure is associated with worsened psychological health for survivors (e.g., Ullman, 2007; Ullman & Filipas, 2005). Although social reactions to disclosure were not examined in the current study, prior research indicates that delayed disclosure is associated with greater negative reactions to disclosure (Koçtürk & Bilginer, 2020), compared to those who engage in immediate disclosure. It may be useful for future research to examine whether the receipt of negative social reaction to disclosure may partially explain worsened psychological health among those who delay disclosure. It may also be useful to ensure that support providers are aware that delayed disclosure is common among survivors.

The first hypothesis examined the role of assault characteristics in the timing of disclosure. Like prior research (Koçtürk & Bilginer, 2020), the survivor's and the perpetrator's substance at the time of the assault use were not related to the timing of disclosure. The survivor's perceived level of responsibility for the assault was not related to the timing of disclosure. Whereas other research suggests that feeling more responsible for an assault delays disclosure in children and adults (Ahrens et al., 2010), research by Kellogg et al. (2020) suggests that feelings of responsibility are not to the timing of sexual assault disclosure among adolescents. The current study lends support to the research of Kellogg et al. (2020), suggesting that other variables appear to be more influential in the decision of how and when college women choose to disclose assaults that occur from the age of 14 up until the first year of college. However, the non-significant findings may also be explained by the limited sample size. Future studies with large samples of survivors are needed to further investigate these associations.

Both the survivor's relationship to the perpetrator and the use of specific resistance strategies were significantly related to the timing of disclosure. In this sample, identifying the perpetrator as a friend/acquaintance increased the odds of disclosing the assault within 48 h. Past research has suggested that disclosure is delayed when the victim is in closer relationship with the perpetrator across age groups (Bicanic et al., 2015). However, how studies conceptualize/classify a perpetrator who is known to the victim varies, such that some studies include both family members as well as friends/acquaintances and partners in the classification of a “known perpetrator” (e.g., Lee et al., 2015). Past studies suggest that individuals often delay disclosure when the perpetrator is a family member (e.g., Kogan, 2004). Given that social groups and peer relationships are especially important in adolescence, it may be especially difficult for young women to tell someone about an assault when it is perpetrated by a friend, as doing so may influence their peer group relationships.

The current study is novel in its examination of resistance strategies as they relate to the timing of disclosure. Women who reported freezing at the time of the assault were at an increased likelihood to wait over 48 h to disclose. Whereas the current study did not examine why individuals who reported freezing at the time of the assault were more likely to wait over 48 h to disclose, freezing is often related to more feelings of shame and self-blame (Nurius et al., 2004), which are barriers to timely disclosure (Sabina & Ho, 2014).

Women who reported using physical resistance at the time of an assault were also more likely to wait 48 h to disclose. This finding is unexpected, given that physical resistance is often associated with more severe assaults (Scott & Beaman, 2004), and more severe assaults are more likely to be reported to a formal authority (Orchowski et al., 2009). While speculative, it is possible that this unexpected finding may be explained in part by the age of the sample. The current study collected data from college women, during the fall semester of their first year of college, regarding assaults that occurred from the age of 14 to the time of the current study. Some of the assaults that women reported on likely occurred during high school, a time at which individuals may not recognize sexual assault experiences as a crime. A lack of acknowledgment of sexual assault is associated with nondisclosure (Littleton et al., 2006), and many survivors may delay disclosure if they continue to feel threatened or are concerned about how others will respond (Kellogg et al., 2020).

Hypotheses 2 and Hypothesis 3 focused on individual and social factors related to timing disclosure and were not supported in the current data. Neither perceived social support nor attitudes toward seeking psychological care were related to the timing of disclosure. Although past studies have shown that sexual assertiveness is related to the disclosure of other sexual behaviors and concerns (e.g., Attaky et al., 2020), relational sexual assertiveness may not apply to the timing of disclosure of trauma. It is also important to note most college women do not turn to counselors or other formal support providers to report experiences of sexual victimization (Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012). Taken together, these findings suggest that the context of an assault may be a more important driver of the timing of disclosure in comparison to the attitudes of a survivor towards help-seeking or the support system they have around them. Given that the limited sample size may also explain non-significant findings, future research with a larger sample is needed to further examine the role of perceived social support or attitudes toward seeking psychological care in the timing of disclosure.

More generally, it was notable that most survivors in the current sample who told someone about their experience remembered when and to whom they disclosed. About half disclosed within 48 h, which can facilitate obtaining medical care and evidence collection that may facilitate investigating and prosecuting an assailant (Park, 2010). It is unclear and concerning why approximately half of the sample waited longer to disclose. Prior research documents numerous barriers to sexual assault disclosure, including fear of negative social reactions (Holland & Cortina, 2017; Mennicke et al., 2021; Wood & Stichman, 2018). Consequently, continuing to build survivor support channels, particularly anonymous reporting and support options (Fleming & Muscari, 2021), is a critical step in facilitating disclosure. Recent prevention programs have focused on better preparing survivors to respond to peer disclosures (Edwards & Ullman, 2018).

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study is limited primarily in its generalizability, given the sample consists of a small sample of primarily white, heterosexual college women. The study also has some methodological limitations, including the use of the older version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss & Gidycz, 1985), which assumes that sexual aggression is perpetrated by men against women. A revised version of the Sexual Experiences Survey is also now available (Koss et al., 2007), and data is available to document its reliability and validity (Johnson et al., 2017). Future studies could address the limitations of the current study by specifically recruiting a more diverse sample. Another methodological limitation is the implementation of a cross-sectional retrospective approach. Such an approach limits causal interpretation and the establishment of temporal relations among variables. Thus, future investigations may benefit from employing prospective data collection procedures. Future studies might also use a mixed-methods approach to gather more in-depth data on survivor disclosure patterns, with an emphasis on more thoroughly understanding the relationship between assault resistance tactics and disclosure patterns. Along this vein, whereas the current study defined immediate disclosure as disclosure occurring within 48 h of the assault, the measure of immediate disclosure did not involve a precise assessment of the number of hours since the assault. Instead, “that night/immediately” and “next day” were used to assess immediate disclosure. Whereas this measurement is consistent with prior literature on delayed disclosure (e.g., Ullman, 2007), future research would benefit from including a precise assessment of the number of hours in the assessment of delayed disclosure. Lastly, the current study did not assess for the fear of negative social reactions (Holland & Cortina, 2017; Mennicke et al., 2021; Wood & Stichman, 2018) and its impact on the timing of disclosure. Future research should investigate how fear of receiving negative reactions to disclosure might impact the timing of disclosure, within the context of other individual factors and assault characteristics.

Conclusion

In sum, the present study suggested that assault characteristics play a particularly critical role in the timing of disclosure in adolescent women who are at high risk for sexual victimization. Above and beyond an individual's perception of the event and their evaluation of potential outcomes of disclosure, the relationship to the perpetrator and response at the moment was related to how quickly college women in this sample disclosed experiences of prior victimization that occurred before, or during the first portion of their first year of college. These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for the context of an assault when examining an individual's recovery process. The unique developmental context may also influence the disclosure of trauma among women who experience sexual victimization from the age of 14 up until their first year of college.

Given the prevalence of sexual victimization and the range of consequences of sexual victimization to individuals and society at large, work is needed to understand ways to best support survivors in their recovery and healing. The current study expands existing inquiry into the process of sexual assault disclosure and provides useful information that can help to design interventions that raise awareness of intimate partner sexual victimization and communicate to survivors that nothing that they do or don’t do at the time of the assault increases their level of responsibility. More broadly, when survivors do disclose, it is also important that friends, family, and service providers are equipped to provide support and resources.

Chi-square test of independence among assault-level, individual-level factors, and delayed disclosure
Victim's use of substances	15.70***
Perpetrator's use of substances	8.56**
Freeze response	2.17
Physical resistance	5.07*
Verbal resistance	.79
Stranger perpetrator	2.89
Friend perpetrator	5.71*
CSA history	.35
Bivariate correlations among assault-level, individual-level factors, and delayed disclosure
Factors	1	2	3	4
1. Delayed disclosure	-	-	-	-
2. Survivor's perceived level of responsibility	−.07	-	-	-
3 Attitudes towards psychological help	−.16	−.02	-	-
4. Sexual assertiveness	.17	−.32**	−.20	-
5. Perceived social support	.17	−.07	−.16	.25*

Predictors				X (df)	Nagalkarke²
Victim's use of substances	−2.02	1.36	2.60	.11	.01–1.60
Perpetrator's use of substances	−.75	1.29	.34	.47	.04–5.92
Freeze response	1.80*	.86	4.38	6.05	1.12–32.62
Physical resistance	3.31**	1.21	7.45	27.34	2.54−294.13
Verbal resistance	.67	1.40	.23	1.95	.12–30.29
Stranger perpetrator	−.2.74	1.53	3.20	.06	.003–1.30
Friend perpetrator	−2.98**	1.12	7.03	.05	.006–.46
Survivor's perceived level of responsibility	.52	.45	1.37	1.70	.70–4.07
CSA history	−.50	.96	.27	.60	.09–3.95
Attitudes towards psychological help	−.02	.06	.17	.98	.87–1.09
Sexual assertiveness	−.08	.04	2.85	.93	.85–1.01
Perceived social support	.04	05	.59	1.04	.94–1.15
Variables	Mean	SD	Range
Survivor's perceived level of responsibility	2.50	.98	3 (1–4)
Attitudes towards psychological help	24.38	6.31	27 (10–37)
Sexual assertiveness	55.52	11.61	43 (27–70)
Perceived social support	84.93	10.26	63 (33–96)

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (grant number 1 R49 CE0009239 (Gidycz: PI)).

ORCID iDs

Prachi H. Bhuptani

Lindsay M. Orchowski

Author Biographies

Prachi H. Bhuptani, PhD, 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 involves examining the impact of shame on the psychological well-being of survivors.

CJ Eubanks Fleming, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Elon University. Her research focuses on the intersection of couples and relationship issues and help-seeking behavior for mental health concerns, with emphasis on help-seeking for relationship concerns and after traumatic events.

Lindsay M. Orchowski, PhD, 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

Ahrens

C. E.

Campbell

Ternier-Thames

N. K.

Wasco

S. M.

Sefl

(2007). Deciding whom to tell: Expectations and outcomes of rape survivors’ first disclosures. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00329.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

Archambault

J.T.

, Director (2007). Time limits for conducting a forensic examination: Can biological evidence be recovered 24, 36, 48, 72, 84, or 96 hours following a sexual assault? Sexual Assault Report, 10(3), 33–47.

Attaky

Kok

Dewitte

(2020). Attachment insecurity and sexual and relational experiences in Saudi Arabian women: The role of perceived partner responsiveness and sexual assertiveness. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 17(7), 1383–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.029

Bicanic

I. A. E.

Hehenkamp

L. M.

van de Putte

E. M.

van Wijk

A. J.

de Jongh

(2015). Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female adolescents and young adults. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2015). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—national intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. American Journal of Public Health, 105(4), E11–e12. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2015.302634

Briere

Runtz

(1987). Post sexual abuse trauma: Data and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626058700200403

Briere

Runtz

(1988). Post sexual abuse trauma. In Wyatt

G. E.

Powell

G. J.

(Eds.), Lasting effects of child sexual abuse (pp. 85–99). Sage.

Broman-Fulks

J. J.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Hanson

R. F.

Smith

D. W.

Resnick

H. S.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Saunders

B. E.

(2007). Sexual assault disclosure in relation to adolescent mental health: Results from the national survey of adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(2), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701279701

10.

Bronfenbrenner

(1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

11.

Collin-Vézina

De La Sablonnière-Griffin

Palmer

A. M.

Milne

(2015). A preliminary mapping of individual, relational, and social factors that impede disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 43(4), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.010

12.

Cutrona

C. E.

Russell

(1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In Jones

Pearlman

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (pp. 37–67). Jai Press Inc.

13.

Dworkin

E. R.

Menon

S. V.

Bystrynski

Allen

N. E.

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

14.

Edwards

K. M.

Ullman

S. E.

(2018). Preliminary data on an intervention to reduce negative social reactions to victims’ disclosures. Journal of College Student Development, 59(1), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0007

15.

Filipas

H. H.

Ullman

S. E.

(2001). Social reactions to sexual assault victims from various support sources. Violence and Victims, 16(6), 673–692. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-12346-006 .

16.

Finkelhor

(1979). What’s wrong with sex between adults and children? Ethics and the problem of sexual abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 40(11-A), 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1979.tb02654.x

17.

Finkelhor

Shattuck

Turner

H. A.

Hamby

S. L.

(2014). The lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.026

18.

Fischer

E. H.

Farina

(1995). Attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help: A shortened form and considerations for research. Journal of College Student Development, 36(4), 368–373.

19.

Fischer

E. H.

Turner

J. L.

(1970). Development and research utility of an attitude scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029636

20.

Fleming

C. E.

Muscari

E. C.

(2021). Undergraduates’ disclosures of unwanted sexual experiences: Who, why, and when? Violence Against Women, 27(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219885187

21.

Follingstad

D. R.

Barczak

R. M.

Kistler

L. C.

(2022). The red zone risk for college sexual assault: A critical review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221134293

22.

Gidycz

C. A.

Rich

C. L.

Orchowski

King

Miller

A. K.

(2006). The evaluation of a sexual assault self-defense and risk-reduction program for college women: A prospective study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00280.x

23.

Gidycz

C. A.

Van Wynsberghe

Edwards

K. M.

(2008). Prediction of women’s utilization of resistance strategies in a sexual assault situation: A prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313531

24.

Goodman-Brown

T. B.

Edelstein

R. S.

Goodman

G. S.

Jones

D. P. H.

Gordon

D. S.

(2003). Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27(5), 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00037-1

25.

Griffin

V. W.

Wentz

Meinert

(2021). Explaining the why in #WhyIDidntReport: An examination of common barriers to formal disclosure of sexual assault in college students, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15-16), NP14716–NP14745. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211016343

26.

Gylys

J. A.

McNamara

J. R.

(1996). Acceptance of rape myths among prosecuting attorneys. Psychological Reports, 79(2), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.79.1.15

27.

Hébert

Tourigny

Cyr

McDuff

Joly

(2009). Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and timing of disclosure in a representative sample of adults from Quebec. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(9), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370905400908

28.

Holland

K. J.

Cortina

L. M.

(2017). It happens to girls all the time”: Examining sexual assault survivors’ reasons for not using campus supports. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1-2), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12126

29.

Humphrey

J. A.

White

J. W.

(2000). Women’s vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(6), 419–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00168-3

30.

Jacobs

R. J.

Kane

M. N.

(2011). Psychosocial predictors of self-esteem in a multiethnic sample of women over 50 at risk for HIV. Journal of Women and Aging, 23(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2011.540484

31.

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.

32.

Kelley

L. P.

Weathers

F. W.

McDevitt-Murphy

M. E.

Eakin

D. E.

Flood

A. M.

(2009). A comparison of PTSD symptom patterns in three types of civilian trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(3), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20406

33.

Kellogg

N. D.

Koek

Nienow

S. M.

(2020). Factors that prevent, prompt, and delay disclosures in female victims of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 101(1), 104360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104360

34.

Koçtürk

Bilginer

SÇ

(2020). Adolescent sexual abuse victims’ levels of perceived social support and delayed disclosure. Children and Youth Services Review, 118(5), 105363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105363

35.

Kogan

S. M.

(2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.014

36.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x

37.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

(1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(3), 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.422

38.

Koss

M. P.

Oros

C. J.

(1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(3), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455

39.

Layman

M. J.

Gidycz

C. A.

Lynn

S. J.

(1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape victims: Situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(1), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.1.124

40.

Lee

Willis

Newman

Hazan

Kurobe

Giordano

Kaafarani

Laidlaw

Shah

(2015). Are sexual assault victims presenting to the emergency department in a timely manner? Social Work, 60(1), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swu051

41.

Littleton

H. L.

Axsom

Breitkopf

C. R.

Berenson

(2006). Rape acknowledgment and postassault experiences: How acknowledgment Status relates to disclosure, coping, worldview, and reactions received from others. Violence and Victims, 21(6), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1891/vv-v21i6a006

42.

Malloy

L. C.

Sutherland

J. E.

Cauffman

(2021). Sexual abuse disclosure among incarcerated female adolescents and young adults. Child Abuse and Neglect, 116(1), 104147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104147

43.

McNicoll

Corsini-Munt

O. Rosen

McDuff

Bergeron

(2017). Sexual assertiveness mediates the associations between partner facilitative responses and sexual outcomes in women with provoked vestibulodynia. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 43(7), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1230806

44.

Mennicke

Bowling

Gromer

Ryan

(2021). Factors associated with and barriers to disclosure of a sexual assault to formal on-campus resources among college students. Violence Against Women, 27(2), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219889173

45.

Miller

Stermac

Addison

(2002). Immediate and delayed treatment seeking among adult sexual assault victims. Women & Health, 35(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v35n01_04

46.

Morokoff

P. J.

Quina

Harlow

L. L.

Whitmire

Grimley

D. M.

Gibson

P. R.

Burkholder

G. J.

(1997). Sexual assertiveness scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.790

47.

Nurius

P. S.

Norris

Macy

R. J.

Huang

(2004). Women’s situational coping with acquaintance sexual assault. Violence Against Women, 10(5), 450–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204264367

48.

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

49.

Orchowski

L. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

Raffle

(2008). Evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction and self-defense program: A prospective analysis of a revised protocol. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00425.x

50.

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

51.

Paine

M. L.

Hansen

D. J.

(2002). Factors influencing children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(2), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00091-5

52.

Park

C. L.

(2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301

53.

Pegram

S. E.

Abbey

(2019). Associations between sexual assault severity and psychological and physical health outcomes: Similarities and differences among African American and Caucasian survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(19), 4020–4040. https://doi.org/.org/10.1177/0886260516673626

54.

Rickert

V. I.

Wiemann

C. M.

Vaughan

R. D.

(2005). Disclosure of date/acquaintance rape: Who reports and when. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 18(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2004.11.006

55.

Risin

L. I.

Koss

M. P.

(1987). The sexual abuse of boys: Prevalence and descriptive characteristics of childhood victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(3), 3093–3323. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626087002003006

56.

Sabina

L. Y.

(2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521322

57.

Scott

H. S.

Beaman

(2004). Demographic and situational factors affecting injury, resistance, completion, and charges brought in sexual assault cases: What is best for arrest? Violence and Victims, 19(4), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.4.479.64170

58.

Sit

Schuller

R. A.

(2018). Understanding support providers’ views of “helpful” responses to sexual assault disclosures: The impacts of self-blame and physical resistance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(8), 1236–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515614563

59.

Sjöberg

R. L.

Lindblad

(2002). Delayed disclosure and disrupted communication during forensic investigation of child sexual abuse: A study of 47 corroborated cases. Acta Paediatrica, International Journal of Paediatrics, 91(12), 1391–1396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2002.tb02839.x

60.

Smith

D. W.

Letourneau

E. J.

Saunders

B. E.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

Best

C. L.

(2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(2), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00130-1

61.

Starzynski

L. L.

Ullman

S. E.

Townsend

S. M.

Long

L. M.

Long

S. M.

(2007). What factors predict women's disclosure of sexual assault to mental health professionals? Journal of Community Psychology, 35(5), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20168

62.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996). Correlates and consequences of adult sexual assault disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(4), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626096011004007

63.

Ullman

S. E.

(2007). Relationship to perpetrator, disclosure, social reactions, and PTSD symptoms in child sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v16n01_02

64.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

(2001). Correlates of formal and informal support seeking in sexual assault victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(10), 1028–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016010004

65.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

(2005). Gender differences in social reactions 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

66.

Vogel

D. L.

Wester

S. R.

(2003). To seek help or not to seek help: The risks of self-disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(3), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.3.351

67.

Vogel

D. L.

Wester

S. R.

Wei

Boysen

G. A.

(2005). The role of outcome expectations and attitudes on decisions to seek professional help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.459

68.

Walker

D. P.

(2006). Impaired sexual assertiveness and consensual sexual activity as risk factors for sexual coercion in heterosexual college women [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Miami University, Oxford, United Kingdom.

69.

Wood

Stichman

(2018). Not a big deal? Examining help-seeking behaviors of sexually victimized women on the college campus. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1415–1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16683225

70.

World Health Organization (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. WHO.

71.

Xiao

Smith-Prince

(2015). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: The case of Pacific Islanders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2015.1022294

Chi-square test of independence among assault-level, individual-level factors, and delayed disclosure
Factors	Χ ²
Victim's use of substances	15.70***
Perpetrator's use of substances	8.56**
Freeze response	2.17
Physical resistance	5.07*
Verbal resistance	.79
Stranger perpetrator	2.89
Friend perpetrator	5.71*
CSA history	.35
Bivariate correlations among assault-level, individual-level factors, and delayed disclosure
Factors	1	2	3	4
1. Delayed disclosure	-	-	-	-
2. Survivor's perceived level of responsibility	−.07	-	-	-
3 Attitudes towards psychological help	−.16	−.02	-	-
4. Sexual assertiveness	.17	−.32**	−.20	-
5. Perceived social support	.17	−.07	−.16	.25*

Predictors				X (df)	Nagalkarke²
				41.78 (12)***	.62
	B	SE	Wald	Exp (B)	95% CI
Victim's use of substances	−2.02	1.36	2.60	.11	.01–1.60
Perpetrator's use of substances	−.75	1.29	.34	.47	.04–5.92
Freeze response	1.80*	.86	4.38	6.05	1.12–32.62
Physical resistance	3.31**	1.21	7.45	27.34	2.54−294.13
Verbal resistance	.67	1.40	.23	1.95	.12–30.29
Stranger perpetrator	−.2.74	1.53	3.20	.06	.003–1.30
Friend perpetrator	−2.98**	1.12	7.03	.05	.006–.46
Survivor's perceived level of responsibility	.52	.45	1.37	1.70	.70–4.07
CSA history	−.50	.96	.27	.60	.09–3.95
Attitudes towards psychological help	−.02	.06	.17	.98	.87–1.09
Sexual assertiveness	−.08	.04	2.85	.93	.85–1.01
Perceived social support	.04	05	.59	1.04	.94–1.15
Variables	Mean	SD	Range
Survivor's perceived level of responsibility	2.50	.98	3 (1–4)
Attitudes towards psychological help	24.38	6.31	27 (10–37)
Sexual assertiveness	55.52	11.61	43 (27–70)
Perceived social support	84.93	10.26	63 (33–96)