Understanding Support Providers’ Views of “Helpful” Responses to Sexual Assault Disclosures: The Impacts of Self-Blame and Physical Resistance

Abstract

Prior research on the factors associated with various disclosure responses has often been conducted on sexual assault victims and formal support providers, while informal helpers, who are the most common recipients of disclosures, have received far less attention. This experimental study examined potential informal helpers’ views of disclosure reactions and their influence on the self-reported likelihoods of engaging in those responses. Undergraduate students at a large Canadian university (N = 239) received vignettes describing a hypothetical sexual assault disclosure that varied on victim’s self-blame and physical resistance, and then rated common disclosure reactions. The results revealed that participants’ perceptions of various responses were at odds with victims’ experiences, with many negative responses, such as victim blame and egocentrism, viewed as equally or more helpful than positive responses, such as emotional support. Moreover, when the victim blamed herself and did not physically resist, positive responses were seen as less helpful whereas negative responses were seen as more helpful, with some notable gender differences. Regression analyses indicated that the perceived helpfulness of each response was the strongest predictor of the likelihood of providing that response. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

sexual assault disclosure informal support providers self-blame physical resistance

Sexual assault disclosures are met with a wide range of responses, with the majority of victims receiving high levels of both positive responses, such as providing emotional support or tangible resources, and negative responses, such as blaming, stigmatizing, or making decisions for the victim (Ullman, 2000). The receipt of negative reactions is linked to poorer postassault adjustment, heightened feelings of guilt and self-blame, and greater depressive and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology (Borja, Callahan, & Long, 2006; Ullman, Townsend, Filipas, & Starzynski, 2007). In addition, being blamed by others may discourage victims from defining their experiences as sexual assault (Pitts & Schwartz, 1993), which in turn is associated with a lower likelihood of reporting incidents to authorities (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003).

Although considerable research has examined the disclosure experiences of sexual assault victims themselves, few studies have explored disclosures from the perspective of informal support providers (e.g., friends and relatives) whom victims turn to most frequently. Consequently, although enormous insight has been gained into how disclosure reactions are experienced by victims, little is known about how those most likely to be recipients of sexual assault disclosures evaluate reactions, and how these views, in turn, may shape their responses. This study explores university students’ evaluations of common disclosure responses, and the impact of victim self-blame and victim physical resistance on these views. The relationship between perceptions of and likelihoods of engaging in different responses is also investigated.

The Importance of Informal Support Providers

Research suggests that informal support providers can play an important role in victims’ postassault experiences. Victims frequently turn to friends, relatives, and romantic partners, and are considerably less inclined to report their experiences to formal helpers (Ahrens, Cabral, & Abeling, 2009; Ullman, 1996). In Filipas and Ullman’s (2001) diverse sample of victims (N = 323), disclosures to friends or relatives (94.2%), mental health professionals (52%), and romantic partners (41%) were frequent, whereas disclosing to physicians (27.1%), police (26.4%), rape crisis centers (14.1%), and clergy (7.6%) was far less common. Rates of disclosure to formal services were even lower in a national sample of college women, with few victims reporting their coercive sexual experiences to police, campus authorities, or counseling services (1%-4%; Fisher et al., 2003). In contrast, about two thirds (66%) of this sample had turned to friends.

Not only do victims overwhelmingly prefer disclosing to members of informal networks, they also appear to place more weight on the reactions of these individuals. Studies have consistently found that positive responses are experienced as more healing and beneficial and negative responses as more hurtful and unhelpful, when received from friends or romantic partners than from other support sources, such as the police, and mental health, medical, and legal professionals (Ahrens et al., 2009; Filipas & Ullman, 2001). Informal support sources, then, can be especially influential in the recovery processes of sexual assault victims, being both more likely to hear disclosures, and to have stronger positive or negative impacts on recovery, compared with formal support sources.

Unfortunately, although disclosures to friends and relatives are often reported to be more helpful compared with disclosures to other support providers (see Ullman, 1999, for a review), these interactions are not always beneficial. On one hand, informal helpers engage in greater positive and fewer negative social reactions compared with formal helpers (Filipas & Ullman, 2001; Ullman, 1996). On the other hand, negative social reactions from informal helpers are not uncommon (Ahrens et al., 2009; Campbell, Ahrens, Sefl, Wasco, & Barnes, 2001). In a recent study of victims who had disclosed to informal helpers (n = 76), equally high percentages of disclosures involved at least one positive or at least one negative reaction (83.7% and 83%, respectively) and 70% of disclosures contained both types (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012). Given the strong role that informal helpers can play in sexual assault victims’ recovery, understanding the factors that shape their responses to disclosures is crucial.

Support Providers’ Evaluations of Disclosure Responses

One potential factor that has yet to receive substantial attention is support providers’ evaluations of these responses. It is possible that certain “negative responses,” which are often experienced by victims as harmful, are viewed by informal support providers as helpful, leading them to respond accordingly. Reviewing the broader literature on the social support of trauma victims, Herbert and Dunkel-Schetter (1992) concluded that a distinction can be drawn between intentional and unintentional negative reactions, the latter of which come from well-meaning, but perhaps inexperienced, helpers. Similarly, for sexual assault victims, more overtly negative responses, such as blaming or doubting the victim, may stem from a lack of sensitivity, whereas inappropriate negative responses, such as distracting the victim or taking control of the situation, may reflect inadequate knowledge of how to be supportive (Ullman, 1999). For example, a friend may discourage a victim from talking about the assault in an attempt to help her move on and heal, a behavior that can be interpreted by a victim as a sign of impatience or disinterest. If well-intentioned friends view certain negative responses as beneficial, they may not hesitate from engaging in those responses.

Indeed, findings from a few studies suggest that from victims’ perspectives, some negative reactions can be motivated by a desire to help. Although emotional support and tangible aid are almost always described by victims as helpful, controlling, egocentric, and distracting responses are sometimes reported as healing and sometimes as hurtful (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012; Campbell et al., 2001; Filipas & Ullman, 2001). Ahrens and colleagues (2009) explored these discrepancies in their study of the disclosure experiences of 103 female victims. Quantitative analyses demonstrated that all positive and many negative reactions were rated as significantly more healing when they came from friends and counselors rather than from romantic partners, relatives, and legal/medical professionals. Data from open-ended questions revealed that emotional support was less helpful when support providers were perceived as not caring enough, preoccupied with their own emotions, or ineffective at alleviating victims’ self-blame, which was often the case with romantic partners and relatives (Ahrens et al., 2009). Controlling, blaming, and distracting responses were healing when support providers, often friends and counselors, were seen as concerned, trying to help, or wanting to prevent future harm. The same responses were hurtful when believed to reflect impatience, blame, or a desire to dictate the situation, which was common with romantic partners and relatives. Thus, from the perspectives of victims, negative responses can be driven by a lack of sensitivity or an intention to help.

Unfortunately, research examining sexual assault disclosures from the viewpoint of informal support providers is limited, as are studies on their evaluations of disclosure responses. Two studies (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, & Ward, 2010) examined the disclosure experiences of university students who had a friend tell them of an incident of sexual victimization. In both studies, the majority of respondents described the experience as a positive one and being supportive and helpful to victims. However, women and individuals who had been sexually assaulted themselves were more likely to indicate that they were successful at offering support, felt knowledgeable about sexual assault issues, and experienced emotional distress (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard et al., 2010). No data were collected on the actual responses that were provided.

In Dunn, Vail-Smith, and Knight’s (1999) study, informal support providers were asked to describe how they had responded to disclosures using an open-ended question. Although the majority of respondents reported providing various forms of emotional support, such as comforting, listening, or giving advice to the victim, reactions also ranged widely from not knowing what to do and doing nothing, to expressing strong personal emotions, to doubting and blaming the victim. Respondents were not, however, asked how they thought their responses were received by the victim. Yet, understanding how informal helpers view the helpfulness of various responses to disclosures, and how these beliefs relate to the actual responses they provide, can greatly inform initiatives aimed at assisting friends and family members in providing optimal support for sexual assault victims.

The Impact of Victim Self-Blame and Victim Physical Resistance

Understanding the factors that may shape informal support providers’ evaluations of responses is also important. Correlates of different social reactions have been identified in the literature, one of which is victim self-blame. Feelings of responsibility are common among sexual assault victims, and can take two forms: characterological self-blame, where the assault is attributed to one’s own character or personality, and behavioral self-blame, where the assault is attributed to one’s own behavior or actions (Janoff-Bulman, 1979). Greater levels of self-reported self-blame have been linked to the receipt of fewer positive reactions and greater negative reactions (Littleton & Breitkopf, 2006; Ullman, 1996; Ullman et al., 2007). Although the use of cross-sectional data in the majority of these studies precludes our ability to draw inferences about the causal direction of this relationship, a recent longitudinal study (Ullman & Najdowski, 2011) provides some insights in this regard. At a 1-year follow-up, the authors found that higher levels of characterological self-blame led to fewer positive reactions over time, and the receipt of more negative responses resulted in greater characterological self-blame over time. Therefore, victims who blame themselves may be more likely to experience unfavorable disclosure interactions.

One possible explanation for this is that victim self-blame may lead support providers to perceive the victim as responsible for the assault and then become less inclined to offer emotional support and reassurance. One experimental study using a vignette of a victim recounting her sexual assault experience found that participants attributed more responsibility to the victim when she blamed herself for the assault compared with when she attributed the assault to chance (Thornton et al., 1988). Another possibility is that victim self-blame may influence support providers’ evaluations of the helpfulness of certain responses, compelling them to engage in these responses. For example, upon hearing a victim blame herself for the assault, a friend may believe it is helpful to give advice on what she could do differently in the future, a response that can be negatively interpreted by the victim as blaming. Rather than reflecting greater attributions of victim responsibility, fewer positive and greater negative responses may be indicative of a lack of knowledge on how to be supportive.

The perceived helpfulness of disclosure responses may also be influenced by the victim’s behaviors during the assault, such as the type of resistance used. Although few studies on disclosure reactions have explored this factor, victim physical resistance has been reported to affect a number of rape-related judgments in experimental studies (see Pollard, 1992, for a review). For example, some studies have found that when victims engage in less resistance, participants view the victim as more responsible and less credible (McCaul, Veltum, Boyechko, & Crawford, 1990; Wyer, Bodenhausen, & Gorman, 1985). These appraisals may, in turn, affect evaluations of which disclosure responses are helpful. For example, if support providers believe that a victim bears responsibility for the rape, they may not view validating and supportive responses as particularly helpful. Instead, they may believe that the victim would benefit from being informed of what she could have done or should do in the future, responses that are again more likely to be viewed by the victim as blaming.

The gender of the support provider may also affect how disclosure responses are perceived. There is some evidence to suggest that women provide greater supportive responses and fewer unsupportive responses compared with men (Banyard et al., 2010; Davis & Brickman, 1996). Moreover, women are likely to feel more effective and confident at providing support, less blame and more empathy toward the victim, and more informed about sexual assault issues (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard et al., 2010). Gender differences have also been found in experimental studies on rape-related judgments, with men, compared with women, often attributing more responsibility to the victim and less to the perpetrator (see Pollard, 1992, for a review). In addition, men appear to be more influenced by the presence of factors that can increase negative judgments of victims, such as victim attractiveness, victim–perpetrator relationship, and victim physical resistance (McCaul et al., 1990; Wyer et al., 1985). As such, gender may moderate the impact of victim self-blame and physical resistance on how disclosure reactions are viewed.

Finally, views of disclosure reactions may be shaped by beliefs about sexual violence. One well-studied set of beliefs is rape myths, which are widely held, stereotypical and largely false ideas about rape, rape victims, and perpetrators that function to downplay or even deny incidents of sexual violence, assign blame to victims, and justify the actions of perpetrators (Burt, 1980; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Extant research has consistently revealed associations between the degree to which rape myths are endorsed and various rape-related judgments (cf. Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). For example, those who are more accepting of rape myths appear to be more likely to assign more blame to the victim and less to the perpetrator, and to doubt the victim’s credibility (Kopper, 1996; Mason, Riger, & Foley, 2004). These beliefs and judgments can negatively affect one’s willingness or ability to provide effective support to victims.

Current Study

The current study was directed toward providing insights into informal helpers’ perceptions of the helpfulness of various disclosure responses, and how these views affect the likelihood of engaging in these responses. To this end, an experimental study was conducted with university students, who face heightened risks of both experiencing a sexual assault (Fisher et al., 2003) and receiving a disclosure (Banyard et al., 2010; Dunn et al., 1999). Three research questions were of interest:

Research Question 1: How do university students evaluate the helpfulness of common responses to sexual assault disclosures?

Research Question 2: Are these views influenced by victim self-blame and victim physical resistance? If so, do these effects vary by gender?

Research Question 3: How do these perceptions relate to the self-reported likelihood of providing these responses?

As the above review suggests, little is currently known about support providers’ perceptions of disclosure responses. Nonetheless, a number of hypotheses were formulated based on the existing literature. Because informal support providers frequently provide both positive and negative responses (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012; Campbell et al., 2001) and yet often experience being effective (Banyard et al., 2010; Davis & Brickman, 1996), it was hypothesized that participants would rate both positive and negative disclosure responses as helpful for victims. Based on prior research on victim self-blame (e.g., Littleton & Breitkopf, 2006; Ullman & Najdowski, 2011) and victim physical resistance (e.g., McCaul et al., 1990; Wyer et al., 1985), it was predicted that when the victim blamed herself or did not physically resist, positive responses would be perceived as less helpful and negative responses as more helpful. It was hypothesized that men would rate positive responses as less helpful, and negative responses as more helpful compared with women (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard et al., 2010), and that self-blame and physical resistance would have a greater impact on men’s responses than on women’s (Pollard, 1992). As rape myth acceptance (RMA) has been found to influence a number of rape-related judgments (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994), these beliefs were controlled for in this study.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from an undergraduate research participant pool at a large Canadian university and received partial course credit for their participation. During the process of screening data for nonserious responses, cases with completion times of under 12 or over 90 min were removed (n = 43). The heightened potential for nonserious responding has been identified as a disadvantage of web-based surveys and may be indicative of a lack of motivation or interest on the part of participants (cf. Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). Participants who did not pass the manipulation checks were also excluded (n = 40), leaving a final sample of 239 participants.

The sample was fairly evenly split by gender (46% men vs. 51% women), and the average age was 20 (M = 19.64, SD = 2.91), with the majority of participants (89.5%) between 18 and 22 years of age. The diversity of the sample reflected the university’s location in a large multicultural city, with participants identifying with one or more of the following groups: Eastern or Western European (18.4%), South Asian (19.2%), Canadian or American (16.7%), East Asian (13.8%), Caribbean (9.6%), West Asian or Arab (8.4%), Mexican or South American (5.9%), and African (5.0%). Nineteen (7.9%) participants identified with another group.

Procedure and Materials

Due to the sensitive nature of the questionnaire, a web-based survey was used to reduce the likelihood of socially desirable responding (Booth-Kewley, Edwards, & Rosenfeld, 1992). After indicating their informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and instructed to read a vignette describing a female university student’s disclosure of an acquaintance rape to a female friend. In all conditions, the victim, “Cheryl,” states that she had initiated the first kiss but then resisted the perpetrator’s efforts to progress further sexually. According to her account, he proceeds to have sexual intercourse with her. Within this basic scenario, physical resistance and self-blame were systematically varied. Specifically, the victim recounts either engaging in verbal resistance only (i.e., telling the perpetrator to stop) or both verbal and physical resistance (i.e., telling the perpetrator to stop, hitting him with her fists, and kicking at him). She also conveys either no self-blame (i.e., states that she could not have prevented the assault and did everything she could to get out of the situation) or self-blame (i.e., states that she could have prevented the assault and could have done more to get out of the situation). The two independent variables, each with two levels, were fully crossed, thus producing four different versions of the vignette. Thus, the study conformed to a 2 (victim self-blame) × 2 (victim physical resistance) × 2 (participant gender) between-subjects design.

After reading the vignette, participants were presented with the self-report measures described below. Upon completion of the survey, participants were thanked, debriefed, and provided with a list of resources and support services.

Measures

Disclosure responses

A rational approach was taken in the development of items representing disclosure responses, drawing from the theoretical and empirical literature on social support of trauma victims (e.g., Herbert & Dunkel-Schetter, 1992; Ullman, 2000). Particular attention was given to the Social Reactions Questionnaire (SRQ; Ullman, 2000), which was constructed based on victims’ self-reports and is frequently used in studies with sexual assault victims. The 48 items of the SRQ are grouped into seven subscales, each representing a distinct type of social reaction: (1) Emotional Support/Belief (e.g., told you it was not your fault), (2) Tangible Aid/Information Support (e.g., provided information and discussed options), (3) Victim Blame (e.g., told you that you were to blame or shameful because of this experience), (4) Take Control (e.g., made decisions or did things for you), (5) Distraction (e.g., told you to stop thinking about it), (6) Treat Differently (e.g., pulled away from you), and (7) Egocentric (e.g., was so upset that he or she needed reassurance from you). Subscales 1 and 2 are typically conceptualized as positive, helpful reactions, whereas Subscales 3 to 7 are considered negative, harmful reactions.

Guided by this literature, 20 items were developed to capture a broad range of disclosure reactions. For each response, participants rated how helpful it would be for Cheryl to receive that response from her friend, using a 7-point rating scale (1 = not at all helpful to 7 = very helpful). In a subsequent section, participants indicated the likelihood that they would provide each response on another 7-point scale (1 = not at all likely to 7 = very likely).

RMA

A 20-item short version of the Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression Scale (AMMSA; Gerger, Kley, Bohner, & Siebler, 2007) assessed the degree to which participants endorsed rape myths. The AMMSA consists of statements that capture various attitudes and beliefs about sexual violence (e.g., “Women like to play coy but this does not mean that they do not want sex,” and “Many women tend to exaggerate the problem of male violence”). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a 7-point scale, and responses were summed and averaged to create a single composite score, with higher scores signifying greater RMA. The AMMSA has strong psychometric properties (Gerger et al., 2007), and the selection of the 20 items used in this study was based on their high item-to-total correlations. The 20-item scale had good internal consistency (α = .86).

Evaluations of victim behavior

Ten items assessed judgments of victim behavior (e.g., “Cheryl did not do enough to protect herself,” “Cheryl could not have resisted more (reverse coded),” and “Cheryl put herself in a vulnerable position”) using 7-point scales. Five items were reverse coded so that higher scores indicated a greater belief that the victim did not adequately protect herself. Scores were summed and averaged to create a composite score (α = .70). To control for order effects, this measure was counterbalanced with ratings of disclosure responses.

Coercive sexual experiences

Five items were used to assess participants’ history of coercive sexual experiences. Behaviorally specific definitions of “sexual contact,” “sexual intercourse,” and “without consent” were provided. Two items asked participants whether someone had ever had or attempted to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with them without their consent (yes/no). Two additional items asked participants to indicate whether they had ever had or attempted to have sexual contact or intercourse with someone without his or her consent (yes/no). Finally, respondents were asked whether a friend had ever disclosed such an experience to them (yes/no).

Manipulation checks

Participants completed a memory task consisting of seven close-ended questions, two of which assessed whether the manipulations were received as intended. One question asked whether the statement that Cheryl had resisted by hitting and kicking was true or false. The other question asked which of the following two statements best reflected the scenario: “Cheryl felt she had done everything she could to prevent the situation” or “Cheryl felt she could have done more to prevent the situation.”

Results

Descriptive Statistics

One in four participants (26.4%, n = 62) reported that someone had or had tried to sexually coerce them, with women more likely than men to report these experiences, χ²(1) = 14.90, p < .001 (36.9% vs. 14.5%). Eleven participants indicated that they had or had attempted to engage in sexual contact or intercourse with someone without their consent, with men more likely than women to report these experiences, χ²(1) = 5.42, p = .02 (8.2% vs. 1.7%). Consistent with earlier studies on college students (e.g., Banyard et al., 2010; Dunn et al., 1999), nearly two fifths of the sample (38.1%, n = 88) had received at least one sexual assault disclosure from a friend, with women more likely than men to have a friend disclose to them (40.5% vs. 35.5%).

Separate ANOVAs assessed for differences on RMA and evaluations of victim behavior, as a function of participant gender, participant coercive sexual experiences, and the experimental manipulations. Taking the sample as a whole, RMA had a mean of 3.96 (SD = 0.80), although men demonstrated a stronger endorsement of rape myths compared with women (M = 4.30, SD = 0.57 vs. M = 3.66, SD = 0.85), F(1, 223) = 30.45, p < .001. Scores on the evaluation of victim behavior scale had a mean of 3.82 (SD = 0.83) and varied by victim physical resistance, F(1, 223) = 20.84, p < .001. Specifically, beliefs that the victim could have done more to protect herself were stronger when she did not physically resist compared with when she did (M = 4.08, SD = 0.75 vs. M = 3.52, SD = 0.82). No other significant differences were found.

Perceptions of the Helpfulness of Disclosure Responses

To identify patterns in perceptions of helpfulness, the 20 items assessing disclosure responses were examined in a factor analysis. The principal-axis factor (PAF) method, with promax rotation, was used to extract and interpret the latent factors. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .76, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ²(190) = 1,453.94, p < .001. Although an eigenvalue cutoff of 1.0 identified six factors, explaining a cumulative variance of 49.01%, the scree plot indicated that only the first four factors were meaningful. Thus, a subsequent factor analysis was run with the number of factors extracted fixed to 4. Only items with loadings equal to or higher than .35 were considered based on the sample size (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009), and four items with factor loadings less than this minimum were removed.

The final factor analysis of the 16 items yielded a simple structure, with the four factors accounting for 48.51% of the variance. Items and corresponding factor loadings are presented in Table 1. The first factor, Formal Assistance, reflected controlling and providing tangible aid responses, and the second, Divert Attention, represented responses that stigmatized or distracted the victim. Egocentrism, the third factor, consisted of responses that focused on the support provider’s emotions, and Victim Blame, the final factor, was comprised of responses that were suggestive of victim responsibility. Composite scales were created for each of these four factors by summing and averaging participants’ responses on the corresponding items (see Table 1 for Cronbach’s αs). These four composite measures and the remaining four items that failed to load onto any factor served as the dependent variables for the subsequent analyses.

Table 1.

Items and Loadings of Four-Factor Solution of Helpfulness Ratings of Disclosure Responses.

	Factor
	1	2	3	4
1. Formal Assistance (FA), α = .84
Tell Cheryl to get support from a professional (e.g., hospital, physician, counselor)	.83
Offer to take Cheryl to get help from the police	.76
Tell Cheryl to get help from the police	.73
Offer to take Cheryl to get support from a professional (e.g., hospital, physician, counselor)	.72
2. Divert Attention (DA), α = .75
Encourage Cheryl to stop talking and thinking about the experience		.68
Avoid talking about things that might upset Cheryl		.67
Take Cheryl’s mind off the experience by changing the topic or planning things		.64
Encourage Cheryl to put it in her past so she can move forward		.62
Avoid inviting Cheryl to events and places that might upset Cheryl		.56
Take the initiative to do things for Cheryl so she does not have to ask		.43
Treat Cheryl like nothing has changed		.35
3. Egocentrism (EGO), α = .70
Express to Cheryl that she is very angry about what Brian did			.75
Express to Cheryl that she is very upset about what happened			.71
Express to Cheryl that she wants Brian punished for what he did			.48
4. Victim Blame (VB), α = .82
Suggest things Cheryl could have done differently to protect herself in future				.89
Suggest to Cheryl things she can do to prevent future similar experiences				.76

The mean helpfulness ratings of the disclosure responses can be found in Table 2. All means were above the midpoints of the 7-point scale, indicating that, overall, all responses, including those typically conceptualized as negative for victims (Ullman, 2000), were perceived to be more helpful than not for the victim.

Table 2.

Mean Ratings and Comparisons of Perceived Helpfulness of Responses.

Responses to Disclosure	M	SD
1. Formal Assistance (FA)	5.49^b	1.25
2. Divert Attention (DA)	4.14^d	1.23
3. Egocentrism (EGO)	4.72^c	1.37
4. Victim Blame (VB)	5.04^c	1.70
5. Did Nothing Wrong (DNW)
Tell Cheryl that she did not do anything wrong	4.79^c	1.96
6. Could Not Have Stopped It (CNS)
Tell Cheryl that she could not have stopped this from happening	3.77^d	1.87
7. Be Available (BA)
Be available whenever Cheryl might need somebody to talk or sit with	6.59^a	0.86
8. Share Information (SI)
Gather and discuss with Cheryl information about coping with the experience	5.66^b	1.36

Note. Different superscripts indicate significantly different means at the .05 level, using Bonferroni correction.

A one-way, repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to assess for differences across these eight types of responses. Mauchly’s test indicated that the sphericity assumption was violated, χ²(27) = 340.39, p < .001, and the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied (ε = .67). Results indicated significant differences in ratings of helpfulness across these responses, F(4.70, 1,114.58) = 96.11, p < .001, partial η² = .29. A comparison of estimated marginal means, using the Bonferroni adjustment, revealed a number of significant differences and noteworthy similarities (see Table 2). For example, participants gave similar ratings of helpfulness to Could Not Have Stopped It, which is an emotionally supportive response, and Divert Attention, which is typically viewed by victims as negative. Moreover, these two types of responses were rated as significantly less helpful than all other types of responses. In addition, Did Nothing Wrong, another emotionally supportive response, was perceived as equally helpful as Egocentrism and Victim Blame, which are typically experienced negatively by victims. However, the final emotionally supportive response, Be Available, was perceived as the most helpful response, followed by Share Information and Formal Assistance.

Effects of Self-Blame and Physical Resistance on Perceived Helpfulness of Responses

To examine the potential influence of the independent variables on ratings of the helpfulness of responses, a 2 (victim self-blame: no, yes) × 2 (victim physical resistance: no, yes) × 2 (participant gender: female, male) full-factorial ANCOVA was conducted on each of the eight disclosure responses, with RMA included as a covariate. All main, two-way, and three-way interaction effects were tested.

The covariate, RMA, had a significant impact on the perceived helpfulness of four types of responses. Specially, individuals higher in RMA assigned lower ratings of helpfulness to Formal Assistance, F(1, 222) = 4.92, p = .03, partial η² = .02, and Did Nothing Wrong, F(1, 222) = 16.16, p < .001, partial η² = .07. In addition, higher RMA was positively associated with ratings of helpfulness for Divert Attention, F(1, 222) = 20.52, p < .001, partial η² = 09, and Victim Blame, F(1, 221) = 11.83, p = .001, partial η² = .05.

Main effects of victim physical resistance were found on a number of the measures: Victim Blame, F(1, 221) = 4.32, p = .04, partial η² = .02; Did Nothing Wrong, F(1, 222) = 9.25, p < .01, partial η² = .04; Could Not Have Stopped It, F(1, 222) = 4.08, p = .05, partial η² = .02; and Share Information, F(1,222) = 7.37, p < .01, partial η² = .03. Specifically, when the victim did not physically resist the assault, respondents believed it would be more helpful to engage in victim-blaming responses (M = 5.24, SE = .15 vs. M = 4.78, SE = .16) and less helpful to tell the victim that she did not do anything wrong (M = 4.45, SE = .18 vs. M = 5.23, SE = .18) and that she could not have stopped the assault (M = 3.55, SE = .17 vs. M = 4.05, SE = .18), and to gather and discuss information with the victim (M = 5.45, SE = .12 vs. M = 5.93, SE = .13). Finally, main effects of victim self-blame, F(1, 222) = 6.83, p = .01, partial η² = .03, and participant gender, F(1, 222) = 4.29, p = .04, partial η² = .02, were also found on Share Information. Specifically, this response was seen as less helpful when the victim engaged in self-blame compared with when she did not (M = 5.46, SE = .13 vs. M = 5.93, SE = .12) and when the respondents were male (M = 5.49, SE = .14 vs. M = 5.89, SE = .13).

In all eight models, no significant effects were found for the three-way interaction or the two-way interactions between victim physical resistance and participant gender, and between victim physical resistance and victim self-blame. Significant effects for the two-way interaction involving victim self-blame and participant gender, however, were found on two responses: Divert Attention, F(1, 222) = 4.51, p < .04, partial η² = .02, and Egocentrism, F(1, 222) = 7.14, p < .01, partial η² = .03. Moreover, this two-way interaction also approached significance for Victim Blame, F(1, 221) = 3.71, p = .06, partial η² = .02. Post hoc comparisons of estimated marginal means were conducted using the Bonferroni adjustment. In the case of Divert Attention, female participants’ ratings of helpfulness were significantly lower when the victim engaged in self-blame (M = 3.93, SE = .15 vs. M = 4.38, SE = .17), p = .04, whereas the difference for men was not significant (M = 4.32, SE = .16 vs. M = 4.10, SE = .17), p = .34. When the victim blamed herself, male participants gave significantly higher ratings of helpfulness to Egocentrism (M = 5.32, SE = .18 vs. M = 4.72, SE = .20), p = .02, and Victim Blame (M = 5.32, SE = .23 vs. M = 4.55, SE = .24), p = .02, compared with when she did not engage in self-blame. In contrast, victim self-blame did not affect women’s perceptions of the helpfulness of Egocentrism (M = 4.35, SE = .17 vs. M = 4.70, SE = .19) or Victim Blame (M = 5.05, SE = .21 vs. M = 5.13, SE = .24).

Perceived Likelihood of Responding

To examine the relationship between the perceived helpfulness of the disclosure responses and the likelihoods of providing those responses, separate hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with participants’ self-reported likelihood of engaging in each of the eight types of responses as the dependent variables. RMA was entered in the first step to control for its effect, and participant gender, victim self-blame, victim physical resistance, and ratings of helpfulness were entered simultaneously in the second step. In each model, only the helpfulness rating of the response that corresponded with the dependent variable was included. For example, when the likelihood of engaging in Victim Blame was the dependent variable, only the perceived helpfulness of Victim Blame was entered as a predictor. All two-way interactions were included. Victim self-blame and victim physical resistance were dummy coded with not present as 0 and present as 1. Gender was dummy coded with male as 0 and female as 1.

Zero-order correlations indicated that the likelihoods of providing responses were weakly correlated with victim physical resistance, victim self-blame, participant gender, and RMA, and moderately correlated with perceptions of helpfulness. Assumptions of independent errors, homoscedasticity, and normally distributed errors were met, as indicated by the Durbin–Watson values, scatterplots, histograms, and normal probability-probability (P-P) plots of standardized residuals. Finally, variance inflation factor (VIF) values (1.03-3.70) indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern in any of the eight models.

The results are summarized in Table 3. When RMA was entered at Step 1, seven of the eight models were significant and explained between 1.7% and 7.6% of the variance. Higher RMA was associated with a lower self-reported likelihood of providing every type of response except for Victim Blame. When the remaining predictors were added in Step 2, all eight models were significant and explained an additional 13% to 48% of the variance. In each model, the perceived helpfulness of responses emerged as the strongest predictor and was positively associated with self-reported likelihood of engaging in each response. A scatterplot was used to interpret the significant interaction effect between victim physical resistance and participant gender on Did Nothing Wrong. When the victim did not physically resist, men were less likely to tell the victim she did nothing wrong, whereas the presence of physical resistance did not influence women’s likelihood of engaging in this response.

Table 3.

Summary of Regression Analyses for Self-Reported Likelihood of Engaging in Various Disclosure Responses.

	Self-Reported Likelihood of Engaging in Responses
	1. FA	2. DA	3. EGO	4. VB	5. DNW	6. CNS	7. BA	8. SI
	β	β	β	β	β	β	β	β
Step 1
RMA	−.28***	−.13*	−.18**	.08	−.25***	−.19**	−.17**	−.20**
ΔR²	.08	.02	.03	.01	.06	.04	.03	.04
F	18.86***	3.91*	7.31**	1.33	15.70***	8.76**	6.92**	9.73**
Step 2 (ΔR²)
RMA	−.17**	−.01	−.13*	−.04	−.15*	−.18**	−.12	−.16*
Resistance	−.05	.05	−.13	−.12	.18	.14	.11	.12
Self-Blame	−.08	.11	−.08	.06	−.07	−.03	.07	.12
Gender	−.06	.18	.04	.05	.17	.06	.12	.06
Resistance × Gender	−.06	−.03	−.00	.04	−.24**	−.15	−.12	.07
Self-Blame × Gender	.13	−.11	.01	−.06	−.07	.02	.04	.02
Resistance × Self-Blame	.14	−.03	.17	.06	.11	.04	.01	−.13
Helpfulness^a	.64***	.59***	.54***	.63***	.47***	.32***	.32***	.34***
ΔR²	.48	.33	.29	.41	.26	.13	.13	.16
F	25.44***	14.53***	13.16***	20.03***	13.24***	5.45***	5.38***	7.06***
n	231	231	231	230	231	229	228	227

Note. FA = Formal Assistance; DA = Divert Attention; EGO = Egocentrism; VB = Victim Blame; DNW = Did Nothing Wrong; CNS = Could Not Have Stopped It; BA = Be Available; SI = Share Information; RMA = rape myth acceptance.

In each model, only the perceived helpfulness of the corresponding response was used as a predictor.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Discussion

This study explored the relationship between the perceived helpfulness of various disclosure responses and self-reported likelihood of engaging in those responses among potential informal support providers. Three research questions were of interest:

Research Question 1: How do university students evaluate the helpfulness of common responses to sexual assault disclosures?

Research Question 2: Are these views influenced by victim self-blame and victim physical resistance? If so, do these effects vary by gender?

Research Question 3: How do these perceptions relate to the self-reported likelihood of providing these responses?

In support of our first hypothesis, participants perceived all types of responses, both positive and negative, to be helpful for sexual assault victims. Moreover, many positive responses were seen as equally or less helpful than many negative responses. For example, while emotionally supportive responses are consistently viewed as helpful and healing by victims (Campbell et al., 2001; Filipas & Ullman, 2001; Ullman, 1999), being available to the victim was the only emotional support response that was viewed as more helpful than all negative types of responses. Telling the victim that she could not have prevented the assault was perceived as the least helpful response, and as no more helpful than diverting attention responses, which were aimed at preventing the victim from thinking or talking about the assault, and shared similarities with Ullman’s negative Stigmatizing and Distracting responses. Finally, telling the victim that she did not do anything wrong was reported to be as helpful as victim-blaming and egocentric responses. These discrepancies between informal support providers’ and victims’ evaluations of responses are concerning, as previous studies (e.g., Borja et al., 2006; Campbell et al., 2001; Ullman et al., 2007) have linked responses such as stigmatization, victim blame, and egocentrism with poorer emotional and psychological well-being, and greater self-blame for victims.

In addition, participants did not differentiate between controlling responses and tangible aid responses. Ratings may have been based on the perceived importance of assisting victims with accessing formal supports, and not on the means by which this was accomplished. Previous studies (e.g., Filipas & Ullman, 2001; Ullman, 2000), however, suggest that this distinction is important to victims who can experience the former (e.g., being told to seek formal support) as harmful, and the latter (e.g., being offered help to access formal support if desired) as helpful.

Support for our hypotheses regarding the effects of victim self-blame, physical resistance, and gender was mixed. The absence of physical resistance did result in lower helpfulness ratings for a number of positive responses, but only one negative response. Specifically, when the victim did not physically resist, two emotionally supportive responses and Share Information were seen as less helpful, while Victim Blame was seen as more helpful. One possible explanation for this may lie in the impact of physical resistance on judgments of the victim or victim’s behaviors (McCaul et al., 1990; Wyer et al., 1985). Participants may have believed that the victim could have done more during the assault, and thus would benefit less from reassurance that she had acted appropriately than from suggestions on how to better protect herself and prevent assaults in the future. This is troubling as victims who do not physically resist may greatly benefit from being told that they did not do anything wrong and could not have prevented the assault, but may instead receive responses that can easily be interpreted as blaming.

Contrary to our predictions, victim self-blame and participant gender had significant main effects on the perceived helpfulness of only one response (i.e., Share Information), although some support emerged for our hypothesis that the influence of the manipulations would be greater for men than for women. When the victim blamed herself, men perceived victim blame and egocentrism responses as more helpful, whereas women’s perceptions of these responses were not affected. For diverting attention responses, however, the presence of self-blame resulted in lower helpfulness ratings only for women or when the victim also physically resisted. Self-blame on the part of sexual assault victims is not uncommon (Janoff-Bulman, 1979), and it is important to note that victim blame, egocentrism, stigmatizing, and distraction responses are typically conceptualized as negative responses for victims (Ullman, 2000). Victims who blame themselves may be at risk of receiving reactions that can exacerbate prior feelings of shame and guilt if they disclose to male support providers, who perhaps intend to help by advising victims on different behaviors or conveying their anger at the perpetrator. In contrast, victims who express self-blame to female support providers or who also physically resist the assault may be less likely to be discouraged from thinking or talking about the experience.

Consistent with our final hypothesis, for each type of disclosure response, participants’ evaluations of helpfulness were the strongest predictors of self-reported likelihoods of engaging in that response. These results may help explain why informal helpers provide “negative” responses as frequently as they do (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012; Campbell et al., 2001). Although the majority of informal helpers report having positive disclosure experiences and being supportive and helpful to victims (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard et al., 2010), their perceptions of what kinds of responses are beneficial combined with their desire to help may be prompting a wide range of responses that are both positive and negative (Dunn et al., 1999). Such an interpretation supports Ahrens et al.’s (2009) and Herbert and Dunkel-Schetter’s (1992) proposal that negative responses may be put forth by informal support providers, unaware of how their well-intentioned responses can be interpreted in harmful ways by the victims themselves.

Finally, although RMA was not the focus of this study, the findings add to the existing literature that underscores the negative ramifications of a pervasive rape culture, to which rape myths are central. In accordance with past research (Pollard, 1992), rape myths were endorsed more strongly by men, those without a history of sexual victimization, and those with a history of sexual coercion. Moreover, individuals demonstrating higher RMA tended to rate a number of negative responses as more helpful and positive responses as less helpful, and to report being less likely to engage seven of the eight types of responses, compared with those with lower RMA.

Limitations

A number of limitations of this study should be noted. First, the study utilized an experimental design, and it cannot be determined whether these responses would be evaluated similarly when individuals are on the receiving end of real-life sexual assault disclosures with their friends, and whether self-reported likelihoods are indicative of the responses that they would provide. It seems logical to assume that friends would be inclined to respond in the ways that they understand to be most helpful. At the same time, other factors such as personal distress or fears about being ineffective helpers (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard et al., 2010) may come into the picture. Future research on the sexual assault disclosure experiences of real informal helpers is needed to continue shedding light on the factors that affect their reactions.

Second, both male and female participants in this study were asked to evaluate the helpfulness of disclosure responses for a “female friend,” and report the likelihood that they themselves would provide these responses. It is not known to what degree participants’ responses were influenced by the gender of the hypothetical friend or men’s responses were influenced by the self/character mismatch. In other words, would the responses that were perceived as helpful be different for male and female friends? Manipulating the gender of the hypothetical support provider in future experimental studies can provide insights into this question.

It should also be noted that the current study focused on behavioral self-blame, which is more typical of sexual assault victims (Janoff-Bulman, 1979; cf. Thornton et al., 1988). Here, it was found that behavioral self-blame increased the perceived helpfulness of many negative responses, which in turn predicted the self-reported likelihoods of providing these responses. This contrasts Ullman and Najdowski’s (2011) findings, where characterological self-blame resulted in fewer positive reactions over time, but behavioral self-blame did not affect the receipt of either positive or negative reactions. Self-blame is often conceptualized as a unidimensional construct in research on sexual assault victims (e.g., Littleton & Breitkopf, 2006; Ullman et al., 2007), and future studies that assess characterological and behavioral self-blame separately are needed to better understand their impact on sexual assault victims’ postassault experiences.

Finally, the study is based on university students, which limits the generalizability of these findings. Focused attention on this population is warranted, given that university students are particularly likely to receive disclosures as a result of the high rates of sexual assault on postsecondary campuses. Nevertheless, future studies may wish to examine perceptions of disclosure responses in more diverse samples of informal and formal support providers.

Conclusion

Limitations notwithstanding, the findings have practical implications for sexual assault educational initiatives, especially for university students, a third of whom are likely to receive at least one sexual assault disclosure according to this and other studies (e.g., Banyard et al., 2010; Dunn et al., 1999). Common aims of on-campus programs include challenging attitudes and myths that support and perpetuate rape, increasing awareness and knowledge about sexual assault, and encouraging bystander intervention and rape avoidance behaviors to decrease the incidence of sexual assault (cf. Anderson & Whiston, 2005). This study highlights the need for programs to expand their focus to include components that prepare students, as potential informal support providers, for providing appropriate, effective support during disclosures.

Central to this training is educating students about the potential for certain seemingly supportive reactions to be hurtful and for emotional support to be well received. This may be particularly important for men, who were more likely to believe that victim blame and egocentric responses are especially helpful when victims engage in self-blame. Although telling a victim what she could have done differently or what she can do differently in the future to prevent similar harm, and expressing anger at the perpetrator may appear to be helpful, it is important for friends to know that such responses can be interpreted negatively by the victim as blaming and self-centered responses. Given the failure to distinguish between controlling and tangible aid responses in this study, improving students’ cognizance of the line between illuminating various avenues for coping with the assault and pressuring victims to take any of these options is necessary. Finally, friends need to know that emotionally supportive responses are healing for victims, and be trained to provide such responses. Increased awareness of potential divergences between their own and victims’ views of common disclosure reactions may encourage friends to be more attentive to the ways in which they respond and the language they use. Over time, this may decrease the frequency of unintended negative social reactions, while increasing the quality of social support.

Sexual violence affects many lives, with the impact on victims’ lives often lasting long after the actual incidents of rape and sexual assault. A better understanding of the motivations underlying support providers’ responses to sexual assault disclosures is essential to the goal of improving the likelihood that victims receive the social support they may need after these traumatic events. The effects of how victims convey themselves and the assault during disclosure on types of responses received also warrant further attention. Further exploration of potential discrepancies between friends’ and victims’ views on helpful types of responses is important, given that friends are common recipients of disclosure and their responses are particularly meaningful to victims.

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

Author Biographies

Victoria Sit, MA, is a PhD student in the Counselling and Clinical Psychology program at the University of Toronto. Her current research interests focus on the help-seeking processes and postassault experiences of victims of sexual violence. For her master’s thesis, she investigated influential factors in formal help-seeking decisions among sexual assault survivors living in poverty.

Regina A. Schuller, PhD, is a professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada. She is actively engaged in both research and teaching. Her research interests focus on decision-making processes of decision makers in cases involving violence against women (e.g., battered women, sexual assault). She also serves on the editorial board of Law and Human Behavior.

References

Ahrens

C. E.

Aldana

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

Ahrens

C. E.

Campbell

(2000). Assisting rape victims as they recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 959-986. doi:10.1177/088626000015009004

Ahrens

C. E.

Cabral

Abeling

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

Anderson

L. A.

Whiston

S. C.

(2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 374-388. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00237.x

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Walsh

W. A.

Cohn

E. S.

Ward

(2010). Friends of victims: The community impact of unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 242-256. doi:10.1177/0886260509334407

Booth-Kewley

Edwards

J. E.

Rosenfeld

(1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 562-566. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.562

Borja

S. E.

Callahan

J. L.

Long

P. J.

(2006). Positive and negative adjustment and social support of sexual assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19, 905-914. doi:10.1002/jts.20169

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Campbell

Ahrens

C. E.

Sefl

Wasco

S. M.

Barnes

H. E.

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

10.

Davis

R. C.

Brickman

(1996). Supportive and unsupportive aspects of the behaviour of others towards victims of sexual and nonsexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 250-262. doi:10.1177/088626096011002008

11.

Dunn

P. C.

Vail-Smith

Knight

S. M.

(1999). What date/acquaintance rape victims tell others: A study of college student recipients of disclosure. Journal of American College Health, 47, 213-218. doi:10.1080/07448489909595650

12.

Filipas

H. H.

Ullman

S. E.

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

13.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6-38. doi:10.1177/0093854802239161

14.

Gerger

Kley

Bohner

Siebler

(2007). The Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression Scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behaviour, 33, 422-440. doi:10.1002/ab.20195

15.

Gosling

S. D.

Vazire

Srivastava

John

O. P.

(2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet Questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93

16.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

17.

Herbert

T. B.

Dunkel-Schetter

(1992). Negative social reactions to victims: An overview of responses and their determinants. In Montada

Filipp

Lerner

M. J.

(Eds.), Life crises and experiences of loss in adulthood (pp. 497-518). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Janoff-Bulman

(1979). Characterological versus behavior self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798-1809.

19.

Kopper

B. A.

(1996). Gender, gender identity, rape myth acceptance, and time of initial resistance on the perception of acquaintance rape blame and avoidability. Sex Roles, 34, 81-93. doi:10.1007/BF01544797

20.

Littleton

H. L.

Breitkopf

C. R.

(2006). Coping with the experience of rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 106-116.

21.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x

22.

Mason

G. E.

Riger

Foley

L. A.

(2004). The impact of past sexual experiences on attributions of responsibility for rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1157-1171. doi:10.1177/0886260504269094

23.

McCaul

K. D.

Veltum

L. G.

Boyechko

Crawford

J. J.

(1990). Understanding attributions of victim blame for rape: Sex, violence, and foreseeability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1-26. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00375.x

24.

Pitts

V. L.

Schwartz

M. D.

(1993). Promoting self-blame among hidden rape survivors. Humanity & Society, 17, 383-398.

25.

Pollard

(1992). Judgements about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307-326. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00975.x

26.

Thornton

Ryckman

R. M.

Kirchner

Jacobs

Kaczor

Kuehnel

R. H.

(1988). Reaction to self-attributed victim responsibility: A comparative analysis of rape crisis counsellors and lay observers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 409-422. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00025.x

27.

Ullman

S. E.

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

28.

Ullman

S. E.

(1999). Social support and recovery from sexual assault: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 343-358. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00006-8

29.

Ullman

S. E.

(2000). Psychometric characteristics of the Social Reactions Questionnaire: A measure of reactions to sexual assault victims. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 257-271. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00208.x

30.

Ullman

S. E.

Najdowski

C. J.

(2011). Prospective changes in attributions of self-blame and social reactions to women’s disclosures of adult sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1934-1962. doi:10.1177/0886260510372940

31.

Ullman

S. E.

Townsend

S. M.

Filipas

H. H.

Starzynski

L. L.

(2007). Structural models of the relations of assault severity, social support, avoidance coping, self-blame, and PTSD among sexual assault victims. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 23-37. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00328.x

32.

Wyer

R. S.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

Gorman

T. F.

(1985). Cognitive mediators of reactions to rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 324-338. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.3244