A Quantitative Study on Gender Differences in Disclosing Child Sexual Abuse and Reasons for Nondisclosure

Abstract

Despite the available literature on disclosure of child sexual abuse (CSA), little is known about how gender affects disclosure. This article aims to quantitatively examine whether gender differences exist in formal (to legal or child protection authorities) and informal (to a family member or friend) disclosure of CSA and, if so, to assess whether this relation is associated with abuse characteristics and attitudes toward gender roles. The study also aimed to examine whether gender differences exist in reasons not to disclose CSA. Data of a sample of 586 participants, who reported to have experienced CSA committed by a single person, have been used for the analyses. There were no gender differences for formal disclosure, but the informal disclosure rate of CSA was 2.4 times higher for women than men, and this effect remained significant after controlling for abuse characteristics and attitudes, even though the gender difference decreased slightly. Furthermore, women and men reported different reasons for not disclosing CSA in their personal network. Women were more worried than men that family and friends would discover the abuse and reported more insecurity of what to do in this situation. Professionals in the field of CSA should consider a gender perspective when developing guidelines. Men have rarely been the subject of studies of disclosure after CSA. Professionals should focus more on general mental health outcomes of men that are not related with CSA directly, but where the effects of CSA may exert more indirectly through associations with other problems in life.

Keywords

child sexual abuse gender disclosure quantitative study

Introduction

In the past decades, extensive research has been conducted on the process of both formal (i.e., to legal or child protection authorities) and informal (i.e., to a family member or friend) disclosure of experiencing child sexual abuse (CSA; Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Goodman-Brown, Edelstein, Jones, & Gordon, 2003; Kogan, 2004; McElvaney, Greene, & Hogan, 2014; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Sauzier, 1989). Several victim and abuse characteristics have been related to the likelihood of disclosure. Kogan (2004), for instance, found that age of onset, a known perpetrator, and a history of drug abuse in the household were related with the timing of the disclosure. Kogan’s results showed that very young victims of CSA (0-6 years) were 5 times more likely to delay disclosure compared with older victims at age of onset (14-17 years). Schönbucher, Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Schnyder, and Landolt (2012) also reported a relationship between victim age and victim disclosure with disclosure occurring more often among victims who were 12 years or older at the time of the abuse. Having parents who were living together made disclosure more likely (Schönbucher et al., 2012), as well as positive parental support (Hershkowitz, Lanes, & Lamb, 2007). Schönbucher et al. (2012) also found that a lack of trust among family members or not wanting to burden the parents were reasons to delay disclosure or not tell at all. In addition, the authors reported that victims who knew their perpetrator were more than 3 times as likely to delay disclosure or not disclose at all in comparison with victims who did not know the offender. Finally, Schönbucher et al. (2012) found that victims who lived with a household member with a drug problem were also less likely to disclose. Sauzier (1989) found that children who experienced more moderate forms of sexual abuse were more likely to disclose compared with children who experienced more invasive forms of abuse. Various studies (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2000) showed that intrafamilial abuse is associated with a decreased likelihood of disclosure in comparison with instances of abuse by a perpetrator who was no family member or a stranger. Despite the available literature on disclosure of CSA, little is known about how gender affects disclosure (Alaggia, 2005). CSA of women has been a widely investigated topic for years, and in relation to this, disclosure in women is a much studied topic (Kogan, 2004; Mullen, Martin, Anderson, Romans, & Herbison, 1993; Vogeltanz et al., 1999). CSA suffered by men, on the contrary, is less frequently examined and only a handful of quantitative studies exist that have investigated disclosure by male victims of CSA (McGee, Garavan, deBarra, Byrne, & Conroy, 2002; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Ullman & Filipas, 2005). In addition, most of these few studies with male respondents (Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Schönbucher et al., 2012) have not been able to control for gender differences, as a result of methodological issues (e.g., small qualitative samples, not representative of the population, etc.).

Gender Differences in Forms of CSA

There are grounds to believe that male and female CSA victims experience different forms of abuse (Goldberg & Freyd, 2006) and may therefore have different reasons to (not) disclose CSA (Alaggia, 2005; DeVoe & Faller, 1999; Ullman & Filipas, 2005). For instance, a clinical study by Faller (1989) on gender differences in CSA characteristics showed that boys were more likely than girls to be abused outside the family. However, when boys were abused by family members, this happened at a younger age than with extra-familiar perpetrators. Girls were more likely to be abused by their biological father than boys. Boys were more likely than girls to be victimized by both women and men. In Ullman and Filipas’s (2005) study, female students reported greater prevalence and severity of CSA than male students. As discussed earlier, each of these characteristics are related to disclosure: abuse at a younger age, abuse by a family member, and more severe forms of CSA are associated with lower rates of disclosure (Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Kogan, 2004; Schönbucher et al., 2012).

Gender Differences in Disclosing CSA

Gender-role expectations in broader society play a role in disclosure of CSA by male and female victims. Specifically in masculine cultures, the fear of being regarded as a homosexual or victim may be a specific reason for male CSA victims to delay disclosure or not to disclose at all—while this fear is not considered to play a role for women (Alaggia, 2004). In line with this, in Paine and Hansen’s (2002) review study, results showed that men tend to withhold disclosure because society does not allow them to show weaknesses or reveal doubts and fears. On one hand, there is the taboo of homosexuality to overcome if the perpetrator is a male. On the other hand, if the perpetrator is a woman, men are faced with societal norms that endorse sexual relationships between older women and younger men. In various studies (Clements, Dawson, & das Nair, 2013; Hetherton, 1999), it was found that not only individuals but also professionals considered female-perpetrated sexual abuse (FPSA) as less serious and less harmful than male-perpetrated sexual abuse. Furthermore, men may also be afraid to be regarded as a possible abuser when they decide to disclose (Alaggia, 2005). Denov (2001) spoke in this regard of a “culture of denial,” in which society places males almost exclusively within the role of abuser and females in the role of the abused. In addition, sexual assault of men has received little attention in the literature (Davies, 2002). Simultaneously, cultural influences do not apply solely to men when it comes to disclosure of CSA. Certain taboos for women may be stronger in one culture than in the other. For instance, in cultures where (talking about) sexuality is a taboo and modesty is the norm (e.g., no sexual relationships before marriage), it might be more difficult for girls and women to disclose CSA than for girls and women in cultures that hold fewer gender-based expectations about virginity (Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Gilligan & Akhtar, 2006). A similar issue can be identified in cultures in which women are regarded as male “property” and women have fewer rights than men (Gupta & Ailawadi, 2005). Other reasons for women not to disclose CSA may be related to feelings of responsibility for what has happened or the fear of not being believed (Alaggia, 2005). Women may also be afraid to disclose out of fear of getting blamed for what has happened. Jewkes, Penn-Kekana, and Rose-Junius (2005) argued that blame may be put more on female victims than male victims, because of their alleged seductiveness and encouragement. This depends on the way a culture regard sexual norms and values. According to Jewkes et al. (2005), society may question the role of the woman in the abuse as the victim and may tend to see her as a seducer, which can make it harder for women to disclose abusive events.

As argued before, most of the existing research on disclosure of CSA has used female samples, while male victims have been left undiscussed (Davies, 2002; Stermac, Sheridan, Davidson, & Dunn, 1996). The studies in which male victims were included have mostly used clinical or forensic samples. In a clinical context, some suspicion or even evidence of CSA has already been found and that might increase the disclosure rate. However, these disclosure rates are not generalizable to the larger population because many victims of CSA will not disclose to professionals, but rather choose to disclose to family members or peers (Priebe & Svedin, 2008). Most studies with clinical samples do not consider disclosures to family or friends despite the fact that support from family and friends can be very important in the victim’s healing process (Roesler & Wind, 1994). Finally, the majority of the studies were based on qualitative research. The few studies that have conducted quantitative research including both sexes have not looked at possible gender differences between abuse characteristics that may influence disclosure as well. This represents a serious gap because boys and men might experience different forms of abuse compared with girls and women, and may also have different reasons to choose (not) to disclose. Without knowledge on the characteristics and reasons that may play a role in disclosing CSA, differences in the rates of disclosure between men and women cannot be (solely) assigned to gender differences. More quantitative studies are needed to distinguish a collective pattern in society about factors related to abuse, disclosure, and reasons for nondisclosure.

Seeking to address the gaps in the existing literature on disclosure of CSA by male and female victims, this study aimed to quantitatively examine whether gender differences exist in disclosure (both formal and informal) of CSA and, if so, to assess whether the relation between gender differences and disclosure is associated with abuse characteristics and values regarding gender. Finally, we examined whether gender differences exist in reasons not to disclose CSA.

Method

Measures

Characteristics of the victim

To examine whether family composition was associated with disclosing, respondents were asked to indicate with whom they lived together in their childhood. The answers included “I lived with both of my parents” (no matter whether these were your biological parents or stepparents), “I lived with my father,” “I lived with my mother,” “I alternated between my father and mother,” or “other.” The first answer was categorized as parents living together, while all the other answers were coded as parents not living together.

Feelings of blame were assessed with the question “Who would be, in your opinion, the most to blame for the unwanted sexual events in the past?” Answers were measured through the following six items: “only the other (=the perpetrator),” “mainly the other,” “both you and the other,” “mainly yourself,” “only you,” or “other, namely.” Respondents could also indicate that they did not want to answer this question. Afterward, responses were divided into three categories: “(mainly) the perpetrator,” “both,” and “(mainly) me.”

Because values about gender behavior may be a reason for nondisclosure, attitudes toward gender sex roles were measured with the following four items: “I think that the family honor is violated if a girl is not a virgin before marriage,” “I think a married woman should always be available for her husband if he wants sex,” “I think that the family honor is violated if a boy is not a virgin before marriage,” and “I think that religion and homosexuality are incompatible.” The responses were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (I totally agree with this) to 5 (I do not agree with this at all) and had total scores between 4 (very traditional) and 20 (very liberal). Respondents answered these questions toward gender roles both for themselves and for their parents. They had to indicate what they thought their parents would think. The scale “attitudes toward gender sex roles” had acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha .77 for the questions they answered for themselves and .85 for their parents.

Characteristics of the abuse

The questionnaire, based on the the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss et al., 2007) consisted of 13 items regarding sexually abusive experiences before the age of 18 years and the responses were given on a 3-point scale: “never,” “once,” and “more than once.” Severity of the abuse was measured by three forms of abuse: “only hands-off contact,” “hands-on contact without penetration,” and “penetrative CSA.” The items for hands-off forms of CSA consisted of statements such as “Someone forced you to watch pornographic images” and “Someone forced you to masturbate in his or her company.” The items on hands-on forms of CSA had statements such as “Someone touched you sexually against your will” and “Someone kissed you against your will.” The items for penetrative forms of CSA included the statement “Someone forced you to have sexual intercourse with him or her.” If the answer “once” or “more than once” was given on any of the 13 items, this was scored as CSA and ordered in one of the three categories by choosing for the most invasive form if several forms of CSA were reported.

Age of onset was asked after each form of sexual abuse that was reported. Respondents could answer the question “When did this happen?” with the following answers: “before the age of 12,” “between the age of 12 and 18,” “both before and after the age of 12.” All the answers to all 13 items were then added to compute one single answer (e.g., if a respondent answered that she had been forced to watch pornography “before the age of 12” and was also kissed against her will “between the age of 12 and 18,” age of onset was coded as “before the age of 12”).

The relationship between the victim and the perpetrator was computed into five categories: (a) family/stepfamily, (b) partner/ex-partner (romantic), (c) peer (friend/acquaintance), (d) stranger, and (e) other. In addition, the gender of the perpetrator was also asked.

Disclosure

To assess whether respondents had disclosed their abusive experiences, two questions were asked. The first question was “Have you ever told someone in your personal network about what has happened to you in the past?” The second question was “Have you ever sought professional help to help you with the abusive experiences? With professional help we mean the doctor, a psychologist, etc.” Respondents could answer with “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t want to answer this.”

Reasons for nondisclosure

When respondents indicated that they did not disclose, they could indicate for what reason they chose not to disclose. The respondents could select multiple reasons for nondisclosure. Items regarding formal nondisclosure ranged from “I did not need formal help” to “I found it difficult to ask for help.” Respondents could also choose not to answer the question.

Items regarding informal nondisclosure ranged from “I was afraid of the reaction” to “I thought it was unnecessary.” Respondents could also choose not to answer this question. Due to the fact that respondents could choose multiple reasons, every reason was analyzed separately.

Sample

Nearly 3,700 students (N = 3,697) from vocational schools and universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands completed a survey about sexually abusive experiences, disclosure, and help-seeking behavior. Almost 60% of all Dutch youth between 18 and 25 years old attend such a school (Central Bureau for Statistics [CBS]; Statline, 2012); therefore, the sample can be characterized as a broad community sample. After excluding respondents who did not meet the conditions of the target group (i.e., aged between 18 and 25 years), 3,248 respondents were left, of whom two thirds (66.4%, n = 2,204) were women and one third (31.6%, n = 1,083) men. More than 40% (45.2%, n = 1,469) of them reported to have experienced at least some form of CSA before the age of 18. Results indicated that the CSA prevalence rates were higher for girls (53%, n = 1,126) than for boys (32.9%, n = 343). Girls were 1½ times more likely to become victims of CSA than boys. A more detailed description of the data collection process as well as the forms of CSA reported by respondents is given in Okur, Van der Knaap, and Bogaerts (2015). Nearly 600 respondents (39.0%) indicated that the same person has committed these abusive event(s). The current article is based on data from this subsample (n = 586) of the entire group of respondents, to measure (among other abuse characteristics) the impact of the victim–perpetrator relationship on disclosure. Respondents who were abused by two or more perpetrators could not be included in this study due by software limitation. The software does not allow us to assign the specific forms of abuse to specific abusers in case of multiple abusers. Thus, in order not to mix up the forms of abuse with the designated abusers, we have decided to look at those who have had experienced the abuse by exclusively one perpetrator.

Four fifth of the subsample included in our analyses were women (n = 475; 81.1%) and one fifth (18.9%) were men (n = 111). More than two thirds (70.5%) of this subsample of respondents was studying at a vocational school at the time of the data collection while 29.5% was enrolled at a university of applied science. The mean age of the participants was 20 years (M = 20.06, SD = 1.83; see Table 1). These demographics did not differ from the total group of respondents who reported CSA (Okur, Van der Knaap, & Bogaerts, 2015).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (N = 586).

	%	n	M	SD
Gender
Men	18.9	111
Women	81.1	475
Age (M)			20.06	1.83
Education
Vocational school	70.5	413
University of applied science	29.5	173

Statistical Analysis

To test the relationship between gender and disclosure (i.e., both formal and informal), chi-square analyses were performed. Next, chi-square analyses and independent samples t tests were conducted to compare means and percentages between men and women on abuse characteristics and attitudes toward gender sex roles (both children and parents). Furthermore, to test the association between abuse characteristics and disclosure, correlational analyses were performed. To answer our main research question—examining gender differences for disclosure controlling for abuse characteristics—logistic binary regressions were executed. Finally, chi-square analyses were conducted to test for differences between genders in reasons not to disclose CSA (again, both formal and informal).

Results

Gender Differences in Disclosing and Abuse Characteristics

With regard to formal disclosure, 8.7% (n = 51) of the 586 respondents reported to have disclosed the CSA to a professional, 85.8% (n = 503) reported not to have disclosed the abuse, and 5.5% (n = 32) was missing. Regarding informal disclosure, 54.3% (n = 318) of the participants disclosed the abuse to someone in their personal network, while 42.5% (n = 249) did not tell anyone and 3.2% (n = 19) was missing.

As a first step in our analysis, we examined the disclosure rates by gender. Our results showed that an almost equal percentage of women and men disclosed the abuse to a professional: 9.7% of the women and 7.1% of the men respectively (ns).

There was a significant gender difference in the informal disclosure rate of CSA, indicating that women disclose more than men. Sixty percent of the women (n = 278) who experienced some form of CSA reported to have disclosed the abusive experience(s) to their informal network, whereas only 38.5% of the men (n = 40) reported to have disclosed informally, χ²(1) = 16.06, p = .00, Cramer’s V = .17.

As a second step, we examined gender differences in characteristics of the abuse. Chi-squares and t tests showed that there was a significant difference between men and women on age of onset, χ²(1) = 5.62, p = .02, Cramer’s V = .10; feelings of blame, χ²(2) = 6.33, p = .04, Cramer’s V = .11; severity of the abuse, χ²(2) = 13.66, p = .00, Cramer’s V = .15; relationship with the perpetrator, χ²(4) = 33.44, p = .00, Cramer’s V = .25; gender of the perpetrator, χ²(1) = 277.16, p = .00, Cramer’s V = .72; and attitudes toward gender (both child and parent), t(584) = 4.62, p = .00, and t(584) = 2.63, p = .01, respectively. Only family composition seemed to have no significant relationship with gender, p = .49 (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Scores on Characteristics of Abuse for Men and Women (N = 586).

Variable	Men (n = 111)		Women (n = 475)		χ²	p	V
Categorical	n	%	n	%	χ²	p	V
Age of onset					5.62**	.02	.10
Before 12 years	14	13.9	31	6.8
After 12 years	87	86.1	427	93.2
Family composition					0.46	.49	.03
Two parent	81	77.1	374	80.1
One parent	24	22.9	93	19.9
Feelings of blame					6.33**	.04	.11
(Mainly) perpetrator	55	69.6	333	81.8
Both	16	20.3	46	11.3
(Mainly) me	8	10.1	28	6.9
Severity of the abuse					13.66***	.00	.15
Only hands-off	28	25.2	66	13.9
Hands-on without penetration	77	69.4	337	70.9
Penetrative CSA	6	5.4	72	15.2
Relationship with perpetrator					33.44***	.00	.25
Family/stepfamily	6	6.0	29	6.4
Intimate (ex-)partner	13	13.0	101	22.3
Peer (friend)	34	34.0	51	11.3
Stranger	13	14.0	83	18.3
Others	33	33.0	189	41.7
Gender of perpetrator					277.16***	.00	.72
Man	37	37.0	433	98.6
Woman	63	63.0	6	1.4
Continuous	M (N)	SD	M (N)	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
Attitudes toward gender roles—child	17.05 (111)	3.65	18.51 (475)	2.81	4.62***	.00	0.45
Attitudes toward gender roles—parents	13.23 (111)	6.91	15.04 (475)	6.48	2.63***	.00	0.27

Note. Missing values are not included in the table. CSA = child sexual abuse.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

First of all, the results showed that men were abused at a younger age (i.e., before the age of 12) than women. Almost 14% of all men (13.9%) who had reported some form of CSA were abused before the age of 12 years, whereas the percentage for women who were abused at this age (6.8%) was half of the men’s proportion. Second, men blamed both themselves and the perpetrator almost twice as much (20.3%) as women (11.3%) did. Third, men reported more hands-off forms of CSA (25.2%) than women (13.9%), and significantly less forms of penetrative CSA (5.4%) than women (15.2%). The relationship with the perpetrator differed significantly for men and women. Men (34.0%) reported 3 times more often than women (11.3%) to have been abused by peers, but less often by (ex-)partners (13.0%) compared with women (22.3%). Also, gender of the perpetrator differed between the men and women. Men reported in almost two third of the cases (63.0%) that the perpetrator was a woman, while only slightly over 1% of the women (1.4%) reported a female perpetrator. Finally, regarding the cultural attitudes, independent t tests showed that, on average, women had more liberal attitudes about gender roles than men. Also, women assumed that their parents had more liberal attitudes toward gender than men.

Relationship between Abuse Characteristics, Gender Attitudes, and (Informal) Disclosure

As a third step, we examined the relationship between abuse characteristics and disclosure. Because no significant gender differences existed with regard to formal help seeking, the research question regarding formal disclosure lost its relevance. Therefore, only the relationship between abuse characteristics and informal disclosure was measured. The results showed that invasiveness of the abuse, χ²(2) = 10.27, p = .01, Cramer’s V = .14; relationship with the perpetrator, χ²(4) = 19.57, p = .00, Cramer’s V = .19; gender of the perpetrator, χ²(4) = 6.54, p = .01, Cramer’s V = .11; and attitudes toward gender (both child and parent), t(567) = 4.45, p = .04, and t(567) = 4.52, p = .03, respectively, differed significantly (see Table 3). These results indicate that in case of informal disclosure, disclosure increased when the abusive event was reported as more invasive (penetrative CSA). There was also more disclosure reported when the perpetrator was a family/stepfamily member and/or intimate (ex-)partner. However, when the perpetrator was a woman, disclosure decreased. Regarding cultural attitudes toward gender, victims with more liberal attitudes and victims who thought their parents had more liberal attitudes disclosed more often than those with more conservative attitudes (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Scores of Abuse Characteristics and Gender Attitudes on Informal Disclosure.

Variable	No Disclosure (n = 249)		Disclosure (n = 318)		χ²	p	V
Categorical	n	%	n	%	χ²	p	V
Age of onset					0.19	.66	.02
Before 12 years	20	46.5	23	53.5
After 12 years	215	43.1	284	56.9
Family composition					0.06	.80	.01
Two parent	196	44.0	249	56.0
One parent	49	45.4	59	54.6
Feelings of blame					4.22	.12	.09
(Mainly) perpetrator	146	38.5	233	61.5
Both	30	49.2	31	50.8
(Mainly) me	18	51.4	17	48.6
Severity of the abuse					10.27**	.01	.14
Only hands-off	44	48.9	46	51.1
Hands-on without penetration	184	46.0	216	54.0
Penetrative CSA	21	27.3	56	72.7
Relationship with perpetrator					19.57***	.00	.19
Family/stepfamily	7	21.9	25	78.1
Intimate (ex-)partner	35	31.5	76	68.5
Peer (friend)	45	54.2	38	45.8
Stranger	49	52.1	45	47.9
Others	98	45.4	118	54.6
Gender of perpetrator					6.54**	.01	.11
Man	194	42.4	264	59.1
Woman	39	57.6	27	42.4
Continuous	M (N)	SD	M (N)	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
Attitudes toward gender roles—child	18.00 (249)	3.23	18.45 (318)	2.87	4.45*	.04	0.15
Attitudes toward gender roles—parents	14.08 (249)	6.89	15.22 (318)	6.33	4.52*	.03	0.17

Note. Missing values are not included in the table. CSA = child sexual abuse.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Logistic Binary Regression

The abuse characteristics and attitudes toward gender that were significantly related with gender and informal disclosure were entered into a binary logistic regression model (see Table 4) to test whether these variables influenced the difference in informal disclosure rates between men and women.

Table 4.

Logistic Regression (Enter) of Gender Differences and Characteristics of Abuse on Informal Disclosure.

	B	SE	Significant	Exp(B)	95% CI
Constant	0.22	.09	.01**	1.25
Step 1
Gender	−.81	.24	.00***	0.45	[0.28, 0.71]
Step 2
Gender	−.70	.36	.05*	0.50	[0.25, 0.99]
Severity of the abuse (ref: penetrative CSA			.07
Only hands-off CSA	−.16	.26	.56	0.86	[0.51, 1.44]
Hands-on without penetration	−.61	.39	.12	1.83	[0.86, 3.91]
Relationship with perpetrator (ref: family)			.02*
(ex-) partner (romantic)	−.43	.71	.54	0.65	[0.16, 2.59]
Peer (friend)	−1.14	.71	.11	0.32	[0.08, 1.27]
Stranger	−1.35	.71	.05*	0.26	[0.06, 1.03]
Other	−.99	.68	.15	0.37	[0.09, 1.41]
Gender of perpetrator (ref: Man)	0.09	.41	.83	1.09	[0.49, 2.43]
Attitudes gender—child	0.03	.04	.35	1.03	[0.97, 1.11]
Attitudes gender—parents	0.03	.02	.10	1.03	[0.99, 1.06]

Note. Missing values have not been included in the analysis. CI = confidence interval; CSA = child sexual abuse.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In the first model (Step 1), gender differences in disclosure were found. The odds ratio for the gender coefficient is 0.45 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [0.28, 0.71]. This suggests women are more than 2.2 times more likely to disclose than men. The main effect of gender accounts for 3.1% of the variance in disclosure (Nagelkerke R² = .04, p = .00). Through the subsequent entry of child and abuse characteristics (Step 2), the total explained variance increased to 10.0% (Nagelkerke R² = .10, p = .00). The main effect of gender remained, but the odds ratio for gender increased from 0.45 to 0.50 (95% CI = [0.25, 0.99]) after entering the child and abuse characteristics in the model. This means that women were more than 2.2 times more likely to disclose than men when only gender is included in the model, but this difference decreased to 2 times after the second step. In addition, relationship with the perpetrator was predictive of disclosure. This final model classifies 55.5% of the 512 cases correctly. Regarding victim–perpetrator relationship, results showed that if the perpetrator was a stranger, respondents were on average 4 times less likely to disclose than respondents who reported that the perpetrator was a family member.

Differences in Reasons Not to Disclose for Men and Women

To examine whether gender differences existed in the reasons for not disclosing, two chi-square analyses were conducted. As calculated before, 85.5% of the respondents did not disclose to a professional, while 42.5% (n = 248) of the respondents reported that they had not disclosed the abuse to anyone in their personal network. On average, 1.5 reasons per respondents were chosen for nondisclosure, both formal and informal.

Although comparable proportions of men and women reported “neutral” reasons for nondisclosure (e.g., “I thought it was not bad enough” or “I thought it was unnecessary”), men and women did differ significantly with regard to several more emotionally charged reasons.

There were no significant differences between men and women on reasons for formal nondisclosure. However, regarding informal disclosure, women reported significantly more often than men that they did not want their family and friends to find out about the abuse as a reason for nondisclosure, χ²(1) = 3.88, p = .05, Cramer’s V = .13. Moreover, women gave the reason “I did not know what to do with the situation” significantly more often than men, χ²(1) = 5.16, p = .02, Cramer’s V = .14 (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Scores on Reasons Not to Disclose Among Men and Women, Formal and Informal Nondisclosure, Respectively.

Variable	Men		Women		χ²	p	V
Variable	n	%	n	%	χ²	p	V
Formal categorical
I did not need formal help	68	73.9	286	69.6	0.68	.41	.04
I found it difficult to ask for help	2	2.2	24	5.8	2.06	.15	.06
I did not dare to seek formal help	2	2.2	24	5.8	2.06	.15	.06
I thought it was not severe enough	22	23.9	100	24.3	0.01	.93	.00
I did not trust formal health counselors	1	1.1	7	1.7	0.18	.67	.02
I did not know where to seek help	2	2.2	8	1.9	0.02	.89	.01
I found it too expensive	0	0.0	1	0.2	0.22	.64	.02
The insurance did not cover any expenses	0	0.0	1	0.2	0.22	.64	.02
There was a long waiting list for mental care	0	0.0	0	0.0
I do not want to answer this question	8	8.7	20	4.9	2.10	.15	.07
Other	10	10.9	31	7.5	1.11	.29	.05
Informal categorical
I was afraid of the reaction	3	4.7	17	9.2	1.33	.25	.07
I did not want my family and friends to find out	2	3.1	21	11.4	3.88*	.05	.13
I was afraid that people would not believe me	2	3.1	6	3.3	0.00	.96	.00
I was afraid to be blamed	1	1.6	5	2.7	0.27	.60	.03
I thought it was unnecessary	30	46.9	93	50.5	0.26	.61	.03
I thought it was not severe enough	16	25.0	39	21.2	0.39	.53	.04
I took care of it myself	11	17.2	30	16.3	0.03	.87	.01
I found it too much hassle	3	4.7	14	7.6	0.64	.43	.05
I did not know what to do	0	0.0	14	7.6	5.16*	.02	.14
I did not want it to have negative consequences for the perpetrator	0	0.0	1	0.5	0.35	.56	.04
I was afraid of gossip	3	4.7	7	3.8	0.10	.76	.02
I do not want to answer this	9	14.1	16	8.7	1.51	.22	.08

Note. Only the percentage of the selected reasons has been presented, to keep the table readable. Missing values have not been included in the analyses.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to address the gaps in the existing literature on gender differences in disclosure of CSA. First, we quantitatively examined gender differences in disclosure of CSA and addressed the issue whether specific victim and abuse characteristics were related to such gender differences. Second, the study aimed to examine whether gender differences existed in reasons not to disclose CSA. Our study adds to the existing body of literature in several ways. First of all, on a univariate level, we found several abuse characteristics that were related with gender differences. Men reported to have experienced CSA at a younger age than women, reported more hands-off forms of abuse than women, and blamed both themselves and the perpetrator more than women did. Also, men reported more often than women that the perpetrator was a peer (friend), whereas women reported more often than men that the perpetrator was an (ex-)partner. In addition, men reported also more often than women that the perpetrator was female. No differences existed in the proportions of men and women who suffered abuse at the hands of family members or strangers. Second, we found a clear gender difference in disclosure of CSA, but only in informal settings: A larger proportion of women than of men disclosed their experiences to someone in their personal network. In fact, women were 2.4 times more likely to disclose than men. Interestingly, respondents tended to disclose less when the perpetrator was a woman. Third, although adding abuse characteristics slightly reduced the strength of the gender effect on disclosure, gender remained significant, indicating that the effect of gender is a strong predictor of informal disclosure, hereby supporting previous assumptions about this relationship (Gries, Goh, & Cavanaugh, 1996; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Schönbucher et al., 2012). Despite clear gender differences in abuse experiences as well as in attitudes toward gender, none of these characteristics remained associated with informal disclosure when controlled for in the logistic regression model. Although it was expected that attitudes toward gender sex roles would explain gender differences in disclosure (Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Gilligan & Akhtar, 2006), reasons for this difference were not found. On a related note, abuse characteristics did not explain the gender difference either. This is surprising, because according to Banyard, Williams, and Siegel (2001), men’s mental health problems are associated with the number of CSA incidents and with having a caretaker as the perpetrator. Also, in societal norms, FPSA is considered as less serious and less harmful than male-perpetrated sexual abuse, restraining men to disclose less. As the men in our sample reported more hands-off forms of abuse and female perpetrators, it would be in line with our expectations to have the lower disclosure rate by men (partly) explained by these facts. Instead, these characteristics did little to reduce the effect of gender on the prediction of disclosure. A methodological reason for this finding may be that disclosure is intersected with various abuse characteristics, and there may be an interaction between gender of the perpetrator and the kind of abuse that explains the gender difference in more detail. Another reason why the gender of the perpetrator did not explain the gender difference in disclosing may be that even though abuse conducted by the hands of women leads to less disclosure, men may find it difficult to disclose, regardless of gender. Societal norms work both ways: men also feel declined to disclose if the abuse happened by a male perpetrator, due to the fear for being received as a homosexual (Paine & Hansen, 2002). Male- and female-perpetrated abuse may have balanced out.

Finally, our results showed no significant differences in formal disclosure. According to a recent study by Lev-Wiesel, Gottfried, Eisikovits, and First (2014), children preferred to disclose to their nuclear family members (parents and siblings) in comparison with professionals. This may explain why there were no differences in formal disclosure; findings suggest that in general, respondents are not keen on talking to professionals about their abuse. In addition, their reasons for not disclosing the abuse to a professional did not differ either.

Gender Differences in Reasons for Nondisclosure

Regarding gender differences in reasons for not disclosing (informal), women emphasized more often than men that they did not want their close family and friends to find out and that they did not know what to do after the abuse. Women may be more sensitive toward negative social reactions from their environment than men, due to the fear not to be believed (Alaggia, 2005), or to get blamed for what has happened (Jewkes et al., 2005). Also, the reason that they did not know what to do with the situation might have to do with a taboo on sexuality in some cases, which may have made it more difficult for women to know where to seek help (Fontes & Plummer, 2010).

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations. Child and abuse characteristics only explained 10.0% of the variance, which means that a large proportion of differences in disclosure is not yet known. This may have to do with the topic itself. Disclosure may have to do with many other factors, such as the context in which disclosure was possible or the general approach of family and friends to victims that influence the respondent’s choice to disclose or not (Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Ullman, 2002). These conditions may be difficult to measure with quantitative research only. Furthermore, although the sample represents a large part of Dutch 18- to 25-year-old youth, it is limited to respondents attending two specific forms of higher education. Young adults who are working or studying at a university were not included in the study. In addition, the fact that we could only include those respondents who had indicated that the sexually abusive experiences were committed by one perpetrator is a shortcoming, which led us to leave a valuable group of victims out of the analyses. Finally, this study examined a sensitive topic and literature shows that disclosure may be (too) difficult and/or painful for victims of CSA (London, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, 2005). Therefore, it may be possible that respondents who were not ready to talk about what happened, or did not want to talk about it, will also have chosen not to do so during this survey. Also, existing literature shows that 30% to 80% of victims of CSA only disclose their experiences years later in adulthood (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Paine & Hansen, 2002). The average time to disclosure varies between 3 to 18 years after the experience (Kogan, 2004; Lamb & Edgar-Smith, 1994). In this regard, it might be possible that respondents who did not yet disclose their abusive experience(s) may do so in the future. However, because of the cross-sectional design of this study, it is not possible to follow up on the relation between disclosure and gender.

Despite the limitations of this study, the results do contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of gender and disclosure. It is often assumed that gender can influence disclosure rates (DeVoe & Faller, 1999; Ullman & Filipas, 2005). However, there is limited empirical research to support this assumption, because studies using quantitative samples that include male victims from a community sample are lacking. Moreover, the factors that are thought to influence this link between gender and disclosure have not been widely investigated. We surveyed a broad community sample of young adults in higher education and managed to include a large group of both female and male victims of CSA in our study.

Practical Implications

The results of the current study are highly relevant and compellingly show that gender differences in disclosure of CSA certainly exist (i.e., women do indeed disclose the CSA they experienced more often than men) and that adding child and abuse characteristics slightly reduces the strength of the gender effect on disclosure, but gender remains a strong predictor of disclosure after CSA. Gender differences in disclosure and in the reasons for not disclosing CSA indicate that professionals and scientists working in the field of CSA should consider a gender perspective when developing guidelines and/or conducting research. For instance, there should be more research on other background factors of male CSA victims, who have rarely been the subject of studies of disclosure. Professionals need to broaden their conceptualization of sexual abuse to support male victims of CSA better (Clements et al., 2013). They should also be aware of the fact that the general mental health outcomes of men may be not related with CSA directly, but these effects of CSA may appear more indirectly through associations with other problems in life (Browning & Laumann, 1997). Therefore, they may need different types of intervention to help them disclose.

Finally, as disclosure to someone in the personal network is the most common form of help-seeking, programs for supporting friends and family ought to be emphasized. Schools could pay more attention to sex education to students and inform parents about what to do in case of CSA disclosure of their children.

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: The study was supported by Stichting Kinderpostzegels Nederland and the National Initiative Brain & Cognition (NIHC).

Author Biographies

Pinar Okur is a researcher at Rutgers, the knowledge center on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. She is a developmental psychologist and criminologist from Utrecht University and received her PhD at Tilburg University (2015). Her major areas of research interest are (child) sexual abuse, vulnerable groups and forced migration.

Leontien M. van der Knaap is an associate professor at the International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT) at Tilburg University. She is a developmental psychologist and received her PhD at the Free University of Amsterdam (2003). Her main research interests cover developmental victimology, domestic violence, and risk assessment.

Stefan Bogaerts is full professor of forensic psychology and vice chair of the Department of Developmental and Forensic Psychology, Tilburg University. He is also head of Research and Treatment Innovation of the Forensic Psychiatric Centre the Kijvelanden, the Netherland. Since years, he studies offenders and victims, self-regulation, and deregulation processes.

References

Alaggia

(2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conceptualizations of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1213-1227.

Alaggia

(2005). Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A gender analysis. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 10, 453-470.

Alaggia

Kirshenbaum

(2005). Speaking the unspeakable: Exploring the impact of family dynamics on child sexual abuse disclosures. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86, 227-234.

Banyard

V. L.

Williams

L. M.

Siegel

(2001). The long-term mental health consequences of child sexual abuse: An exploratory study of the impact of multiple traumas in a sample of women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 697-715.

Browning

C. R.

Laumann

E. O.

(1997). Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course perspective. American Sociological Review, 62, 540-560.

Clements

Dawson

D. L.

das Nair

(2013). Female-perpetrated sexual abuse: A review of victim and professional perspectives. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 20, 197-215.

Davies

(2002). Male sexual assault victims: A selective review of the literature and implications for support services. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 203-214.

Denov

M. S.

(2001). Culture of denial: Exploring professional perspectives on female sex offending. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 303-329.

DeVoe

E. T.

Faller

K. C.

(1999). The characteristics of disclosure among children who may have been sexually abused. Child Maltreatment, 4, 217-227.

10.

Faller

K. C.

(1989). Characteristics of a clinical sample of sexually abused children: How boy and girl victims differ. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 281-291.

11.

Fontes

L. A.

Plummer

(2010). Cultural issues in disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 491-518.

12.

Gilligan

Akhtar

(2006). Cultural barriers to the disclosure of child sexual abuse in Asian communities: Listening to what women say. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 1361-1377.

13.

Goldberg

L. R.

Freyd

J. J.

(2006). Self-reports of potentially traumatic experiences in an adult community sample: Gender differences and test–retest stabilities of the items in a Brief Betrayal-Trauma Survey. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 7, 39-63.

14.

Goodman-Brown

T. B.

Edelstein

R. S.

Jones

D. P. H.

Gordon

D. S.

(2003). Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 525-540.

15.

Gries

L. T.

Goh

D. S.

Cavanaugh

(1996). Factors associated with disclosure during child abuse assessment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(3), 1-19.

16.

Gupta

Ailawadi

(2005). Childhood and adolescent sexual abuse and incest: Experiences of women survivors in India. In Jejeebhoy

S. J.

Shah

Thapa

(Eds.), Sex without consent: Young people in developing countries (pp. 171-202). New York, NY: Zed Books.

17.

Hershkowitz

Lanes

Lamb

M. E.

(2007). Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 111-123.

18.

Hetherton

(1999). The idealization of women: Its role in the minimization of child sexual abuse by females. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 161-174.

19.

Jewkes

Penn-Kekana

Rose-Junius

(2005). “If they rape me, I can’t blame them”: Reflections on gender in the social context of child rape in South Africa and Namibia. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1809-1820.

20.

Kogan

S. M.

(2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 147-165.

21.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

. . . White

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

22.

Lamb

Edgar-Smith

(1994). Aspects of disclosure: Mediators of outcome of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 307-326.

23.

Lev-Wiesel

Gottfried

Eisikovits

First

(2014). Factors affecting disclosure among Israeli children in residential care due to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 618-626.

24.

London

Bruck

Ceci

S. J.

Shuman

D. W.

(2005). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 194-226.

25.

McElvaney

Greene

Hogan

(2014). To tell or not to tell? Factors influencing young people’s informal disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 928-947.

26.

McGee

Garagan

deBarra

Byrne

Conroy

(2002). The SAVI report: Sexual violence and abuse in Ireland: A national study of Irish experiences, beliefs and attitudes concerning sexual violence. Dublin, Ireland: Liffey Press.

27.

Mullen

P. E.

Martin

J. L.

Anderson

J. C.

Romans

S. E.

Herbison

G. P.

(1993). Childhood sexual abuse and mental health in adult life. British Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 721-732.

28.

Okur

Van der Knaap

L. M.

Bogaerts

(2015). Prevalence and nature of child sexual abuse in the Netherlands: Ethnic differences? Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24, 1-15.

29.

Paine

M. L.

Hansen

D. J.

(2002). Factors influencing children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 271-295.

30.

Priebe

Svedin

C. G.

(2008). Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society: An epidemiological study of adolescents’ disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 1095-1108.

31.

Roesler

T. A.

Wind

T. W.

(1994). Telling the secret: Adult women describe their disclosures of incest. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 327-338.

32.

Sauzier

(1989). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: For better or worse. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 455-469.

33.

Schönbucher

Maier

Mohler-Kuo

Schnyder

Landolt

M. A.

(2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents: A qualitative in-depth study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3486-3513.

34.

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, 2, 273-287.

35.

Statline. (2012). Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=71450ned&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0,10-17&D4=8,16&D5=0&D6=0,18&D7=11&HDR=G1,T,G2,G4,G6,G5&STB=G3&VW=T

36.

Stermac

Sheridan

P. M.

Davidson

Dunn

(1996). Sexual assault of adult males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 52-64.

37.

Ullman

S. E.

(2002). Social reactions to child sexual abuse disclosures: A critical review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12, 89-121.

38.

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, 767-782.

39.

Vogeltanz

N. D.

Wilsnack

S. C.

Harris

T. R.

Wilsnack

R. W.

Wonderlich

S. A.

Kristjanson

A. F.

(1999). Prevalence and risk factors for childhood sexual abuse in women: National survey findings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 579-592.