Single and Multiple Sexual Victimizations,Post-Traumatic Guilt,Shame,and Belief in a Just World

Abstract

Sexual violence is a prevalent trauma that affects core beliefs among victims, including belief in a just world (BJW), a fundamental worldview that enables individuals to find meaning and to invest in long-term goals. In this study, based on a national online survey carried out in France with 57,505 college students, we found that victims of four major kinds of sexual violence, namely attempted sexual assault, sexual assault, attempted rape, and rape, showed an overall decrease in BJW compared to non-victims. As hypothesized, multiple victimization was significantly related to a weaker BJW compared to single victimization, except in the case of attempted rape where no significant association emerged. Importantly, we found that the more victims believed in a just world, the less they reported shame and guilt following sexual assault, attempted rape, and rape. However, the magnitude of the association was very small. These results suggest that core assumptions of BJW are lower among individuals who experienced sexual violence, with repeated sexual violence associated with a potential cumulative negative effect on these worldviews.

Keywords

belief in a just world victimization sexual violence

Introduction

Sexual violence impacts millions of people worldwide (Borumandnia et al., 2020; Dworkin et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2018) with serious and long-lasting consequences on many victims’ mental and physical health (Dilip & Bates, 2021; Dworkin, 2020; Li et al, 2023; Spencer et al., 2024). Some studies indicate that students face a unique risk of sexual violence (Goodman-Williams et al., 2023; Krebs et al., 2009; Shorey et al., 2011), which may be greater than for individuals of the same age who are engaged in other occupations (Shorey et al., 2011). A study involving 118,221 undergraduates across 33 American universities showed that about 26% of women, 7% of men, and 23% of students with other sexual identities reported experiencing sexual violence since arriving on campus (Cantor et al., 2015).

Sexual violence is considered an especially negative experience compared to other traumatic events (Moor & Farchi, 2011) and is specifically related to a loss of self-esteem and increased levels of self-criticism, social avoidance, and anxiety (Schnittker, 2022; Yadav & Herres, 2026). Among the lasting consequences of sexual trauma (Dunmore et al., 2001; Ferrajão & Elklit, 2020; Park et al., 2012), changes of individual’s basic assumptions about the world represent an important outcome (Janoff-Bulman, 1992).

Sexual Violence, Trauma, and Belief in a Just World

Sexual violence is defined as “any sexual activity where consent is not obtained or freely given and incorporates physically, verbally and/or psychologically coercive acts such as being touched in a sexual manner and/or being forced/pressured to have sex against one’s will” (Tharp et al., 2013, p. 133). Victims of sexual violence indicate that the traumatic consequences are lasting and may result in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Dworkin et al., 2017). A meta-analysis of 22 unique samples found that about 75% and 40% of individuals met diagnostic criteria for PTSD at 1 and 12 months following sexual assault, respectively (Dworkin et al., 2021). Enduring changes in worldviews are also observed among victims. According to Janoff-Bulman (1992), individuals generally hold positive perceptions of themselves and others and believe in a just, meaningful, and benign world. This assumptive world (Parkes, 1971) or “working model” (Bowlby, 1969) provides individuals a trusting orientation to life, a sense of security, controllability, and relative invulnerability. After a traumatic life event like bereavement, incest, rape, or disaster, these core assumptions are modified among some victims, thereby potentially undermining individuals’ assumptive world, that is fundamental schemas that allow individuals to function daily. Janoff-Bulman’s assumptive world theory was mainly developed to understand reactions to one’s trauma, while Lerner’s belief in a just world (BJW) theory initially focused on how people react to other’s misfortune. Janoff Bulman’s contends that people believe in a meaningful and benevolent world (Schwartzberg & Janoff-Bulman, 1991), while Lerner’s theory is more specific and deals with basic perceptions of justice (Hafer & Bègue, 2005; Lerner, 1980; Lerner & Miller, 1978).

The BJW theory, wherein people believe that individuals get what they deserve, was described more than 50 years ago by Lerner (1980) and has led to the development of extended experimental research (reviewed in Ellard et al., 2016; Hafer & Bègue, 2005; Hafer & Rubel, 2015) and individual differences correlational research (Bartholomaeus & Strelan, 2019; Dalbert, 2009; Furnham, 2003; Hafer & Sutton, 2016).

Specifically, stronger BJW has been associated with optimism (Goodwin & Williams, 2023), purpose in life (Bègue & Bastounis, 2003), hope (Strelan et al., 2025), well-being (Correia & Dalbert, 2007; Donat et al. 2016; Dzuka & Dalbert, 2006; Hafer et al., 2020; Hoolihan & Thomas, 2020; Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2019), empowerment (Bartholomaeus et al., 2023), self-esteem (Tatsi et al., 2023), lower stress (Lucas et al., 2007; Yang & Shim, 2023), and less anxiety and depression (Bartholomaeus et al., 2024; Ritter et al., 1990; Schniesko & Ludmann, 2025; J. Wang et al., 2021). BJW is very stable over time (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Park & Blumberg, 2002) but can be eroded by social adversity and traumatic events.

In a recent study, Catlin and Scherr (2022) observed that individuals who reported being a victim of sexual aggression endorsed weaker BJW than participants who reported never being a victim of sexual aggression. In the same study, the authors contrasted two competing hypotheses regarding the correlation between frequency of victimization and BJW. According to the additive frequency hypothesis, a negative relationship was expected between frequency of victimization and BJW endorsement. In contrast, according to the threshold frequency hypothesis, multiple instances of victimization would not produce further meaningful shift in BJW compared to single victimization. Consistent with this latter hypothesis, no difference in BJW endorsement was observed between participants having experienced single victimization and those who reported multiple victimization (Catlin & Scherr, 2022). However, this result was in disagreement with studies generally demonstrating a cumulative effect of victimization on many outcomes like anxio-depressive symptomatology and PTSD (Ackard & Neumark-Sztainer, 2003; Banyard, 2001; Casey et al., 2005; Dworkin et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 1982; Ellonen & Salmi, 2011; Finkelhor et al., 2007; Follette et al., 1996; Karam et al., 2014; Schumm et al., 2006). Multi-victimized individuals bear a considerable burden of symptoms (Turner et al., 2010, 2015) and in clinical samples, psychosocial impairment is especially high among poly-victims (Ford et al., 2009).

The absence of BJW differences between single and multiple victimization in Catlin’ and Scherr’s (2022) study may have been the result of the aggregation of behaviors with very different intensities in a single score of sexual violence. Moreover, no factual definition of the behaviors listed in the online survey question was provided to participants. Indeed, the use of behaviorally anchored and explicit description limit measurement error in sexual violence research (Cook et al., 2011; Fisher, 2009; Koss & Gidycz, 1985). For example, an experimental survey showed that reports of forced penetration are approximately five times higher when using a behaviorally anchored measure compared to the question “Have you ever been raped?” (Presutti et al., 2025). Moreover, in order to understand how various kind of victimization may be related to BJW, it is relevant to study separately various types of crimes, from attempted or completed non-consensual touching to attempted or completed oral, vaginal, or anal penetration. In the present study, we focus on four distinct types of sexual violence: attempted sexual assault, sexual assault, attempted rape, and rape.

BJW, Posttraumatic Shame, and Guilt Following Sexual Violence

According to many studies carried out with victims, shame and guilt represent common emotional experiences of individuals who suffer sexual violence (Aakvaag et al., 2016; Hassanpour et al., 2025; Janoff-Bulman, 1979; Stone, 1992). Shame is a self-conscious emotion characterized by negative self-evaluation, while guilt arises from a victim’s belief that they should have felt, thought, or acted differently (Kubany & Watson, 2003). Studies suggest that sexual violence produces more shame and guilt than other traumas do (Amstadter & Vernon, 2008). Experiencing shame and guilt may be related to posttraumatic adjustment problems and mental health issues (Aakvaag et al., 2016; Pugh e al., 2015), also representing an obstacle to seeking medical, social, and legal help (Munro, 2014).

BJW may exacerbate blame. Among observers, BJW contributes to the derogation of rape victims (Furnham, 2003; Furnham & Boston, 1996; Hayes et al., 2013; Kleinke & Meyer, 1990; Pinciotti & Orcutt, 2017; Russell & Hand, 2017; Sinclair & Bourne, 1998; Strömwall et al., 2012; Yamawaki, 2009). Following this reasoning, we may expect that victims with strong BJW could internalize society’s victim-blaming narrative, resulting in increased shame and guilt (Amstadter & Vernon, 2008) and could experience with more intensity these emotional reactions than those who adhere less to BJW. In other words, if a victim believes that people get what they deserve, then they may experience greater shame and guilt to make sense of how such a horrible thing could happen to them. In fact, only a few studies suggest that people with high BJW tend to feel more emotional reactions (including guilt) following injustice or failure (Dalbert, 2002). In a study involving a sample of students, it was shown that strong BJW was associated with more disappointment and anxiety than weak BJW after getting a poor grade (Hafer & Olson, 1998).

On the other hand, other lines of research on the consequences of BJW leads to alternative predictions. Believing in a just world represents a “positive illusion” (Taylor & Brown, 1994) related to many psychological benefits like optimism (Goodwin & Williams, 2023), purpose in life (Bègue & Bastounis, 2003), hope (Strelan et al., 2025), well-being (Correia & Dalbert, 2007; Donat et al. 2016; Dzuka & Dalbert, 2006; Hafer et al., 2020; Hoolihan & Thomas, 2020; Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2019), empowerment (Bartholomaeus et al., 2023), self-esteem (Tatsi et al., 2023), lower stress (Lucas et al., 2007; Yang & Shim, 2023), and less anxiety and depression (Bartholomaeus et al., 2024; Ritter et al., 1990; Schniesko & Ludmann, 2025; J. Wang et al., 2021). Given these correlates, we might expect that individuals with higher BJW can better cope with adversity (Bègue, 2005a, 2005b; Bègue & Muller, 2006; Dalbert & Sallay, 2004). In a laboratory study, people with high BJW had a less threatening appraisal of stressful events and lower stress-related autonomic reactivity (Tomaka & Blascovich, 1994). In another study, BJW was correlated with lower inflammation and metabolic risk levels among people who had experienced an unfair event. They also had a better sleep (Levine et al., 2017). BJW also shapes responses to personal misfortune. Bulman and Wortman (1997) observed that among individuals who had been paralyzed in serious accidents, those who displayed a higher BJW displayed a higher level of happiness. In the same vein, individuals confronted with job loss who had higher BJW displayed better well-being (Lerner & Somers, 1992). Likewise, a study with victims of natural disaster also showed that strong BJW was associated with less anxiety, depression, and general psychological distress (Otto et al., 2006).

However, in some studies, no relationship was observed between various indicators of psychological adjustment and BJW, as was the case in a sample of burn patients (Kiecolt-Glaser & Williams, 1987). Similarly, in a classic natural experiment, participants who learned that their probability of being drafted and sent to battlefield during the Vietnam war was high following a draft lottery endorsed significantly lower self-esteem compared to those whose probability of being sent to war was low (Rubin & Peplau, 1973). However, the same pattern was not observed among those with a high BJW: neither BJW, nor the interaction between BJW and the likelihood of being drafted, significantly predicted participants’ self-esteem.

Current Study

Overall, the literature contains conflicting evidence concerning (a) the relationship between BJW and sexual violence and (b) the relationship between BJW and posttraumatic experiences. Therefore, using data collected from students enrolled in higher education in France, we looked at the relationship between sexual violence victimization (both singular and multiple), the type of sexual violence (attempted sexual assault, completed sexual assault, attempted rape, and completed rape), BJW, and posttraumatic shame and guilt.

Based on the extant literature, we offer three hypotheses. Specifically, we hypothesized that in comparison to non-victims, victims of sexual violence would have a lower level of BJW, regardless of the type of sexual violence. Second, among victims, multiple victimization would be related to lower BJW than single victimization, again, regardless of the type of sexual violence. And third, BJW and self-reported shame and guilt would be inversely related regardless of sexual violence type. Because previous research suggests possible gender differences on BJW (Harding et al., 2020; O’Connor et al., 1996), we also included sex (male vs. female) in our analyses.

Method

The study sample was composed of participants in a government-funded, national, web-based survey aimed at students from all over France between November 2023 and February 2024. All the universities (including French universities overseas) were targeted. The survey was presented as a study on student social relationships rather than on sexual victimization to minimize potential self-selection bias. As in many similar surveys (e.g., the AAU survey; Cantor et al., 2015), to encourage participation, respondents were entered into a lottery with the chance of winning various prizes (e.g., smartphones and Bluetooth speakers). Although experimental studies have shown that trauma and sexual surveys do not elicit more negative affect than tests of cognition (Yeater et al., 2012), precautions were nevertheless taken to avoid this possibility. On each page of the survey, participants could press a “resources button” that opened a page which advised them on how to get help from victims’ services. The respondents were allowed to skip any question in the survey at any point during the process of completion to ensure the quality of responses and limit any negative reaction that may be induced by forced answers (Buchanan & Hvizdak, 2009; Sischka et al., 2022).

Measures

Belief in a Just World

BJW was measured with a three-item BJW for others scale. By using this form, we intended to focus on a general BJW as in Catlin and Scherr’s (2022) study. The scale was based on Lipkus et al.’s (1996) version, had been translated into French, and has been previously used and validated in France (Bègue & Bastounis, 2003; Bègue & Muller, 2006). Example items include: “I feel the world treats people fairly” and “I feel that people get what they deserve.” We used 7-point Likert-type scales with options ranging from 1 (absolutely false) to 7 (absolutely true) in order to provide the same response format that was used throughout the rest of the survey. Responses were aggregated and averaged such that higher values represent stronger BJW (M = 3.51, SD = 1.16, Cronbach’s α = .73).

Sexual Violence

The measure of sexual violence was adapted from the AAU climate survey (Cantor et al., 2015; see Table 1 for a full description of the survey items).

Table 1.

The Four Questions Measuring Sexual Victimization in the Survey.

Since you have been a student in higher education, has anybody:
Attempted sexual assault
. . . tried against your will to do one of the following things to you, but failed: Kiss you, touch your chest, breasts, crotch, groin, buttocks, grab, grope, rub in a sexual way, even if the contact took place over clothing. (Yes = 1, No = 0)
Sexual assault
. . . actually done any of the following things to you against your will: Kiss you, touch your chest, breasts, crotch, groin, buttocks, grab, grope, rub in a sexual manner, even if contact occurred over clothing. (Yes = 1, No = 0)
Attempted rape
. . . tried against your will to do one of the following things to you, but failed: Sexual penetration (when a person inserts their penis, finger or object into someone’s vagina or anus); oral sex (when someone’s mouth or tongue is in contact with someone else’s genitals). (Yes = 1, No = 0)
Rape
. . . actually done one of the following things to you against your will: Sexual penetration (when a person inserts their penis, finger or object into someone’s vagina or anus); oral sex (when someone’s mouth or tongue is in contact with someone else’s genitals). (Yes = 1, No = 0)

After every victimization item, if participants answered yes, two additional questions were asked. We asked participants if they experienced that particular type of victimization more than once. Participants also answered the following question after each victimization item separately: “Did you feel guilty or ashamed about what happened?” We again used a 7-point Likert-type scale with options ranging from 1 (absolutely false) to 7 (absolutely true). The means and standard deviations for self-reported guilt and shame were the following: Attempted sexual assault (M = 3.58, SD = 2.18); Sexual assault (M = 4.02, SD = 2.18); Attempted rape (M = 5.15, SD = 1.91); and Rape (M = 5.55, SD = 1.71).

Data Quality Check and Analytic Plan

A total of 86,426 observations were recorded via Qualtrics. The survey data were exported from Qualtrics to SPSS (version 29; IBM, USA) for analysis. Observations were removed if participants did not reply to the item on student status or indicated that they were not a student (n = 8,829). A first data quality item near the beginning of the survey asked whether participants started the questionnaire “just to see” and provided inaccurate responses; participants that did not confirm they had responded precisely and accurately were removed (n = 4,504). Another quality check near the end of the survey asked if participants had responded as truthfully as possible to this study; the question assured participants that they were still eligible to be drawn for the lottery and to receive study results irrespective of their answer. We removed participants who indicated their replies were not reliable (n = 89). Data were further limited only to those reporting “male” or “female” sex at birth due to insufficient sample sizes for other response categories (“Neither” = 44; “Don’t know” = 22; “Don’t wish to answer” = 163; “NA” = 11). Finally, those who did not answer any of the BJW items (n = 15, 259) or had missing values on victimization items were removed. The rates of missing values on these items were the following: Attempted sexual assault: 1.4%; sexual assault: 2%; Attempted rape: 1.3%; and rape: 1.7%. No outlier were removed from the sample. This resulted in a total eligible sample of N = 57,505 participants with a median age of 20 years (M = 21.24; SD = 3.95). As in similar surveys on sexual violence (Steele et al., 2024), female respondents were over-represented. A total of 66.9% (n = 38,448) of the respondents self-defined as female, 32.7% (n = 18,805) as male, and the remaining 0.4% (n = 252) as another gender identity or did not reply. Regarding their year of study, about 29% (n = 16,519) were in their first year of higher education, 21% (n = 11,700) in the second year, 18.5% (n = 10,439) in the third year, 13% (n = 7,253) in the fourth year, 11% (n = 6,332) in the fifth year, and 7.5% (n = 4,065) in the sixth year or more. Non-parametric tests (Spearman’s ρ) were planned in case of non-normal distribution of the variables (which was actually the case for the single-item measure of guilt/shame).

Results

BJW Among Single Victims, Poly-Victims, and Non-Victims

Participants reported the following rates of victimization: attempted sexual assault, 16.6% (n = 9,428; 61.3% more than once); sexual assault 13.6% (n = 7,639, 52.4% more than once); attempted rape 2.7% (n = 1,511, 43.2% more than once); and completed rape 3.8% (n = 2,123, 43.6% more than once).

To look at differences between those who had and had not experienced sexual victimization, we performed separate analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for every type of crime introducing victimization (binary: victim vs. non-victim) and gender as independent variables and BJW as the dependent variable (see Table 2).

Table 2.

ANOVA Results of Victimization-Experience and Gender on BJW.

Victimization Type	Variable	F	p	n_p ²
Attempted Sexual Assault	Victimization	298.62	<.001	.005
	Gender	6.41	<.001	.000
	Interaction	0.78	.376	.000
Sexual Assault	Victimization	347.52	<.001	.006
	Gender	2.49	<.001	.000
	Interaction	4.32	.038	.000
Attempted Rape	Victimization	73.93	<.001	.001
	Gender	0.01	.940	.000
	Interaction	3.37	.066	.000
Rape	Victimization	129.38	<.001	.002
	Gender	0.30	.582	.000
	Interaction	1.79	.180	.000

Note. BJW = belief in a just world.

As hypothesized, BJW was lower among participants who reported attempted sexual assault, sexual assault, attempted rape, and rape compared to participants who had not experienced that particular type of victimization. Notably, the magnitude of these differences ranged from medium to large effects (see Table 3).

Table 3.

BJW Means and Effect Sizes for Victimization-Experience and Gender Differences by Victimization Type.

Type	Victim			Non-victim			Cohen’s d
Type	Female	Male	Overall	Female	Male	Overall	Overall
ASA	3.25	3.28	3.26 (SD = 1.14)	3.54	3.60	3.57 (SD = 1.15)	−0.18 [−0.21, −0.16]
SA	3.22	3.21	3.22 (SD = 1.15)	3.54	3.61	3.56 (SD = 1.15)	−0.30 [−0.32 −0.27]
AR	3.17	3.09	3.16 (SD = 1.17)	3.49	3.59	3.53 (SD = 1.15)	−0.32 [−0.37 −0.27]
R	3.08	3.04	3.07 (SD = 1.15)	3.51	3.59	3.53 (SD = 1.15)	−0.40 [−0.44 −0.36]

Note. ASA = attempted sexual assault; SA = sexual assault; AR = attempted rape; R = rape; BJW = belief in a just world.

Looking at the relationship between gender and BJW, we found that males reported significantly higher levels of BJW compared to females for both attempted sexual assault and sexual assault. As indicated in Table 2, gender generally did not significantly moderate the relationship between victimization on BJW, except in the case of sexual assault. In the case of sexual assault, we found an interaction between victimization and gender such that while there was no significant gender difference among victims, males had a higher BJW than females among non-victims, t(48540) = 6.23, p < .001).

In order to compare victims with single versus poly-sexual victimization, we next performed separate ANOVAs for every type of crime introducing victimization (binary: single-victim vs. poly-victim) and gender as independent variables and BJW as the dependent variable (see Table 4). As expected, BJW was lower among poly-victims who experienced attempted sexual assault, sexual assault, and rape. However, no significant difference was observed for attempted rape (see Table 5).

Table 4.

ANOVA Results of Victimization-Frequency and Gender on BJW.

Victimization Type	Variable	F	p	n_p ²
Attempted Sexual Assault	Victimization	8.65	.003	.001
	Gender	0.19	.660	.000
	Interaction	1.87	.171	.000
Sexual Assault	Victimization	20.63	<.001	.003
	Gender	0.21	.644	.000
	Interaction	0.226	.634	.000
Attempted Rape	Victimization	0.43	.511	.000
	Gender	0.497	.481	.000
	Interaction	1.16	.028	.001
Rape	Victimization	6.23	.013	.003
	Gender	1.23	.266	.001
	Interaction	0.360	.549	.000

Note. BJW = belief in a just world.

Table 5.

BJW Means and Effect Sizes for Victimization-Frequency and Gender Differences by Victimization Type.

Type	Poly-victim			Single-victim			Cohen’s d
Type	Female	Male	Overall	Female	Male	Overall	Overall
ASA	3.20	3.26	3.21 (SD = 1.15)	3.35	3.32	3.34 (SD = 1.14)	−0.11
SA	3.15	3.11	3.14 (SD = 1.16)	3.30	3.30	3.30 (SD = 1.13)	−0.14
AR	3.09	3.12	3.09 (SD = 1.13)	3.26	3.08	3.24 (SD = 1.19)	−0.12
R	2.98	2.82	2.97 (SD = 1.14)	3.16	3.11	3.15 (SD = 1.15)	−0.15

Note. ASA = attempted sexual assault; SA = sexual assault; AR = attempted rape; R = Rape; BJW = belief in a just world.

Guilt, Shame, and BJW

Finally, we examined the correlation between the single-item measure of participant’s guilt and shame after each type of sexual violence with BJW (two-tailed tests). The measure of guilt and shame was significantly associated with BJW in the case of attempted sexual assault (Spearman’s ρ = −.04, p < .001), sexual assault (Spearman’s ρ = −.05, p < .001), and completed rape (Spearman’s ρ = −.04, p = .048). However, there was no significant correlation between guilt/shame and BJW for victims of attempted sexual rape (Spearman’s ρ = −.04, p = .099). When we analyzed males and females separately, we again found that BJW was inversely related to shame/guilt following attempted sexual assault (Spearman’s ρ [women] = −.03 p < .010; Spearman’s ρ [males] = −.07, p = .016), sexual assault (Spearman’s ρ [women] = −.05 p < .001; Spearman’s ρ [males] = −.06, p = .051). A significant correlation was observed between BJW and attempted rape among males (Spearman’s ρ = −.18, p = .024) but not women (Spearman’s ρ = −.02, p = .396). Finally, the observed link between BJW and rape in the full sample became non-significant when males and women were analyzed separately (Spearman’s ρ [women] = −.04, p = .119; Spearman’s ρ [males] = −.11, p = .106). Notably, in each of these cases, the inverse relationship between BJW and shame/guilt is stronger for men than women.

Discussion

Experiencing sexual violence is related to core beliefs, including BJW. In this study, we showed that victims of four major kinds of sexual violence, namely attempted sexual assault, sexual assault, attempted rape, and rape, exhibited a lower level of BJW. Among individuals who had experienced one of these forms of sexual violence, we also observed that multiple victimization was related to even weaker BJW. The associated decrease of BJW is potentially concerning as our findings also highlight that BJW was inversely related to negative emotions following sexual violence among participants. Specifically, the more victims endorsed a BJW, the less they reported shame and guilt.

Sexual Violence Victimization and Weak BJW

Given the traumatic and lasting effects of sexual violence, we expected such an experience would be associated with lower levels of BJW. This first hypothesis was in line with literature suggesting that traumatic events can shift core beliefs and worldviews (Schwartzberg & Janoff-Bulman, 1991) and previous research comparing BJW between victims and non-victims where victims endorsed weaker BJW (Catlin & Scherr, 2022). Among our robust sample of university students in France, the same pattern emerged. Given the cross-sectional nature of our data, we cannot make any causal claims regarding the relationship between experiencing sexual violence and lower BJW. In other words, our observed effects cannot conclusively speak to whether the lower levels of BJW preceded or were the outcome of the experienced sexual violence.

Exploring the question of temporal precedence further, we start with an assumption that participants’ weaker BJW existed prior to the incident(s) of sexual violence. For example, perhaps lower BJW is related to greater risk-taking behaviors which in turn increase the risk of sexual violence victimization. Or perhaps lower BJW is related to greater trust, and perpetrators take advantage of that trust. Putting aside the problematic victim-blaming tone, the literature does not support either pathway. In fact, across two studies, Lambert et al. (1999) found strong correlations between BJW and perceptions of risk. In theory, someone who does not perceive any risk is unlikely to take precautions and therefore may be vulnerable. However, Lambert et al. (1999) found that people with high BJW perceive less risk of several types of victimization (e.g., hijacking, flooding). Importantly, in both samples, the relationship between BJW and risk perception was qualified by an interaction with participants’ endorsement of right-wing authoritarianism, only emerging at high levels of authoritarianism. Therefore, it is unlikely that low BJW would result in lower perceptions of risk, leaving little theoretical reason to suspect that low BJW would increase risk-taking behavior and ultimately increase the likelihood of victimization. Likewise, people with low BJW have been found to be less trusting than individuals with high BJW (Bègue, 2002; Zuckerman & Gerbasi, 1977). Of course, it is possible that some other mechanism could explain this pathway. According to Lerner and Miller (1978), people are very reluctant to give up BJW because this belief serves important functions. However, our results highlight the impact of experiencing sexual violence because our observed effects suggest the possibility that these traumatic experiences are powerful enough to weaken BJW. Recent studies suggest that BJW may be less stable than previously considered. In a study based on intensive daily diary data (Lutz et al., 2025), BJW appeared surprisingly plastic, fluctuating within individuals as a direct cognitive response to daily emotional shifts and personal successes.

Single Versus Multiple Victimization and BJW

A review of 90 empirical articles found that 2 out of 3 victims of sexual violence will be revictimized within their lifetime (Classen et al., 2005). Being revictimized is associated with greater levels of self-blame and higher prevalence of mental health problems (Classen et al., 2005). Despite other research showing no relationship between the frequency of victimization and BJW (Catlin & Scherr, 2022), our second hypothesis was supported in that multiple victimization was associated with lower BJW compared to single victimization in most types of sexual victimization.

Some methodological differences between the two studies might help explain the discrepant findings. First, regarding the definition of sexual violence itself, Catlin and Scherr (2022) used a much broader question than in the present study (e.g., ranging from stalking to sexual harassment and rape) and, critically, did not offer precise definitions associated with sexual violence. In contrast, our study used four specific types of sexual violence and offered definitions for participants. Therefore, the present study is likely to have a much cleaner measure of sexual violence victimization than Catlin and Scherr (2022). Second, and relatedly, by having a much broader/ambiguous definition of sexual violence, it is possible, that when asked about frequency of victimization, participants may have considered themselves as having experienced revictimization based on myriad experiences. For example, a participant may have reported revictimization based on sexual harassment which is both qualitatively and legally distinct from the types of sexual violence we examined in the present study. Third, there are differences in analytic approach. The present study looked at revictimization in a binary manner, whereas Catlin and Scherr (2022) looked at victimization frequency in a continuous manner. Perhaps related to this point, the present study had a much larger sample size, giving us the ability to detect small differences that the Catlin and Scherr (2022) study may not have been powered to detect. This idea is supported by the similarity in observed effect sizes. Finally, the two studies used different scales to capture participants’ BJW.

In terms of BJW, some research has suggested that both the just and unjust subscales of BJW scales show differences across countries (Furnham, 1993). Specifically, looking at 12 different countries, cross-cultural differences in BJW tended to be associated with differences in power-distance and individualism (Furnham, 1993). Though it is not clear that the United States and France differ enough on those two factors to warrant concern that cross-cultural differences could explain differences between our study and U.S.-based research. Further minimizing this particular concern is research suggesting that measures of BJW are cross-culturally generalizable (Furnham, 2003).

BJW and Post-Victimization Shame and Guilt

Our last hypothesis was supported by significant associations between BJW and post-experience blame and guilt. Specifically, we found that participants with higher BJW endorsed lower levels of shame and guilt following sexual violence victimization. This finding contradicts ideas that high BJW could lead to internalization of rape myths and ultimately serve to increase self-blame and guilt (Amstadter & Vernon, 2008). Likewise, it contradicts research that has found no effect of BJW on mental health following undesirable events (Rubin & Peplau, 1973). It does, however, support a series of studies that have found that strong BJW can serve a protective function (Bulman & Wortman, 1997).

Research has suggested there are several mechanisms that might explain BJW’s positive function. Specifically, high BJW is related to many psychological benefits as previously indicated. It remains an empirical question which of these benefits of high BJW, if any, decrease self-blame and guilt following sexual violence victimization.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study involved a robust sample of individuals enrolled in French universities. As such, we were able to examine with ample statistical power the relationships between sexual violence and BJW. That said, there are limitations to consider.

First, in line with previous research and to minimize measurement error, our questions surrounding sexual violence were precisely defined for participants with behavioral-anchors. This decision, however, means our definition of sexual violence is limited to specific kinds of aggression (i.e., attempted/completed assault and rape). Furthermore, by the nature of close-ended questions, participants did not have the option to label their specific experiences for themselves. The label is important both because it can influence legal options and how others (like helping professionals) respond to victims, and research has shown that victims’ labeling of their own experience—independent of the behavioral components of the assault—can influence victims’ distress. Future research might consider experimenting with the measurement of sexually aggressive behavior to better understand the relationship between victims’ experiences and BJW.

Second, the measure of self-reported negative emotions following victimization was based on a single item which combined the experience of guilt and shame. While existing studies combine the measure of guilt and shame in a single item (Kidd, 2007), future research should distinguish between these emotions and rely on more extended measures such as the Trauma-Related Guilt Inventory (Kubany et al., 1996, see also Tilghman-Osborne et al., 2010).

Third, the cross-sectional nature of the study precludes any definitive claims of causality. That said, only a longitudinal study might be able to capture the causal relationship between victimization and BJW. Along a similar vein, as alluded to above, our data cannot speak to any potential explanatory mechanisms between sexual violence, reduced BJW, and subsequent experience of shame and guilt. The literature suggests several mechanisms that might explain the chain of relationships we observed and warrants further investigation. Finally, the inverse relationship between BJW and the experience of shame and guilt following sexual assault, attempted rape, and rape was of limited magnitude.

Conclusion

Sexual violence represents a worldwide problem that impacts millions of individuals. Our findings highlight how the trauma of sexual violence, particularly repeated victimization, can be related to victims’ worldviews—the very beliefs that might have offered some protection against the self-blame that often accompanies sexual violence. As long as sexual violence continues to plague society, more work needs to be done to minimize the deleterious effect it has on its victims.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Laurent Bègue

Mary Catlin

Ethical Considerations

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards for questionnaire studies at University Grenoble Alpe, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Funding

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request.

Author Biographies

Laurent Bègue, PhD, is full professor of social psychology at Grenoble Alpes University, France. He is currently the Head of the House of Human Sciences and is member of the University Institute of France. He was also visiting professor in Stanford University (United States) and Brock University (Canada). He is mainly interested in the determinants of aggressive behavior, deviant behavior, and justice beliefs, and published in journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Cognition, and Neurosciences and Biobehavioral Reviews.

Mary Catlin is an assistant professor at the University of Mississippi in the Criminal Justice and Legal Studies Department. She completed her PhD in Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University (2025), MS in Applied Experimental Psychology Program at Central Michigan University (2017), and BA in Psychology from the State University of New York at Potsdam (2017). Her research centers around guilty pleas, confessions/interrogations, and wrongful convictions.

References

Aakvaag

H. F.

Thoresen

Wentzel-Larsen

Dyb

Røysamb

Olff

(2016). Broken and guilty since it happened: A population study of trauma-related shame and guilt after violence and sexual abuse. Journal of Affective Disorders, 204, 16–23.

Ackard

D. M.

Neumark-Sztainer

(2003). Multiple sexual victimizations among adolescent boys and girls: Prevalence and associations with eating behaviors and psychological health. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12(1), 17–37.

Amstadter

A. B.

Vernon

L. L.

(2008). Emotional reactions during and after trauma: A comparison of trauma types. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16(4), 391–408.

Banyard

V. L.

Williams

L. M.

Siegel

J. A.

(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(4), 697–715.

Bartholomaeus

Strelan

(2019). The adaptive, approach-oriented correlates of belief in a just world for the self: A review of the research. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, Article 109485.

Bartholomaeus

Strelan

Burns

(2024). Does the empowering function of the belief in a just world generalise? Broad-base cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. Social Justice Research, 37, 57–75.

Bartholomaeus

Ucar

G.K.

Donat

Nartova-Bochaver

Thomas

(2023). Cross-cultural generalisability of the belief in a just world: Factor analytic and psychometric evidence from six countries. Journal of Research in Personality, 102, Article 104317.

Bègue

(2002). Belief in a just world and faith in people: Just world, religiosity, and interpersonal trust. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 375–382.

Bègue

(2005a). Self-esteem regulation in threatening social comparison: The roles of belief in a just world and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 33(1), 69–76.

10.

Bègue

(2005b). When justice psychology meets developmental psychology. European Psychologist, 10(3), 254–255.

11.

Bègue

Bastounis

(2003). Two spheres of belief in justice: Extensive support for the bidimensional model of belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 71, 435–463.

12.

Bègue

Muller

(2006). Belief in a just world as moderator of hostile attributional bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 117–126.

13.

Borumandnia

Khadembashi

Tabatabaei

Alavi Majd

(2020). The prevalence rate of sexual violence worldwide: A trend analysis. BMC Public Health, 20, Article 1835.

14.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment. Penguin Publishing.

15.

Buchanan

E. A.

Hvizdak

E. E.

(2009). Online survey tools: Ethical and methodological concerns of human research ethics committees. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: JERHRE, 4(2), 37–48.

16.

Bulman

R. J.

Wortman

C. B.

(1977). Attributions of blame and coping in the “real world”: Severe accident victims react to their lot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 351–363.

17.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

S. H.

Townsend

Lee

Bruce

Thomas

(2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Westat, Inc.

18.

Casey

E. A.

Nurius

P. S.

(2005). Trauma exposure and sexual revictimization risk: Comparisons across single, multiple incident, and multiple perpetrator victimizations. Violence Against Women, 11(4), 505–530.

19.

Catlin

Scherr

K. C.

(2022). The deleterious effect of victimization on just world beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(17–18), NP16013–NP16036.

20.

Classen

C. C.

Gronskaya Palesh

Aggarwal

(2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma Violence Abuse, 6, 103–129.

21.

Cook

S. L.

Gidycz

C. A.

Koss

M. P.

Murphy

(2011). Emerging issues in the measurement of rape victimization. Violence Against Women, 17(2), 201–218.

22.

Correia

Dalbert

(2007). Belief in a just world, justice concerns, and well-being at Portuguese schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 421–437.

23.

Dalbert

(2002). Beliefs in a just world as a buffer against anger. Social Justice Research, 15, 123–145.

24.

Dalbert

(2009). Belief in a just world. In Leary

M. R.

Hoyle

R. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 288–297). The Guilford Press.

25.

Dalbert

Sallay

(2004). The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood. Origines and consequences. Routledge.

26.

Dilip

Bates

(2021). Sexual violence and mental health among college students in the era of #MeToo. Violence and Gender, 8(1), 8–13.

27.

Donat

Peter

Dalbert

Kamble

S. V.

(2016). The meaning of students’ personal belief in a just world for positive and negative aspects of school-specific well-being. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 73–102.

28.

Dunmore

Clark

D. M.

Ehlers

(2001). A prospective investigation of the role of cognitive factors in persistent postraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after physical or sexual assault. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39(9), 1063–1084.

29.

Dworkin

E. R.

(2020). Risk for mental disorders associated with sexual assault: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 21(5), 1011–1028.

30.

Dworkin

E. R.

Menon

S. V.

Bystrynski

Allen

N. E.

(2017). Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 56, 65–81.

31.

Dworkin

E. R.

Krahé

Zinzow

(2021). The global prevalence of sexual assault: A systematic review of international research since 2010. Psychology of Violence, 11(5), 497–508.

32.

Dzuka

Dalbert

(2006). The belief in a just world’s impact on subjective well-being in old age. Aging and Mental Health, 10, 439–444.

33.

Ellard

J. H.

Harvey

Callan

M. J.

(2016). The justice motive: History, theory, and research. In Sabbagh

Schmitt

(Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 127–143). Springer New York.

34.

Ellis

E. M.

Atkeson

B. M.

Calhoun

K. S.

(1982). An examination of differences between multiple- and single-incident victims of sexual assault. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91(3), 221–224.

35.

Ellonen

Salmi

(2011). Poly-victimization as a life condition: Correlates of poly-victimization among Finnish children. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 12(1), 20–44.

36.

Ferrajão

Elklit

(2020). World assumptions and postraumatic stress in a treatment- seeking sample of survivors of childhood sexual abuse: A longitudinal study. Psychology of Violence, 10, 501–508.

37.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

(2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(1), 7–26.

38.

Fisher

B. S.

(2009). The effects of survey question wording on rape estimates: Evidence from a quasi-experimental design. Violence Against Women, 15(2), 133–147.

39.

Follette

V. M.

Polusny

M. A.

Bechtle

A. E.

Naugle

A. E.

(1996). Cumulative trauma: The impact of child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and spouse abuse. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(1), 25–35.

40.

Ford

J. D.

Connor

D. F.

Hawke

(2009). Complex trauma among psychiatrically impaired children. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 70, 1155–1163.

41.

Furnham

(1993). Just world beliefs in twelve societies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(3), 317–329.

42.

Furnham

(2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795–817.

43.

Furnham

Boston

(1996). Theories of rape and the just world. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(3), 211–229.

44.

Goodman-Williams

Dworkin

Hetfield

(2023). Why do rape victimization rates vary across studies? A meta-analysis examining moderating variables. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 71, Article 101839.

45.

Goodwin

T. C.

Williams

G. A.

(2023). Testing the roles of perceived control, optimism, and gratitude in the relationship between general/personal belief in a just world and wellbeing/depression. Social Justice Research, 36, 40–74.

46.

Hafer

C. L.

Bègue

(2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167.

47.

Hafer

C. L.

Busseri

M. A.

Rubel

A. N.

Drolet

C. E.

Cherrington

J. N.

(2020). A latent factor approach to belief in a just world and its association with well-being. Social Justice Research, 33, 1–17.

48.

Hafer

C. L.

Olson

J. M.

(1998). Individual differences in the belief in a just world and responses to personal misfortune. In Montada

Lerner

M. J.

(Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world. Critical issues in social justice (pp. 65–86). Springer.

49.

Hafer

C. L.

Rubel

A. N.

(2015). The why and how of defending belief in a just world. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 41–96.

50.

Hafer

C. L.

Sutton

(2016). Belief in a just world. In Sabbagh

Schmitt

(Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 145–160). Springer.

51.

Harding

W. G.

McConatha

J. T.

Kumar

V. K.

(2020). The relationship between just world beliefs and life satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6410.

52.

Hassanpour

Buchwald

Mehta

A. H. P.

Goldberg

S. B.

Walsh

(2025). Sexual violence and shame: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 27(1), 240–255.

53.

Hayes

R. M.

Lorenz

Bell

K. A.

(2013). Victim blaming others: Rape myth acceptance and the just world belief. Feminist Criminology, 8(3), 202–220.

54.

Hoolihan

E. C.

Thomas

K. J.

(2020). The relationships between bonding social capital, personal belief in a just world and well-being: An analysis of a diverse student sample. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 1609–1626.

55.

Janoff-Bulman

(1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1798–1809.

56.

Janoff-Bulman

(1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. Free Press.

57.

Karam

E. G.

Friedman

M. J.

Hill

E. D.

Kessler

R. C.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Petukhova

Sampson

Shahly

Angermeyer

M. C.

Bromet

E. J.

de Girolamo

de Graaf

Demyttenaere

Ferry

Florescu

S. E.

Haro

J. M.

Karam

A. N.

Kawakami

. . . Koenen

K. C.

(2014). Cumulative traumas and risk thresholds: 12-month PTSD in the World Mental Health (WMH) surveys. Depression and Anxiety, 31(2), 130–142.

58.

Kidd

S. A.

(2007). Youth homelessness and social stigma. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(3), 291–299.

59.

Kiecolt-Glaser

J. K.

Williams

D. A.

(1987). Self-blame, compliance, and distress among burn patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 187–193.

60.

Kleinke

C. L.

Meyer

(1990). Evaluations of rape victim by men and women with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 343–353.

61.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

(1985). The sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 442–423.

62.

Krebs

Lindquist

Warner

Fisher

Martin

(2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol-or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57(6), 639–649.

63.

Kubany

E. S.

Haynes

S. N.

Abueg

F. R.

Owens

G. P.

Quintana

N. S.

Kaplan

A. S.

(1996). Development and validation of the Trauma-Related Guilt Inventory (TRGI). Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 428–444.

64.

Kubany

E. S.

Watson

S. B.

(2003). Guilt: Elaboration of a multidimensional model. Psychological Record, 53(1), 51–90.

65.

Lambert

A. J.

Burroughs

Nguyen

(1999). Perceptions of risk and the buffering hypothesis: The role of just world beliefs and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 645–656.

66.

Lerner

M. J.

(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum.

67.

Lerner

M. J.

Miller

D. T.

(1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051.

68.

Lerner

M. J.

Somers

D. G.

(1992). Employees’ reactions to an anticipated plant closure: The influence of positive illusions. In Montada

Filipp

S.-H.

Lerner

M. J.

(Eds.), Life crises and experiences of loss in adulthood (pp. 229–253). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

69.

Levine

C. S.

Basu

Chen

(2017). Just world beliefs are associated with lower levels of metabolic risk and inflammation and better sleep after an unfair event. Journal of Personality, 85(2), 232–243.

70.

Shen

Zeng

Huang

Chen

Yang

Wang

Jiang

Yang

Zhang

(2023). Sexual violence against women remains problematic and highly prevalent around the world. BMC Women’s Health, 23, 196.

71.

Lipkus

I. M.

Dalbert

Siegler

I. C.

(1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 666–677.

72.

Lucas

Alexander

Firestone

Lebreton

J. M.

(2007). Development and initial validation of a procedural and distributive just world measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 71–82.

73.

Lutz

P. K.

Newman

D. B.

Zelenski

J. M.

(2025). Belief in a just world and well-being: A daily diary perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 233, Article 112886.

74.

Moor

Farchi

(2011). Is rape-related self blame distinct from other post traumatic attributions of blame? A comparison of severity and implications for treatment. Women & Therapy, 34(4), 447–460.

75.

Munro

M. L.

(2014). Barriers to care for sexual assault survivors of childbearing age: An integrative review. Women’s Healthcare, 2(4), 19–29.

76.

Nartova-Bochaver

Donat

Rüprich

(2019). Subjective well-being from a just-world perspective: A multi-dimensional approach in a student sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1739.

77.

O’Connor

W. E.

Morrison

T. G.

McLeod

L. D.

Anderson

(1996). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between gender and belief in a just world. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(1), 141–148.

78.

Otto

Boos

Dalbert

Schöps

Hoyer

(2006). Posttraumatic symptoms, depression, and anxiety of flood victims: The impact of the belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1075–1084.

79.

Park

C. L.

Blumberg

C. J.

(2002). Disclosing trauma through writing: Testing the meaning-making hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 597–616.

80.

Park

C. L.

Mills

M. A.

Edmondson

(2012). PTSD as meaning violation: Testing a cognitive worldview perspective. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(1), 66–73.

81.

Parkes

C. M.

(1971). Psycho-social transition: A field of study. Social Science and Medicine, 5, 101–115.

82.

Pinciotti

C. M.

Orcutt

H. K.

(2017). Understanding gender differences in rape victim blaming: The power of social influence and just world beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 255–275.

83.

Presutti

Firkey

Woolf-King

S. E.

(2025). The impact of screening procedures on sexual assault estimates in college women: A brief report. Journal of American College Health, 16, 1–5.

84.

Pugh

L. R.

Taylor

P. J.

Berry

(2015). The role of guilt in the development of post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 182, 138–150.

85.

Ritter

Benson

D. E.

Synder

(1990). Belief in a just world and depression. Sociological Perspectives, 33(2), 235–252.

86.

Rubin

Peplau

(1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 73–93.

87.

Russell

K. J.

Hand

C. J.

(2017). Rape myth acceptance, victim blame attribution and just world beliefs: A rapid evidence assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 153–160.

88.

Schniesko

Lüdmann

(2025). Personal belief in a just world and mental health. Acta Psychologica, 259, Article 105317.

89.

Schnittker

(2022). What makes sexual violence different? Comparing the effects of sexual and non-sexual violence on psychological distress. SSM Mental Health, 2, Article 100115.

90.

Schumm

J. A.

Briggs-Phillips

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2006). Cumulative interpersonal traumas and social support as risk and resiliency factors in predicting PTSD and depression among inner-city women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(6), 825–836.

91.

Schwartzberg

S. S.

Janoff-Bulman

(1991). Grief and the search for meaning: Exploring the assumptive worlds of bereaved college students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 270–288.

92.

Shorey

R. C.

Stuart

G. L.

Cornelius

(2011). Dating violence and substance use in college students: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 541–550.

93.

Sinclair

H. C.

Bourne

L. E.

(1998). Cycle of blame or just world: Effects of legal verdicts on gender patterns in rape-myth acceptance and victim empathy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 575–588.

94.

Sischka

P. E.

Décieux

J. P.

Mergener

Neufang

K. M.

Schmidt

A. F.

(2022). The impact of forced answering and reactance on answering behavior in online surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 405–425.

95.

Smith

S. G.

Zhang

Basile

K. C.

Merrick

M. T.

Wang

Kresnow

Chen

(2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief – Updated release. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

96.

Spencer

C. M.

Rivas-Koehl

Astle

Toews

M. L.

McAlister

Anders

K. M.

(2024). Factors correlated with sexual assault victimization among college students in the United States: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 246–259.

97.

Steele

Martin

Sciarra

Melendez-Torres

G. J.

Degli Esposti

Humphreys

D. K.

(2024). The prevalence of sexual assault among higher education students: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(3), 1885–1898.

98.

Stone

A. M.

(1992). The role of shame in post-traumatic stress disorder. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 131–136.

99.

Strelan

Manning

Lucas

Agostini

Belanger

J. J.

Gützkow

Kreienkamp

Pontus Leander

(2025). Just world beliefs in a time of crisis: Cross-lagged panel and moderating cross-national effects on mental health and well-being outcomes. Social Justice Research, 38, 99–117.

100.

Strömwall

L. A.

Alfredsson

Landström

(2012). Blame attributions and rape: Effects of belief in a just world and relationship level. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 254–261.

101.

Tatsi

Panagiotopoulou

(2023). Personal and general belief in a just world and self-esteem in primary school students. Current Psychology, 42, 3330–3339.

102.

Taylor

S. E.

Brown

J. D.

(1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 21–28.

103.

Tharp

A. T.

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Brookmeyer

K. A.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

(2013). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 14(2), 133–167.

104.

Tilghman-Osborne

Cole

D. A.

Felton

J. W.

(2010). Definition and measurement of guilt: Implications for clinical research and practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(5), 536–546.

105.

Tomaka

Blascovich

(1994). Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of and subjective physiological, and behavioral responses to potential stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 732–740.

106.

Turner

H. A.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

(2010). Poly-victimization in a national sample of children and youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(3), 323–330.

107.

Turner

H. A.

Shattuck

Finkelhor

Hamby

(2015). Effects of poly-victimization on adolescent social support, self-concept, and psychological distress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(5), 755–780.

108.

Wang

Liu

Yang

Zheng

Bai

(2021). The impacts of a COVID-19 epidemic focus and general belief in a just world on individual emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, Article 110349.

109.

Yadav

Herres

(2026). Self-blame mediates the link between tonic immobility experienced during campus sexual assault and PTSD symptoms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605261419494

110.

Yamawaki

(2009). The role of rape myth acceptance and belief in a just world on victim blame attribution: A study in Japan. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 52, 163–174.

111.

Yang

E. J.

Shim

E. J.

(2023). Does belief in a just world moderate the relationship between financial stress and suicide risk in university students? Archives of Suicide Research, 27(2), 660–670.

112.

Yeater

Miller

Rinehart

Nason

(2012). Trauma and sex surveys meet minimal risk standards: Implications for institutional review boards: Implications for institutional review boards. Psychological Science, 23(7), 780–787.

113.

Zuckerman

Gerbasi

K. C.

(1977). Belief in a just world and trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 306–317.