Rape Acknowledgement,Blame Attributions and Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms Among College Students

Abstract

A substantial proportion of people who experience incidents that meet definitions of rape do not acknowledge their experiences as rape. Rape acknowledgement has been associated with mixed outcomes for survivors, including increased risk for negative post-assault appraisals and posttraumatic stress symptoms. No study to our knowledge has examined these outcomes simultaneously, and most research has been conducted in small, single-gender samples at single universities. The current study examined the prevalence of unacknowledged rape and its associations with demographic characteristics, self- and perpetrator-blame and posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptoms among 334 college students from two universities who self-reported experiencing a rape since age 14. Findings indicated that 59% of those who experienced rape did not acknowledge their experiences as rape. In multivariate models, sexual minority students and those who experienced vaginal penetration, force and had a male assailant were more likely to acknowledge their rapes. Rape acknowledgement was associated with greater self-blame, higher PTS symptoms and lower rapist blame compared to non-acknowledgement. Findings underscore a persistently high prevalence of unacknowledged rape and robust associations between rape acknowledgement and distorted blame attributions that may underlie and/or maintain PTS symptoms.

Keywords

rape acknowledgement posttraumatic stress self-blame rapist blame

Introduction

Rape, which refers to non-consensual oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, is a significant problem in the United States (Basile et al., 2022). Among college students specifically, 12%–13% of women and 3%–5% of men have experienced completed nonconsensual oral, anal, or vaginal penetration during college (Cantor et al., 2020; Mellins et al., 2017). Sexual and gender minority (SGM) students are at elevated risk, with bisexual, pansexual and queer women being 2.5 to 5 times more likely to experience sexual violence than cisgender heterosexual women (Eisenberg et al., 2021), and transgender students having nearly four times the risk of sexual assault compared to cisgender men (Coulter et al., 2017). Many also enter college with some exposure to rape during adolescence. For example, one study found that 17.5% of first-year female students reported incapacitated rape (i.e., being unable to consent or resist due to intoxication or being passed out) since the age of 14 but before starting college (Carey et al., 2015). Exposure to rape is associated with a plethora of negative mental (Dworkin, 2020; Dworkin et al., 2017) and physical health (Basile et al., 2024) outcomes as well as academic difficulties, including university dropout (Molstad et al., 2023). Better understanding the sequelae of rape for college students can point to important intervention opportunities.

One of the most prominent sequelae of rape is posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Breslau et al., 1998; Dworkin et al., 2017). Indeed, 75% of those who experience rape will meet criteria for PTSD 1 month after the rape, while more than 40% will still meet criteria 12 months after the rape (Dworkin et al., 2023). PTSD involves intrusive thoughts and reactions to reminders of the trauma, avoidance of people, places, thoughts and feelings about the trauma, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and arousal symptoms including hypervigilance and sleep difficulties (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Although PTSD can be a chronic and impairing condition (Zlotnick et al., 2004) that disproportionately impacts women due to their increased risk of interpersonal violence (Cortina & Kubiak, 2006), not all survivors develop these symptoms (Dworkin et al., 2023). Identifying factors that are associated with posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptoms¹ can point to important intervention targets.

One factor that has been associated with the development of PTS is rape acknowledgement, which refers to identifying a behaviourally specific experience of rape as rape. Meta-analyses have suggested that about 60% of female rape victims do not label their experiences as rape (Wilson et al., 2016). Although acknowledging rape experiences has been associated with increased service-seeking (Walsh et al., 2016), reduced risk for sexual revictimization (Littleton et al., 2009, 2017), and in some studies reduced psychological distress (Clements & Ogle, 2009), other studies have found that acknowledged victims have greater PTS symptoms (Layman et al., 1996; Lipinski et al., 2021; Littleton et al., 2006) including greater intrusion and avoidance symptoms (Wilson & Scarpa, 2017) compared to unacknowledged victims. Better understanding rape acknowledgement and how and why it may be related to PTS symptoms is critical.

Rape acknowledgment can be explained in part by rape script theory, which posits that victims may not acknowledge their rape experiences as such because their experiences do not match their ideas about what constitutes rape (Kahn et al., 1994; Littleton et al., 2007; Sarmiento, 2011). For example, the media often depicts the “blitz rape” script in which a woman is physically attacked by a stranger who threatens physical violence outdoors (Kahn et al., 1994). In actuality, most rapes are committed by people known to the victim (Basile et al., 2022), and force/violence is one of many tactics that can be used (Koss et al., 2024). Individuals who believe that the blitz rape script is the only type of rape may be less likely to identify assaults that are incapacitating (Walsh et al., 2016) or involve a known perpetrator like an intimate partner (Jaffe et al., 2021) as rape. These scripts also extend to who can be a victim or a perpetrator of rape. Consistent with myths that “men cannot be victims of rape” (Walfield, 2021), data from community (Pugh et al., 2024) and college samples (Reed et al., 2020) suggest that men are less likely to acknowledge their rape experiences compared to women and gender diverse people.

Another factor to consider in research on rape acknowledgement is that legal and research definitions of rape have shifted over time. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Unified Crime Report used “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will” to define rape prior to 2013 but shifted to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim” and has used that definition since 2013 (Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2013). This broader definition recognizes that victims can be of any gender and that nonconsensual experiences that do not involve force can also constitute rape. Additionally, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey has begun recognizing “being made to penetrate another person” as contact sexual violence (Basile et al., 2022), which expands on the ways that men may experience rape victimization. Furthermore, many states have begun to criminalize the nonconsensual removal of sexually transmitted infection/pregnancy protection or “stealthing” (Bonar et al., 2021; Davis et al., 2024). Despite these expansions to laws and research definitions, the degree to which these different experiences are recognized as rape by individuals is not clear. There is some evidence to suggest that social movements, like the #MeToo movement, which rapidly grew online in 2017, may have expanded the general public’s ideas about what constitutes rape (Ward et al., 2024). However, empirical data are needed to examine whether rape acknowledgement is more prevalent than observed prior to 2017.

Rape acknowledgment may be associated with higher PTS symptoms through increased self-blame. Self-blame refers to internalized feelings of responsibility for an event and/or one’s own responses to it (Sigurvinsdottir & Ullman, 2015) and may stem from social messaging rooted in rape myths or false ideas about who is responsible for rape. Indeed, acceptance of rape myths has been positively associated with PTS symptoms through increased self-blame (Bernstein et al., 2024). Social cognitive theories suggest that behavioural self-blame (i.e., attributing the cause of the rape to personal behaviour at the time of the event) contributes to the aetiology and maintenance of PTS symptoms (Resick & Schnicke, 1992). Nearly three-quarters of rape survivors blame themselves for their rape (Janoff-Bulman, 1979), and self-blame is positively associated with PTS symptoms (Moor & Farchi, 2011). In prospective, longitudinal research following sexual violence survivors for 1 year after the assault, initial behavioural self-blame has been associated with increased PTS symptoms at the following assessment; however, at subsequent assessments, PTS symptoms appear to drive increases in behavioural self-blame (Kline et al., 2021). Blame distortions may also occur when survivors fail to hold the rapist accountable for their actions. For example, some women who experienced intimate partner rape did not acknowledge their experience as rape and were less likely to blame themselves or the perpetrator (Jaffe et al., 2021). However, it is unclear whether rape acknowledgement is associated with less self and rapist blame for rapes occurring in contexts outside of intimate relationships. Collectively, these findings highlight the importance of negative cognitions in and as a result of PTS and a need to examine how various forms of blame attributions and PTS symptoms are associated with rape acknowledgement.

The Current Study

Although prior studies have examined rape acknowledgement and PTS symptoms (Layman et al., 1996; Wilson & Scarpa, 2017) and at least one has examined intimate partner rape acknowledgement and blame attributions (Jaffe et al., 2021), to our knowledge, rape acknowledgement, blame attributions and PTS symptoms have yet to be examined in a single study. Additionally, many studies have been conducted in small, single gender samples (e.g., Donde et al., 2018; Layman et al., 1996; Lipinski et al., 2021). Finally, social media movements like #MeToo have occurred since the publication of Wilson and colleagues (2016) meta-analysis establishing rates of unacknowledged rape. The #MeToo movement has been associated with reductions in dismissal of rape (Szekeres et al., 2020) and expansive changes in understanding and definitions of sexual assault (Ward et al., 2024). However, it is unclear whether the prevalence of unacknowledged rape and its associations with blame and PTS symptoms will be similar in a sample collected well after the peak of the #MeToo movement.

The current study used baseline data from a large clinical trial to examine the prevalence of unacknowledged rape since age 14, and individual demographic and rape characteristic differences between those who acknowledged versus did not acknowledge their experiences. We also examined attributions of blame for self and perpetrator and past 2-week PTS symptoms between those who did and did not acknowledge their experiences. We tested the following hypotheses:

Based on prior literature with women (Wilson et al., 2016) and more recent studies suggesting that unacknowledged rape is higher among men (Pugh et al., 2024; Reed et al., 2020), we hypothesize that more than 60% of those with behaviourally specific rape experiences since age 14 will not acknowledge their experiences as rape.

Based on studies suggesting that rape stereotypes play a role in rape acknowledgment (Sarmiento, 2011), we hypothesize that men and individuals who experience less stereotypical assaults will be less likely to acknowledge their experiences as rape.

Those who acknowledge their rapes will experience more self-blame and greater PTS symptoms compared to those who do not acknowledge their rapes. Given the limited work on perpetrator blame, we will explore associations with rapist blame.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

Participants were drawn from the baseline data for a large clinical trial examining the efficacy of an alcohol and sexual assault prevention program for college students (Gilmore et al., 2025). Participants in the clinical trial were college students enrolled at one of two large public universities located in the Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Both are designated as minority-serving institutions. Participants needed to be 18- to 25-year-old, full-time students with valid university email addresses, who had engaged in heavy episodic drinking at least once in the past month. Data were collected from October 2022 until December 2024. Procedures were approved by the lead university’s Institutional Review Board with the other university IRB ceding. The current study focuses on the subset of students (n = 334) who reported a rape experience since age 14 at the baseline survey.

Measures

Demographics

Participants were asked their age (years) and gender, which was collapsed into cisgender man, cisgender woman and gender diverse, which included nonbinary, genderqueer or nonconforming and transgender students. Based on data suggesting elevated risk for rape among bisexual students compared to heterosexual and other sexual minority (SM) groups (Canan et al., 2021), sexual orientation was collapsed into three categories reflecting straight/heterosexual; bisexual; and other SM identities, which included lesbian, gay, pansexual, queer, or questioning orientations. Race was collapsed into Black, white, Asian, multiracial and other, which included Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native), and Hispanic ethnicity was measured as a yes/no construct.

Rape

The Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV; Koss et al., 2007) was used to assess nonconsensual sexual contact and penetration since the age of 14. The SES-SFV assesses multiple behaviourally specific acts, including sexual touching, completed oral, anal and vaginal penetration, attempted penetration. Consistent with the more recent SES-V (Koss et al., 2024), we removed gendered language and included nonconsensual removal of sexually transmitted infection/pregnancy protection (called stealthing) and being made to penetrate another person with a penis, fingers, or object. These expansions to the assessment of penetration victimization are supported by changes in national survey and criminal code definitions (Basile et al., 2022; Bonar et al., 2021). For each act, the SES assesses six tactics that include verbal coercion (pleading, telling lies, criticizing, threating to end the relationship); threats or use of physical force (holding one down with body weight, pinning or twisting arms, using a weapon); incapacitation (taking advantage when too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening), and just engaging in the behaviour without giving an opportunity for consent or refusal. Since our acknowledgment question was about rape (see below), the current study focused just on completed oral, vaginal or anal penetration, stealthing, and being made to penetrate items. Following these items, participants were asked whether any of the acts occurred after drinking alcohol, using cannabis, both, or neither, and the perceived gender and sexual orientation of the perpetrator. Acts that occurred (oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, stealthing and being made to penetrate), tactics used (coercion, force and incapacitation), whether substances were involved, and the perceived gender and sexual orientation of the perpetrator were all used to characterize acknowledged versus unacknowledged survivors.

Rape Acknowledgement

We asked a single question (“Have you ever been raped?”) with response options yes, no and prefer not to answer.

Self and Perpetrator Blame

The Rape Attribution Questionnaire (RAQ; Frazier et al., 2003) is a 25-item measure of participants’ thoughts or perceptions about why the rape occurred and their perceptions of control over the recovery process. In the current study participants completed the blame attributions subscales that start with “In the past week, how often have you thought: I was assaulted because. . .” followed by five items that measure behavioural self-blame (sample item: “I put myself in a vulnerable situation”) and five items that measure rapist blame (sample item: “The person who assaulted me wanted to feel power over someone.”) Response options are 1 = never to 5 = very often. Items are averaged for each subscale, and higher scores reflect greater blame. The measure has strong psychometric properties (Frazier et al., 2003). Cronbach’s alpha for the self and rapist blame scales was .95 and .89 in the current sample, respectively.

PTS Symptoms

The 8-item version (Price et al., 2016) of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; Blevins et al., 2015) was used to measure PTS symptoms including intrusions, avoidance, negative alterations in mood and cognitions, and arousal in the past month. Response options range from 0 = never to 4 = extremely, with total scores ranging from 0 to 32 and higher scores reflecting more severe symptoms. The 8-item version is an abbreviation of the 20-item PCL-5 (Blevins et al., 2015) that has equivalent diagnostic utility to the full PCL-5 (Price et al., 2016), strong clinical utility (Alting van Geusau et al., 2021) and excellent psychometric properties (Price et al., 2016; Forkus et al., 2023). A cut score of 19 has 83% sensitivity and 39% specificity for detecting clinically significant symptoms (Price et al., 2016). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .93.

Analytic Plan

After reporting descriptive statistics for sample demographics, we reported the prevalence of acknowledged and unacknowledged rape to examine hypothesis 1 (H1) that more than 60% of the sample would not say that they have been raped. We then explored the individual and event-level characteristics of acknowledged and unacknowledged rape. We used chi-square analyses to examine individual and event-level differences associated with rape acknowledgement at the bivariate level. To test hypothesis 2 (H2) that men and those who had less stereotypical rapes would be less likely to acknowledge their experience as rape, we conducted hierarchical logistic regression to examine how demographics (Step 1) and rape characteristics (Step 2) are associated with rape acknowledgement after accounting for other variables in the model, including institutional affiliation. Gender and sexual orientation were dummy coded for inclusion in the regression; only variables that were significantly associated at the bivariate level were included as covariates. Finally, we examined bivariate correlations between rape acknowledgement, self and perpetrator blame for the rape, and past-month PTS symptoms. To test hypothesis 3 (H3) that those who acknowledge their experiences as rape will have greater self-blame and more severe past-month PTS symptoms, and to explore associations with rapist blame, we used multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with blame attributions and PTS symptoms as dependent variables, rape acknowledgement as the independent variable and demographics and rape characteristics as covariates. Analyses were conducted in SPSS version 30.0. Missing data were minimal (<3%) and handled via listwise deletion, the default in SPSS.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Approximately 31% (n = 334) of the full baseline sample (N = 1,077) had experienced rape (nonconsensual oral, vaginal or anal penetration, stealthing, or being made to penetrate another) since age 14 and served as the sample for this analysis. More than two-thirds (69%) were women but nearly a quarter (23%) were men and 8% were gender diverse. More than half (54%) were straight or heterosexual, 21% were bisexual, and the remaining 25% were another SM identity. More than half (55%) identified their race as white, 22% as Black, 11% as Asian and 10% as multiracial. About 22% of students identified as Hispanic/Latine. Mean age was 20.2 years (SD = 1.6). Approximately 46.4% attended the Southeastern university, while 53.6% attended the Southwestern university.

Rape Acknowledgement Prevalence and Associations with Demographics

Approximately 59% (n = 196) of those who reported a behaviourally specific act that meets legal definitions of rape said “no” to the question “Have you ever been raped?” About 30% (n = 100) said “yes” to this question, and 11.4% (n = 38) preferred not to answer the question (Table 1). There were significant differences between acknowledged, unacknowledged and “prefer not to answer” respondents on gender, such that 37% of gender diverse respondents acknowledged their experience as rape compared to only 28% of women and 18% of men. There also were significant differences in rape acknowledgement by sexual orientation, such that those who identified as straight were significantly less likely than those who identified as bisexual or another SM identity to acknowledge their experiences as rape.

Table 1.

Demographics of Rape Survivors (N = 334) and Differences Between Acknowledged, Unacknowledged and Those Who Preferred Not to Answer.

Characteristic	Any rape (N = 334)	Acknowledged (n = 100)	Unacknowledged (n = 196)	Prefer not to answer(n = 38)	F/χ²
Age M (SD)	20.18 (1.61)	20.42 (1.82)	20.11 (1.54)	20.18 (1.61)	1.18
Gender					12.04*
Man	77 (23.1%)	17 (22.1%)	54 (70.1%)	6 (7.8%)
Woman	231 (69.2%)	69 (29.9%)	133 (57.6%)	20 (12.6%)
Gender diverse	26 (7.8%)	14 (53.8%)	9 (34.6%)	3 (11.5%)
Sexual orientation					30.41***
Straight/hetero	181 (54.2%)	34 (18.8%)	130 (71.8%)	17 (9.4%)
Bisexual	70 (21.0%)	33 (47.1%)	28 (40.0%)	9 (12.9%)
Other SM	83 (24.9%)	33 (39.8%)	38 (45.8%)	12 (14.5%)
Race					7.52
Black	72 (21.6%)	15 (20.8%)	50 (69.4%)	7 (9.7%)
White	184 (55.1%)	61 (33.2%)	98 (53.3%)	25 (13.6%)
Asian	36 (10.8%)	10 (27.8%)	24 (66.7%)	2 (5.6%)
Multiracial	34 (10.2%)	11 (32.4%)	19 (55.9%)	4 (11.8%)
Hispanic/Latinx	73 (21.9%)	22 (30.1%)	42 (57.5%)	9 (12.3%)	3.48

Note. SM = sexual minority. Column percentages are presented for “Any Rape;” row percentages are presented for acknowledged, unacknowledged and prefer not to answer groups.

p < .05, ***p < .001.

Rape Characteristics and Acknowledgement

As shown in Table 2, acknowledged rapes were significantly more likely than unacknowledged rapes to involve oral or vaginal penetration, substance use, incapacitation, force and male perpetrators. Four in five people who acknowledged their rapes reported oral or vaginal penetration, while slightly more than one-third reported pre-rape alcohol or cannabis use. Although slightly less than a third of rapes committed by men and women were acknowledged as rape, only 9% of rapes perceived to be committed by someone who identified outside the gender binary were acknowledged as rape. This finding should be interpreted cautiously given the small number of perpetrators perceived to identify outside the gender binary. Interestingly, more than one-third of rapes perceived to be committed by someone with a SM identity were acknowledged as rape. The small number of people who “preferred not to answer” the rape acknowledgment question was omitted from subsequent analyses examining factors associated with rape acknowledgment.

Table 2.

Rape Characteristics and Rape Acknowledgement.

Characteristic	Acknowledged (n = 100)	Unacknowledged (n = 196)	Prefer not to answer (n = 38)	χ²
Act
Oral penetration (n = 222)	80 (80%)	114 (58.2%)	28 (73.7%)	15.17***
Vaginal penetration (n = 185)	82 (82%)	83 (42.3%)	20 (54.1%)	42.21***
Anal penetration (n = 95)	36 (36%)	52 (26.5%)	7 (18.9%)	5.03
Stealthing (n = 101)	38 (38%)	51 (26.2%)	12 (32.4%)	4.96
Made to penetrate (n = 74)	26 (26%)	44 (22.7%)	4 (10.8%)	3.62
Substance use (n = 194)	69 (69%)	101 (51.5%)	24 (63.2%)	8.75**
Incapacitation (n = 141)	60 (60%)	63 (32.1%)	18 (48.6%)	21.73***
Force (n = 125)	60 (60%)	51 (26.2%)	14 (36.8%)	32.31***
Coercion (n = 207)	69 (69%)	111 (57.2%)	27 (73%)	5.85
Rapist gender
Man (n = 272)	91 (91%)	149 (76%)	32 (84.2%)	10.05**
Woman (n = 85)	26 (26%)	52 (26.5%)	7 (18.4%	1.13
Gender diverse (n = 12)	1 (1%)	10 (5.1%)	1 (2.6%)	3.33
Rapist sexual orientation
Straight/hetero (n = 272)	82 (82%)	156 (79.6%)	34 (89.5%)	2.09
LGB (n = 90)	33 (33%)	50 (25.5%)	7 (18.4%)	3.47

Note. SM = sexual minority. Column percentages are provided; acts and tactics are not mutually exclusive so participants could have reported multiple acts and/or tactics.

p < .01, ***p < .001.

To test hypothesis 2 about the demographic and rape characteristics most associated with rape acknowledgement, we ran a hierarchical logistic regression with demographics (gender, sexual orientation, university affiliation) entered on Step 1 and rape characteristics (acts, substance involvement, perpetrator gender and sexual orientation) entered on Step 2. The first step accounted for ~14% of the variance in rape acknowledgement (Nagelkerke’s R² = .143) and correctly classified 69.5% of cases. After controlling for gender, bisexual and other SM respondents had 4 and 2.9 higher odds, respectively, of acknowledging their experiences as rape compared to straight/heterosexual respondents. On Step 2, rape characteristics were added to the model. The overall model accounted for 38% of the variance in rape acknowledgement (Nagelkerke’s R² = .383) and correctly classified 75.9% of cases. In the multivariate model, sexual orientation remained a significant predictor such that bisexual and other SM respondents were 3.5 and 2.6 times, respectively, more likely than straight respondents to acknowledge their experiences as rape. Additionally, those who had experienced nonconsensual vaginal penetration and force since age 14 had 3.7 and 2.6 times higher odds, respectively, of acknowledging their rapes compared to those who didn’t report these experiences (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Logistic Regression Predicting Rape Acknowledgement from Demographics and Rape Characteristics.

Variable	Step 1 B (SE)	Step 1 OR (95% CI)	Step 2 B (SE)	Step 2 OR (95% CI)
Gender
Woman	REF	REF	REF	REF
Man	−.39 (.34)	.68 (.35, 1.31)	.19 (.45)	1.21 (.50, 2.90)
Gender diverse	.58 (.49)	1.79 (.69, 4.64)	.63 (.55)	1.88 (.64, 5.56)
Sexual orientation
Straight/hetero	REF	REF	REF	REF
Bisexual	1.39 (.33)***	4.03 (2.11, 7.67)	1.26 (.38)***	3.51 (1.67, 7.36)
Other SM	1.06 (.33)***	2.88 (1.51, 5.48)	.96 (.38)**	2.60 (1.23,5.48)
University affil	−.13 (.26)	.88 (.53, 1.47)	−.14 (.31)	.87 (.48, 1.56)
Oral penetration	—	—	.64 (.35)	1.90 (.97, 3.75)
Vaginal penetration	—	—	1.30 (.36)***	3.67 (1.81, 7.46)
Substance use	—	—	.41 (.34)	1.51 (.77, 2.94)
Incapacitation	—	—	.39 (.36)	1.47 (.73, 2.96)
Force	—	—	.96 (.31)**	2.62 (1.43, 4.82)
Rapist a man	—	—	.75 (.52)**	2.12 (.77, 5.82)

Note. affil = affiliation; REF = reference category for mutually exclusive demographic variables.

p < .01, ***p < .001

Associations Between Rape Acknowledgement, Blame Attributions and PTS Symptoms

Descriptive statistics and correlations for rape acknowledgement, blame attributions and posttraumatic stress symptoms are presented in Table 4. The 8-item PCL-5 mean of 14.14 is below the clinical cutoff of 19, suggesting that on average the sample did not have clinically significant PTS symptoms. Rape acknowledgement was positively correlated with self-blame and PTS symptoms and negatively correlated with rapist blame. Additionally, self-blame was negatively correlated with rapist blame and positively correlated with PTS symptoms; rapist blame was negatively associated with PTS symptoms.

Table 4.

Descriptives and Correlations for Rape Acknowledgment, Self- and Perpetrator Blame and PTS Symptoms.

		Pearson Product Moment Correlations
	n(%)/M(SD)	Self-blame	Rapist blame	PTS symptoms
Rape acknowledgement	100 (29.9%)	.42***	−.41***	.29***
Self-Blame	2.63 (1.36)	—	−.52***	.39***
Rapist blame	3.67 (1.24)		—	−.38***
PTS symptoms	14.14 (8.96)			—

Note. PTS = posttraumatic stress.

***

p < .001.

To test the hypothesis that rape acknowledgement would be associated with self- and perpetrator- blame and PTS symptoms, a MANCOVA with self- and perpetrator- blame and PTS symptoms as dependent variables and rape acknowledgement as the independent variable with gender, sexual orientation, university affiliation, nonconsensual oral and vaginal penetration, pre-assault substance use, force, incapacitation and whether the perpetrator was a man as covariates were conducted. The overall model was significant, Wilks’ Lambda = .91, F(3,273) = 9.58, p < .001, η² = .10. Rape acknowledgement was associated with higher self-blame, F(1,286) = 22.96, p < .001; mean = 3.4 versus 2.2, lower rapist blame, F(1,286) = 17.64, p < .001; mean = 3.0 versus 4.1 and higher PTS symptoms, F(1,286) = 5.87, p = .016; mean = 17.7 versus 11.8, compared to not acknowledging and after controlling for all other variables in the model.

Discussion

The current study adds to the literature documenting a persistently high rate of unacknowledged rape and reinforces prior studies that have found some adaptive effects of not acknowledging rape, including lower self-blame and lower PTS symptoms. Consistent with meta-analyses suggesting that 60% of female rape victims do not acknowledge their rapes (Wilson et al., 2016), we found in this mixed gender sample that 59% of rape victims did not acknowledge their experience as rape. This high prevalence of unacknowledged rape was observed even following exposure to movements like #MeToo, which have been associated with population-level changes in how people define and recognize sexual assault (Ward et al., 2024).

In contrast to our hypothesis that the rate of unacknowledged rape would be higher than 60% because we included men in our sample, we found that the prevalence hovered right below 60%. Gender and sexual orientation were both independently related to rape acknowledgement such that men and heterosexual students were less likely than women and SGM students to acknowledge their rapes in bivariate analyses. However, in contrast to Pugh and colleagues’ (2024) findings that gender but not sexual orientation predicted rape acknowledgement in multivariate models, the current study found that sexual orientation, but not gender, was significantly associated with rape acknowledgement when examined simultaneously. Specifically, bisexual and other SM respondents were more likely to identify their experiences as rape compared to straight respondents. The Pugh study had twice as much gender diversity as the current study, with 16% of their sample identifying as trans or nonbinary compared to only ~8% of the current study’s sample. It is possible that we did not have the power to detect the effects observed in Pugh’s study.

We also observed significant differences according to acts that occurred, with 80% or more of those who acknowledged their experiences as rape describing oral or vaginal penetration as being part of those experiences. Interestingly, more than two-thirds of those who acknowledged their rape reported that substance use was part of their rape experience, and three in five people who acknowledged their rapes noted that force or incapacitation were part of their experiences. This finding is partially consistent with other studies suggesting that the use of force is significantly associated with rape acknowledgement (Donde et al., 2018; Lipinski et al., 2021), but they also may reflect growing awareness. Although we did not collect relationship to perpetrator, we found that rapists’ perceived gender, but not sexual orientation, was associated with rape acknowledgement. Specifically, more than 90% of those who acknowledged their rape reported that their perpetrator was a man, which fits with blitz rape scenarios (Kahn et al., 1994).

When demographics and various rape characteristics were considered simultaneously, SM students and those who had experienced vaginal penetration, force and rape by a man were most likely to acknowledge their experiences as rape. These findings fit with a large body of research suggesting that college students’ ideas about what constitutes rape include gender notions and physical harm (Haugen et al., 2018), which may not comport with current legal or research definitions. Additionally, the finding that SM students, particularly bisexual students, were more likely to acknowledge their experiences as rape compared to heterosexual students may relate to increased exposure to rape (Coulter et al., 2017; Eisenberg et al., 2021) or greater socialization about risk of rape that may increase recognition of one’s own experiences as rape.

Finally, in bivariate and multivariate models, there were significant bivariate positive associations between rape acknowledgement and self-blame PTS symptoms and a significant negative association with rapist blame. These findings fit with other studies suggesting that rape acknowledgement may have some drawbacks, including more posttraumatic distress related to the experience (Layman et al., 1996; Lipinski et al., 2021; Littleton et al., 2006; Wilson & Scarpa, 2017). Distorted blame for the experience stemming from rape myths that exonerate rapists and blame victims may maintain these PTS symptoms (Kline et al., 2021). Rape myths that lead to victim blame attributions may be a product of societal endorsement of Just World Beliefs, which suggest that the world is a fair place where good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people or to people who have done bad things (e.g., Russell & Hand, 2017). Shifting these societal beliefs to de-stigmatize rape and sexual assault experiences and reduce rape myths acceptance could make identifying as a person who has experienced rape less distressing.

Limitations

We utilized cross-sectional baseline data for the current analysis, which meant we were unable to examine directionality in associations. Although we asked the number of times specific acts occurred due to the use of specific tactics since age 14, multiple acts and tactics could have occurred during the same rape. Therefore, we were unable to examine how exposure to multiple rapes was associated with acknowledgement, PTS or blame attributions. We also did not ask about traumatic events other than rape that could be associated with PTS symptoms; future work should assess and control for multiple rapes as well as other trauma exposure. Given different patterns of associations between PTS symptoms and self-blame depending on temporal distance from the rape (Kline et al., 2021), it could be interesting to examine longitudinally how fluctuations in acknowledgment and blame are associated with changes in PTS symptoms over time. Relatedly, we did not use a diagnostic measure for PTSD and the mean PTS symptoms in our sample were below the clinically significant cut score; findings could look different in a more symptomatic sample. Due to small sample sizes, we collapsed non-binary, genderqueer and transgender students into a single group and thus were unable to examine potentially important differences between groups. Future studies should oversample gender minority students to better shed light on these differences. Although the current study asked about the perceived gender and sexual orientation of perpetrators, we did not ask about the relationship to the perpetrator, which has been shown to relate to blame and rape acknowledgement in prior work (Jaffe et al., 2021). Our rape acknowledgement variable provided yes, no and prefer not to answer response options, but some studies have included “not sure” or “uncertain” options (e.g., Lipinski et al., 2021; Pugh et al., 2024). These latter responses may be important for understanding ambivalence about applying rape definitions to one’s own experience and could be important to examine in future work. Consistent with other studies, we asked, “have you ever been raped” and examined responses in relation to behaviourally specific acts and experiences that people reported having since age 14; however, it is not clear from these data how people make determinations about whether specific experiences are considered rape or not. Finally, situational and societal blame have been shown to be important other forms of blame associated with sexual assault experiences (Donde, 2017) and could be important to include in future work.

Clinical Implications

Findings from the current study highlight important connections between rape acknowledgement, self-blame and PTS symptoms that clinicians can explore with survivors. Given that rape acknowledgment was associated with higher self-blame and PTS symptoms and lower rapist blame, increasing acknowledgment may not be a goal of therapy. However, evidence-based therapies for PTSD, like Cognitive Processing Therapy, directly address unhelpful beliefs or stuck points that often include distorted blame attributions (e.g., Iverson et al., 2015). Additionally, findings suggest individual differences in how people label their experiences, with bisexual students, for example, being more likely to acknowledge their experiences as rape compared to heterosexual students. The ways people have been socialized to view and/or label their experiences can vary, and clinicians should attend to these differences while being careful not to label experiences for patients.

Conclusion

The current study contributes to literature documenting a persistently high prevalence of unacknowledged rape despite a large social media movement that could have dispelled rape myths and increased knowledge about what constitutes rape. Although research examining the role of other trauma and multiple instances of rape is needed, the current study points to rape acknowledgement and distorted blame attributions as important factors in PTS symptoms among students with rape experiences.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Kate Walsh

Kelly Cue Davis

Amanda K. Gilmore

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Data were collected between October 2022 and December 2024. Data collection for this manuscript was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA028813). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Manuscript preparation support for Amanda Gilmore and Kelly Davis was funded by unobligated/non-sponsored project support.

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 were collected between October 2022 and December 2024. Data used in the preparation of this manuscript are available from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Data Archive (NIAAA_DA). NIAAA_DA is a collaborative informatics system created by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to provide a national resource to support the sharing of federally funded data for accelerating research. Data can be accessed via . Dataset identifier: C4156.

Clinical Trials Registration

The study protocol was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05281874) and is available at .

Notes

Author Biographies

Kate Walsh, PhD, is Professor of Psychology and Gender & Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Director of UW-Madison’s Sexual Violence Research Initiative and a licensed clinical psychologist. She uses mixed methods to examine risk factors for and outcomes of sexual violence, including posttraumatic stress and substance misuse.

Kelly Cue Davis, PhD, is a Professor at Arizona State University as well as a licensed clinical psychologist. Her research utilizes mixed methods approaches to investigate the roles of alcohol and other drugs in sexual aggression, sexual victimization and sexual risk in young adults.

Jessalynn Ellis, BS, is a research coordinator for the Alcohol and Sexual Assault Prevention Lab located in the Mark Chaffin Center for Healthy Development and the Department of Health Policy and Behavioral Sciences at Georgia State University. Her research focuses on the intersections of gender, gender threat, and sexual assault perpetration and victimization.

Amanda K. Gilmore, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Policy and Behavioral Sciences at the School of Public Health at Georgia State University, as well as the director of the National Center for Sexual Violence Prevention in the Mark Chaffin Center for Healthy Development. Her research focuses on the prevention of alcohol use, sexual assault and suicide, as well as secondary prevention of substance use and mental health symptoms after sexual assault.

References

Alting van Geusau

V. V.

Mulder

J. D.

Matthijssen

S. J

. (2021). Predicting outcome in an intensive outpatient PTSD treatment program using daily measures. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(18), 4152. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184152

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association.

Basile

K. C.

Chen

Friar

N. W.

Smith

S. G.

Leemis

R. W.

(2024). Association of contact sexual violence victimization and health in the US. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 66(5), 860–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2024.01.022

Basile

K. C.

Smith

S. G.

Kresnow

M. J.

Khatiwada

Leemis

R. W.

(2022). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2016/2017 report on sexual violence. Centers for Disease Control.

Bernstein

Kanefsky

Cook

Newins

A. R.

(2024). Acceptance of rape myths and psychological symptoms: the indirect effect of self-blame. Journal of American College Health, 72(6), 1641–1645. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2022.2086005

Blevins

C. A.

Weathers

F. W.

Davis

M. T.

Witte

T. K.

Domino

J. L.

(2015). The posttraumatic stress disorder checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28(6), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22059

Bonar

E. E.

Ngo

Q. M.

Philyaw-Kotov

M. L.

Walton

M. A.

Kusunoki

(2021). Stealthing perpetration and victimization: Prevalence and correlates among emerging adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP11577–NP11592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519888519

Breslau

Kessler

R. C.

Chilcoat

H. D.

Schultz

L. R.

Davis

G. C.

Andreski

(1998). Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community: The 1996 Detroit Area Survey of Trauma. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55(7), 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.55.7.626

Canan

S. N.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

Bradley

Blunt-Vinti

(2021). Differences in lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women’s experiences of sexual assault and rape in a national US sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), 9100–9120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519863725

10.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Harps

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

Kranz

Herbison

Madden

(2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. Westat for the Association of American Universities (AAU), 362, 2022–2011.

11.

Carey

K. B.

Durney

S. E.

Shepardson

R. L.

Carey

M. P.

(2015). Incapacitated and forcible rape of college women: Prevalence across the first year. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(6), 678–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.02.018

12.

Clements

C. M.

Ogle

R. L.

(2009). Does acknowledgment as an assault victim impact postassault psychological symptoms and coping?. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(10), 1595–1614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509331486

13.

Cortina

L. M.

Kubiak

S. P.

(2006). Gender and posttraumatic stress: sexual violence as an explanation for women’s increased risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(4), 753. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.753

14.

Coulter

R. W.

Mair

Miller

Blosnich

J. R.

Matthews

D. D.

McCauley

H. L.

(2017). Prevalence of past-year sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students: Exploring differences by and intersections of gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity. Prevention Science, 18(6), 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0762-8

15.

Davis

K. C.

Hammett

J. F.

Chen

Stewart

Kirwan

(2024). A scoping review of nonconsensual condom removal (“stealthing”) research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221146802

16.

Donde

S. D.

(2017). College women’s attributions of blame for experiences of sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(22), 3520–3538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515599659

17.

Donde

S. D.

Ragsdale

S. K.

Koss

M. P.

Zucker

A. N.

(2018). If it wasn’t rape, was it sexual assault? Comparing rape and sexual assault acknowledgment in college women who have experienced rape. Violence Against Women, 24(14), 1718–1738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217743339

18.

Dworkin

E. R.

(2020). Risk for mental disorders associated with sexual assault: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 1011–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018813198

19.

Dworkin

E. R.

Jaffe

A. E.

Bedard-Gilligan

Fitzpatrick

(2023). PTSD in the year following sexual assault: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211032213

20.

Dworkin

E. R.

Menon

S. V.

Bystrynski

Allen

N. E.

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

21.

Eisenberg

M. E.

Lust

Mathiason

M. A.

Porta

C. M.

(2021). Sexual assault, sexual orientation, and reporting among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517726414

22.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2013). Rape definition. Retrieved March 30, 2025, from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/rape

23.

Forkus

S. R.

Raudales

A. M.

Rafiuddin

H. S.

Weiss

N. H.

Messman

B. A.

Contractor

A. A.

(2023). The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM–5: A systematic review of existing psychometric evidence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 30(1), 110.

24.

Frazier

P. A.

(2003). Rape Attribution Questionnaire (RAQ). APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t10239-000

25.

Gilmore

A. K.

Nielsen

K. E.

Salamanca

N. K.

Oesterle

D. W.

Parekh

Leone

R. M.

Orchowski

L. M.

Ramakrishnan

Kaysen

Davis

K. C.

(2025). Preliminary efficacy of positive change (+ Change): A pilot randomized controlled trial of an integrated alcohol and sexual assault prevention program tailored by gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(11–12), 2556–2581. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241275994

26.

Haugen

A. D.

Rieck

S. M.

Salter

P. S.

Phillips

N. L.

(2018). What makes it rape? A lay theories approach to defining rape among college students. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 40(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1398091

27.

Iverson

K. M.

King

M. W.

Cunningham

K. C.

Resick

P. A.

(2015). Rape survivors’ trauma-related beliefs before and after cognitive processing therapy: Associations with PTSD and depression symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 66, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.01.002Getrightsandcontent

28.

Jaffe

A. E.

Steel

A. L.

DiLillo

Messman-Moore

T. L.

Gratz

K. L.

(2021). Characterizing sexual violence in intimate relationships: An examination of blame attributions and rape acknowledgment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517726972

29.

Janoff-Bulman

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

30.

Kahn

A. S.

Mathie

V. A.

Torgler

(1994). Rape scripts and rape acknowledgment Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00296.x

31.

Kline

N. K.

Berke

D. S.

Rhodes

C. A.

Steenkamp

M. M.

Litz

B. T.

(2021). Self-blame and PTSD following sexual assault: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), NP3153–NP3168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518770652

32.

Koss

M. P.

Anderson

Peterson

Z. D.

Littleton

Abbey

Kowalski

Cue Davis

Plummer

Cook

Allen

(2024). The revised Sexual Experiences Survey Victimization version (SES-V): Conceptualization, modifications, items and scoring. The Journal of Sex Research, 61(6), 839–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2358407

33.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

Ullman

West

White

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

34.

Layman

M. J.

Gidycz

C. A.

Lynn

S. J.

(1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape victims: situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(1), 124.

35.

Lipinski

A. J.

Lewin

R. K.

Bre’anna

Burkley

J. G.

Majeed

Beck

J. G.

(2021). Exploring ambivalent rape acknowledgment and posttraumatic stress symptoms among college women who have experienced rape: What’s in a name?. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 80, 102389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102389

36.

Littleton

H. L.

Axsom

Breitkopf

C. R.

Berenson

(2006). Rape acknowledgment and postassault experiences: How acknowledgment status relates to disclosure, coping, worldview, and reactions received from others. Violence and Victims, 21(6), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.21.6.761

37.

Littleton

Axsom

Grills-Taquechel

(2009). Sexual assault victims’ acknowledgment status and revictimization risk. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01472

38.

Littleton

Grills

Layh

Rudolph

(2017). Unacknowledged rape and re-victimization risk: Examination of potential mediators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317720187

39.

Littleton

H. L.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Axsom

(2007). Unacknowledged rape: How much do we know about the hidden rape victim?. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 14(4), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v14n04_04

40.

Mellins

C. A.

Walsh

Sarvet

A. L.

Wall

Gilbert

Santelli

J. S.

Thompson

Wilson

P. A.

Khan

Hirsch

J. S.

(2017). Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLoS ONE, 12(11), e0186471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471

41.

Molstad

T. D.

Weinhardt

J. M.

Jones

(2023). Sexual assault as a contributor to academic outcomes in university: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(1), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211030247

42.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2011.591671

43.

Price

Szafranski

D. D.

van Stolk-Cooke

Gros

D. F.

(2016). Investigation of abbreviated 4 and 8 item versions of the PTSD Checklist 5. Psychiatry Research, 239, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.03.014

44.

Pugh

Canan

Becker

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2024). Comparing and predicting rape acknowledgment between sexual orientation and gender identity categories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(9-10), 2006–2030. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241271383

45.

Reed

R. A.

Pamlanye

J. T.

Truex

H. R.

Murphy-Neilson

M. C.

Kunaniec

K. P.

Newins

A. R.

Wilson

L. C.

(2020). Higher rates of unacknowledged rape among men: The role of rape myth acceptance. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(1), 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000230

46.

Resick

P. A.

Schnicke

M. K.

(1992). Cognitive processing therapy for sexual assault victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(5), 748.

47.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.008

48.

Sarmiento

(2011). Rape stereotypes and labeling: Awareness of victimization and trauma. Psychological Reports, 108(1), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.2466/07.13.16

49.

Sigurvinsdottir

Ullman

S. E.

(2015). Social reactions, self-blame, and problem drinking in adult sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 192–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036316.

50.

Szekeres

Shuman

Saguy

(2020). Views of sexual assault following# MeToo: The role of gender and individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110203

51.

Walfield

S. M.

(2021). “Men cannot be raped”: Correlates of male rape myth acceptance. Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(13-14), 6391-6417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518817777

52.

Walsh

Zinzow

H. M.

Badour

C. L.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

(2016). Understanding disparities in service seeking following forcible versus drug-or alcohol-facilitated/incapacitated rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(14), 2475–2491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515576968

53.

Ward

S. B.

Nardella

Hamilton

K. W.

Walsh

(2024). “I didn’t realize how common it was:” A mixed-methods study examining changes in perceptions of sexual assault, sex and consent, and sexual behavior as a function of the# metoo movement. The Journal of Sex Research, 62(4), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2352555

54.

Wilson

L. C.

Miller

K. E.

(2016). Meta-analysis of the prevalence of unacknowledged rape. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015576391

55.

Wilson

L. C.

Scarpa

(2017). The unique associations between rape acknowledgment and the DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters. Psychiatry Research, 257, 290–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.055

56.

Zlotnick

Rodriguez

B. F.

Weisberg

R. B.

Bruce

S. E.

Spencer

M. A.

Culpepper

Keller

M. B.

(2004). Chronicity in posttraumatic stress disorder and predictors of the course of posttraumatic stress disorder among primary care patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000110287.16635.8e