A MODEL OF SWUAL ASSAULT ACKNOWLEDGMENT: BLAME. SOCIAL SUPPORT,

POSlTRAUMATIC STRESS, AND POSlTRAUMATlC GROWTH

A Thesis Submitted to the

College of Graduate Studies and Research

in Partial Fuifilment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of Psychology

University of Saskatchewan

Saskatoon

BY

Lana N. Shimp

Spring 2000

Q Copyright Lana N. Shimp, 2000. AI1 rights resenred. Bibliothèque nationale du Canada uisitions and Acquisitions et 9Bib iographrc SeMces services bibliographiques

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exciusive licence ailowing the exclusive permettant a la National Li'brary of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distri'bute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in rnicroform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. La forme de microfiche/nIm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur fomt klectronique .

The author retains ownershrp of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in tbis thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thése. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othedse de ceiie-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. UNNERSIM OF SASKATCHEWAN

In presenting this Viesis in partial fulfilrnent of the requirernents for a Dodor of

Philosophy degree from the University of Saskatchewan, 1 agree that the Libraries of this

University may make it freely available for inspection. Ifurther agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes rnay be granted

by the pmfessor who supervised rny thesis work or. in his absence, by the Head of the

Department of Psychology or the Oean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that any copying

or publication or use of this îhesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without

my written permission. tt is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to

the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my

thesis.

Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole

or part should be addressed lo:

Head of the Department of Psychology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N OWO ABIITRACT Previous research has idicated that approximately half of the wornen who have experiences which are wnsisîent wiîh legal d-pqions of rape do not idenüfy themselves as having experienced a rape. A model af sexual assault I rape acknowieâgment was developed, which atternpts to intqrate previous ntsearch in the area that suggests that the circumstances of the assaun (Le.. the relationship with the assailant, amount of nsistance and level of force). perceptions of significant othen' and societal atütudes towards mpe, attributions of blame, disclosune, unsupporüve behavior frorn others, posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptornatology, and posttraumatic gmwth (PTG) may be important variables in terms of understanding acknawledgment. Path analysis was used to test this mode1 as appîied to sexual assault acknowledgrnent. The final sampie consistecl of 238 univenity wamen who indicated that they had experiences consistent with legal definitions of sexual assault; this sample was obtained after screening 2552 female students. The hypothesized model received partial support and a better fitting mode1 was derived. Contrary to expedations, sexual assault acknowiedgment did not predid greater PTG, as PIS accounted for the obsewed relationship between sexual assauk acknowledgrnent and PTG. PTG was predided by a greater relationship with the perpetmtar, disdasure, more negative perceptions of societal attitudes, greater force, and greater PTS symptomatology. The results of this study contradict dinical and feminist literature. which suggest that acknowiedgment is necessary in order to faciîiiate gmwth following a sexual trauma. More forceful assaults, gnater perpetrator Marne, greater PTS symptomatology, less negaüve perceptions of significant others' attitudes towards mpe, and more negative perceptions of saeietal attitudes towards rape were al1 dindly related to greater sexual assault acknwvledgrnent. The relaüonship with the perpetrator, self-Marne, tesistance, and unsupportive behavior were indiredly mlated to sexual assault acknowledgment. As expeded, women who had experiences which were consistent with legal definitions of tape I sema1 assault were more likely to indicate that they had expetienced a 'semial assault', rather than a 'rape'. This study illustrates the cornplexity of îhe pmcsss of sexual assault acknawledgment. The resuls are discussed in tens of sexual assault reporting, dinical applications, and theoretical issues. ACKNOWLEûGM€NT3 Iwould Iike to thank rny supervisor, Dr. Brian Charüer, for his guidance thmughout every stage of this pmjed. He was generous with his tirne, pmvided insightful feedback. offered emotional support end encouragement, gave financial suppoit for the projod, and did al1 of this with a much appmciatd sense of humour and enthsiasm. He has beian a tme mentor - I aspire to be a psychologist of his calibre. I also to extend my appredaüon to my mmmittee members, Ors. Gerry Farthing, Kim Noels. and Bernard Schissel, who6e: feedback and assisiance have beninvaluable in cornpleüw this rwearch. 1 would also like to thank Dr. Wendy Josephson, who served as my edemal examiner, for herthought-pmvoking questions and observations. I would like to acknovrledge Jennifer Kelly's contributions in assisüng with the data colledion. The work of my underpaid research assistants, Darrell and Nina, who did Vie painstaking work of stapling and coliating over 4000 questionnaires, along with other equally stirnulating tasks, is very much appreciated. 1 am also grateful for the support that my ciassrnates Sandy Gardner, Peter Gmenspoon, Terry Levitt. Paola Lake, and Jennifer Maw have offered over the years. Of coune, I could not have completed this pmjed without the ever-present support of my husband, parents, and siblings. 1 am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for having provided me with financial support thmughout the four years of my dodoral studies. Donations from the Body Shop, in the fom of gifts to participants, was also much appfeclfeclated. Finally, I would like to extend my appreciation to al1 of the women who donated their time and shared their experiences with me by participating in this study.

iii To my husband, DmII, who has unselfshly given me the space and support needed to rom@& tfüs projsa - his love, patience, anâ encouragement have been enutmous sources of SaeW tbr me.

To my parents, Les and Nina, lbr always bekuing in me.

3.1 0.1 Blame and Cimrnstances of the Assauit ...... 33 3.102 Types of Seff-blame: Charademlogical and Behavioral ...... 33 3.10.3 Attriknionsof BlameandtheCumnîStudy ...... 34

3.t 1.1 Dhelosure Among Rape 1 Sexual Assauit Victims ...... 36 3.1 12 Relationship of Social Suppon to the Nature of the Assault ...... 37 3.1 1.3 Social Support and Recovery from Rape ...... 39 3.1 1.4 Social Support and Vidims' Aüribuüons ...... -40 3.1 1.5 Social Support and the Current Study ...... -41

3.12 Psycholoqical Fundioning: Posttraumaüc Stress and Posttraurnatic Gmwth . . 42 3.12.1 Postlraumatic Stress ...... 43

3.12.1 -1 Cimmstances of the Assauft and PTSD ...... 43 3.1 2.1.2 Blame and PTSQ ...... 44 3.12.1.3 Social Support and PTSD ...... 45 3.12.1.4 Posttraumatic Stress and Sexual Assault Acknowiedgment ...... 45

3.12.2 Postiraumatic Gmwth ...... -45

3.12.2.1 Sexual Assauit AckAowledgment and Posttraurnatic Growlh ...... ,...... 46 3.12.2.2 Extent of the Trauma and PTG ...... -47 3.12.2.3 Disclosure and Posttraumatic Gmwth ...... 48

3.12.3 Posttmumatic Stress. Posîtraumaüc Growth. and the Current Study . 48

3.1 3 Summary and Review of the Mode1 of SexrtaI Assauit / Rape Acknowledgment ...... ,...... 46

4.1 Participants ...... 55 4.2 Materials ...... 56

4.2.1 Oernographic Questionnaire ...... 59 4.2.2 SexuaI Experiences Sunrey (SES) ...... 59

4.23 Semal Experiences Inventory (SEI) ...... -62 4.2.4 Blame Questionnaire ...... -63 4.2.5 Diiosura Questionnaire ...... 64 4.2.6 Social Readimns Cheddist (SRC) ...... 64 4.2.7 Rape MyVi Acceptance Scale (RMA) ...... -66 42.8 Attitudes towards Rape Vicüms Seale (ARVS) ...... -67 429 Purdue Posttraumaüc Strws Disorder Scale .Revised (PPTSD-R) . -67 4210 Posttraumaüc Growth lnventory ml) ...... -68

5. RESULTS ...... -70

6.3.3.3 Self-Mame as a Mediator Between the Cimrnstanœs of the Assauit and Sexuai Assauit Aûcnowledgment ...... 123 6.3.3.4 Unsupporüve Behavior as Mediator Between Ciraimstanas of the Assaut and Sexual Assaun Acitnowl~ment...... 126 6.3.3.5 Serblame. Perpetraîor Blame. and Disdosure as Mediaton Between Atütudinal Variables and Semral AssauftAdrnow(ed~ment...... 127 6.3.3.6 Disciosure es Mediator Bawaan Self 1 Perpettator Biame and Sexual Assauit Acknowledgme#tt ...... 129 6.3.3.7 Covariances 6etween Blame and Unsupportive Behavior . 130

6.4 Limitations of the Present Study ...... 133 6.5 Directions for Future Research ...... 134

7. CONCLUSION

REFERENCES ...... 140

UST OF FIGURES

1. 1 Full Madel of Sexual Assauit 1 Rape Acknowledgment ...... 4 3.1 Madel of Sexual Assault Aduiowiedgment to be Tested in the Current Study ...... 54 5.1 Revised Model of Sexual Assauit AEknowieidgment ...... 102 LIST OF APPENDICES

Hypotheses Depicted in Path Diagram ...... 152

Reliability and Validity for Scales Used in the Study ...... 153

Oernographic Questionnaire ...... 158 Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) - Women's Version ...... 161 Sexual Experiences Sut~ey(SES) - Men's Version ...... 162 Sexual Experiences Inventory (SEI) ...... 163 Item Pool for Blame Questionnaire ...... 168 Directions Given to Expert Raters Judging Blame Questionnaire ...... 173 Expert Judges' Comments on Blame Questionnaire ...... 174 Mean Ratings of Blame Items Given by Expert Raters ...... 177

Disclosure Questionnaire ...... 183

Social Reactions Checklist (SRC) ...... 186

Shodend Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA) ...... 188 Instructions for Attitudinal Measures ...... 189 Pilot Study Examining Significant Other and Societal Versions oftheRMAandARVS ...... 190 Shortened Attitudes towards Rape Victims Scale (ARVS) ...... 193 Purdue Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Scale - Revised (PPTSD-R) ...... 194 Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) ...... 195

Consent Form for Participating in Screening ...... 1%

Consent Form for Participating in the Main Study ...... 198

Debriefmg Sheet for Participating in Screening ...... 199 Debriefing Sheet for Participating in the Main Study ...... 200

Scale Creation and Internal Consistency ...... 201

Procedures for Handling Missing Data, Normality of Variables, and Oetedion and Elimination of Outliers ...... -203 AA Supptemental Resufîs TaMes ...... - ...... - - . .207 BB Factor Analysis of Blame items ...... - ...... 214

xii UST OF TABLES IN APPENDICES

Reliability and Validi for Scales usad in the Study ...... 153 Mean Raüngs of Blame Items Given by Expert Raters ...... 177 Pilot Study: Reliabili of Attitudinal Scales ...... 192 Cornparisan of Raîings for Attiiinal Scales ...... 192 Sale Creaüon and Interna1 Consistency ...... 201 Skewness and Kurtosis for Original and Transformed Variables ...... 205 Signifiant Levene Tests ...... 207 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Sexual Assauît Acknowledgrnent and the Other Scales ...... 208

Cornparison of Prevalence Rates using Original and Revised SES Scoring Criteria ...... 210 Sexual Assault Reporting ...... -211

Descriptive Statistics for Original and Transfoned Variables ...... 212

Fador Loadings of Items in Blarne Questionnaire ...... -215

Intercorrelations Between Blarne Subscales ...... 216 1. INTRODUCflON Research investigating rape has pmliferated sinee the 1970s; for example, the number of journal aiticles containing the word "rapewin theirtitle in 1991 was eight times the number in 1974 (Anderson, Cooper, & Okamura, 1997). During the 1980s researchen began documenting the prevalence of rape within colleyJe (e.g., Koss 6 Oros, 1982: Koss, Gidycz 6 Wisniewski, 1987; Miller 6 Marshall, 1987) and cornmunity (e.g., Russell, 1984) samples. In addition, there has ben a growing body of research examining the effeds of sexual violence. For exarnple, shortly after a mpe, victims' tend to have pmblems with sexual satisfaction (Feldman-Summers, Gordon, 6 Meagher, 1979; Orlando & Koss, 1983). social adjustment (Resick, Calhoun, Atkeson, & Ellis, 1981), depression (Atkeson, Calhoun, Resick. 6 Ellis, 1982; Calhoun, Atkeson. i%Resick, 1979 as cited in Kilpatrick, Resick, 6 Vemnen, 1981; Frank, Turner, & Duffy, 1979). fear (Calhoun, Atkeson, 6 Resick, 1982; Kilpatrick et al., 1981), and anxiety (Kilpatrick, Veronen, Resick, 1979). Women who have experienced a rape may also have pmlonged psychological difficulties, such as depression (Ellis, Atkeson, 6 Calhoun, 1981; Kilpatrick, Best, Saunders, & Veronen, 1988), anxiety (Kilpatn'dt et al., 1981; Santiago, McCall- Pefez, Gorcey, & Beagle, 1985), fears (Calhoun et al., 1982; Kilpaû'ick et al., 1981; Kilpatrick et al., 1988; Santiago et al., 1985), "flewous breakdams" (Kilpatrick et al., 1985), paranoia and psychosis (Kilpatrick et al., 1981), interpersonal dlfiïculües (Ellis et al., 1981) and sexual problems (Feldman-Summen eî al., 1979; Kilpatrick et a[., 1968; Orlando 6 Koss, 1983). In addition, victims of sexual violence are more likely to have suicidai ideation and to have attempted suicide than control subjeds (Kilpatrick et al., 1985). The research examining the effeds of rape has generally relieci on "self-identifiedmrape victims; that is, women who have contaded rape crises centres, who have gone to the hospital for rape-related injuries, who have sought counselling for rape trauma, or who have answered research calls for rape vidims. In 1985, Mary Koss documented the existence of unacknowledged rape vidjrns or hidden rape vidims. She discovered that 43% of a large sarnple of women who had experienws consister?! with legal definitions of rape did not identify

' Feminists have emphasired ihe disfindion bawssn the terms 'vidim" and wsurvivof. The tenn "vidim8has cannotaüons of powerlessnsss, while îhe term 'sufvivof emphasizes the strength of wmen ta cope and survive the experiencs of !amal violence. However, simply repiacing the temi %dmwwiîh "suNIvof does not addmthe pmblm of vidim Marne (Wood & Rennie, lm),which is retated to a host of nqptive atütudes towards rape vidims (see Section 3.7). Here the tenn Vdim" will be r8taineâ ta provide consistency with previous research in this area. The choice of this tenn is not intended to reflect the effed of the violence or women's abiiii io cope mth violence. their experienœ as rap. Thus, the gmat majonty of the research on rape is generaluable only to self-identified rape vidims, which npresants appmximately haff the number of women who would be considered to be rape vidims according to legal detïniüons. 1.1 Purpore of the Pnrant Investigation There have been relatively few studies examining the similarities and diierences between acknowledged npe vidims Ws;i.e., women who have had experiences which are consistent with legal dewipüons of rape and identify their experience as rape) and unacknowledged rape vidims (URVs; Le., women wbo have had experiences which are consistent with Iegal dexn'ptions of rape, yet do not identify their experience as rape).' The existing research has examined these two gmups of rape vidims on various demographic variables, daüng I sexual history, family history, pemnalivariables, exposure to rape information and readions to a rape awareness program, refationship with the assailant, circumstanœs of the assault, nadions and behavior following the rape, attiiudinal variables, general attributional style, perceptions of semal coercian, rape scripts, self-blame and perpetrator blame, social support, psychologial defenses and symptomatology. The existing research in this area has involved univariate analyses of the above variables with no attempt to examine the relationship among them. Researehen have simply lwked for signifiant differences between ARVs and URVs and have not examined the relative contribution of each variable to rape acknowiedgment. This reseamh, which will be reviewed in Chapter 3, has found few differences ôetween the two groups of rape vidims. We know very little about how women understand and label their forceâ sexual expeflences. All of the nwearch in this am,with the exception of one honour's thesis. has been conduded in the United States looking at the application of Itie temt rape to forced sexual experiences. Canada has dmpped the legai term Vape" and replacecl it with the broader tenn 'sexual assaun" (see Sedion 2.1.1). The diffennüal appiicaüon of the terms 'sexual assault" and 'rape' witl be examined in thk study in orüer to extend the research to the Canadian context. However, the primary purpose of this study is to develop and validate a madel of sexual assauit I rape adrnmment it is assumeâ th& the neseanh on rape acknowledqment will apply to ln8 phenornenon of =al assault acknowledgment (Le., it is assumed that the same variables are important in understanding boîh rape and sexual assauk acknowledgment). Therefm, the research on rape acknowiedgment was used to build a mode1 which is assumed to apply to both rape and sema1 assault aphowiedgment, although the

The temi hpe vidim' in this study is Ming used to apply to individuals who self- report that they have had non-consensual malintercourse (Le.. it is viewed as a perceptual variable). It does not mean mat the evenis adually occurred or that the man involved would have been convided of a siwual offence. This use of termindogy is consistent with other research in th& am(see Buts (1 9û3) conaptwl mode1 of Mat it means to be a vidim which is discussed later in this mode1 will only be tested mth ragarûs to malassault acknowledgrnent in this sludy. The existing research on rape acknowledgment suggests the importance of the relationship with the assailant, circumdanœs of the assault, rape scripts, Marne, unsupporlive behavior fmm othes. and posttraumatk stress symptomatolagy in ternis of didinguishing ARVs from URVs. This msearcti has been largely ath&cal and IMe Mention has been paid to the nlationships among the afmrnentianed variables. A modsl of semal assault 1 rape acknowiedgment was devdoped in an aüempt to integrate the findings and make sense of the diierences found between ARVs and URVs (see Fgure 1.1). The model of sexual assault 1 rape acknowiedgment has been organùed into thme general sections. On the far left of the diagram are variables related to the circumstances of the assault (i-e., relaüonship with the perpetrator, force of the assault, arnount of mistance) and individual diierences (i.e., perceptions of signifiant others' and societal attitudes towards rape and rape scripts); these variables are exogenous variables because they are not determined by other variables in the model. ln other words, these variables are not viewed as an effed of other variables in the model. The middle of the diagram contains the follom'ng mediaüng variables: self-blame, perpetrator Marne, disdosure, and unsupportive behavior fmrn others. A mediator is a variable wtiich helps to account for the relaüonship between the predidor and a criterion (Baron 6 Kenny, 1W). Finally, on the far right of the diagram are posttraurnatic stress (PTS), sexual assault 1 rape acknowledgment, and poçttfaumatic growlh (PTG), which are lrbelled as outcames (note, however, that PTS and sexual assautt 1 rape adviowiedgrnent ahad as mediating variables). Oneheaded amrepresent the direction of hypothesized influence between the variables and in path analytic terminology these represent the causal relaüonships among variables. Double-headed amindiate relationships ihat are hypothesized to exist. atthough their diredion of infiuence is not specified in the mode[ (Le., these variables covary). A discussion of the msearch supporting the relationships posited in the model of sexual assaut 1 rape aduiwvledgment is reviewed in Chapter 3 and a sumrnary of the model is presented in Seaion 3.13. This mode1 will provide a framework which will guide the current study. The purpose of th$ sîudy is to examine some of the relaüonships suggested in this literature-derived mode1 to hdp darify the pmcers of sexual assautt acknowîedgment In particular, the aim of this study is to examine semial assault acknowledgment in terms of the cimmstances of the assaut, vidims' parcepüons of signifiant others' and societal atüîudes towards rape, Marne for the asault, disdosurs, social support. posiîraumaüc strass symptomatology, and postîraumaüc gmwlh. Martha Burt (1983) provided a usahil concaptual ftamsrmrk for defining who is a 'vidim'. This madel highiights the difficuiîy with defining the tem %dimmand is intmduced to place this study in the larger field of vidimology. Surt argued that there am four stages to becoming an 'official viûimm(Le., one who is mmgnized as a vidim by the criminal justice system). In the first stage an individual has -enced some harm, injury or suffering due ta Figure 1.1 Pull Model of Serual Assault I Ra~eAcknowledamen~ anotheh adions. In this stage the individualdoss not necsssan'ly have to experience the harm as vidimlling. ln the secund stage, the indiualde6w or perceives himherself as a vidim as a result of perceiving the ham as unjust or unfair. The third stqp involves attempüng to get significant othen and society to also parceive one a6 a Mm,whiie the fourüi stage involves receiving validation by significant othen and the uiminal jusüce system (Le., the acquisition of %al vidim" Satus). Burt's (1983) conceptual modd of vidimizaüon emphasizes that there mn several different definitions of 'a vidim'. The research quesüons posed in this investigation are aimed at examining the transition between Burt's Stage 1 and Stage 2. tn other wards, this investigation seeks to gain further knowfedge about how one makes the transition from suffering harm to the perception of the self as a vidim. This study will also examine the transition fmm Stage 2 to 3; aistransition highligMs the importance of infonning others and having others accept one's view of the self as a viâim, if one is to be vievred as a VeaI vidim". it is suspeded, hawever, that negotiaüng one's identity as a vicüm is not as linear as Bud suggests. For example, 1 is possible that if othe~do not accept one's view of the self as a victim that this may influence one's omi vlew of the self as a vidim. In addition, R is Iikely that wornen seek out others' constructions regarding their status as a vidim in order to help resolve their stniggle to identify themwlves as a victim / non-vidim. The role of others and their supportive and unsupportive readions will be examined in this study as they relate to sexual assault acknowiedgment. The rofe of rape vidims' perceptions of significant others' and societal atütudes tawards rape will ahbe examined. Thus, Iam seeking to addrers, in part, the following question posed by Burt: "What sole do significant others play in ...self-labelling, and wbat mle does the larger witure play?" (p. 264). 1.2 Importance of the Present Invhnigation The procsss of sexual assault 1 mpe acknowledgment has several important implications for faciliaüng womenS empowerment, for educat~onaland treatment program for vidims, and for semial assault / rape rspoiting. Ueraiure will be reviewed Hmich suggests that acknowledgment may be an important precursor to ~rowthfollowhg the semral assault (see Sedion 3.122). It has been argued that not acknowledgii sexual assault / rape rnay intaffere with menreceiving counselling and other post-rape senrices (Pitls & Sctnnarb, 1993). It is important to recognize that a woman mut fi13conceptualire her experience as sexual assaufî / rape before she will report the incident to the pofice- Kos (1965) nated that URVs are tne unimate "sale vidnns", as they are nat likdy to implieate the offender since they do not conceptualire their experience as rape. furthemore, if a woman does ndlabal her experience as stxual assault / mpe, snt rnay be more likeiy to wnünue in an abusive relationship and may b Iess likeiy to develop prscautionary strategies to awid future incidents of sexuat violence (Kelly, 1888; Warshaw, 1988). 1.3 Summiry The purpose of this shdy is to contribute to the knowledge regarding senial assault I rape acknowledgement. In parüwlar, the primary aim of mis study is to examine sexual assauii acknowledgrnent and its nlaüonship to îhe following variataies (see Figure 1.1): circumstances of the assauii, vialms' perceptions of signifiant others' and societal attitudes towards rape, attribuüons of Marne for the assault, disclo.sure, support, posttraumaüc strsss sympîomatoiogy, and posthumaiic gmwth. A secondary purpose is to examine the diierential application of the tem sexual assaut and rape in order to extend the rasearch to the Canadian context. A review of the prsvalence Stoüsücs fegarding sexual violence m'Il be presented (along with relevant definitions), prior to providing research supporting the development of the mode1 presented in Figure 1.1 and the rationale for fowssing on the above variables. 2. THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE Definitions of the legal tems 'sexual assauit" and 'rape' m'Il be provided, followed by a review of the research regarding the prevalence of sexual coercion, inciuding rape. and attempted rape. This review will illustrate the extent of different foms of sexual coercion and thus the importance of the present research. There are differences between studies in tems of the extent of sexual violence reported; these diîferences appear to be largely due to differences in the definitions of sexual violence employed in the various studies, as well as methodological differences.

2.1.1 Sexual Assault In 1983 the Criminal Code of Canada was changed with regards to S~XU~Ioffenses, The sexual offense of "rape" was replaceci with three levels of "sexual assault": sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and aggravated sexual assauit. This change was intended to braaden the sexual offenses by including unwanted sexual touching and eliminating the requirement of penetration. In addition, it msintended to highlight the violent nature of sexual offenses by emphasizing their similarity to physical assauit. The three levels of sexual assauk are dixussed below. A Sexual asçault' is an asauit of a semial nature which violates the sexual integnty of the vidim (Watt 6 Fuent, 1994).3 An assauit occurs when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other penon, diredly or indirectly; @) he attempts or threatens, by an ador a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other penon to believe upon masanable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or (c) hileopenIy wearing or canying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosls or impedes another person or begs (Watt & Fuerst, 1994, p. 457). Sexual assauit with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily ham' refen to a sexual assault where the assailant "carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof; threatens to cause bodily ham to a person other than the complainant; causes bodily ham to the complainant; or is party to the offenœ with any other person" (Watt & Fuerst, 1994, p. 472). 'Aggravatefi sexual assaur is defined as a sexual assault where the perpetrator "in cornmitting a sexual assault, wounds, maims, disfigures, or endangers the life of the

%e terrn 'sexual assault' daes not have the conceptual ciarity that the terni Vape' pmvides. Bshavion which consütute samial assauit are not specified in the Cnminal Code of Canada; 1 is the courts' responsibilii to determine specific behaviors included in this offense (Watt, 1984)- complainant" (Watt & Fuerst, 1994, p. 473). 2.1.2 Rame and büttmnted Raw The majority of the rssaarch in this ana has bendone in the United States, and thus does not utilire the Canadian definitions of sema1 assauit, but raîher uses definiüons of rape and attempted rape. Koss et al. (1989, who have carried out the most extensive survey of sexual violence among college students in the Unitad States, used a definition of rape wtiich is consistent with legal definitions used in the state of Ohio. The date of Ohio defines 'rape* as the following: vaginal intemurse between male and female, and anal intercourse, fellaüo, and cunnilingus between persans qardless of sex. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse... No person shall engage in sexual wndua with another person... when any of the following apply: (1) the offander purposely wmpels the other person to submit by fone or thnat of force, (2) for the purpose of preventing resistance the offender substanüally impairs the other person's judgment or control by administerirtg any dnig or intoxicant to the other person (Ohio Revised Code, 1980 as cited in Koss et al., 1987). Ohio's definiüon of rape is similar to that of many States. 'Attempted mpe* has al1 the components of npe except that vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse did not take place. The primarj difference between the ternis 'sexual assaur and 'mpe* is that 'sexual assautt* includes unwanted sexual touching and does not require penetration. 2.2 Prevalence of Rape and Attampted Ripa The Women's Safety Projed intenriewed 420 randomly seleded women in Toronto. Rape was defined as forced sexual intercourse, which included physical force, threat of physical force, or king helpless for reasons such as being asleep, unwnscious, or dnigged. It was found that 40% of wornen reported at least one experience of rape, 31% reported at least one experience of atîempted rape and 51 % reported at least one experience of rape or attempted mpe since they were 16 years of age (Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, 1993). In addition, two-thirds of the women experienced a sexual assault. which induûed al1 types of unwanted sexual touching, fmm "bottom pinching" to forced sexual intercoune. In a large representative sample of higher education students (n = 6,159) in the United States, Koss et al. (1987) found that 15.4% of the wornen in their sample nported king raped and 12.1% reported having expenenced an attempted rape. Koss et al. consïâered mpe to include sexual intercoune which was obtained through the use of force, the thnat offorce, or the use of dnrgs or alcohol. Contrary to the Women's Safety Projed, being helpless because of sleeping was not included, which rnay have wntributed to the diierence in the percentages reported. The diierences may have also been due 10 their diiering methodologies; for example, Kass et al. used a questionnaire, while the Women's Safeîy Projed used intenriews. In a sarnple of 103 women surveyed from the University of Saskatchewan, 23.3% of wamen reported experiencing an a& that rneets legal definiüons of rape and 12.6% reporteci having experienced aîternpted rape (Shimp. 1995). Rape appean to ba one of the most undeK-npoM crimes. It has bwn esümated that only batween 5% (KOSS, 1988) and 45% (Fderal Ouraau of Investigation, 1891) of rapes are raported. As mentionad earlW, one of the possibie masons for the under-~eporüngof rape may be that a large nurnber of mpad women do naC mceptualhe their experience as such. 2.3 Acknowiedgrd and UnaclcnowkdgedRape Acknowledged rape vidims (ARVs} nlar to menwho have exprienced behavior which is consistent wiih legal descriptions of rape and label their experCence as rape. UnacknowleôQadmpe vidims (URVs) are women who have also experienced behavior which meats legal d-püans of rape, yet they do not label iheir experience as such. Status as an ARV or an URV is determineci by having women answer quesüons wtiich indude behavioral descriptions of rape (e.g., 'Have you had sex ads (anal or oral inlemurse or penetration by objects other than the penis) wtien you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisîing your am, holding you dm,etc.) to make you?), as well as a direct question regarding the qxrience of rape (e-g., "Have you benraped?"). Women who answw 5s"to one or more questions rwarding the behavioral desuiptions of rape, as well as the dired question regarding rape are classHied as ARVs. Women who raspond affirmatively to one or more behavioral queslions regarding rape, yet report that they have not been raped when asked dirêdly, are dassified as URVs. Koss (1 985), using a large mpresemve sample of colfege students in the United States, found that 43% of rape vidims were URVs. The percentage of rape vidims who are ciassifieci as URVs report& in various studies has rangd from 43% (Koss, 1985) to 73% (Hunter, 1994; Layman-Guadalupe, 1996; Layman, Gidyez, & Lynn, 1998; Muren, Perot, & Byrne, 1989; Pitts & Schwartz, 1993). In a sampte of students surveyed from the Univenity of Saskatchewan, 58% of rape vidims were dassified as URVs (Shimp, 1995). 2.4 Acknowiedged and Unacknowledged Sexuil Asuutt Acknowledged semral assauit vidims (ASAVs) refer to women wfio have experienced behavior which is consistent wilh legaI desaiions of sexual assauit and label their experience as sexual assauît. Umcknowledged sexual assault vidims (USAVs) are women who have also experienced behavior which ma!& IwI descriptions of malassault, yet they do not label their experienœ as sexual assault. Stnus as an ASAV or an USAV is detennined by having women answer qubstihns which indude ùehaviaraldescriptions of stwl assauit (e.0.. 'Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing, or paüng, but not intemurse) when yw tWnY want to because a man threatened or used some degree of phpical force (îwisüng your am, holding you down, etc.) to makt you?), as welI as a dimd question regardhg the exparience of sexual assault (e.g., 'Have you been malfyassaultad?"). Womn who enswr "yento one or more questions comprising the behavioral descriptions of senial iissault, as well as the direct question regarding sexual assauit, are classiiied as ASAVs. Women who endorse at least one of the behavioral questions mgarding suaial sssault, yet report th& they have nat been sexually assaulted when asked diredly, andatsified as USAVs. Only one study was located which examined the prevalenca of USAVs, Hunter (1994) found that 43.9% of her sample of semal assault vidims reported that they were not sexually assaulted when asked diredly. This is comparaMe to the proportion of URVs idenüfied in the Amencan studies. 2.5 Sexual Cwrcion Researchen are beginning to recognize the range of sexuel violence which occurs against women. Previously, sexual violence was viewed as a dichotomy wmen were either mped or they were not mped. However, this dichotomous view of malviolence is king questioned and rejeded (e.g., Koss & Oros, 1982), as it is recognizetd that women can be sexually werced in subtle ways which do not involve the direct threat or use of force and does not involve penetration. Koss et al. (1987) reported that 53J% of women in their wmple experienced some form of sexual aggression. The authors classified individuals according to the most "severen form of sexual aggression experienced according to the Sexual Expenenws Suwey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982). As indicated above, 15.4% experienced rape and 12.1 % experienced attempted rape. In addition, 113% reported having expenenced "sexual coefcionV (i-e., engaged in sexual intercourse due to verbal pressure or the use of authority) and 14.4% reparted "sexual contact'' (i.e., engaged in sexual wntad. which did not indude sexual intercoune, due to verbal pressure, use of authority, threats of hami, or physical foree). DeKeseredy and Kelly (1993) wnduded a similar ddyusing a naüonal sample of Canadian univenity and wllege students. Hmver, ûeKeseredy and Kelly asked about sexual experiences since high-schwl, while Koss et al. (1987) inquired about sexual experiences since the age of 14. In the Canadian study, 31.8% of women reported engaging in sex play (Le., fondling, kissing or petting, but not intercourse) and 20.2% reported engaging in semial intercourse due to a man's continual arguments and pressure. In addition, 13.6% indicated that a man had attempted intercourse and 14.6% indicated that a man had mmpleted intemurse with them when they did not want to when they were dnink or high. In addition, 6.6% reported engaging in sexual intercourse, 3.2% reported engaging in sex ads (Le., anal or oral intemurse or pnetraüon by objects otherthan the penis), and 9.4% mported engaging in sex play because a man threatened or used same amount of force. In sum, 45% of the women reported that they had upsriencsd some form of -al coeràon sinw leaving high school, which is comparable with data obtained in the United States. In a sample of 103 -men from the University of Saskatchewan, 35% reported no experienœ with any form of sexual meion, whereas 65% of the wornen reported some km of sexual vidimizaüon (Shimp, 1995). The most "serious" form of malvidimizstion ever experienced since the aqe of 14 was maiwntad for 13.6% of the women; saxual caereion for 15.5%; aitempted rape for 128%; and mpe for 23.3%. 2.6 Men's Reports of Using Suuil Comcion A consistent fiMing among studles examining the prevaknce of saxual coercion is that the percenbge of men reporling hPving used various fomof srtrual coercion is less îhan the percentage of women indicaüng that they have expefiencsd sexual coercion (e.g., DeKeseredy 6 Kelly, 1993; Koss et al., 1987; Koss 6 Om,1982; Shimp, 1995). For example, DaKeseredy and Kelly (1 993) found îhat 45% of the females in their sample indiwted that they had experienced some form of sexual coercion since high school, while only 20% of the men surveyed indicated that they had been sexually coercive since high school. Similady, Koss et al. (1 g87) report4 that 54% of their sample of wllege women indicated that they had experienced some form of sexuat mercion since the age of 14. while only 25% of the men indicated that they had been sexually cuercive since the aqe of 14. Shimp (1995) reported that 65% of the women sampled fmm the University of Saskatchewan reported experiencing some form of sexual mercion since the age of 14, hileonly 16% of men repart4 using some form of sexual aggression in the same time period. DeKeseredy and Kelly (1993) found that 1.5% of men reporied that they had sexual intercourse wiîh a woman when 91%did not want to by Ifireatening or using force, while 1.4% indicated that they had sex play wiîh a woman when she did not want to by threatening or using force. Men were more likely to report that lhey had sex play (14.9%) or intercourse (8.3%) with a woman by king argumentaiive and using pressure or that they had attempted intercoune (5.5%) or had sexual intercourse (4.7%) aha woman when she did not want to when she was drunk or high. While the above sîudies have asked men to report on their use of various sexually mercive strategies, other tesearchers have asked men abut their Iikelihood of raping. For example, Malamuth and his colleagues have asked men how likely they would k to rape if they were assured of nat being caught or punished (e.g., Malamuth, Haber, 6 Feshbach, 1980). They have found that behueen 37 and 51% of coliege males will Say that them is some likelihood that they wuid rape and 2û% indiestecl a high likslihood of raping if they wuld be assured of not being punished (Malamuth ei al., 18110; riager, 1081). While faw men admit to raping a woman, many men are willing to indicate that under cemin dmmstancas there is a possibility that they would rape. The discrepancy betwhen men and wmenk repits of saxual coerdon may mean that men are under-ieporting their use of malaggnssion and 1 or women are over-reporüng their experiences of sexuat aggression, Koss et al. (1987) sugge!ited that 'men rnay be perwiving and conwptualizing potenüally relevant sexual expefiencw in a way mat is not elicited by the present wording of [questionnairesr (p. 160). In otherwo-, Mile men may not be ddibeiately deceifful in reqtonding in rescrardi sludies, they may not have perceiveci a lack of consent and mistance in previow sexual encounters. In -on, the pwsibiiii remains that there may be a fw semially aggrsssive men who are mercive towards many women or that women are being coerced by men who annot their pe8rs attending university. 2.7 Summry 8ased on the rasearch outlined above, malviolence wmsto be a signifiant component of many women's lives. Thus, given the pmvalence of sexual violence and its serious effeds, further march in this ama is warranted. The previous research also illustrates how the definiüons that -archers employ and the methodologies used anaffect prevalence resuits. Part of the diiculty stuàying rape and sexual assault is that Ihey can be elusive concepts that have several diffennt meanings (Bouque, 1lû;Williams 6 Holmes, Ml), apparenüy for researchen and vidims alike. 3. RWlEW OF THE UTERATURE ON ACKNOWtEDGMENT The aim of this study is to examine Semal assault acknowledgment in temof the circumstances of the assautl, vidirns' perceptions of significant mers' and societat attitudes towards rape. vidirns' atlribuüons of Marne for the sexual assault, disclosure, social support, posttraumatic stress disorder, and posttraumaüc gWh. A secondary purpose is to examine the differential application of the ternis 'sema1 assauf and 'rapem, As mentioned earlier, the percentage of rape vidirns classifiad as URVs in the literature has mnged fmm 43% (Km,1985) to 73% (Layman et al., 1096; Pi6 Schwartz, 1093). Of the URVs in Layman et al.% sample, 23% did not believe that they had been vidimized, 63% reported that they believed they were a vidim of a "serious miscommunication" and 15% reporfed that they were a vidim of a crime other than rape. Despite its relevana, them have been relaffvely few studies examining acknowiedged and URVs and only one study examining acknowledged and USAVs. The existing research has examined acknowiedgment in ternis of demographic variables, dating I sexual history, family history, personality variables, exposure to rape information and readions to a rape awarenest program, relationship with the assailant. ciruimstances of the assauit, reactions and behavior following the rape, atütudinal variables, general attributional style, perceptions of sexual mercion, rape scripts, amibutions of Marne for the assault, social support, psychological defenses and symptomatology. Researcti related to each of these variables will be nviewed in tum and is summarized in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 examines a total of 81 variables koken down into 13 categories. These variables were examined in ten different sludies published beM!t!!n 1985 and 1996.' Addiional background will be pmvided in the areas of aitiiudes towards rape, attributions of blame. social support (induding disclosure), posttraumatic stress, and posttrsumatic gmwth, which are the foci of this study. Most of the research comparing acknowledged and URVs has been athwreücal and there has been no attempt to merge the various findings. The mode1 of sexual assault 1 rape acknowledgment depided in Fiiure 1.1 was intmduced as a first attempt to integrate the findings regarding differences mnacknawledged and URVs. This rnodel will serve to guide the cun'ent study.

' Layman et al. (1 996) is an article that was based on Layman's (1 993) masteh thesis. Layman (1993) is referred to in the iitemturrr reviaw for cornparisons that were not induded in the puMished article. Tibk 3.1 Summaw of Raserich Cm~rinaAcknowleâmed and Unacknowhdaad Rame Victims

byronûuiddupc (1996) Liymmd il.(1 9961

bymm d il.(1996)

Table 3.1 Conünued

--t ~vmrrrc-w(lsSs1 (AMmn mon iikely to RpoR îtm! the mthnaawdthrmcompndtoURVI)

-p. (1 996) (ARViqmtdthrtthemvi~mon aggmsiw canpmd to URVs) Trbk 3.1 Continurd Tabk 3.f Canünwd Table 3.1 Continued

6. Nvnbar of men imdvadwithona

5. Rlpcraiptr -m Kihn d al. (1 994) (URVsmnmonBiaythm ARVstowb ~.-np,icripbl

Table 3.1 Contiiiued

6- MMPI-2-2 PTSD Scrh

kyniriad (199s) (ARVs repotted preiter PTSD ~IhmURVs) B. Puidur PTSD Serk - lJymwnirPdilup(1996) (ARVs --reported grmiter PTSD rymp(omPlobgy thui URVs)

9. PTSD lntanmw -rir-r -(.iw (ARVs reported graiter PTSD rymplanildagythuiURvs) 10. PTSD Dinostmc IntcMew Schaduk

Laymn et il. (1996) (ARVs nportd gniter ivoidrnce symp(wnr thin URVs)

e13. Majardepmdw 14. AQofaphoba

1s. sociriphobii

16. Simpie phobi

17. Panit8thcks ra~y~Knpibidr d ai. (1988)

18. Obraruvh CompubMadirorrkr

19. SmrJpobkmr a.Suridil aaaon --Y 1. PTSD Note. aLayrnar&uadalupe (1 996) and Layman et al. (1 996) amidercd p c .O02 to be statisticab -nt. 3.1 ûemognphic Variibks Acknowledgeâ and URVs have not diiered in tamis on any demographic variable examined, with the excspüon of empîoyrnent status. Kilpatrkk et al. (1888) found that URVs were more likely to be employed or a student as compareâ to ARVs. However, the two groups of rape vidims have not kenfound to differwith regards to age (Kahn, Mathie, & Torgler, 1994; Kilpatrick et al., 1988; Layman-Guadalupu, 1996). year in school (Kahn et al., 1994; Layman; 1993; LaymanGuadalup, lm),marital status, race I elhnic background, inwme (KilpatrW et al., 1088; Layman, 1993; Layman-Guadalupe, IQW),or religion (Layman, 1993; Layman-Guadalupe, 1996). 3.2 Dating and Stxual Hi- I Fmily Hiatory of Violence Acknowledged and URVs have also not differed on a hast d variables relating to sexual and dating history. For example, the two gmups of rape vidims am similar in tems of child sexual experiences, daüng status (Layrnan-Guadalupe, 1996; Layman et al., 1998), age of their first sexual experience (Koss, 1985; Layman et al., lm), age first interested in sex, sexual satisfadion, sexual eicperiences (Layman et al., lm),number of dates, prematital sex values (Koss, 1985), and previous sexual intemurse (Koss,l985; LaymanGuadalupe, 1996; Layrnan et al., 1996). Shimp (1995) and Koss (1985) found, however, that ARVs reported having more sexual partnen than URVs. It is possible that women who have more sexual experiences may be merable to discem coercive fmm non-coerdve sexual experiences. Acknowiedged and URVs' responses on the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982) have Men wmpared and it has been found that URVs are Iess likely to report having experienced force with kissing and petting, are les likely to have been threatened with force when intemurse did not occur, and are less likely to have benin a situation wtiere force was used but intemurse did not occur (Kahn et al., 1994). Thus, URVs reported having a sexual history which involves leu force as campared to ARVs. It is possible that tttis differential reporting of coercive sexual experiences is refledive of the same phenomenon as rape acknowledgrnent; Yiat is, URVs may not acknowledge other fomof violence in sexual relationships, just as they have not acknowledgeâ rape. 3.3 Penonality Vuiabks 1here is liile research examining penonality variables in acknowledged and URVs. Two personality variables, social presence and dominanœ, have been examined and there was no difference between the two groups on these variables (Koss, tg&). Antiough there may certainly be dher personality variables that may disünguish between the two rape groups, the existing research suggests that penonaiii fadon are not associateci with labeling a forced sexual expenenee as tape. 3.4 Exposurs to Rape Info-on I Reactions to r Rape Amnnrrt Prognm VariaMes related to knowledge of rape and naaions to a rape awanness program have been examined in sampia of acknowladged and URVs. URVs have been found to be similar to ARVs in tems of their self-reported knowledge of rape, Uieir attendanœ at a rape seminar, work experience for a semial assault agency, and acquaintanœ with a rape vidim (Kahn et al., 1994). Therefore, it is unlikely that URVs do not identify their experience as rape because they have less knowledge or exposure to rape. However, URVs were les likely to view a rape awareness program as applicable to them and reported paying less attenüon to a rape awareness pmgram as compared to ARVs (Layman-Guadalupe, 1996). URVs' belief that rape prevention pmgrams do not apply to them prsonally is consistent with their view that they are not vidims of rape. However, URVs reported leaming more at a rape awareness program than ARVs (Layman-Guadalupe, 1996); the researcher did not give a pre-post test regarding rape knowiedge and therafore the accuacy of the rape vidims' self-reports are unitnomi. 3.5 Circumstances of the Asuuît Several researchers have examined situational variables relating to the victimization experiences of acknowiedged and URVs. Acknwvledged and URVs have kenfound ta be similar in terms of their own use of alcohol 1 drugs and their assailants' alcohol 1 dmg use (Koss, 1985; Layman-Guadalupe, 1996; Layman et al. 1998). Hawever, one study found that unacknowledged sexual assault vidims were more likely to indicate that they were usfng alcohol at the time of the assault (Hunter. 1994). Acknowiedged and URVs also do not differ in their age at the tirne of the rape (Koss, 1985) or the time elapsed since the rape (tayman et af., 1996). mere are, however, a number of situational variabies related to the relationship with the perpetrator, aggression of the assailant, and the resistance of the vidim, which have been found to differ between the two groups of rape vidims, although the findings were not aIways replicated. 3.5.1 Relationshio to the Pemetrator Victims' relationship to their assailants has been found to distinguish unacknowledged and ARVs. For example, Koss (1985) found that URVs were more likely to have a dating relationship with their assailant, were more acquainted with their assailant, and were more Iikely to have engaged in previous consensual sexual adivity with their assailant as compared to ARVs. Similarly, Hunter (1994) found that women who were acquainted with their perpetrator wen less likely to acknawledge attempted rapas compared to those who indicated that their perpetrator was a stranger. These tindings are consistent with Wyaît, Notgrass, and Newwmb's (1990) observation of a 'haiiancy" to aeknowleâge rap among wornen mped by known men. aithough this was not formally invesüaated in their study. Kelly (1988) also found that women were unsure how to label their forçed sexual experlence when there had beten previous consensual sexual adivity with the man in question. Similarly, clinical literature has highlighted the importance of dafifying the meaning and definition of rape with vidims of acquaintance rape, as they are often unsure about how to label their forced semial experience (Bowie, Silveman, Kalick, & Edbril, 1990). However, Layman-Guadalupe (1996) and Layman et al. (1996) dii not find that the nature of the relaüonship bedweien the vidim and the assailant differed significantly between the two groups of rape vidims, that the edent of acquaintance diered, or that the groups differed in terms of previous sexual intimacy with the assaitant. Hunter (1984) also did not find a relationship beîween acquaintanceship or previous sexual intimacy with the pefpetrator and s8xual assautt or tape aduiowiedgment. Kilpatrick et al. (1988) also did not find a relationship beîween rapa adviawledgment and the relaüonship with the a~saiiant.~ 1hem is thus same evidenee that URVs encounter their 'sexual assauit in the conte& of a close petsonal relationship and shamd sexuat intimacy that dispualifid the expenence as tape in the [vidimsl mind" (Koss, 1985, p. 210). However, the rwearch findings in this area are inconsistent. It should be nated that since Layrnan-Guadalupe (1996) and Layman et al. (1996) conducteci a large number of analyses that they used a small alpha value (.002) to control the emr rate. Their low statistical power may have contributed to some of their non- significant findings. For example, aithough Layman-Guadalupe found that 73% of URVs were raped by a romanüc acquaintance or long-terni partner compared to U%of ARVs @ = -007). this finding was considered statisücally non-significant. The relationship between the victirn and perpetrator may be an important variable that distinguishes acknowledged and URVs and thus is included as a variable in the model of rape 1 sexual assault acknowledgement (see Figure 1.l). What is corrently unknown is the mechanisrn(s) by which the relationship with the perpetrator interferes with sexual assauit I rape acknowledgment. The model of senial assault 1 rape acknowledgment which was developed in mis study is a firsî attempt to understand how the relationship with the perpetrator influences semal assault 1 rape acknowiedgment. Possible variables which mediate the relationship beîween the relationship with the perpetrator and rape 1 sexual acknowledgment, such as attributions of blame for the rape 1 sexual assault, disclosure, and receiving unsupporüve behavior from others, will be explored in subsequent sections of the iiterature review. 3.5.2 Force of the Assault There is some evidence that the nature and extent of aggression may differ in the assaults of acknowledged and URVs. Kahn et al. (1994) found that URVs were Iw likely than ARVs to report the use of physical force and Layman-Guadalupe (1996) found a trend for URVs to be less likely to report that the assailant Msted their am1 held them dmor hit 1 slapped them. Layman-Guadalupe also found mat URVs raîed the man as lest aggressive than ARVs; a similar trend was found by Layman et al. (1996). In addiion, ARVs have been found to be more Iikely to indicate that a weapon was used, that a dodor was sesn for injuries sustained duting the assauk, and that they feared being injured or killed as compamd to URVs (Kjlpatrick

KOSSused an intehnew to obtain information regarding the assault, white Layman and her mlleagues and Hunter used a questionnaire. Kilpatrick et al. used an interview fomat as well, but they had a community sample, whenas Koss used a university sample. 25 et al., 1988). Koss (19115) founci, hm,that the two gmups of rape vidims did not diier in the types of physicat violence used by the pepdmbr, the use offwby the perpetrator, or their raüngs of the aggression or types of wrbai pressure used by the prpstrator. Other mardirelated to how women label violant axperiencss also hi~hlighîsthe importance of the force of the assauit. Kelty (1W) intervieweci 6û wornen (30 dii not iniüally idenüfy themselves as physically or sexually abused) regarding îheir expcrienœ of violence. Women were unsure how to label their experience when physical force was not used and when there was no evidence of physM ham. Rescrarch invuügating the application of the terni "battering" to physical violence ellperieneed in romantic relationships also emphasizes the importance of the amount of force In lab8lïng violence. For example, Seldak (19881 found that labeling an experience as "battering" mis assuciated with the amount of injufy experienced. These two studies are consistent with the nseamh of Kahn et al, (lm), Layman-Guadalupe (t996) and Layman et al. (1996) reviwed above. 3.5.3 Victim Resishnce There is also soma evidence that the nature and extent of unacknawledged and ARVs' resistance rnay differ. For example, Layman et al. (1996) found that URVs reported that they resisted less and were less clear in their non-consent than ARVs; Layman-Guadalupe (19%) found a similar trend. Layman et al. and Layman-Guadalupe ahboth found a trend for URVs to be less llkely to report crying / sobbing, screaming for help, and running away. Koss (1985) found, hawever, that the two groups of rape vidims did not diier in their degree of resistance, clarity of nonconsent, types of mistance, nor in the effed of their resistance. Levine- MacCombie and Koss (1986) also found no diierences in the resistanœ strategies employed by acknawledged and URVs. 3.5.4 Circumstances of the Astiult and the Cunant Study The bulk of the research Miesa tendency for URVs to experience leu forceful assaults and to report resisüng less than ARVs, although this is not supporteci by Koss' (1985) research. It appean that the relaüonship to the perpetrator, the force of the assault, as well as the resistance of the vidims are three impoRant vanaMas nlated to the circumstances of the assauît that rnay be assciàated wifh rape / sexual assault adrnowfecîgment. It is expeàed that the force of the assault will influence Ute amount and type of IwiSîance used by the vidim, as it is Iikely that vidims will respond with more resistance when they experience a mon forceful assault. The mode1 of sexual assauft I rape adviowleûgrnent (see Figure 1.l) and the following sedions of the Merature review, attempts to expliCate the mechanisms by Mich force, &stance. and the relaüonship with the perpetrator may affea sexual assault I rape acknowledgment by considering vanabits such as Marne for îhe ~sS8utt.disdosure. social support, and posttraumatic stress symptomatology. 3.6 Reacüons I û~hwiorfotlowing îhR8pe The nadions and behavior of the two groups of rape vidims foltowing the tape have also been examined. Layman et al. (1 898) found a trend for URVs to be mom liûely to continue a relaüonship with their assailant wrnparsd to ARVs, which is consistent with the pvious findings of a gteater nlotionship Wwwn thviaim and osssilant among URVs (Koss, 1985); this trend was not found by LoymanGwdalupe (1996). Unadvimhdgd and ARVs have not diieted in lemis of the number of wninvolvaci wiih sinœ the rape or whether ihey expeded the incident to happeri again (LaymokGuadalupe, 1996; Liyman et al., 1996). Layrnan- Guadalupe found that ARVs wan more likely to indiiethat ihey intended to press charges cornparecl to URVs; a sirnilar trend was found by Layman et al. Koss (1985) found that acknowledged and URVs did notaiin tamis of the emoüons (e.g., fear, angor) that they reported experiencing at the time of the vidimllaüon; they also did not Cisr significantly in ternis of their ratings of the ernoüons displaymi by iheir perpetrator, Thus, aduiowledged and URVs do not differ significantly on most variables nlated to their raadions or behavior following the assault (with the exceplion of intent to press charges), although then is some evidence that continuhg a nlationship wiih the man following the assault may disaiminate between the two groups if a more powerhil design were used. 3.7 Attitudinal Variables The pmvalence of rape-supporüve attitudes, as #Il as their importance in ternis of affeding judgrnents regarding rape, has led some rusearchers to examine attkudinal variables in samples of acknowledged and URVs. Acknowledged and URVs have ben found 10 not differ in their belief that heterosemial relationships involve game-playing, the unacceptability of aggression, their attitudes towards rape (Koss, f985). their attitudes towards women (Koss, 1985; Layrnan-Guadalupe, 1896; Shimp, 1895). their nijeciion of rape mylhs (Hunter, 1994; Koss. 1985; Layman-GuadaIupe, 1096), their rape empathy (Layman-Guadalupe, 1996) or social desirability (Layman et al., 1996). Thus, 1does not appear mat rapa-supportive beliefs or attitudes towards women help explain why URVs do not idenüfy their foreed senial experiences as rape. The possibility that vidims' perceptions of signifiant oîhers' and socieial attitudes towards rape may interfera with sexual assault 1 rape aeknowldgment has not been investigated. Research will be mviewed regarding the prevalence of mpe supportive atütudes, the negative implications of holding weh aüiîudus, and ille datlanship Eetwwen exposure to npe vidirns and atüîudes towarâs rapa. This îitemîure review suppoRs the usefulness of exploring rape vidims' periceptions of signfficant others' and s0clSOClety's stlitudes towards rape in ternis of ape I scrxual assauit acknowlcdgemsnt, 3.7.1 Pnvrlence of Flrw Sumwrüm -du there seems to be a rnynad of aüitudinal vsrîa&les which serve to support mal violence. For example, rape myüi acceptana has Wnkund to be related to adversarial sexual beliefs (Burt, 1980; Burt & Aibin, 111; Check & Malamuth. 1985; Quackenbush, 1989; Wafd. 1988), greatcr aecepance of interpersonal vioknœ (Burt,1m0; Burt & Albin, 1961; Check & Malamuth, 1885; Mynatt & AIlgeier, 1990; Quacicenôush, 1989; Ward, lW),and with more negative and stermtypical aüiiudes tawards men@urt, 1980; Che& 6 Malamuth, 1985; Larsen & Long, 1088; Muehlenhard & MacNaughton. 1968; Quackenbush, 1989; Ward, 1988). For the purpose of this disaission, 'atatudes towards rapeg is meant to encompass the endorsement of rape myths, negative views towards npe vidims, and atütudes which support the legiümacy of sexual violena!. There is ample evidena that rape mylhs am widely held in our society. For example, Feild (1 978) found that an average of 14 of 32 rape myüs wen acceptecl by a general sample. In addition, the general public and police were more similar to convided rapists than to rape crisis caunsellors in ternis of ttieir attitudes towards raps. Burt (1980) teported that over half of her randorn ample of Minnesota residenfs klievdthat at kast 50% of reported rapes are false daims and that women are rasponsibie for being raped. Giacopassi and Dull(1986) found that between 17% and 75% of a colIege-student ssmple agrasd with each of nine rape myths. Similady, Gilmartin-Lena (1987) mported that at least 35% of a sample of univenity students agreed wiîh 14 of 28 rape myths. Campbell and Johnson (1997) examined a sample of police offices' personal definitions of rape. They dlscovered that only 19% offered a definition which is close to the legal definiüon of rape. Fifty-one percent offered definitions which included some vidim-blaming views. This study demonstrates that even those who are familiar with legal definiüons of rape hold vicüm-blaming definnians. Therefon, it seems that a significant portion of studen! and non-student samples accept rape myths and hold tape- supportive attitudes. 3.7.2 Implications of Holdina Raw Su~mrtiveAttitudes Altiaudes towards rape likely affed how indiiuals behave towards vidims and offenders. For example, it has besn suggested that atütudes towards rape affed the treatment of rape vidims by iudges, juries, police officers, and attorneys; that they influence the writing of rape legislation; and mat they influence Ihe care offered to vidirns (Feild, 1978). it has also been found that juron' attitudes towards rape are more influentialthan background and case charaderistics in ternis of juror decisionmaking (Fdld & Bienen, 1980). The U.S. Senate Judiciary Commitiee (1993 as ciieb in Lonsway & ntzgerald, 1994) condudeci that it is the fear of juries' attitudes mat prevent rape vidiins from mporting, police offiars frorn arresting, and prosecuton from puning rape cases. Acceptance of rage myths, nwaüve attitudes towards mpe vidims, and stereatypical beliefs regarding rape have benfound to b some of the most important variabies fhat affed obsenrers* evaluations and judgmemb mgardinq mp(e.g., field, 1978). lndiiuals who more stmngly endona rap myths am kss liksly to label a scsnarlo as "mps' (Burt & Albin. 1981; Fischer. 19M; Muehlenhard & MacNaugMon, 1968), lhey assQn less responsibilii to the assailant (8urt, 1983; Check & Malamuth, 1915; fier,1966; Krahe, 1968; Linz, DonnerSein, 6 Adams. 1989; Muehlenhard & MacNaugMon, 1Q83; Quadtenbush, 1989). and anmon Iikely to blame the vidim (Blumberp & Lester, 1991; Check & Malamuth, 1QS; Jenkins & Dambrot, 1987; Krahé, 1988; Linz et al., 1Q89; Muehlenhard & MacNaugMon, lW8). Those who endorse rape myths are ais0 less Sy'npaUietkt~~afdsrape vidims (Linz et al., 1ûû9) and make more positive evaluations of rapists (Burt, 1983; Burt 6Albin, 1W1). Grnater repe mylh acceptance has also been associated with minimizing the severity of rape and its effect on the vidim (Hamilton 6 Yee, 1990; Muehlenhard 6 MacNaugMon, 1988; Quadrenbush, 1WQ)and with believing that the vidim's experience was a positive one (Check & Malamuth, 1985). Furthemore, rape myth acceptana has been found to be nlated to the belief that women have a secret desire ta be vidimized and that natural masculine tendencies are a cause for npe (Check & Malamuth, 1985). 3.7.3 Ex~osureto Raw Victims and Aîtïïudes Towarâs Rme The relaüonship between knowing a rape vidim and attitudes towards rape has also been examined. Anderson et al. (1997) wncluded, on the basis of their meta-analyüc study investigating individual differences and attitudes towards rape, that exposure to women who have experienced sexual coercion is not assoclateci with attitudes towards rape! In addition, most studies have found that there is not a relaüonship between rape myth accaptance and knowing a rape vidim (Borden, Karr, & Caldwell-Colbert, 1988; Burt, 1980; Feild, 1978). Thus, the research suggests that not only are rape-supportive attiiudes prevalent, but that they likely affect treatment of rape vidims and are unlikely to be changed by being exposed to a rape vidim. 3.7.4 Attitudes towards Raoe and the Current Study The research indicates that rape supportive attitudes are widespread and are associated with victim Maming and minimizing the effeds of rape. It is likely that the attitudes of one's social network, as well as the attitudes of society at large, affect the social and psychological adjustment of rape vidims (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1978). As Krahe (1991) states: Apart fmm having to corne to ternis with the attack itself. a raped woman is frequently faced with another, equally painful challenge: confionüng the attitudes and preconceptions about the crime and its vidims held by the general public, and more speEifically. by her paitnen and ftîends, as well as the dîfferent groups of people with whom she may have to interad as a consequence of the assault, such as police officen and medical as well as Iegal pmfessionals (p. 223-224). It is possible that the attitudes of one3 signifiant mersand -ety at large is nlated to sexual assault / rape acknowledgment; th& possibility will be investigated in this study. Sexual assault vidims* percepüons of their signifiant others', and Society's, attitudes towards rape and rape vidims are included as variables in the proposxi model of sexual assautt / rape acknowledgment. It is hypothesized that perceptions of signifiant othen' and socMa[ attitudes

II Andemon et al.%(1 9Bf) meta-analysis includud 65 studies published batwaen 197ï and 1994. towards rape and mpe vidims will be negPtiveIy assaciated wiih wnfiding in omets. as it is expeded Chat the perception that one Mil bs viewed negaüvdy will inhibit the desin to self- disclose. Non-disdosure is furthsr expeded b be nlateâ to not aeknowledging sexual assauît; this hypothesis will lm discusd more Chomughly in Sedion 3.1 1.1 which deals with disdosure among rspe / Seml assault vidims. In addition, ettnbulions of blme (which will be disuissed in Sedion 3.1 O) am also sxpsded to madiate the rislstionship Mnvidims' perceptions of significant others' and sodetal atîitudes towards rape and malassauft / rape acknowledgment. If a sexually assaulted f raped woman bslieves that a significant other person in her Iife, and -ety as a whole, has negaüve views towards tape vidims, she is likely to Marne herself rather than the perpetrator for her rape, which in tum is expeded to interfere with sexuaI assauR 1 rape aeknowledgment. More negaüve perceptions of signifiant others' attitudes towards rape and mpe vidims ara also expeded to be posiüvely associateci with receiving more unsupporüve behavior fmm mers. Howsver, the causal relationship between these two variables is not specified in the model. It may be that rewiving unsupportive behavior fmm significant othen influences one's perceptions of signifiant others' atiiiudes towards rape andlor that perceptions of significant others' attitudes towards rape influence one's perceptions of their behavior. 3.8 Genenl Attributional Style I P+rceptions Acknowiedged and URVs' general attribuüonal style and perceptions of semial mercion have also been invesügated. Layman et al. (1996) reported that the two groups of rape vidims did not differ in their causal attributions regarding six positive and seven negaüve events (induding a hypothetical sanano depiding semial assault), which indicates that acknowledged and URVs do not have differeni general aüribuüonal styles. Unacknowledged and ARVs have also been found not to diier in their esümation of the ceitainty mat rape had occuned in seven scenarios (Kahn et al., 1994) or in their perceptions of the coerciveness. typicality, ham and threat presenl in scenarios involving sexual agg&on (Shimp, 1995). Similarly, Layman- Guadalupe (1 g96) found that unacknowledged and ARVs did not diier in terms of their judgments of three acquaintanœ rape scenafios, induding jwlgments of rape, the vidims' responsibility, the assailants' responsibility, ttie vidims' aûilito pmvent the rape, the appmpriateness of reporüng the incident to lhe police, and whether fhey thought the vidims should talk to their friends about the 8XpcrienGe. speak to a crisis centre or go to a hospital. Therefore, the availabie evidenœ indiaes that URVs do no! possass diierent general attributional styles and do nat seem to have mispercrtpüons of ssxual aggmlon lhat wuld help explain why they did not idantify their own for- sexual wrisnœ as mpe. 3.9 RapScripts Research has ben conduded examining the mpe scfipts of acknowiedgad and URVs. A rape b "a description of the evenls ocGufring before. during, and after a mpen (Kahn et al.. 1994. p. 57). Kahn et al, found that URVs were mom likely to write violent, stranger, blii rape scripts as eompred to ARVs. In perticular, URVs wem more likely to prwide rape scripts when the rape occurred outdoors; mmmore likely to idenüfy a physkd aüa% and the use, or threat of use, of weapons; were less likely to indicate that the vidim ussd verbal protest; were more likely to state that the vidim stniggled with the perpetrator; were more likely to indicate that the vidim reporteci the rape to the police; wen more likely to mention mat the assailant left the scene; and were less likely to state that alwhol was invoked. Noie that the difference between acknowledged and URVs' rape scripts was not due to diiereness in their adual rape experience. Kahn et al. suggested that URVs rnay not label their fardsemial eitpedence as rape because it fails to correspond with their rape script. In other words, they rnay not label their own fomd semial eitperienw as rape because iheir beliefs about mat mnstitutes rape does not correspond to their adual experience of forced sexuaI adivity with an acquaintance, which involves less force. It is important to note, however, that 50% of URVs dM not write a stranger, bIirape script; therefore, Merential rape scripts annot able to account for al1 instances of unacknowiedged ripe. Wood and Rennie (1994) have offered further support for the hypoüwis that the commonly accepteci view that "mal rape" is .stranger tape" is assacided with rape acknawledgement. Their interviews with mimen rapeâ by acquaintances revealed that al1 of the wornen struggled with identifying their experience as npe because it was not a stranger tape. The vicüms' construction of the incident was complicated by the fad thaî their experience was not only different from stranger npe, but ii was similar in some respects to a date. 1he available nsearch swggests that holding stamatypic views of rape may interfere with women's rape acimwîdgment du8 to the inconsisîenq bitMnzen ttieir ami experience of king raped at the han& of a known man and the wmmonly heid belief that rape is wmrnitted by strangers and involves physical force typically leadinq to injuries. fherefon, in the mode1 of sexual assaun I rape acknawledgernent, holding stereotypicaI rape scripts is hypothesized to moderate the relationship between the ciraimsïances of the assault and sexual assaut 1 rape acknowledgrnent (see Figure 1.l). Howavar. it is also beliedthat the inconsistency between one's forced sexual exmence and the stenotypical view of rape I malassault mil lead one to be more likely to Marne onesetf for the rape 1 sexual assauit and to be less likely to blame the perpetrator. which will further interfere with sexwl assault 1 rape aciuiowledgment. Perception of blame is the focus of the following seaion. 3.10 Blmefor the Asrrult Broadly speaking, indiiuals may rnake internai or extemal attributions for a negaüve event (Heider, 1958; Peterson & SeiQman, 1983). Intemal Pttribuüons indude wWng the self as a cause of the nqative event, holding the self mponsible. and I or Maming the sep Eidernal attributions indude viewing another persan, the situation, society. or chance as the cause of the event, as nsponsibb, and 1 or to Marne for the negaüve event. Them has been some work examining the Pttribuüons of Mame 1 rssponsibilii made by acknowledged and URVs regarding their vidlmizaîion expriena. In ternis of intemal attributions, self-Marne and self-responsibility have been examined in samples of acknowledged and URVs. Layman et al. (1 996) found that acknowledged and URVs did not differ in ternis of charaderological Mame (Le., the extent to which they Mame their personality charadenstics) or behavioral blame (Le., the extent to which they blame their behavior). The work of Wood and Rennie (1994), however, highlights the importance of self- blame in rape acknowledgment. The women in their interviews frequently idenüfieâ how they could have done something different to prevent the rape and th& self-blame serveâ to discount their experience as rape. They concluded that "anything that suggests even a modiwm of controi casts a shadow of doubt on the construction of what happened as rape" (p. 132). Layman-Guadalupe (1996) also found that there was a trend for ARVs to be less likely to attnbute responsibility of the rape to themselves as compared to URVs (e.g., 38% of ARVs reported that they were not at al1 or a litüe responsible, compared to 21% of URVs); this trend was no! replicated by Layman et al. (1996)? meresearch is thus inconsistent regarding whether, and to what extent, intemal attributions such as self-blame and self-responsibility, are involved in the process of rape acknwvledgment. it is hypothesized that self-blame has a direct negative effed on sexual assauli I rape acknaviedgment, as well as an indirect positive effect via posttraumatic stress (se8 Sedion 3.12.12 for a rationale), hichmay help aceount for some of the nuIl findings with regards to self-Mame and acknowledgment. Acknowiedged and URVs' extemal attributions regarding the rape have received lile attention in the Iiterature, as only ratings of assailant responsibility for the rape have been investigated. Layman-Guadalup (1996) and Layman et al. (1996) both reported trends for ARVs to attrîbute greater responsibilii to the assailant !han URVs. For example, Layman et al. (1998) found that 80% of ARVs reporteci that the man was very much responsible compared to only 33.3% of URVs @ = .W3). The current study seeks to mon thomughly examine the mle of self 1 perpetrator blame

' Theoretical distinctions have kenmade between the terms causality, blame, and responsibiiii (Shaver & Dm,1988). These disüncüons are infiuquently made in the rape Iiteratun and some rwearch has show that nrsearch participants do not make distinctions between these caneaps (e.g., Albs, 1989; Maes & Montada, 1988 as cited in Montada. 1992). Although participants wre asked questions regarding Warne and responsibilii in this study, these ratings am not intended to be measures of theoreücally disünct consiru&.

No diierence in the methodology or type of sample was noted betwetn these two studies. 32 1 nsponsibility in ternis of sexual assault acknowladgment Research will be reviewed which suggests that acknowledged and URVs may differ in their attributions due to the diiring nature of their assaulls and that Layman et al& focus on behaviwal and characterological sesMame was likely misplaceci. The Iiterature review emphasiies the intemal attribution of selEMame, as this constnid has been foçussad on in the rape literature, 3.10.1 Blame and Circumrbntu of the -ult Self-blame has been found to be related to the situational variables of the rape. For example, rape vidims who knew their perpetrator have been found to engage in rnore self- blame than stranger rape vidims (Mumen et al., 1989; Mynait & Allgeier, 1990). Similady, Katz and Burt (1988) found that having a greater nlationstiip mth the petpetrator, tnisüng him, feeling dose to him, and voluntarily going with him was associafed with greater self-biame immediately after the rape. Mynatt and Allgeier used attribution theory to account for the positive association between self-blame and the relationship with the perpetrator. in parücular, they noted that there is a positive relationship between self-blame and perceived freedorn to act and suggested that if a vidim and assailant anacquainted. that the prior voluntary social contact (Le., willingly engaging in a relationship with the man) contributes to self-blarne. Resistance and force have also benrelatad to blame. For example, resisüng Iess (Mumen et al., 1989), the use of lesforce (Mumen et al., 1889; Mynatt & Allgeier, 1990) and less injury (Baker & Peterson, 1Bn; Mynatt & Allgeier, 1980) were found to be a-ated with greater self-blame. In ternis of parpetrator Mame, rape vidims were rnore likely to bîame the assailant if they did not know hirn wall. if he used physical force rather than persuasion, and if the wman resisted with a physical or verbal mspanse rather than not respanding at al1 (Mumen et al., 1989). Women raped by strangen were also mom likely to feel that the man was responsible for the incident as compareci to women who were raped by an aequaintance (KOSS, Dinem. Seibel, & Cox, 1988) and women who were raped by someone they did not know well were more likely to judge the assailant as responsible for the incident than women Wo were raped by someone they knew well (Mynatt & Allgeier, 1990). These findings are consistent with the theorking of Tennnen and Affieck (1990). who argued that mer-Marne is mors likely to occur when the other is not well known and when the outconte is sevem. Since URVs are more likely to be raped by an aequaintance (Km, 1985), oiid report less force and lass &stance (Layman-Guadalupe, 1898; Layrnan et al., lffl), it wuld also lollow that they would be more likely to blame themselves and lsss likely to Marne the Parpctntom than ARVs. Thus, 1 seems likely that attributions of blame madiate the relaüonship bdween variables asociated with the arcurnstances of the assault and malassaun 1 mpe îdtnain(edgment 3.10.2 Tvrnt of Self-bluna: Chrncterolwicrl and ûeh.vionl Ronnie JanoR-Bulman (1979) pmposed an influenüal -el of self-blame and rape that cantradids the clinicat Merature, which emphasizes it~ented to minimize self-blame among rape vidims (e.g., Bowi et ai., 1890; Fmzier & Schauben, 1994; Katz & Burt, 1988; Renner, Wackett, & Ganderlon, 1988). Janoff8ulmui rrgued that them are two fom of self-blame: charaderofogical and behavioral self-Marne. Charaderological seWame is estcem-nlated and refers to blame that is focussud on one's charader, while behavioral =if-Marne is controt- related and refen to Mame that is focwsed on one's behavior. Janoff-Bulman argued that behavioral self-blame is an adapüve respom which enhanas rape vidims' sense of control and abili to avoid future rapes, while charaderological self-blame is maladepiive and interferes with p~ychologi~alhindionhg due to the focus on personal deservingness nlated to unchangeable charademlogicaltraits. Janoff-Bulman's (1979) theory regardiqj behavioral and charaderological self-blame has generally not been supported by ampirical rssearch. Behavioral self-Marne has been found to be assodated with incrsased symptomatology. such as sema1 dissatisfaction (Meyer & Taylor, 1986)' depression (Frazier, 1990; Meyer & Taylor, 1886). disrupüons in beliefs about self and others (Ratier 6 Schauben, lm),and demoraliion (Hill & Zautra, 1989). In addlion. behavioral and charademlogical self-Marne do not seem to be independent variables as Janoff-Bulman's theory suggeslç. For exampie, correlations between the hvo forms of self- blame have ranged between r = 39 and ?= .75. (Frazier, 1991; Frazier & Schauben, 1994; Hill a Zautra, 1989; Thomton et al., 1988). This research indicates that rape vidims may not make distinctions between blaming their behavior and blaming their charader. In one sample only 7% of rape vidims blamed thelr behaviorwithout blaming their charader (Frazier, 1991). In addion, contrary to Janoff-Bulman's theory, both forms of self-Marne wen posiüvely associateci with perceived avoidability of îheir rape (Frazier, 1991) and neiltier fom was associateci with the perception of the avoidability of future rapes (Frazier, 1991; Frazier & Schauben, 1994). It appean that rape vidims do not make strong disündions btlween characlerologicaCMame and behavioral-blame, that neither fom of Mame is related to the perceived abiiiiy to control future rapes, and both an associateci wiih psyctiological diffmities. This tesearch suggests that the theoretkat distinction baween behavioral and charaderological self-blams is questionable and that Layman d 81.3 (1996) focus on bshavioral and charaderological self-blame was likely misplaced. iherefore, in this sludy a distinction between behavioral and charademlogiwl self-blame will not be made; inslead the focus will be on attributions towards the self, which encompasscls behavioral and charaderological self- Mame, as well as feeling msponsiMe for îhe risssult. 3.10.3 Attributions of Blrme and th+ Cumnt sa id^ Research is needed which examines th relaüonships between seif1 perpetrator Mame, the circumstances of the assauit, disdosure. unsuppoilhre readions fmrn others and sexual assault f rape acknowledgment. The cumnt Myseeks to meet this need by examining the attributions rape viaims make mgarding their asauk lt if hypothesized thaf Sb(f-Mame and perpetratof Marne will mediate the relationship betwwn drcumsiames of the assauk (e.0.. the relaüonship with the assailant, force, and rasistsnœ) and sexuaf assault acknowlbdgrnent. Other forms of erdemal biam (e.g., sociasl Marne, fate Mme, situational Marne) will also be measured to see whether they also help disünguish bstwssn aduiwktged and USAVSP ît is fudher hypothesized that grnater self-blam mil bad to lsss pmpemor biame. It is expected that women first assess their ami Mime becausa they am liWy mors aware of their awn intentions and behaviors and am thw more abie to mess thair awn wlpability. In addiion, it is likely that if a Miman hdds heMas rsrpodble krthe assaut that she WOU# k Iess likely to attn'bute Uame to the perparator. Self-Mame is also sxpsaeâ to be positively associated with feceiving unsupportive responses from olhers and perpsfrator blame is eltpsded to be negativety associated with nceiving unsupportive responses from others (a mom thorough rationale for these hypotheses is presented in Sedion 3.1 1.4). 3.11 Social Support There has been litüe msearch exarnining the social support remiveci by acknowledged and URVs. Piand Schwarh (1 993) examined the rssponses provided by others to acknowledgeci and URVs. Participants were asMto state who was the most helpful person to them and what was helpful about their response. Discussion of Marne was found to be the most helpful response vidims mported receiving fmm others. In al1 instances wliere the person identified as "most helpful" by the vidnn either blamed her or enwurageâ her to Wame herself (n = 12). Vie vidim did not wnceptuaiiue her experience as rape. The women who were explieitly told that they were not responsible (n = 4) all definecl their experienœ as rape. Pi and Schwartz concludecl that "rape survivors are internalii what othen are telling them about wtio is at fauit for unwanted, nonconsensual intercourse (whether it be a generalized, societal other or the spacific pers with whorn thy dimss their experienw)" (p. 395). However, contrary to the researchers' daim, they did flot shw mat the URVs adually engaged in more self-Marne than ARVs. It is unclear whether blame fmm others mediates the relationship between self-Marne and rape acknowledgernent. In the pmposed model of sexusl assault / rape acknowledgment (see Fiiun 1.l) thm is a hypotheSRed posiüve nlationship between self-Marne and unsupporlive behavior (indudes nœiving Wame from others), aithough the causal relaüonship behrveen the two variables is not specified (see Sedion 3.1 1.4 for a more detaiied rationale for mis hypothesis). me importance of signifiant others' rsadions was also hiihlighted by Wood and Rennie (1 994). They interviewed eight wmen who had hnmped by a date or acquaintance. The mimen's difficufty identifying their eqmienœ as rape was a salient featurs of their atcxrunts. The authors nated that some of the menin the study sought tne inteMMawats opinion about whetner their experience wnstituted rape. In addition, two wmen iniüally called

a These fms of extemal bfame are not king induded in îhe madel of ssxual assault I rape adtnovdedgment becawe lhem is no research juslifying their inclusion. They an measured in this study to see if Viey warnnt lndusion ln Mura lllsaarct~, their experienœ npe. but switched their conceptualization based on the responses of olhen. All of the participants diswssed "receiving, swking or avoiding the constructions of friends and family membennWood & Rennie, 1994, p.131); however. th authors chose to focw on the feedback of the assailant rsther than the fwdbock of signiiïcant othen. They reported that the women's interpretaüon of the man's khavior followhg the incident influenad their rape acknawledgment For example, in one case a man%indifierence made the woman realie that she had been raped. In anoîher instance, the man apologàsd two years affer the event and asked to remcile; thii mixed message (i.e., acknowledging that he did wmething wrong, yet suggesting that it was not ça setrious as to predude a Murs relationship) appeareâ to wniribute to the ~Oman'Swvn ambiguity regarding how to name the experlace. It was wmmon for the women to report that the perpetrator constnied the incident in tems of mutual participation, which made labeling the expefience as rape diffiwk While the wrk of Wood and Rennie (1994) and Piand Schwartz (1993) demonstrates the importance of others' teadions to rape adrnowiedgment, it is limited in several respects. For example, mal1 samples were used in bath studies. Wood and Rennie only analysed the women's constnial of their experience in tems of the perpetratots feedback and did not examine the influence of friends' and families' feedbadr, In addition, Piand Schwartz (1993) did not compare the two groups on unhelpful responses, other than blame, and did not inquire about helpful responses. This study seeks to exîend this area of research by examining disdosure and supportive and unsupporlive msponses, including other-blame, received by acknowledged and USAVs. Research wilt be reviewed mgarding disdosun among rape victims, the relationship between the circumstanœs of the assault and social support, the importance of social support to recavery from rape, and the relaüonship between social support and vidimsr attributions of Mame. Social support theory ml1 also be reviewed which suggests that others influence one's identity; this theoretical work irnpiies that responses fmm otfiers rnay influence one's idenüty as a vidim I non-vidim of rape f sexual assauiî. Finally, the implications of the march on social support and mpe will be discussed in the contex! of this study. 3.1 1.1 Disclosure Amonn Raw I Sexwl AsmuI Victim Wmin the first fw houn of king raped, wmen begin to wrry about disclosing the assauit to othen (Ruch, Garlrell, Amadeo, & Coyne, 1991). Ullman (1996a) examineâ the social reacüons experienced by a wnvenienw sarnpie of 155 women who had enpcrienced a sexual assauit one or more yean ago. She faund that 5% of the vmmen had not disdosed the assault to anyone. Piiand Schwartz (1993) found that 21% of rape vicüms did not tefl anyone about the assauit. Of the women who disciosed in Ullman's sample, 34% disciosad immediately following the asauit, 18% disdosad days Iater, 14% disciosed weeks later. 5% disciosed a year later, and 29% waitad over a year to disdase. Most of the women diiosed to friends or relatives (91%)and mental health pmfessionals (60%). Fewer than 20% discloseci to physidans, dergy, police and rape crisis csriass. A number of variables have been reioteâ to reponing the incident to the police. Feldman-Summen and AshmrrVi (1981) round that a mndom sampie of wmen rsported that social support would be the most important fador in making a decision to report a rape. In addition, researchers examining sarnples of mped wmen have found that concem about hm the assauit will be viewed (Wyatt et ai., Mû), bdieving that they will be judged nqatively, self-blame, feelings of embarrasment, being under the inff uenw of alwhol (Flnkelson & Oswalt, 1995). low physical threat, a lack of resistance, a low degree of malcontact, and les emotional distress (Golding, Sieqel, Somnsan, Bumam, & Stein, 1969) are associaied wilh not reporting to police. Simflarly, over one-third of a sampie of smally harassai women cited fear that the harassment wuld b held Win* lhem or fear of being Mamd as the mason for non- reporting (Jensen & Gutek, 1962). Thus, the research dernmsùetes the importance of variables related to the assauit, fear of not king believsd and self-blame as important variables in raped womenls decision not to report îheir assauit to the police. The research suggests that situational variabk related to fie nature of the assault are also associated with disdosure to friends and family. Women mped by strangers wen more likely to talk to friends, relatives and professionals than vidims of acquaintance rape (Golding et al., 1989; Ullman 6 Siegel, 1993). it has ahbeen obseiveâ that vidims of acquaintance rape anmore likely to isolate themselws socially, to be se#ative about their experience, and to experience shame and guilt (Bowie et al., 1990). Less physical threat and resisüng less are also associated with nondisclosure (Golding et al., 1969). Sinw URVs are mon likely to be raped by intimates (Koss, 1985), repart les forceful assaults (Hunter, 1994; Kahn et al., 1994; Kilpatrick et al., 1988; Layman et al., 1998) and they view themselves as rasisüng less (Layman et al., 1996), 1would be expacteci mat ihqwould disdose lass often than ARVs. Indeed, Layman-Guadalupe (1986) and Layman et et. (1 QW)found a tfend for greater disdosure among ARVs than URVs, although the diierences did not mach statistical significance; for example, 87% and 90% of ARVs toid someone about the assault compared to 83% and 73% of URVs in the two studies respeûively. It was suggested by Ullrnan and Siegel (1993) that far of being blamed or not believed by othen may keep acquaintarn tape vicüms fram disdwing. It is expeded that vidims' perceptions of significant others' and societal atti!udw towards rape vidims will influence disdosure (see Section 3.7.4 for furtfier elabrotion). Resaarch reviewed in Sedon 3.10.1 indicates that the situational variables raleüng to the assauit ara also asociated with greater self-blame and les parpetraior Mme for the mpe. It is sxpsdd the ettributions of Mame will mediate the nlationship batwam the drwmstanœs of the assauk and diiosure. which in tum is expeded to be assoc*atedwith malasssuk / rape aduiawladgrnent (se Faure 1.1). 3.11.2 Relationshi~of Sockl Su~oortto the lJlnun of- huit The situational variables of lhe assauit which have hnfound to be mlated to acknwment (e.g., mlationship rmh îhe psrpeîmtor, force and rssistanœ) have abbeen found to be Wated to the social support rsc#iveâ by rape vidirns and individuals' judqments of rape scenarios. For example, it has bwn found that vldims who msist more and mive physical injury are mon likaly to meive support fmm fncrnds, police and the cwrt (Renner et al., 1988). Individuals judging rape scenarios have ahbeen found to stMkne mmMarne to the assailant and attribuîe lsss rssponsibility, more hopelmess and more rsspsdaûiity to the vidim when more fone was involved (Knilawitz & Payne, 1978). Ttiere is a large body of reseamh shovdng îhat indiiualsjudge mriasdepicüng stranger and acquaintance rape differently. For example, individuals are more likely to charaderia? a situation as rape when the forced semial intercourse occun between strangers as opposed to mendating partnen (Bridges, 1991; Klemmack & Klemmack, 1976) and consider stranger tape to be more serious ihan date rape (Quackenbush. 1889; Stacy, Prisbell, & Tollefsrud, 1992). As well, vicüms of acquaintance rape anseen as enjoying the rape more and as reading more favourably than vidims of stranger rape (Check & Malamuth, 1983; Johnson 6 Russ, 1989). In adâiion, it has been found ihai inâiiiduals believed that there had been a greater violation of the woman's rights when the couple were strangers as opposed to king on their iirst date and they believed that then was more psychological damage to the victim of a stranger rape and a rape which occurs on the first date as compared to the drimage experienced by a Miman raped by a steady date (Bddges, 1991). Similady, more nsponsibility was attributed to the vidim when then was a more intimate dationship -en the vidim and the perpetrator (Jenkins & Dambmt, 1987; Szymanski, Devlin, Chrisler, & Vyse, 1993; Quackenbush, 1989) and the wman was more likely 10 be seen as encouraging the rape when she was raped by an acquaintance as opposed to a stranger (Szymanski et al., 1993). A sample of male undergraduate students was also found to be more empathic towards a vidim of stranger as opposed to acquaintance rape (Quackenbush, 1989). The Mender was seen as more responsibte (Bridges 6 McGrail, 1989; Quackenbush, 198@),was Mamed more (Jackson, 1Q91), and the vidim was blamed Iess in a sûanger rapas opposed to an acquaintance rape (Jackson, Mt;Johnson & Russ, 1989; Kanekar, Shahemalla, Franco, Kunju & Pinto, 1991). In addiion, a stranger rapist was vidmore negatively Vian an acquaintance rapist, and participants were more cedain of the stranger rapistis guilt and kliewdthat the stranger rapist should spend more time in jaiI (Szyrnanski et al.. 1993). lndividuals were also more apt to identify with an acquaintancs rapist as opposed to a stranger rapist (Szymanslri et al., 1993). There is, thus, a wide body of research demonsttaüng ihaî acquaintance rape is viawed as less serious than stranger rape and ütat individuals are more apt to blame an acquaintance rape vidim as compamd to a sttanger rape viam. It seems likely that the variables relaüng to the circumstances of the assault wauld infiuence the support nceived by acknowledged and URVs. Since URVs are more likely to be raped by an acquaintance (Koss, 1865). jdge their perpetrafor as wing lesforce (Kahn et al.. 1W4; Layman et al., 1988) and view themselves as resisüng less (Layman ut al., 1996) as compared to ARVs, it follom that Mywouïd also -ive more unsupparlive behavior tnan ARVs. lt is etxpected that mœiving unsupportIve khavior fmm others is amerva~ôle that medistes the nlaüonship between the a'rrrrmstanœs of the assaut and -al assault 1 rape acknowledgment (see Faure 1-1). 3.t1.3 Social Sunart and Ruavaw fmm Ra- Rape vidims have identifiad sacial support as bing paiawlarly halpful in their recovery. Fmzier and Burnett (1994) nported that vidims idenüfisd taiking about the rape and expmsirtg feelings and rewiving support from family and friands as the most heipful things they had done since the rape. Rape vidims itlenüfied king underaaod and liened to, and told that lhey were not at fault and should not be Mamed as particularly helpful (Biaggio, Brownell. & Watts, 1991). Rape vidlms abmprted feeling relievad when mers frarned their experience as rape or vidimitaüon (Biaggio et ai., 1991). Rape vidims who mived wunselling ftequently mentioned having lheir counsellors tell them that they were not to blame was helpful in their recovery (Katz 6 Burt, 1988). Social support has been kund to be related to shorter periods of recavery (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1978). Cohen and Wills (1985) suggested that there are fourdiffemnt types of resourees provided by social support, including esleem support (e.9.. a sen- that one is valueâ), instrumental support (e.9.. assisiance and s8rvicas), informational support (e.g., helping the person understand hisiher situaüon and wpe more effectively), and -al companionship. All of these resources may coniribule to the assodaüon obsenred batwecrn social support and recovery. Heller. Swindle, and Dusunbury (1986) highlighted the imporlanœ of the esteem- enhancing camponent of social support lhey argued that it is the appraisal of oihers' views of the self that is esteem-enhancing. Symbolic interacüonists have suggested that self-identity cornes out of, and is reinforced by, role relationships (e-g., Mead, 1934; Stqker, 1980). Thus, it would not be surprising if othen' view of the self as a rape vidim 1 non-vidim would influence whether one would constnre oneself as the vidim of rape. Recent research indicates thaï it is negaüve social supporl. rather than posiüve social suppoct, which is most important in ternis d atleaing recovery from r~pe(e.g., Dovis, Brickman & Baker, 1991; Taylor, 1998). Ullman (1996b) found that negative social nadions are assodateci with increased psychological symptoms and poorer seif-rated mcovery. Unsupportive behavior from signifieont olhars is also associated wiVI vidims believing that the rape was due to something they did flayior, 1996). k is unknawn whether vidims with poor adjustment perwive uthert' bhaviw as mors ~rWpfKWtiv8,if they elicit more unsuppoftive behavior, or ifncbiving unsupporüvt! bahavior le& to pwr adjustment (Davis et al., 1991). Many tape vidims receive unsupportive behavior from others. For artample. 63% of the women in a wnvenienœ sampfe of rape vidims reported king blamed ortreated differently and 62% reported that others had diiuraged them fmm talking abaut the aS!ia~lt (Ullman, 1996a). In an qmnandeâ qusstion mgarding th% most negaüve thing somme said or dii. 27% mentioned victim biame. 27% raporthd negaüve -al madions (e.g., trsaüng the vidim differently, having someone take control, diidion) and 10% mentioned minimizaüon I denial (Ullman, 1996a). Invaiiiaüng and blaming I shaming rssponses from others have been identifieci as particulariy unsupportive in another study (Biaggio et al., 1991). Receiving Marne fmrn others appean to be a paniailarly damaging km of unsupportive behavior. Given the recent research indicaüng the importance, and prevalenœ of unsupportive behavior, it is expeded that unsupporüve behavior will be relaed to sexual assaul 1 mps acknowledgment. Thus, it is expeded that USAVs will hmore likely to mport receiving unsupportive behavian fmrn othen than ASAM. People onen mad unfavourably to vidims of mpe and vidims have to deal not only with the effeas of the rape, but also with otheis' distrust and Marne (Krahd, 1992). The la& of support rape vidims receive from family, fitends, and the cbmmunity has been descm3ed as the "second injury" (Symonds, 1980 as cited in KrahB, 1992). Krah6 (1992) arpued that vidimitation is not lirnited to the npe, but rather it continues in the vidims' interpersonal relationships and treatment within the criminal jusüce system. It has been suggested that it is the wider beliefs and values WinSociety, which were discussed earlier, that is central to this "second vidirnization" (Krahd, 1992). 3.11.4 Social Su~oortand Victims' Attributions A relationship has been found between self-blame and the msponses of otherç. For example, greater self-blame is associated with receiving lessocial support (frazier, 189.1) and with parental blame and blarne fmm partners (Renner et al., 1988). fhomton et al. (1688) examined rape counsellon' and college studenîs' judQments of scenarlos depiding rape victirns engaging in behavioral self-attributions, charederological self-attributions, or chance attributions. They found that vidims who engaged in behavioral or charademlogical self- attributions were seen by both college ludents and rape counwllors as lesadjusted and as more responsible for the rape. Taylor (1996) found that there was a signifiant path from receiving unsupportive (but not supportive) behavior from a prïmary signifiant other and making intemal behavioral attributions. Thereforo, it is expeded that saIf-blame will be posiüvely related with nwiving unsupporüve behavior from othen. Hawever, it is undear whether individuals engaging in more self-blame elicit unsupportive behavior fmrn othen (as the work of Thomton et al., 1908 sugghsls), orwhether receiving unsupporüve behavior fmrn othen causes one to blame the self (as shown in Taylor, 1998). Themfore, in this study a relaüonship between self-biame and unsupporüve behavior is hypothesized to m*st,aiü~ough the causal relaüonship is not specified in the mode1 (see figure 1.1). Although no matehwas Idedexamining the relaüonship bstween perpetrator blame and unsupportive behavior from others, it was upeded that then wuld bc a positive covariance between the two variables. ft was hypothcsized that those who blame the perpetmtor might invite fmmr nagaüve rwponsss fmm signifiant others, as ttisy am holding something Outside thsfmives as rssponsible for îhe assaut It was also expacted that more unsupportive social r8spom.s may enwurage las parpubator #ame becouse if a vidim is being blamed and treetad differenüy Vian she rnay k hlikely to belbve that the parpetrator was accountable for the assauli. 3.113 Social SUD DOT^ 8nd the Cumnt Study It has been suggestad that it is the axpeaati*on or mperienee of stigrnatization and blame that may Iead women to avoid labeling themselves as a vidim of rape (Kelly, 19811). There are "strong disincentives to construe and report the experience as rape: Clairns of rape may ôe met with a host of negaüve outcomas induding disbelief, biame, unsupporüve behavior, and aversfve publicity" (Layman et al., 1896, p. 130). iî is likely that the readions of friends and family influence the rape vietim's understanding of her fan;sd sexual expsrience. As Wood and Rennie (1984) noted, "Mhe naming of [riapal is worked out and negotiatd in interactions wiîh other peme. It is not construded in a social vacuum" (p. 131). This study will examine the social support that acknowledged and USAVs mceive. The focus will be on informai (e.g., friands, paitner, and family), rather than formal support (e-g., professional support), as it is the suppoit providd by friends and family which occun earlier and more frequently than pmfessional suppoR and may thus be most important in tenns of sexual assauit f rape acknowledgment (Brickman, 1MO as cited in Taylor, 1996). This study will rely on victims' repods of others' suppotiive and unsupporüve bhavior, Aithough it has been found that vidirns and their significant attien do not necaàsaiily agm on the amount of unsupportive behavior given / received (Taylor, 1998), 1 is argued that an individuai's perception of support is more important than the amount and type of support othen report pmviding (Procidano & Heller, 1983). Pmvious mearchers found a trend for URVs to be less likely to disciose the assaun as wmpared to ARVs, although this diffennm was not found to ùe staüaically signifiant, which appears to be due to low statidiwl pawer (Layman-Guadalupe, 7996; Layman et al.. 1a%). The relationship -en disclwum and acknowledged needs to hexamined using a more powerful design. it is txpsded that the nature of URVs' as6aufts leads them to blame lhemselves and not the mtor,which may pment thmhm conming in 0th~~.t is ahhypothesized that more nagaüve pempüons of signifiant oü~ers'and Society's Ptütudes towards rape and rape vidims will lead to iess disclosure, as a miman is iPot libly to disdose rape / semial assault if she bslieves that mers hoid vidim=üaming atütudes. Non-diselosure is hirüier expeded to be -ated wiVi sexual assaun I rape adviAedqment (m.,those who do not disclose are expcîed to be IeSS likeiy to aeknow(eâge S€!miaI assault I rape). Negaüve social support is atso Iikaly important in ternis d understanding saxual assault acknowledgment. It is expeded that unsupportive hhavior fmm othen will mediate the relationship betwMn the arcumstancss of îhe assault and aelrnouvlsdgment. Social wpport is also expeded to be relateci lo vicüms' atlributiorts of blarne, with those receiving more unsupporüve behavior engaging in mon self-Mame and lsss prpetrator blame, aithough the causal diredion is not med(SW Figure 1.1)- 3.12 Psychologieal Functioning: Postmumttic Stnrt and Porttnumüc Growth A number of variabies rslated to p6ychological fundioning have been examinad in samples of acknowiadged and URVs. No difVennces betwaen the two gmups of rapvidims have been found in temis of their raüngs of îhe exient to which the rape affected their self- esteem, sexuaiii, relaüonships with men, and overall adjustrnent (these variables were assessed using global questions; Koss, 1985). They also did not differ in ternis of their dissociaüve experiences, their use of âefense mechanisms, global symptomatology (Layman et al., 1996), major depressive episode~,agoraphobia, social phobia, simple phobia, panic attacks, obsessive compulsive disorder, semal problems, or suiddal ideaüon (Kilpatrick et al., 1988). There was also no difference between the two groups of mpe victims in ternis of their lifetime prevalence of major depressive disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, simple phobia, panic attacks, obsessive compulsive disorder, semial problems, or suicidal ideation (Kilpatrick et al., 1988).'' It has been found, however, that ARVs reported more posttraumatic stress (PfS) symptoms than URVs (Layman-Guadalupe, 1996; Layman et al., 1986; Overt, 19M)and more avoidance and intrusion symptoms (Layman et al., 1996), although Layman-Guadalupe (t 996) did not replicate this later finding. KilpaWck et al. (1988) also found that ARVs were more likely to have had PTSD acms their lifetime than URVs, although they did not find a differenee in the prevalence of current PTSD between the tvvo grwpsll Given the evidenw demonstrating that PTS helps distinguish ûetwaen acknawledged and URVs, R was induded as a variable in the hypothesized mode1 of sexual assault / rape acknowledgment. Acknawiedged and URVs have not pmviously been compared in ternis of their gtowth experiences following the rape. Howver, dinical literature suggests that acknovdedgment rnay be an important precursor to the devalopment of growth in the attemath of wual assault. Therefore, posttraumatic growth ('TG) was induded as a hypatheskd outcome of acknowledgment. In this sedion, PTS will first be disaissed. A description of posttraumatic stress

'O Rape vidims (acknowladged and unacknowledgad) wmfound to be mon Iikdy than non-victims to have a major deprassive episode, -al phobia, and sexual diiculties, as welI as a lifeîime hiiory of major dqmssive me,sgonphobia, social phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder, malpmblems, suicida1 idedion. and suicide attempts (ICilpatrick et al., 1988).

l1 Kilpatn'ck et al. may not have found a diiennce bahnaen the rape gmups in ttmis of current PTSD because their generaI sampie was older than the student samples used by the other researchen and therefore ihere may have ben a longer peiiod of time since the assauil for the PTSD to remit. disorder (PTSD) will be prwüed. along Mhprwalenœ staüsücs mlated to rape vidirns, and a discussion of the -aüon baWen PTSD and the drrrimshnces of the assault. blame, and social support will be pre~entad.~~Next, the concep of PTG will be intmduced, followed by a discussion of PTG in mpe vidims, the nlaUmship Mwmadrnowlsdgment, force of the assault, PTS, disclmure, and PTG. Finally, the specific hypotheses nlated to PTS, PTG and acknowledgment will be sumrnarized. 3.1 2.1 Posttnumrtic Stress Posttraumatic slress diirder (PTçD) is an anxje&y disorder that can occur after the experience of a severe trauma. PTSD was originally obsewed among those involved in military combat, but it was later identifid as a ammon consequenco of sexual assault. PTSD can occur following exposure to an exîretrne traumatic stressor involving direct personal exparience of an event that involves adual orthmatened death or sariaus injury, or other threat to one's physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person; or Ieaming about unelrpeded or violent death, serious ham or threat of death or lnjury experienced by a family member or other close associate. 1he person's mponsé to the event must involve intense fear, helpîessness, or homr (American Psychiatrie AssociJon, 1994, p. 424). PTSD consists of rwxpefiencing symptoms (e.g., intnisive mernories, nightmares, flashbacks, etc.), avoidance symptoms (e-g., avoidance of thoughts about the event, avoidinq reminders of the events, inabiiii to recall impodant pads of the trauma, etc.), and increased amusal (e.g.. initial or intermittent insomnia, irrftability, concentration diiwlües, hypewigilance, exaggerated startle response; American Psychiiatnc Assoeiaüon, 1994). Research has show that PTSD is extremely wmmon among vidims of mpe. Lifetime prevalence for PTSO in a ~fnm~nitysample of mpe vidims was found to be 57.1% and 16.5% met criteria for PTSD at the time of the study, which was on average 17 yean affer the assauit (Kilpatfick, Saunders, Veronen, Best & Von, 1987). Rothbaum, Foa, Riggs, Murdock, and Walsh (1992) found that just about al1 (94%) of their sample of 95 rape vidims met criteria for PTSD shortly afkr the assault (man length of Ume since the assault was 13 days). The prevalena of PTSD sympîoms reùuced over time, with 65% meeting diagnosüc criteria when assessed appfoximately 35 days aiter the assauit, and 47% meeüng criteda when assessed approximately 94 days after the assault. 3.1 2.1.1 Cinumrtrnces of the As#uR md mSD The force of the assautt has benfound tu be nlated to the development of PTSD. For example, ffilpatrick et al. (1919) found that the perception of threat to Iife. injury. and cornpleted rapc significantiy pradidad PTSD in a genefal sample of uime vidims. Similarly, Resnick,

l2 'PTSI is used to mfer to the presenca of posttraumatic stress symptomatology. while 'PTSD" is used to indicate that full aitaria hava ôeen mot for the diagnosis of posttraumaüc stress disorder. PTS is tvpi*caiIy asssssad using Self-report quesîionnairas, while a stnictured diagnosüc interview is usually used to diegnose PTSD in research studies. Kilpatfick, Danslty, Saunden, and Bast (1993) found that the rata of PTSD among crime viâims was hiiher when Itiem was periceived life threat and injury. DarvesBomoz et al. (1 898) alsa found mat added physical videnw dming lhe rape was BSSOCiatd with the developrnent of PTSD. Brutal aggrrssion. lhe use of a wapon, and serious physical injury has also ben associated with the developmeiit of PTSD in mps vidims (Bomies,O'Gonnan, & Sayers, 1991). Kilpatridc et al. (1988) also found that more vioient rapm (e.g., mminvolving the use of a weapon, mceipt of injuries, and I or fear of injury or death) were Sssodatd with PTSD. Similarly. Cohen and Roth (1 887) found that inmased force was nlated to mors distress, including inmased feaihilness and hypervigilanw. Thus, the BssOclBSSOClation between PTSD, physical injury, physical violence, and perceiveci threat to one's life appears to be a fairly robust finding, IikeIy because these featuras of the situation make the sxperienœ more severe and traumatic (Epstein, Saunden, & KilpaWc, 1997). Themfore, it is txpsaed that the force of the assautt will be associateci wiih grnater PTS symptoms in this study, Only one study was located which examined the relaîionship between vidims' resistance and PTSD (Arata & Bucktiert, 10û6). Arata and Burkhart found that the methods of resistance used wem unnlatd to the development of PTSD. Similarly. Frank, Tumer, and Stewart (1 980) did not find a differenw between vidirns who tried to defend themsdves and those wha did not in temof subsequent diffiwlües with depression, anxiety, and social relationships. Thus, it is expected that resistance will not be associateci with PTS in this study. Research on the relationship kwenthe vidim and the perpstratorand the development of PTSD and anxiety hes been wntradidory. For exampie, some mearchers have found that being assauled by a stranger k associated with greater PTSD symptomatology (Bownes et al., 1991; Cascardi, Riggs, Hearst-Ikeda, & Foe, 1998) and greater emoüonat distress (Ruch & Chandler, 1983). However, mers have failed to find a relationship between acquaintanceship and PTSD ianxiaty (Arata & Burkhart, 1998; Frank et al., 1880; Kramer & Green, 1991; Riggs, Kilpaltick, & Resnick, 1992) and some have found greaterfear among those raped by acquaintanœs (Scheppele & BaR, f983). GNen these wnîradidory resuits, no hypotheses are being made about the relationship benman degract of acquaintancaship and the development of PTS in mis study. 3.12.1.2 8- and PfSb As reviewed earlier. seif-blame has ben asochW wiîh a varieîy of psychological pmblerns in rape victims (see Sedion 3.10.2). A nlationship has also benCaund batmrsn self-blame and the development of PTS symptoms in rape vidirns. Fot example, Foa (1990 as cited in Resnick, Kilpatrick tipavsky, 1991) found Viat feelings d guik were nlated to the development of PTSD in rape vidhs. In addiion, greater behavioral and ctiaractemlogical self-blame were found to be asociated wMl Vie developmant of PTS sympiornatolagy in a sample of university auquaintance sexual assault vidnns @rata & Burkhart, 1888). lherefore, it is expeded that greater self-ôiame will Iead to greater PTS symptoms in this My. 3.1 2.1.3 S~idSrrpport ~d PTSD It has bensuggwted that &al support my'bufier" the negaiive dffsds of experiencing a dmsful event (Cohen & Wilüs, 1985; Dqmr, Wahington, & IngmlCDayton, 1W4; Wilcox, 1981). In the rapa literature, negativi social mdions have been found to have a negafve influence on vicürns' adjustment (Davis et el., 1891; Kramer & Green, 1991; se Section 3.1 1.3 for further discussion). Several sûuîies, whicb have induded indïviduals with different traumatic experiences, have found a rslaîiinship between poor social support and PTSO (e.g., Davidson, Hughes, fllazer, & George, 1991). Fiannery (1990) condudecl on the basis of his review mat social support has a smaff, but consistent, negaüve mlatïonship with psychological trauma. Thus, the research shows a rslaüonship between negaüve social support and adjustment in a variety of different samples. induding rape vicüms. mus, it is hypothesized that receiving unsupportive khavior from others will predict the developrnent of PTS in this study. 3.12.1.4 Porltnumaüc Sbcu and Semal Asuutt Atknowlrdbmenî As rnentioned earlier, ARVs have generally benfound to report more PTS symptoms than URVs (ffilpatrick et al., 1908; Layman et al., 1988; Laymaffiuadalupe, 1QM; Overt, 1994). It is suspeded that women experiencing more PTS symptamatology wifl be more likely to infer that a forced sexual expsrience was semial assault In other woids, P is hypothesized that greater PTS symptorns will predict greater semal assauli adtnowidgrnent. However, it is also hypothesized that part of ihe relaüonship bawaen PTS and ackmhâgm8nt is due to both being related to more forcefut assaults. For example, experbncing a rape involving significant force is expeded to lead to greater PTS symptoms and greater sexual assault acknawledgrnent. 3.12.2 Posttraumatic GrowVi There is a large body of research hltarnining the negalive consequences of experiencing a trauma such as slexual assault (see Sadion 1). Resaarcliers are beginning to recognize, however, that although there are many negative conwuenws assochWwith experiencing a sexual assault. then is also the possibility of posiüve wnsequencu (BurlL Katz, 1987; Veronen & Kilpetrick, 1883). nieterm 'pobttraumaüc gmwVi' is used to refer to the positive benefits and gmwth that individuah anexperienw in the aftermaîh of a traumatic event fledesehi, Park & Calhoun, IW)."

l3 Several other ternis have ais0 benused to deseni Viis phenomenon, such as positive psychological changes', parcelved hnefits', 'coristnriiig kmfits', and 'slress-related growth' redeschi et al., 1888). 45 Tedeschi and Calhoun (1998) rwi8wed the researd~examinin9 the posiüve consequenws that can ocair followhg the expertSnce of swefe tfaUma (e.~., mp, incssi, bereavement, cancer, HIV infection. hwtptlads, disastem, combat uid the Holocawt) and identified three types of peneiwd ôenants that mn oearr: dl- in self-pem@ion, changes in interpersonal relationships, and a changd philosophy of Iife. it appaars that indiiiduak who survive a trauma ofien feel an increased sense of salf-raliance and a kliefthat they ana stmng person, as well as improvements in their mtaüonships wkh &ers and a new outlook on life. There has been some limiîed research examinimg the PTG that can occur follom'ng rape. For example, Vemnen and Kilpatrick (1983) mprted that many mpe vidims in their sample, who had al1 rewived counselling, indkatsd th& Wyhad maâe positive changes in their life following their rape. Burt and Katz (1967) also documentd the presenœ of growih in several areas following rape, induding grnater self-value, improved interpersonal skills, and increased positive actions (e.g., making positive changes at work, gaürig invdved in political or social adion, helping other ssxual assault vidims, ac.). Then is ais0 resaarch Jhowing mat individuals can experience some bendits fmm having awparlenced chitdhood semal abuse (e.g., McMillen, Zuravin, & Rideout, 1985). 3.1 2.2.1 Senial Ausuit Acknowhdcirnent and Posiïmumrtlc Gram Bmwnmiller (1975) highlighted the Won Mat then is power in labaling an experience. Du Bois (1983) also empheshed the importance of 'naming': The power of naming is at Imst two-foid, naming defines ths quality and value of that which is named-and it afso denies realii and value to that which is never named, never uttered. That which has no name, that for which we have no words or concepts, is rendered mute and invisible; powerkss to inform or transfomi Our consciousness of Our experience, ouf understanding, our vision, powad635 to claim its omi wisîence (p. 108). By acknowiedging sexual assauit, wmen are aMe to examine th effects of the incident and find ways of coping (Kelly, 1986). Furthemore, Wood and Rennk (1994) suggaed that uncertainty about how ta define a foread sexual experienœ oftw leads to not moving beyond it. Lebowitr and Roth (1994) argued that '[d]iculües labeling a rape as 'rspe' aff-$1 women's ability to ...g ive themsclws the psychological mmto recovef (p. 387). The dinical literature generally imphasizes himportsnœ of acknuwiadging the assautt as an initial step to healing ftom sexual trauma. Sewmt seif-klp books kgin wiih pmviding definitions of abuse, which pmmotes the notion îhat acknowledgment or mwgnlion that one has benabused 1 assauited is a pmwrsor to rscwery (e.g., Bass & Davis, 1088: Gil, 1988; Lew, 1990)." For example, Gil(1988) has an early chapter enütied 'OK 1 klieve it. now Hat?'. Bass and Davis (1W8) in their well-knm self-help book, The Couraae to Heal, begin by answaring the question 'How can I know if 1 was a viûim of child sexual abuser, Acknowledgment b seen as a crucial step in mmotbg grWh following sexual trauma. Calhoun and Tedeschi (1998) argued that incorporating a traumatic event into one's Iife story or narrative, may increase the likelihood of cxperiendng PTG. Relating the trauma to earlier events in Iife and subsquent events can help contextualizs the trauma and facilitate self-undentanding and highiiiht change. It would seem that a woman would be unlikely to incorporate a sexual assauit into her life narrative unless it was acknowledged. If the sexual assauit is not given a name, il will likely not be salient enough to play a com mle in one's life narrative. Therefore, semial assauit acknowledgment may lead to incorponthg the semal assault into one's life narrative, which in tum may be related to inmaseâ PTG. Tedeschi et al. (1998) also discussed the importance of labels in ternis of promoting PTG. They suggested that changing the perception of the self as a 'vidim" to a Sunrivor' of trauma is an important step along the path to PTG. The use of the terni 'sunrivof has fewer negative connotations and is seen as promoting personal strength. While this study is not examining the use of the tenns 'victirn" or 'suMvoP, 1would seem that sexual assauk 1 rape acknowledgment would be neçessary in order to view the self as a 'sunrivor' and to reap the personal gmwth that can occur after having experienced a trauma. It seems unlikely that gmwth fmm a sexual assault 1 rape experience could occur, if the sexuel assauit 1 rape is not even acknowiedged. Therefore, 1 is expeded that acknowledgment will predid PTG in this study. 3.1 2.2.2 Extent of the Tnumand PTG It has been suggested that it is the experience of 'seismic events' that have the potential to produce PTG (Calhoun. 1996 as cited in Tedeschi et al., 1998). A seismic event 'severely shakes or destmys some of the key elements of the individual's important goals and world view, setting in motion a process of great emoüonal dii,high Ievels of mminaüon, and attempts to change behavior that is designed to reduce distress and diimfof (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1998, p. 227). Aldwin and Sutton (lffl) al- argued that events that are more severe are more likely to result in positive long-term change. Veronen and Kilpatrick (1983) indicated that experiendng a threat to one's life may Iead to imagining one's death and the consequenus to cithers, which can lead to a graater appciation of life, r msssessment of priorities, and the perception that sexual assault mpresents a mssningful 'cmSSIOadsg in life. It

l4 Aithough the self-help Iiterature reviewed hem is sphcific to mvering from childhood sexual abuse, the principlw appear to appiy to rscovety from other foms of sexual trauma. has also been noted that receiving post-semial assauft services, whidi is more llkely to occur Menwomen exparience more forwful aswult and have mmdistress, can promote higher levels of fundioning Qfemn & KHpaln'ck, 18113). fhus, A is 6xpsaad ütat mon forcefui sexuai assaults wiiI be a-ated with grnater PTG, as they are more Iilyto reprisent the type of 'seismic eventDthat would pmvide the moüvation to seek penonal gmwüi. Schafer and Mws (1998) argued that psychological dioften a& as a cptalyst for change. They sqgested mat distrrtss often serves to mobilize coping resourœs and pemnal resilience, as mell as social support. The wsüng research examining the rnlaüonship between PTG and psychological distress has been limited and inconsistent (Calhoun & Tadeschi, 1998). However, Calhoun and Tedeschi argud thet 'b1rowth may wdl b mon likely to ocwr as a resuit of a pmcess that minswiUi Vie sheking of the toundations of the individuai's assumptive world, and a concomitant increase in psychological pain and dii(p. 217). It is expeded, therefore, that greater PTS symptarns will be assOclSSOClatedwtth gmaîer PTG because Vie PTS symptoms may k fhther evidence that the event is 'seismic' anâ rnay provide the necessary irnpetus ta gmw and change. 3.12.2.3 Disclosun and ~u~cGmwth Disdasure and shanng feelings has benshm to be ntlated to mental and physical health (Park & Stiles, 1998; Pennebaker, 1994). Tedeschi and Calhoun (1 W5,7ggS) suggested that needing to discuss the eonsequences of the ûauma and discover ways to cope offen lead individuals experiencing traumas to bacorne mom selfdiscloslng. Self-diiosure is thought to facilnate PTG, because it pmvides an oppartunity to try naw bshaviors, allows for more opportuniües for emotional expnssiveness, faciTies a gmatsr recognition of one's vulnerability, and is offen rdeted to an incrsasad witlingnass to accept help and incretased sensitivity towards othen Fedeschi & Caihoun, 1WS, 1886}. Thersfora, it is expecteû that increased disdosure will also be assodated with greater PTG in this Wdy. 3.12.3 Porttnumrtit Stress. Porttnumatic Orowth. and the Cumnt Study Based on the empirical and thsoiaücaf rrwirarch ouüined above, it is expeded Mat more forceful assaults, self-blame, and umppartive behavior will be assaciad with greater PTS symptomatolqy and that grSriter PTS symploms will be pmdidive of greater saxual assauit acknowicdgment. In odd'rüon, it Ir anüdpated ihat more fotœful assaults, PTS, sexual assault acknowisdgmeni, and disdosure will lead to anater ?TG -ences. 3.13 Summaiy and Rauhof the Modrl of SIJ(W Aurult I Ripe Aeknowkdgment Relatively faw difknnoss have baan found bstwsen Ihe tua grwps of mpe viaims. The researdi mviewed abwe suggets the importrnts of the reisb'&ip with Itie assaitant. the amount of force and mislance, npe scripls, pumptions of sipnifkant othen' and societal attitudes towards rap and rape vidim aüfiout[w# of Marna, disdosure, unuipporüve behavior fmm others, PTS sympomatology, and PTG in ternis of disünguishinq between acknowlodged and URVs. This marc$ has bssn largely atheoreiical and iiieattention has been paid to the relaüonships between the afommeüoned variables or the relative contribution of each variable to sema1 assauit 1 mpe acknowladgment. A mode1 of sexual assauit 1 rape acknowledgment was proposeci which aîtempts to specify the relationship batwean these variables and the means by which they influence xxual assault 1 mpe acknowledgment (see Figure 1.1). This model will provMe a framework fmm which to begin to understand the pmcess of semial assault 1 mpe acknowledgment and guides the current research. The purpose of this study was to examine some of the relationships suggested in this model to help clarify the pmceo of sexual assauit acknowledgment. The path diagram in Figure 1.1 is a summary statement of a set of hypoiheses, which will be stated briefly below. Circumstances of the Assauit. The available research suggests that acknawledged and URVs differ on soma variables relaîing to the cimmstanœs of the assault, including the nature of the relationship with the assailant and variables mlaüng to the force of the assauit and the resistance of the vidim. For example, URVs have been found to be more likely to have had a dating relationship with their perpetrator. are more acquainted with their assailant. and anmore likely to have eI'Iga~€!d in previous consensual semial activity wiih their assailant (Koss, 1985). Furîhermore, URVs report less forceful assaults (Kahn et al., 1994; Kilpatrick et al., 1988) and are leslikely to report that the man threatened, their amilheld them dom, or hiüslapped them compareâ to ARVs (Layrnan et al., 1998). URVs also see themselves as resisting less and report being less clear in their refusal of sex (Layman et al., 1996). It is important to note that it is unknomi whether situational events affect the labeling of a coercive sexual experience as rape or whether acknowledging rape affects the recolledion of the event. It is unlikely, however, that mpe acknowledgement would affed recolledion of the variables relating to the type of relationship wiîh the assailant, parücularîy the nature of the relationship and whether there had been pnor semial intimacy. Other msearch has shown that acquaintance rapes involve less violence than stranger rapes, as indicated by vidims' reports of aggressive strategies used by their parpetrato~and the physicsl injuries they raceiveâ (Ellis et al,, 1981; Koss et al., 1918). which makes it likely that if URVs tend to bs mpad by acquaintances that ïhey would also mport Iws force. Furthemon. some items measuring the force of the assauit and resistance are more 'objectivew (e-g., whether a weapon was used, whetherthe vidim ran away), which are leslikely to k affected by a retrospedive Mas. This pmvides further support for the notion mat situational events inffuencb rape acknwvledgment rather than rape acknowledgment affeding recolldon of the cimmsûanc8s rslated to the assauit. Rape Scriots. What is currentiy unknown is the mechanism(s) by which the variables regarding the cifcumstances of the assault influence rape adrn-gment. The work of Kahn et al. (1994) indicaîes that URVs are more likety to hold vident, stranger biii rape scripts than ARVs (Kahn et al., 1994). Thus, URVs may compare thsir ouun forcd mal-rience by an acquainiance with the çtb-c view of rapas a sbonger biii rape, which may diiuaiiithe experience as mpe. it Is wqmcted that thk mismatch wnthJr own experience of rape and the stenatypic view of mpinterferes wi!h rape acknowledgment by causing women to altribute more blame to the self and less to ths peqmtrator. Unsuu~ortiveBehavior from Otherr. Although holding violent, stninger blitz rape scripts likely interferes with some vamen's rape acknowledgmeni, not al1 URVs hold siranger rape scripts and thus there are other factors whidi interfere mth rape adrnowladgment. Circumstances relating to the assault may also affed the support and Marne vidims mceive fmm significant men, which may in tum affed rape acknowkdgment. Far example, it has been shown that victims who resist less and do not meeive physical injuries are leslikely to receive support fmrn others (Renner et al,, 1988; Wyatt et ai., 1991). There is also ample research suggesting that individuais are more apt to blame the vidim and hold her responsible for the rape when she is acquainted wiîh her assailant (Jackson, 1991; Jenkins 6 Dambmt, 1987; Johnson 6 Russ, 1969; Kanekar et al., 1891; Szymanski et al., 1993; Quackenbush, 1989) and are less likely to view acquaintanw rape as 'rape" (Bridges, 1991 ; Klemrnack 6 iüemmack, 1976). Thus, it follows that if URVs are more likely to hraped by an acquaintance, to experience less forceful assaults and rssist iass than ARVs, that they would be mon likely to mceive unsupportive behavior ftom othen. Thenefore, R is hypothesized that unsupportive behavior fmm others mediates the nlaüonship betwetn the circumstances of the assault and rape I sexual assaut acknowledgment. Receiving uns~ppoiüveand biaming behavior fmrn othew is also expeded to be posliity associateci with perceiving one's significant others to hold more rape supporüve attitudes. Disdosure and Blame. Previous research has found a trend for ARVs to be more likely to confide in olhem than URVs (Layman-Guadalupe, 1096; Layman et al.. 1998). It is expeded that the nature of URVs' assaults ksds wmen to Marne themsslves mon and the perpetrator less. which rnay prevent them hmconfeding in olhem. 'Fhw, it is hypoîhesized that xlf-blarne and perpetrator Mame rnsdiates the mlaüonship bstmten Itie einumstancas of the assault and disdosure. Indeed it has bwn oôserwd that vidims of aequeintance ap am more likaly to isolate themselves socially, to k Saerative ahut their experienw, and cxperience shame and guiit (8owie et al., 1990). Not confiding in mers alsa piavsnts an URV fmm rscsiving discanfimiing information from othw iWnriduals who rnay SuQgeSt that Ihey d# indeed experience a rape. ft is also hypothesned mat pemiving signifiant mers and society as holding more rape supportive aüiîudes mil be negaüveIy assodateci wiVi confding in others; that is. if one believes that one's significant other and Society halds negoüve atüludss towaids rape and rape vidims, one is unlikely to confide in others. Blame and Unsumrtive Behavior fmm Olhers. It is expecied that seif-blame and receiving unsupportive responsas from others m'Il be posiiively mlated, as has been found in previous research (e.9.. Wyatt et al., 1980). It is unknown whether self-blame aii unsupportive and bîaming behavior fmm others, or whether self-Marne is a rsflecüon of the blame atiributed by athers, as Piiand Schwartz (1 893) suggested. Therefon, in lhe pmposed mode1 of sexual assault 1 rape acknawleâgment there is e double ambetween seif-blame and unsupportive behavior from others which indicaies a covariance tmîween the tua variables, with no implied direction of effed. it is aïsa anücipatsd that engaging in more self-Mame will lead to less perpetrator Mame. R is expected that women first asJess their own blame because they are likely more aware of their own intentions and behaviors and that their assesment of their own blame influences the aitribution of blame to the prpetrptor. Perpeimtor bîame is expected to be negatively related to receiving unsupportive behavior fmm othen. Posttraurnatic Stress Svmptomatology. ARVs report more PTS syrnptomatology than URVs (Layman-Guadalupe, 1996; Layman et al., 1996; Overt, 1994) and are more likely 10 report a history of PTSD (Kilpatridc et al., 1988). Research has shown that more forceful assaub, perception of threat to life, and injury were associateci with the development of PTSD (Kilpatrick et al., 1989; Resnick et al., 1993; DanresBomoz et al., 1998; Bownes et al., 1991). Self-blame has also been found to be associatexi with the development of PTS symptoms (Arata 6 Burkhart, 1996; Foa, 1990 as cïted in Resnick et ai., 1991) and other psyctiolagical difficulties. In adâiiion, unsupportive behavior has ben relatexi to PTS Oavidson et al., 1991; Flannery, 1990). mus, it is hypothesized that the force of the assauit, self-blame, and unsupportive behavior fmm otnen m'il be predidive of PTS. It is hypothesized that gmater PTS symptoms will predid gnater sexual assaun I rape acknowledgment, as women ertperiencing mon PTS symptoms may ûe mare likely to infer Viat they were assaulted. It is also hypothesised that part of the mlationship between PTS and acknawledgment is due to them both being nlated to more forcehi assaults. In other words, more forceful assauns are expedd to be related to inusasud PTS symptoms and greater sexual assauit 1 rapa acknowisagment. Postîraumatic Growth. FeminY and dinical literaîure has been revihwed. as well as theoretical work in the area of PTG, whlch suggests that gnater malassault I rap acknanfedgment may be predidhrs of greater PTG. iî & llso qmdedthat monforcefui assauits, greater disdosure, and greater PTS syrnptomatology wiil iiso ô8 associaid wiîh greater PTG. mese hypothcsas anbosd on thwmîical work suegssting mat 'saismic' events are more likely to be assadated with PTG (Calhoun. 1998 as cita in Tadeschi et al., 1998; Calhwn 6 Tedeschi, 1898; Alavin & Sutton. 1ffl) and maardi showhg a mlationship between disclouire and mental and physical hoalth (Pennebaksr, 1W). Model InvaStjPoted. TM cunant study sasks to examine îha drcumstan#s of Vie assaun, vidims' parcspüons of significant oihen' and sodetal attitudes tmrds mpand rape vidims, diiosure, social support, attributions of biame. PTS. and PfG in kmof sexual assault acknowledgment. Figure 3.1 npresents the mlati0118hjps batwaen the afommenüoned variables which wlll bs emmineâ In the wmnt sludy. Noie that rape sui* are not included in this msaarch; this decision was made dus to the diffiwlüss a-atsd with obtaining participnfs' rape scripts (eq.. providing rape scripts is tims mnsuming for the partiapant. potentially making a ppth analytic appmach less feasible since the amwnt of tïme mquired per subjed would likely limn the number of subjads mitsd). Ra* wrsus Sexual Assauk AI1 of the rsssarch dimaly examhing adtnowledgment. with the exception of one sludy, has kenconduded with college and university students in the United States. The curent study mksto broaden this research by aapplyim it to a large Canadian unhersity sampie. As outihed earlier, Canada has replaced the Iegal terni "rape" with "sexual assauit". It is suspeded that since *semal assaur is a haderterni than "rape" that some URVs will appty îhe terni "sexual assault" rather than 'tspe" ta Vieir fomd senial experience. Hwvever, it is expeded that there will be a substantial proportion of wmen who indicate lhat they have experienced behavior that is ansislent mVi legal descriplions of "sexoal assaur that will not apply the tenn "sexual assaur to their expenenœ (Le., USAVs are expected to exist within the Canaâian conted and iîs mon inciusive tenninolugy of semal assauit). The model of acknowfedgment presented in Figure 3.1 will only be testeci using a sample of sexual assaun vidims. Sexual assautt acknawledgment (Werthan rape acknowkâgrnent) is the focus of the curmnt study because 'sexual assault' is the legal Canadian lemfor a sexual offense and is thus mon! relevant to Canaâian participants. ln addition, since semai assauit is a mon indusive terni, it is more feasibls to callect sewual assaun victirns for a path analytic study, which rsquims a large sampïe size.

-of P-of The purpose of the cumnt iudy is thw to extend the research literature on rape acknowledgment by sxamining a mode1 of idviawtedgmnt as appiied to semial assaun. Specifically, the cumnt sludy focusas on examinhg matassault acknowîedgment in tenns of the cirwmstences of the assault, vicüms' prcep(ions of signifiant others' and societal attitudes regarding rage, Pttn'buüons of Marne fortha assaurt, disdosure, unsupportive behavior of others, PTS, and PTG, by tesüng the madel of sexual assauit acknowledgment Unedin figure 3.1. Nota that a path diiraml sudi es outlined in Faure 3.1, may be viewed as "a compact statemsnt of a set of hypolhe(mm, 1995, p.67); however, a written set of the hypotheses outlinad in the palh modal is alsa pfesented in Appendix A. A secondary purpose of this study is to invsstigate the application of the tem 'rape" and 'semial assaun". In mis regard, the following h- is bsiw made: rape vidirns and sewual assaut vidims are expbdcd to be sQnMcantly more iikaly to report that thay have been "sexual assauhed" mîher than "rapwf. Force of Assaun

Resislsnu

lndividual DlWemnces

Semil auilI Rape Posl-Tnumol~: ACilrnor*Woemant Omh

Permptons 01 s~4101AîiitudeS Twrms ~mpe and Riw Wdirnsg

~hothesizedModel of Sexual Assault AcknowledQmcnt 4. METHOD: 4.1 Participants Participants were remited from undergraduate classes and through the Department of Psychology's subjed pool at the University of Saskatchewan, Some participants (17.9%. n = 43) received course credl for their participation. Note that most studies in this area use college students as participants for both pradical and logistical ~easons.'~ A screening procedure was usad in order to obtain a sample of sexual assault viâims. The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982), which is described in Sedion 4.2.2. was used to screen participants. A total of 2552 women were screened for participation in the study. Of the women wtio were scteened, 717 (28.1%) were idenüfied as sexual assault vicüms using the SES. Just under half of the women (45.7%, n = 328) who were eligible to participate in the main study (Le., were dassified as sexual assault vidims) volunteered to be contaded for participation in the main study. Most sexual assault vidims (81 -1%) who agreed to participate in the main study were contaded by telephone and cornpieteci the main study, white only 7.3% declined to participate when contaded by telephone.' Sexual assault vicürns who volunteered for the main study did not diier from vidims who did not volunteer in ternis of aga (t(707) = -1 -11, p = .27), religion v(4) = 7.61, p = .Il). ethnicity v(7)= 5.04, p = .âû), inwme v(8) = 15.21, p = .06), college v(12) = 16.43, p = -17) or sexual orientation e(2) = 2.05, p = 36). However, they dld differ in ternis of their year of universily (f(4) = 9.65, p = .OS) and marital status v(4) = 11.81, p = -02). ln particular, volunteers were more likely than non-volunteers to be in their first year of univenity (53.5% vs. 46.5%). perhaps because studenîs in the intmdudory psychology classas, which typically consist of first year students, mceived course Mi for their participation. Volunteers were also mon likely to be in a common-law relationship as compared to malsssault vidims who did not volunteer for participation in the main study (10.4% vs. 4.9%). A total of 274 women completed the follwup questionnain for the main study (267

For exampie, Koss et al. (1987) noted that wllege students are a hiih risk group for rape because they are in the same age gmup as most offenders and vidims.

la In addition, 4.9% (n = 16) did not show for their appointment, 2.4% (n = 8) wanted to participate at a later date, and 3.6% (n = 12) could not be mached by telephone. 55 women wem contaâed through the screening pmœâure adwen women aceompanied screening volunteers and requested participation). Of those women who parb'cipated in the main study, 24û wem dassifïed as sexuel assault vidims (167 of these women could also be classified as rapvidims). Note that 11.8% (32) of women who wem initially dassitied as sexual assauït viâims based on the scmening resulls, were no merdassified as sexual assautt vidms in the main study due to giving diifennt =panses to the SES in the saecning and main studies. In addition, twa of the women who acwmpnied scrwning volunteen and requeaed participation were not classified as sexual assault vidims. nie sampie of 240 sexual assaut&vidims has the following demographic charaderistics (see Table 4.1). The mean age for the sample was 22.M yean, SU = 5.34, with a range from 17 to 49 yean. Just over a thlrd of the students (35.8%) were in their first year of university and most were in the College of Arts and Science (68.3%). In terms of religious affiliation, 33.3% idenüfied themselves as Pmtedant, 30.8% wem Catholic, 26.7% reported no religious affiliation, white 7.5% indicated that they were of 'othef religious preferenœ. Most of the sample was single (iï.l%), Caucasian (88.3%), hderosexual (92.1%), and reported an incorne under $30,000 (51 -7%). Participants who were classified as Unacknowledged, Uncertain, and Acknowledged sexual assault vidims (see Sedion 4.2.2.1 for classification descriptions) did not differ in ternis of their demographic charaderistics (see Table 4.1), except wiih regards to age. In particular, Unacknowledged (M = 20.76) and Uncertain (M= 20.30) sexual assault vidims were younger than Acknowledged (M = 23.09) sexual assault vicîims (62.229) = 641, p = .001; r= 26,p * .ooog. 4.2 Materials Questionnaires were used raîher than intenriews, as some researchers have experienced difficutty securing interview participation from URVs (OveR, 1994). In addition, there is some evidence that menare more likely to reveal expenences with sexual coenion in a quesüonnaire rather Ban interview format (Koss & Oros, 1905; Layman et al., 1996). The following materials were usud in this study: a Oamognphic Questionnaire, the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Om,19LI2), the Sexual Experienas Inventory (SEI; Koss, 1985), a Blame Questionnaire, a Diiosure questionnaire, the Social Readians Cheddist (SRC; Ullman, 1996a; Ullman, 1Q98b). îhe Purdue Postûaumatic Stress Disorder Saale - Revised (PPTSDR; LauteMch & Vmna. 1888). the Posüraumaüc Growüi lnventory (PTGI; Tedelschi & Calhoun, 1996). as well as modified versions of the Rap Myth Acceptana! Scale (RMA; Burt, 19û3) aiui the Attitudes towards Rape Vims Sale (ARVS; Ward. 1981). Each scale will be dascribed bslow, including relevant scoring pn>csdures- A summary of the psychometric information availaMe on each scale is presenîed in Appandix B. Other 7.5 18 None 26.7 64 Ethnicity 7.98 10 430 Caucasian 88.3 212 Native 1 M6îis 7.1 17 Asian Hispanic East lndian 0.4 1 Other 0.8 2

Ymr of Univeniîy 11 8 202 laYear 35.8 86 2"d Year 23.3 56 3m Year 18.3 44 4* Year 121 29 Sh year + 8.8 21 Coniinued ... Table 4.1 Continuad

1f I df P cdm 18 22 .?O7 Agricuiture 25 O Arts and Science 68.3 164 Comrnarco 10 24

Education 6.3 IS Enginoefhy 0.4 t

Gnduate Studies 0.4 1 Low 0.8 2 Nuning 2 1 5 Nutrition & Dieücs 1.3 3

Pharmacy 0.4 1 Physical Education 29 7

Unclassificd 29 7

Single 77.1 185

-Note. Patcantrges for mch item do not sum to 100 due to participant nomponse Maans with difhtent mman nummls am signifiwnüy diilinnt. 4.2.1 ûemoan~hicQuestionnaire Participants mmasked to complete a demographic questionnaire which hos questions regarding age, religion, ethnicity, family income, year of university, program of study, marital status, dating behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual intercourse (see Appendk C). Individuals were also asked if they had been 'sexually coerced' and 'sexually assaulted' since the age of 14," 4.2.2 Sexual Exwriences Suwev (SES1 The Sexual Experiences Sunrey (SES; Kou 6 Oros, 1982) is a widely used instrument for asseuing women's experienw of sexual aggression. The original SES is a t Stem questionnaire, which includes a wide range of sexually aggressive ôehavior, including verbal mercion through to physically forced sexual intercourse. The SES also asks if the respondent has had consensual sexual intercourse. The items are of a yen0 fomat. Koss and Gidya (1985) revised the items of the original SES slighüy in order to avoid ambiguities, to be more consistent wiih legal definitions of rape, and to include a greater range of experienw with sexual aggression. The Koss and GMycz (1985) version of the SES was usddue to its increased darity and sinœ the reliability and validity investigations were wmpteted on this version (see Appendii D)." Some additional modifications were made to the revised SES. In particular, two items were added vvhich inquired about the experienw of unwanted sex play and sexual intemurse when them was intoxi~~tion.'~~fhe item which asks women if they had been rapad, which was in the original SES, yet was mmoved in the revised version, was retained in this study in order to assess rape acknowledgment. An item asking women if they had been sexually assaulted was also added to the SES when it was administered in the main study to detenine

" These questions were asked in the demographic questionnaire, rather than at the end of the SES, to minimire the likelihood that they would interfers with the quality of the information colleded in the SES.

A male venion of the SES (see AppendUt E) was administered to the male students during ~ening;this data will not be reported hem.

'@The foll~wingitems wen edded to the SES: 'Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing. or petting. but not interCoutse) when you didnl want to because you wre drunk or high and couldnt stop himY and 'Have you had sexual intermurse when you didn't want to because puwere drunk or high and couldn't stop him?".

The two exisüng questions on the SES which inquird about intoxication require that the perpetrator gave the miman the alcohol I drugs. The two Rems were added because it is not necessary for tne parpetrator to give the miman the liquor or dmgs for a mualassautt to occur, as 1 is only necessary for a woman to be intoxicated and thus incapable of givm consent mm Quigley, CmPmsewtor, personal communication, January 1998). sexual assaut acknowiabQment. Note lhat quasüons asking whether paitidpnts nntm mped 1 suxually assaulled wen presented w dichotomous quesüo~when the SES was used in the sweening; hawever, a Spint response scale. ranging fmm 'No, Oafinitely Nor to 'Y=, Definiîely' was used in the main The SES fefes to sexual experimces sina îhe tige of 14, which is consistent with previous researdr examining adtrowleûgad and URVs (e.g., Koss, 1M5; Laymen et al., 1996). Using the lower age of 14 Plfa avoids many cases of ehildhood sexual ahse, which is important sina there is some evidenœ that thm are differwnces in the way children and adults pmcess attributions for their viGUmItaiian (Finkelhor, 1964, 118). 4.2.2.1 Scorfnp In order to campan? prwalence rates offained in ihis study mth dher studies, criteria developed by Koss et al. (1 9871 were used to cabgorire the participants into five categories (see Table 4.2). Note that resuits were also presentad using a reviscd SES caîegorization pmcedum, which included the two ilems that wem added to the SES. Question 4 was inciuded as indicative of swxual conted and Question 10 was Includeâ in the repe categwltation. Participants in the screening study who answered ÿesRb at Ieast one of Quesüon 4 to 13 (excluding Question 0), wem &emd ssxual aoault ~idirns.~Semial assault vielims were mitagoritad into two gmups depending on îhek nsponse to the question inquiring about whether they had been Semrally assaulted': (1) USAVs (Le., wmen who answered 'no" to the question asking wtrether they had been 'se%ually assrtuned")nâ (2) ASAVs (Le., women who answered 'y&' to the quesüon esking whether they had been '~fmallyassauitefl. In the main study, snxuaf assauit vidims wefe categonzed into thm categories based on their responses to the Ipoint scaIe (1 = 'No, Definitety Noî", 3 = 'Undecidecl", and 5 = -Yes, DefiniteIf) asking if they had bensexually assaulted: (1) USAVs (Le., wornen who gave a tating of 'lnor "2" to the quesüon aslring whether they had been 'wxually assauited'), (2) Uncertain SAVs (Le., wmen who gave a raüng of '3" to the quesüon asking whether they had ken'sexually assaulted") and (3) ASAVs (i-a.,women who gave a Mng of "4" or '5" to the

It tefmed that the us8 of thii Spirit responss scale wu# more acairaîely enabie women to cornmunicote their understanding of thsir for& sxwl axpsrlencas, as in the screening some women lelt this question Mank and othsn put a check mark batween Tesmand 'No', suggesting the need for a mtinuous rssponse scale. A canthuaus rasponse scale is also more desirable for canducting a path analysis.

Quesiions 3 and 8, which inquin about sex play and semial intemurse subsequent to verbal mercian. wem no! induded in the categoriraüon of semal assauR vidirns, as they may or may not be indicaüve of malassault, depending on the detaiIs of the particular situation. Thus, a more conservaiive categomaüon of sexusl assoult was used with ragards to these two items. question asking whether Viey had been %mally assaulteq.

Table 4.2 Kouet al.% (19171 SES Catemorirttion Pmcaduirr

Sexually answered 'no' to al1 have not hsd sswal intercourse or InexpenelIced que%m experhnws of malvidimizaüon NonvrCtimized answered 'no' to al1 no experienœ of smual aggmssion, but questions exrapt Qm are sexually adive Sexual Contacf answered ?esD to QW2,3, 'semal behavior urch as fondling or (happropnàte) or 5, but not to any higher kissing that did not involve aiiempted numbereâ questions penetraüon, subsaqwnt to the use of menacinq verbal pressure, misuse of authority, or adual physW force' (Koss a ai., 1907, p. 168) Sexual Coercion answered 'yes" to QSis or 'sexual intemurse subsequent to the use 7, but nd any higher of menacing verbal pressure or the numbered questions misuse of authority" (Koss et al. 1987, p. 1w Attempted Rape answered 'yes' to QIC8 or the use of force, or the use of dmgs 9, but not to any higher andlor alwhol to obtain semial numbered questions Intercoume by impairing anothets judgment, but sexual intercourse dinot ocwr RaPe answered 'yes' to W1, the use of force to oMain semial ads or 12, or 13 the use of dmgs andlor alcohol to obtain semial intemurse by irnpairing another's iudpement

Similady, screeniiigpafticfeipantswho answered ies' to one of Quesüons 10-13 on the SES were dassified as rape vidims. Rape vidims were hirther cateqorued into two gmups depending on their response to the question inquiring about whether they had been raped: (1) URVs 0.e.. women who answered 'now to the qudon asking if they had been 'raped?, and (2) ARVs (Le., women who answemd >es" to the question asking if they had been 'mped'). ln the main sfudy, tape vidirris wsre catûgorirsd into thme catagorfus based on their respontes to the 5point scale (1 = 'No, Oefinitsly Nor, 3 = 'Undecideci", and 5 = Yes, Definiîely3 asking if they had bssn raped: (1) URVs &e., women who gave a mihg of '1" or '2" to the question asking wtiether they had bwn mped'), (2) Uncertain Rapt VIdims (Le., mrmen who gave a rating of %* to the qussüon Whg vuhethsr thq had baan 'nped") and (3) ARVs (Le., women who gave a rpting of '4' or '5" to the quedion asking whether they had ken 'Wm. 61 Scwening piWüperaS who answed 'yss' to any of q~wtiOnS2-1 3 wbm also dasstfied as vidims of smtual amion. Sexual marcion vidims were furlher dassified into two groups depending on their msponse to the question inquiring about whether they had been sexually coerçed: (1) Unacknowledged Sexual Coerdan Vidims (Le., mimen who answered 'no" to the question asking if they had been 'sexually coercecf) and (2) Acknowiadged Sexual Coercion Vidims (m., women who answered "ym' to the queaion asking if they had ben'sexually coerced'). 4.2.3 Sexual Exnefiences lnventonr (SEI) Koss (1985) developed the Sexual Experiences Inventory (SEI), based on a nview of the dinical literatura, to examine situational variables associated with viâimization experiençes. The SEI was originally designeci to k a standardized intenriewing schedule, aithough it was subsequently adapted to a qmonnaira fotmat by Layman and her coWagues (Layman et al., 1996; Layman-Guadalupe, 1996). The questionnaire version of the SEI was used in this study. Although no mliabiiii information is available on the SEI and the validity information is somewhat limited (see Appenâii B), them is no superior instrument availabie to obtain information relateci to situational aspeas of womenS vidimization experienws. Furthemore, the use of this instrument m'Il facilitate making comparisons baween the data colleded in this study and that obtained by Koss (IQBS), Layman-Guadalupe (1996), and Layman et al. (1996). Participants were asked to ansirthe quesüons in terms of the incident to which they were referring on the highest numbered question to which they answerad 'yes' on the SES (if they had this experience more than once, they were asked to anwrin ternis of the incident they nmembered besl), The questionnaire indudes infonnaüon rsgarding the following: vietim- offender relationship, vidim aga, use of aicd'~oUdnigaprwssauit intimacy, offsnder verbal pressun!, offender physid violence, type of tbfce, dsgree of force. vidim txsistancs, degne of resistuiee, âWiy of nonconsant, effeU of resistanw, victim mponsibility, offender re~ponsiôility,subssquent consensual sexual intemurx WI the offender, whether a nlationship was continued with the parpetrator, numbr of sexual partriers sinœ the incident, and Mether they expechd a similar sihisüon to hoppan in the fiibra (see AppsndDt F). Some minor mrrding changes were made to the quadionnaire to inmase darity md the order of some of the items were changed in order to imprws the pfesentltion of the quedionnain. The original SEI asked if the -man had prsssad disipes; this question was repiaced with a saries of questions mgding mvdvsmsnt mth ?hebsîice system in order to obtain more specif~c inf~rmation.~In addiion. the question regarding ûiiwure ("Did you discuss this expience with anyone?")~ moved to the Disdosure Qwslionnairs. 4.2.4 BlmeQuestionnaire Self and extemal biame have bsen Wntifiad as parüculady impoilint in ternis of understanding rape victims' expiamions for Mirmp (Lsnox & Gsnnon, 19113). Self-Marne includes viewïngthe self as the cause of the np or as rssponslbie for the mpe. Extemal Mame indudes viewing sameone or wmething outside of the self as the cause of the rape, as responsible, and I or to blame for the rape. Bey(1B76) arücuiated four Marne rnodels: vidim blame, offender blame, societal blame (8.0.. the belief that the social values and mores of Society contrlbutes to rape), and situational blarne (e.g., the Mef ihat situational variables, such as intoxication or a date, provides the catalyst for rape). Bmdsky's mode1 is uülixed to furlher develop the distinction Wwwn self and exïemal Wame. Vidim Mame is encompassed by the conceptualization of self-blarne, Mile blaming the offender, society or the situation is encompassed by the wnceptualiion of extemal Marne. Previous research exarnining blame for rape suggests that attributions lo chance (sometimw referred to as luck or fate) are also important (e.g., Frazier, IWO; Libow & Doty, 1979); attributions to chanœ may also be viewed as a fonof extemal blame. Thenfore, self-blame incorporates al1 attributions direded at the self and extemal Marne incorporates al1 aîtributions direded outdds of the seif (induding blame attributed to the petpetrator, offender, society, and chance). A search of the rape literatun did not yield a compfehensive measun of self and extemal blame, Single Qlobalitems am typical of blame measummsnt in tne mpe Iiterature and a more thorough assessrnent of blame was ûesired. It was assumai that using multiple items to assess blame towards the seif and pwtorshould impmve the reliability of the scales (Howard, 1987), as wrnpared to the global items that are typically used. fherefore, a measure of blame was consînided which was designeci to measure self-Mame and external blame, inciuding attributions made to the perpetrator, chance, sodety, and the situation. A pool of 25 items was mmpiled based on a review of items used in the rape iitemture and on the conceptualizaüons of self and extemal Marne offered above; the items and their sources are presented in Appendi O. The focus was on including items measurlng Marne towards the self and perpetrator sina pfevtous research indicated their impoitance in distinguishing acknowtedgad and URVs. Humver, aUfibuüan~mgarding chance. wdy, and the situation were inciuded to daennine if these otnar fonns of extemal biame are also nlated to acknowledgment. An item was also induded to assess tne rafevance of blame to

a Quesiions wem inciuded rsgarding whaher the incidant was reportad to the police, if the man was charged with an offenœ, whettterthe woman tesüfied in caurt, if îhe man mis wnvided of an offence, and sentencing. acknowledged and unacknowied@xi ssxual wultvidtrns 0.r. 'Do you find youmif asklng Why dii this happen to me?"; Amy, 19117). The original pool of items was given to ninr ssxual assauit wunsellors and family physicians who have ertpsrience mirking with sexual assault vidims. These expert raters were asked to pmvide suggssüons and commsnts about mch item and to rate how well each item seems to measure the intendeci constnict, ushg a Spdnt scale mn~ingfrom 'net at allato Very well' (se@Appendix H for the dinaions given to the raters). A summary of the mqmndents' Eomments Gan be found in Appertdix 1. The mean raüng given by the expert judges amss the 25 items was 3.89, SD = .91 (see Appendk J for the mean rallngs given to each item). The mean overall rating given to the entire sale was 3.90. SO = .65. Based on the msponses given by the rape counsellon and phpidans, 11 items were dropped from the scale and two items were rephrased (these items are idantified in Appendùr 4. The final version of the Blame Questionnaire cm be found in Appendix K. 4.2.5 Dbclosum Questionnaire A disclosure questionnaire was daveloped basad on other research in this area (see Appendix L). Semially assaulted women wem sked the following: "Did you discuss this experience with anyone?" (this question was taken frwn the SEI). Women who diiosed their experience were also asked to indicate when they flst dixlosed (i.e., immediately, days later. weeks later, a year later, more than one year later); th's question was useci by Ullman (1996a) in a study of social reactions towards rape vidims. Parlicipants mrn also asked to identify who they fint told about their exprime and to wtiorn else tney disdoseci (e-g., husband. boyfrîend, girlfnend, mother, father, sister, ômîher, other female relative, other male relative, other). Although format social support was not the primary foais in mis study, for desaiptïve purposes, participants were asked if they spoke to a ment81 health pfofcSslCSSlonal, derpy, rape crisis centre, physician, or police ofïicer about their expsrience. In oider to move beyond the dichotomy of disclosure 1 nondisclosure, questions wen includeâ to address the nature of the diiosure. For example, lems were induded regarding the frequency ("How many timw have you -ken about this experienca3") htensity ("ln your cOrmenaüon(s) with othes how much have you talked about your thoughts and faalings about what heppend?") and duration ÇWhat is the longest wnvenaüon you have ever hed mth someone about this experienœn of diiosure. Participants wen also asked to raie how helpful I unhelpful they found each penon on a Ipoint sale ranging fmm "very unhelpfulnto "very heipfuIn. 4.2.6 Social Reactions Checklht lSRC) Those women who diisdosed wmrskad to cornpiete the Social Reactions Checklist (SRC; Ullman, 1998a; Ullman, IQSb), Mich is a 4Mem chsdrlii that sssessas a wide vari* of positive (valiiion/belief; tangible aid / informaüon support; amotional suppoit; liinedI encouraged talking) and negative social nadions (0.g.. vidim biame; being mald diffenntly; having wntml taken avay by somme; distradion - sec Appendix M). Participants were asked to indicate which of the 10 behaviors they had expeiienced. Ullman (19966,1996b) dweloped the checklist on the basis of a raview of the litemiun an soda1 ntsdions to rape vidims and tned to move beyond the posiüve 1 negaüve dimension of social support Viat had previously been the focus in the rape literalure (e.g., Davis et al., 1981). The SRC was moditfed slihtly for this study; in particular mference to We perpratof was raplacad with Wie man" in order to make the questionnaire more relevant to USAVs. The SRC consisls of 10 categorias of soda1 nacüons, which anscomd by summing the occurrence of each reacüon relevant to each category. The va/id&n / bekf sale is cornpased of four items (e.g., "S~Wyour side of thinqs and did not make j~d~~nentS");the tangible aid/infimlron scak consists of five items (e.g., 'helped you $et infamiaiion of any Und about coping with the expedence") the efmfhai suppoR wîegory is composed of seven items (e.g., "cornforttxl you") hteneafenedlencoulagsd#king consists of four items (%.O., Yold you to dop talking about it") WhMame consists of five items (e.g., "told you that you wre irresponsible or nOt cauüous enough") Ming Ireated Mbmnt& is made up of two items (e.g., "pulld away from you") hhaving WMUI teken away by sonmm has six items (e.g., "overprotect you"); diSaadian consists of three items (e.g., "told you to stop thinking about it"); made attributions has two items (e.g., "speculated about why the man did this"), and der sociaI reactions consists of tw items (e.g., "focussed on îheir needs and negleded youts"; "said they knew how you felt"). Ullman (1996a) conduaed a factor analysis of the SRC, which provided empirical support for the eight social naction subtypes. Noie th& she mrnoved four of Vie iîems from the analysis (Le., items regardirtg attributions and "other -al readions"). The first factor was emotriuial supporf / val^, which reflected emoüonal support, validaüonhlief, and listening (13 items); it accounted for 21 % of the variance. The second factor was blamdmeet d~renfly, which refleded vicüm blarne and being treated differently (seven items), which are both stigmaüu'ng behavior; it accounthd for 17.8% of the variance. The third factor was tWni&n / discoura@ngtalking (six items), which are means to disirad the vidim fmm her mpe; 1 accounted for 5.7% of the variance, The fourüi Fsdor was taMq conbd of the decisions (thtee items); it accounted for 4.6% of the variance. menRh and sbdh factors were tamgible aiü (two items) and iiihrmtkml suppoR (two items), which were expected to ba a singk factor; these two fadors were combineâ. Then were two mmaining factors mnsisting of one item each thai wem not considemi. fnus, Ullman obtsined five usable subscates and provided sorne support for the hypthesked dimensions. alîhough several of the hypothesited factors loaded jointly with ather fadon. Ullmank faàordefived seales. were umd in this study, in conjundion with the posilive and negaüve social support s~bscales.~ 4.2.7 Rme Mvth AeœPbnca Scak lRMAl The Rape Myllr Accaptanw sale (RMA; Burt, 1W) is the mwt mdely citeci sale in the rape attitudes literetunr (Andenon et al., 1987). The RMA eonsists of 19 Items which measure 'prejudidal, stemoiypad orfalse ôellefs about rape, np vidims and ra- @. 217). Parücipants am mked to indicaîe their agreement 1 dlsogrwment wnti 11 sletments using a 7- point scale ranging from shngly agm (1) to rtrongly disagm (7). On two items participnts are aslied to estimate the perwntwe of wmen who lie and report a mpe 'because they are angry and want to get baek at the man they accuse[dr and the perwntoge of mimen who falsely report a rape in order to attempt to maintain their mputation when fa#a with pregnancy; these items use Spintseples ranging hm"almost ailn (1) to 'almost none* (5). The remaining five items ask individuals to indicate how likely they would k to blieve a rape daim coming fmm various lndivlduals (e.g., "your best friend", *an lndian miman*, etc,) on a Ipoint scale ranging from "aIwaysm(1) to "never (5). A shortened version of the RMA was used in the current study (see Appendii N). The two questions regatding estimateci percentages of women who report rape for varlous reasons wen not included, as it has Men aqued by Lonway and Fibgerald (1091) that such estimation is diffieult and unreliabie and may k more refiedive of knowledge of rap stiitiaics rather than acceptance of rape myths. The flve questions regarding believing mpdaims from different wornen were also not indudd sinœ response sets anparticularly Ilkely on Viese items (Lonsway & Fmerald, 1984). Therefon, î 1 items fmm the RMA wem used in this study. A 5- point response scab was usad instead of the original ?-point rssponse scale to be consistent with the ARVS response scale and becaus it was klieved that it might ba easier to use a smaller response scala, which mquires less disuimination bstween nsponses, when estimating the attitudes of othen. The anchon were also switched fmm 'stmngly agree I disagreemto 'completely agme / disagreen, again to be consistent with the ARVS. Respondents were asked to answer the RMA in ternis of their omi Pttiiudes, as well as in ternis of their percaptions of the sttitudes of the person they told (or the pemn they would be most likely to tell) about their oocrrcive semial expsrienœ wtio had the gmatest impad on them, and in ternis of îheir psrcsptions of societal atüîudes (sue Appenda O for the diradions that were used). See Appendix P for mltsfmm a pilot study examining the nliabiiiiand validiiy of the shortened sacietal and signbnt other verrions of the RMA. Note Ihat a similar pmeedure was used by Edmonds and Cahoon (1993) and Eâmonds, Cabon, and Shipman (l991), who examined men and niornen's estimation of Me aîühâes of ihe other gander using

74 The fador-deriveâ subscales wen used because they have grenter intemal mnsistency than the wnceptually derived subscales (see Appndii 6). the RMA scale along with Meratütudinal scales. 4.2.8 Attitudes towrrds Flrm Vitthns Stlk (ARVS1 Ward (1888) developed the Attitudes towads Rape Vidims Scale (ARVS) which is intended to meusure favourable and unfavourable attitudes towards vidlms of rape. More specifically. the scale examines 'aîtiiudas that blame or denigrate vidims, trivialiie vicüms' experiences, highlight vicüms' deservingness, or undermine vidims' uudibility" (Ward, 1988, p. 130). The items for Ward's sale wsre defived hmthe rape literatun and fmm other scales which measure attitudes towards rape. Ward was particularly conœmed with devising a scale that had mss-cultural applicabiiii. The ARVS consists of 25 items: eigM positive statements and 17 negaüve statements about rape vidims. lndividuals are asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 5-point scale ranging fmm 1 (completely disagm) to 5 (campletely agree). In this study, a 1Citem shortened version of the ARVS was used (see Appendii This abbreviated from of the ARVS was developed by mmoving items which had endonement frequencies of over 80% (one item) or under 20% (nine items) and by mmoving any mmaining items with correded itern-total correlations of less than r= .30 (one item) in a sampie of 181 Canadian students at Algonquin College in Ottawa. As with the RMA, respondents were asked to answer the items in terms of their own attitudes, as well as in terms of their perceptions of the attitudes of the person they told (or the person they would be most likely to tell) about their coercive sexual experience who had the gmatest impact on them. and in ternis of their perceptions of society's attitudes (sw Appendii O for the directions that were usad). See Appendix P for nsults fmm a pilot study examining the diabiiii and validii of the shortened societal and significant other versions of the ARVS. 4.2.9 Purdue Pasmimatic Süas Disorâer Sule - Reviud IPPTSD-Rl The Purdue Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Scale was designad to measure PTSD symptoms specified in the Diagnostic and Statiical Manual of Mental Disorden - Third Edition (DSM-Ill; Hartsough, 1988, as citd in Lauterbach & Vrana, 1992).= The scriie was

A shortened version of the ARVS was king wad to keep the questionnaire a reasonable lengih. as each participant was asked to answer each item thm times (Le., in tenns of their ami attitudes, their primary signifiant otheh attitudes, and societal altitudes). Nate that this shortened version of the ARVS is diiennt from Krahé's (1 991) version since the items were selected hsed on daîa colleded in Canada rather than the daîa collected in Gemiany, which Krahé used to devebp her shortened version.

a There am wmalstudies supportlng the raliability (Harlsough, 1- and Wojdk, 1988, as cited in Laurlerbach & Vrana, 1996) and validii of the original PPTSD (Hsndrix, Anelli, Gibbs, L Fournier, 1994; Segal, 1967 and Wojdk, 1Qû8.as &ad in Laurterbach & Vrana. 1996). subequently revised to Msd OSM-III4 criteria (Laularûach 6 Vfm, 1892 sss Appcndbc R).n The PPTSD-R consiots of 17 items, which wem Qaatd to reflect each diagnostic criteria for PTSO in the DSM-llld, Participants anaskad to indlcate the fmquency of occurrence for eacti item on a 5-point scnk ranging for hot at alP to Vmquently'. A total scm con be obtained by summing a11 of the items, with higher scores representing more mven eTSD symptomatology. 1-1 scores range from 17 to 85. The PPTSBR rlso hm lhm subscliles corresponding to the ihme types of PTSO syrnptoms identitied in the DSM-IV: (1) Re- experiencing (four items), (2) Avoidanœ (seven items), and (3) Arousal (six items) symptoms. 4.2.1 O Pottmumatic Growü~Inventow fPTGll Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996) developad the Posttraumatic Growth Invontory (PTGI), which is intended to ass%ssposiüw outcomas associateci with having experlenad a traumatic event. The PTGI consisis of 21 items and respondents ara asked to indicate the âegree to which they have e%pefienced posüive changes as a mft of th& trauma on a &point Ukert scale ranging fmm '1 dM not experienœ this change' to '1 experienœd this change to a very great degree' (see Appendii S). Total scores range from O to 105, with highsr scores mfleding more poslive gmwth. In add'iion to the total score, thers are ?ivesubscales which wem defived basad on a factor analysia Relating to Others (saven items), New PosibilHies (five items), Personal Strength (four items), Spiritual Change (two items), and A9preciaüon of Life (three items). 4.3 Procedure A screening pmcetdure was used to obtain a sample of women who mported having expefiences that were consistent witti legal definitions of sexual assault. Studants in various undergraduate classes at the University of Saskatchewan were asked if they would be willing to complete the screening quesüonnaire. Students completed the sicmenin9 questionnaire during scheduled class time. Prospective participants wen toM that a study was king wnduded regarding the sexual exq&nces of post-secondary ttudeiits and that parücipents wan nded to cornpiete a questionnaire regaiding their past smal mperienws, rtütudes and ûefiefs, as well as their social support system.= Al1 potenüal paRicipants wen infmed lhst parücipaüon or refusal to participate wwld in no way affect their evaluatbn in their drsses. Parücipants were advised that some indiiiduals might find the quasüons upsating since they inquired about

There were minimal changes in PlSO diagnostic criteria fmm thet DSWIII-R to the DSM-IV, with the excewon of one syrnptom Ming chamfrom the aroussl category to the re- wtperiencing category.

Paniapants were not toici that only mmen were being sought for participation in the larger study to avoid potenüal prscbnwptions that may have been formed qarding the purpose of the My. 68 past sexual emrienœs. lhey wera also told that anyone who found the questions to be too personal wuld hand in the unansvuend sunrey along wiîh the ouier audents when they were fini~hed.~ Those individuals who wera intemsted in paifidpating in the scmening audy were given a consent fom (!we Appendix t), the SES (a mak version was qiven to the men in the dass), and the demogmphic qum.onnaim. Aiter compïeting the SES and demogmphic questionnaire, individuals who wen interestad in participaüng in the main study wsrs askad to provide their name and phone numbsr on a separate piew of papr which had a code corresponding to the code on their screening questionnaire (see Appendii U). It was explained to participants that the code was being used to connect the screening data to the data they would pmvide when they completed the main questionnaire. Participants who did not mceive course Mi for their participation were aware that they would mceive a maIl gift fiom the Body Shop in appreciation for their participation in the main study. Women who agreed to be contaded to participate in the main study were phoned to arrange appointment times and ware told that parücipaüon would take approximately 45 minutes. Participants completed the questionnaires in a room which containeci several cubicles, which allowed for privacy when completing the questionnaire. A copy of the consent form is available in Appendix V. Participants who agreed to participate in the main study were given the SES again, as several of the questions in the mmainder of the questionnaire depended of their recolledion of events pmmptad by the SES. Participants were then asked to çompiete the SEI, PPTSDR, PTGI, Blame Questionnaire, Disdosure Questionnaire, SRC, and the significant other, societal, and self venions of the shortenad RMA and ARVSP Upon completion of the scmening and main study, participants wre given a debriefing form (see Appendii W and X respednrely), which outlined the purpose of the study and provided background infornation. Participants were given an opportunity to ask questions pnor to, dunng, and following their participation. Participants were given the names and telephone numben of agencies which deal with issues related to sexual assault,

a in order to increase privacy. them wen cover shmts placed on each questionnaire, which were attachad to the questionnaira wiîh twa shples across the top of the page. Students were able to use the wver auet to protact their answers. so The order of the questionnaires was not wunter-balanced, as some qucsüonnaires had to lagically precede othen. In addiion, counter-balandng the mmaining questionnaires would have intioduced unnecsssafily conf'using diwons for the participants. 5. RESULTS The prevalenw of sexual violence and consensual sexual aaivii in the screening and main study samples will first be presented, follawed by data on labeling and reparting -al violence, and the temporal stability of the SES. One-way ANOVAs / chi-squares (sw below for further explanaiion) will then be prwented for the following: Atütudes Towards Rape, Blame, Disclosum, Purdue Posttraumatlc Stress Disorder Scale - Revised (PPTSDR), Posttraumatic Growlh lnventory (PTGI), Social Readians Checkiist (SRC) and Hdpfulness Raüngs, and the Circumstances of the Assault. The method used to mate the pravious scales, along with their intemal consistency is pmvided in Appendi Y. Finally, the resufts of the path analyses will be presented. The proeedures for handling missing data, the normality of variables, and the detedion and elimination of outliers is presented in Appendix 2. One-way ANOVAç and chi-square analyses were conduded for each scale in the sîudy, and remaining individual items, comparing the means / frequencies for the Qroupsof Unacknowledged (n = 51). Uncertain (n = 4Q), and Acknowiedged (n = 138) SAVs. Reeall that participants were askeâ to use a Spoint scale indicaüng if they had baen sexually assaulted (1 = 'No, Definlely NM, 3 = *Undecide#, and 5 = Tes, Definiîely'). The Unacknawledged group consisted of women who gave a rating of 'laor *2",the Uncertain group consisied of participants who responded 3",and the Acknowledged group consisted of women who gave a rating of '4" or 'Sa to the sexual assauft question. Post-hoc pairnise cornparisons of means were conduded using NewmanKeuls analyses, which assumes homogeneity of variances. The Levene test was used to detemine if homogeneity of variances wuld be assumed (see Table AA.1 in Appendix AA for a list of the variables which were found to have unequal variances). Tamhane's (1979) T2 test, which is a consenrative pairwise comparison test, based on a t-test, was used to test paiwise compansons of means for variables for which the assumpüon of homogeneity of vanancas was n~tmet. The Tamhane's T2 test does not requin wual variances. Correlation coefficients bstwean the main variaMesi and malassauft acknowledgment are prasented in Appertdix MVable M.2) and are not discusseâ below due to redundancy providsd wilh the ANOVA and chi-square analys8s. Given the large number of ANOVAs. chi-square, and corralational analyses compieîed, p < .O01 is considead staüstically significant (a signifiwnce Ievel of p * .O5 is usad for al1 other ana~yses).~

Althoqh only ANOVAs and chi-squares that are signifiant at p c .Mt are diissed in the resuits Won, ANOVAs and chi-squares (and the assodatad means / fraquencies for the three senial assault groups) that are signifimnt et p < .OS am praiantad in the to#es. 15.1 Pnvalense of SoxUVkknw and Consensuil Sexurl AdMty Response Requencias for each item on the rwised SES is pmented in Table 5.1 for the smning smpb. The hquencies of vidimizaüon range from 36.3% of women who reported unwanted sexual contact subsequent to verbol -on to 3.4% of mimen who reparted sexual intbreoume subsequent to the misuse of auîhority. The nspanse frequencies for each item on the rsvised SES for the sexuai assaulY Sam* hmthe main stdy is alsa provided in Table 5.1, along with the results of the chi- square analyses camparing the rsJponse frequenaes of the thme saxual assault gmups' responses to the SES. Adrnowiedgd malassauit vidirns (ASAVs) were mors likely to report consensual sexual inlemurse (f (2) = 14.69, p c .001), malinîemum subiquent to verbal coercion (2) = 14.58, p = .W1), and sex play (2) = 22.û4, p * .0005) and sexual intercoune (2) = 20.97, p < .0005) following the use orthreat of force, as campared to Uncertain and Unadcnowledged sexual assauit vidims (USAVs). Respondents in the sawning Sam@ and sexual essault vidims (SAVs) li, the rnam study were classified aarding !O îhe hiihest degree of malmrcion they mported (see Table 5.2), using the revW SES categorization procedures outlined earlier (sae Sedion 4.2.2.1).= No expenence with any form of sexual aggnssion was reported by 47.8% of women in the screening stuây,whereas 52.2% reported some form of semial vidimization. ASAVs in the main study were more Iikely to be classified as rape vidims (81.2%) than Unacknowledged (45.1%) and Uncerlain (57.1%) SAVs (6) = 31.07, p < -0005). The sexual assaut mpiehm the mari, sfuüy rsporled that the average length of time since the assauft was 3 yeers and 11 months (M = 47.75 monîhs, SD = 46.63, with a range fmm ?4 month to 28 years). The mean age et the tim of the sexual assault was 18.22, SD = 4.21, with a range from 13 to 43. The threte sexual assault groups Uii not diier in ternis of the length of time since the assauit (F(2,235) = 2.97, p = .053)" or îheir age at the Ume of the assauft (F(2,234) = 2.31, p = .101). Most of îhe assauk involved only one man (94.1%). Most SAVs (62.2%. n = 148) reported having sexuat interwume prior to the semal assaun. For those women who were sexually active, the mean number of sexual partners was 6.85, SD = 6.25, with a range from 1 to 35. Most wbmen hsd also had other sexual prtners since the assauft (63.6%), with the mean number of paftners being 3.73, SD = 4.52, with a range between 1 and 35. Thare was no staüsücally significant diirenœ between the three sexual assault gmups in terms of their repart of priw serual intercourse U('(2) = 5.68, p = .058). number of sexual partnefs since the assault (F(2,229) = 2.51, p = .084), or their total number of

Pfavslenœ rates are also provided for the scrssnlng ind sexual assoult samplcs using Koss et al.'s (117) original scodng proasduras (se Table M.3 in Appendbt AA).

There was a îmnd for greater aduiawledgment to be assac*ated with graater time since the assaun (r = -19, p r.004). 71 Tmbk 6.1 Revired bmxumt Esmrkncn lurwv - Fnauencies

Y-) t Screeninn Sexurl Asa8ult Simple Saniph' (Main Study)@ g(2)P Have puh8d sexuil Int~umawilh a men when you ôoth wanted 74.8 91.6 80.4 87.8 97.1 14-69 ,001 IO? (191 4) (21 8) (41) (43) (1%) Have you in m play (londling, klssing, or patlng, krt not 36.3 743 1.47 ,407 inîosourw) vvnwi you d#nl mnt to because you won, ovarwhelmsd (928) (1 76) by a mnrcontinuai rmand prssswe? Hiw yw MM mtuaiiy amcd (camplied to srnage In a semal ad 27.7 - whan pudidn't wrnt Io)?" (loo) Have you aivon in to mcuml intaroourse when you didn? mnt 10 25.3 54.2 33.3 48.0 83.8 14.58 ,001 bscrurr pu wm wMdmWby a man's continual aigumonts and (fW (129) (1 I) (24) (W -m') Have you had id My(fondilno, kbdng, or psnlng, kR na 20.5 69.3 1.67 ,443 Intercourw) wlth a man whrn yw didn't want ta bucause you wsra (408). (165) dnrnk or hbh and widnl dop hlm? Have you buan mually uuunsdr 18.5 - (423) Hava you had SW plry (fWlliig,Wng, or parlng, bui not 10.7 38.2 15.7 20.5 50.7 22.94 .0W Inlsreourw) whm pu dldn'l wsnt lo becawe a men thmatenmi or (274) (9,) (6) (13) CIO) ursd medagm of physicrl force (twistlng your am, hoîdln~you down, Ma.) to meke you? Continued... Scmenlng Sexuil Assiult Smple Simple' (Main Study)' bkn~~(2)P Have you hmd sexwl Inîemune with o man when you didn7 want to 10.7 47.9 5.77 .O58 bacausa you ~stbcîrunll or hbh and couMn1 stop hlm? (21 3). (1 14) Hnve you had a mari inemp sexual lntsrcoursb (gel on top of you, 1 O 30.7 5.00 ,079 ittempt lo insen hb punis) Menyau didn'l wanl to by thmetming or (255) Cls 8 usiw somdsprw 01 lorcs (Ming puam, holdlw you dom, etc.), kil Inlercouiw did m ocair? ive yw hid a man aîîimp( mxual inimum(gsl on top of you, 8.3 28.1 2.20 ,332 rnmp to lnwrt his penk) whsn you dicint wanl to by aivlng you (2131 rlcohol w &qp,but intsr#runs d# not occur? nive you iman mpsdP 7.9 - po3) Have you hid samil l~tmmwhen you diôn'i want to because a 7.5 25.2 3.U .t79 man gave you aICDhOl OC dm? (1 92) (60) Have yw hid semd kitsrcourss when you dMnl wanî to bscsuss a 6.1 27.7 3.9 16.3 40.6 28.97 ,000 man thmitened or usad soma dogme of physical force (twlstlng yout (1W (W (2) (8) (W am, holding you domi, etc.) to make you? Hava you haî smr ds(anil or oml l~tetcwsctor pnslrallon by 3.5 14.3 11.8 2.0 19.8 9.41 ,009 objecb Mer nian îhe pis)Won you dldnl wanI to bsciws a mon (89) (34) (6) (1) (27) VimeîeW or weuî rom0 dogme of physlcal force (twisting your an, hoidln~you bonm, eic.) lo make you? Continued.. . knoh o)(.w 08 (MYJNO~CIE 0 (QS) '~olesunwdum 'mpeai 'smq)AWoulnw JO UQ(UPOE( s(q mnuiw *r- ELO' EX'S 8'2 V'E e mwq 01 WWA a,up(p no4 ue~oainmowl (mm peu nol o~s~ Ta& 5.2 Piwrknce Rates - Peruntaae and Freauencv of Dilhnnt foms of S+xW Victimüution Since th. aw of 14

Sexually lnexperienced 17.6 (48)

Sexual Coercion 14.9 5.0 5.9 6.1 4.3 (381 (12) (3) (3) (el

-- Note Some participants in the sueenin%sample wuld not be classiWd (n = 8) due ta giving incomplets responses on the SES. The revised Koss st al. (1 987) scoring pmedures wre Ushd (se8 Sedion 4.221). "the senial 8ssauR sampla is fmm Vie main study. -p c .O005 sexual partnem (F(2,199) = 2.07, p = .071).% 5.2 blingRape, Sexurl Aurult, and Sexud Cwrcion The labetling of 'rape', 'sexual assaur, and 'sexual coercion* among s~nt(lf&g pemerpanfs*. categorized as rape vidims, SAVs. and semial coerdon vidims is pmsnted in Table 5.3 (see mon4.22.1 for a dascription of the categorization procedures). A subaanüal propotlion (Sû.7%) of parücipants Éatag~n'zedas rape vidims dM not idemtnemeives as having exparienced 'tape", 48.2% did not view themselves as having hn'sexually assaultw, and just about a third (28.3%) did not even idenüfy themselves as having been 'sexually coerced'. Women classified as rape vidims wem more likely to report that they had ban Sexually assaulted" as compared to *rapecY (y(l)=109.59, p < .0005). The majority of parücipants (59.0%) categorired as SAVs indicated mat they had not expetrienceci a 'mal assaun" and 41.8% did not view ttiemselves as having been 'sexually coerced*. Women clasûified as SAVs were also more IikeIy to report that they had been 'sexually assauited" as wmpared to 'tapedm v(1)= 191 .59, p < -0005). Of those women categorized as sexual menion vidims, 66.5% did not view themselves as having been 'sexually coerced'. See Table 5.4 for a sumrnaty of responses to questions regarding sexual assauit and mpe in the sarnple of sexual assau~and rape vMns hmthe main My. Of ihe semral assault sarnple, 21 -4% did fiot believe thaî they were sexuatly assaulted, while 20.6% were unsure. More than a third of rape vidims (37.7%) did not believe that they had been raped, while 18.5% were unsure. Note that sexual assault and rape vidims were more lik&y to indicate that they had ben 'sexually assaulted' rather than 'raped" (t(236) = 11.30, p < -0005; C(161) = 7.30, p <.O005 respedively). Of those women who reporteci that they were probably or definitely sexually assaulted, 30.3% recognized that they were sexually assaulted 'irnrnediately", whereas 18.6% reaiiied this 'days latef, 7.9% Weks later', 6.4% 'a year latef. and 15.7% realized that they were sexually assaulted 'more than one year latef. Rape recognition appears to occur earlierthan s8xual assault recognition. For example 47.4% of women who identified themselves as rape viaims indiwîed that they recognized that they were raped 'irnmediatelfbs Earlier recognition of fape I sexual assault is associateci with greater certainty in acknowledgment. For example, 33.8% of

SAVs who reported that they were 'probabiy' sexually assauited recognized thaî they MM) sexually assauned 'immediately", as cornpared to 66.5% of SAVs who believed th& thqwere

Y There was a trend towards greater acknowledgment being -aW with a gmkr likelihood of @or sexual intemutse (67.9% of adsnowledged SAVs rsported prlor sexual intemurse, compared to 612% of uncertain SAVs and 49.0% of unacknowl- SAVs) and having mon semial parlners (r = .If,p = .016).

Of thase mimen who reporteci that they were 'pmbaMy" or 'definiîelymraped, 21 -8% realized that they were raped =days latef, 12.8% 'weeks latef. 6.4% =a year late?, and 11.5% realired that they wen mped "more than one year later. Tabk 8.3 porcentiams and Fnawnckr for hbrlina Rim. Sarual Asuuit. end Sertuit Coartlon in the Scmnlna Samble

- .- CategorizaHon Based on SES Responses' -P. Sexuil Asiauit Semual Cwition Vlctlnu victlms Vlctlmsb Sexumlly Coetcsd? Yes 71.7 298 58.2 410 33.5 605

m. Thr meof responses Io each quesîlon do not always sum to 100 due to participant non-msponse. These aîe#ories rnno1 mulually exdusive. 'This cal8QoIydiifers from th81 used by Koss el el. (108ï); see Sbdton 4.2.2.1 for descrlpllon. Tabk 5.4 hbolina of %exml Assauitn and UFlrrnnin Sexual Asuutt and hmSlin~kt rn air Main Sîudy

Uncerfain - 3 20.6 17.2 (49) (28)

DeQnîteiy Yes - 5 30.7 38.0 (73) (62)

Uncerfain - 3 16.0 18.5 (38) (30)

-'Note The percentaqe of responses to each question do nOt always sum to 100 due to participant non-response. The rape sampie is a subset of the sexual assauit sample 'definitely' sexually assaulted (33.8%; $(4) = 17.05, p = .002)? 0.3 Sexurl suit Reporthg Only 3.8% (n = 9) of the seaial assault sample reporteci the sexuat assault to the police. Of the nine women who reported the sexual assault, two indicated that the man was charged with sexual assault end one indiceted that he was wnvided of -al assautt (the sentence was probation and a fine). Therefore, only .8% of the perpatrators identiiïed in the sampie of 23û SAVs were charged wi!h semial assault and only -4% of the prpetratoa were adualty wnvided of a sexual assault (or any crime). Of those women who did not report the incident to the police, 3.9% indicated that they planned to report the assault in the future. Most of the wmen who report& the assauit to the police were ASAVs (88.9%).n In addition, them was a trend towards ASAVs (6.9%) being more likely to indicate that they planned to repart the assauk ta the police in the future as wmpared to Unacknowleâged (0%) and Uncertain (0%) SAVs M(4) = 11.14, p = .025).' See TaMe AA.4 in Appendix AA for a summary of the statistics regarding sexual assault reporüng. 5.4 Temporal Stability of the SES The agreement between responses to individual items on the SES in the mening and in the main study is reportecl in Table 5.5. Agreement ranged from 99.1% for the item assessing sexual interwune subsequent to the misuse of authority ( Q = .88, p c .0005) to 773% for the item inquinng aimut attempted intemurse involving Vie use of alcohol or dmgs (g = .46, p c .0005).= Seventy-eigM percent of participants were similady categorized in the mening and main study using the revised SES categoritation procedures (r, = .70, p c .0W5). Most SAVs (88.2%) were ciassified as SAVs in bolh the screening and main study. Note that 11 8%of respondents who gave respanses indicative of sexual assault in the screening gave nsponses in the main study that were no longer consistent mtti experiences of senial assault (i.e., they reported les'seriousu foms of sexual mercion in the main study). In addition, three participants who were not categorized as SAVs in the screening were identified as such in the main study.

A similar pattein was found for rape vidims, as 23.1 % of mpe victims wito reported that they were 'probably' raped mcognired that they were raped 'immediatelyg, as compareâ to 60.0% of rape vidims who believed th& they wem 'definiteiy" mped v(4)= 0.70, p =.046).

* The chi-square compering the three gmups of SAVs was min-signifiant (&2) = 3.98, p = .I39), likely due to the small number of wmen mpoiüng to the police.

The small number of wornen indicating that lhey were consirlering npoiüng the assault to the police in the Mure Iikeiy contributecl to the non-signifimnt chiiuan.

The time betwaen wmpteüng the screening study and the main study ranged betmen one day and approximately six monthS. Tanoonl Stabilihr of SES items (Scmenina to Main Studu

1. Have you had sema[ intercoune with a man when you both wanted to? 2 Have you given in to sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn't want to because you were owrwhelmed by a man's continual arguments and pressure? 3 Have you given in to sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because you were ovenivlielmed by a man's continual arguments and pressure? 4. Have yw had sex piay (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didnY want to because a man used his position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supetvisor) to make you? 5. Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) with a man when you didn't want to because you were drunk or high and couldnl stop him? 6. Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your an. holding you dom, etc.) to make you? 7. Have you had a man attempt sexual intercourse @eton top of you, attempt to insert his penis) when you didnl want to by threatening or using some degme of force (twisting your am, holding you down, etc.), but intercourse dld net occur? 8. Have you had a man attempt semial intemurse (get on top of you, attempt to insert his penis) when you didn't want to by giving you alcohol or drugs, but intercourse dCd not ocwR 9. Have you had semial intercourse when you didn't want to because a man used his poslion of authority (boss, teacher, camp counseior, supervisor) to make YOU? 10. Have you had semial intercourse with a man when you didnY want to because you wen drunk or high and couldn't stop him? 11. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didnl want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs? 12. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used same degree of physical force @isüng your am, holding you down, etc.) to make you? Conünued... 13. Have you had sex ads (anal or oral intercourse or 91.4 .65- penetration by objeds othsrîhan the penis) when you didnY want to because a man threatened or used sorne degree of physical force (twisüng your am, holding you dm,etc.) to make you?

-Note. n ranges between 230 and 233. Two questions (5 & 10) were added tu the screening questionnaire later and therefore have smaller sample sires (n = 183 and 182 respedively). The time between completing the screening study and the main study ranged between one day and approximately six rnonths. -p < .0005. 0.8 A1Wud.r tawrfds Rapt As e~peded,the mean soaetal atühides towards rape score (73.74) was greater than the mansignifiant ather atütudes towards rape score (45.28). Mich was higher than the mean score for the self vaion of the attiiudes twads rape scale (39.73)" See TaMe AILS in Appendus AA for a summary of the descn'ptive aaüstics for the adginal and trsnsfotmed mude tawards raph variabies. Acknowfedged rape vidirns had more negative perceptions of m'etal attitudes towards rapé (M = 77.14) than Unacknowledged (M = 69.42) and Uncartain (M= 68.62) SAVs (F(2,235) = 6.93, p c .Ml). There were no statisticatly signifiant diMerences between the semial assault gmups on the mean scores for the significant bther and self versions on the atütude scates (see Tabie 5.6). 5.6 Blme Measun A factor analysis of the blame items was perfomed in order to detemine if the extemal blame items should be treated as a single scafe or if there shoufd be separate scates maasunng perpetrator, societal, situational, and fate hlame. Five scales were derived using factor analysis (see Appendix Be): self-blame, societal Marne, perpetrator Marne, fate Marne. and situation blame. A summary of the descriptive st&tistics for each original and transfomed Mame scale can be found in Table AA.5 in Appendii AA. ASAVs (M= 2.34) were more likely than Unacknwvledged (M = 1.Si) and Uncertain (M = 1.73) SAVs to be preoccupied with issues of Marne (F(2,235) = 19.48, p < .0605). ASAVs (M = 2.42) were afso more likely than Unacknowiedged (M = 2.t6) and Unariain (M = 2.15) SAVs to blame the perpetrator (F(2,235) = 9.70, p < -0005). In Nion,ASAVs were more likely to indicate that they believed that the man should receive mandatory psycholagical treatment (755%) and a jail sentence (33.3%) as compareci to Uncertain (35.4% and 74.6% respedniely) and Unacknowiedged (20.0% and 6.0%) SAVs v(2)= 30.47, p c .0005; 2(2)= 17.75, p < .0005). There were no statistically significant differenœs among the sexual assault graups on the other Marne scales (see Table 5.7). 8.7 Disclosum Questionnairr A summary of the frequencies and means for items in the disdosure questionnaire is presented in Table 5.8. Over îhreequarters of the sample (79.8%) qmke to samaone about their unwanted serua1 experience, mosl said that they spaite abut ttiair arrpsfkftfa on more Vian one occasion (92.7%), and approximately a third di~osedimmedîalely (35.3%). Women were mast likely to first diselose to a girlfriend (82.6%). Most wotnen who disdosed spoke to more îhan one person about their eqerience (88.9%). Approxirniitely a quarter of the wmen who disclosed (253%) spoke to a prorëssional

a Recall that higher scores indicate more negaüve attitudes towards rape and rape vldims. Table A6 Çomprrison of Attitudes Towards Ra-. PTGI. and PTS Scores SahHHn SeW Assault Grouos

Self 1.56 212 - - -

PTGI Total Scom 9-15 .O00 6.60i 6.82, 7-56,

New Possibilities ' 6.07 .OOû 3.81, 3.95, 4.34, Psnonat Stnngth 3.43 .O03 10.0q 10.20, 11.80i Spiritual Change 8.79 -000 6.W, ?.351 9.4331

Avoidance ' 14.81 .O00 3.40, 3.7% 4.05,

-Note. Unackn = Unacknawledged SwalAssault Vidims, Unœrt = Uncertain Senial Assaun Vidims, Ackn = Acknowiedgeâ Sexual Assault Vidirns. Means with diierent roman numeral suhscripts are significanüy different. mTamhane'sT2 post hoc test was used vuiîh these variables due to unequal variances; Newman-Keuls was used for ali oîher post-hoc tests. -- - - Blame Pmmpation ' 19.48 .Wb 1Sli 1.7% 2.Ni

Societal Blame 1.18 .308 Perpetrator Blame 9.70 .O00 2.16, 2-15, 2.42, Fate Blame 0.68 .SI0 Situaüonal Blame ' 4.62 1 1.38, 1.44,, 1.s

Blrme item - Punishment ~72) P % None 4ô.83 -000 70.0 43.8 17.4 Cornmunity Service 6.66 .O36 Probation 2.20 .a34 Mandatory PsyEhologicaI 30.47 .O00 20.0 35.4 75.5 Treatment Jail 17.75 .O00 6.0 14.6 33.3 -Note. Means with different roman numerals subscripts ansignificantly different. Tamhans's T2 post hoc test was used with these variables due to unequal variances; NewmanKeuls was used for al1 other past hoc tests. Table 8.8 Disclosun Variables - Fmwncies

Any Disclasun

Immediately

Days Later

Weeks Later

A Year Later

More than 1 Year Later 14.7 (28) Flmt DlJclo5~1~ 28.83 22 .150 Girlfriend

Boyfriend 1 Partner 1 11.6 Husband (22) Male Friend

Mother

Faîher

Other Female Relative 2.1 (4) ûther Male Relaîive 1.1 (2)

Any b&cIosu~p Girlfriend

Boyînend / Partner / Husband Male Friend

Mother

Faiher

Sister

Bmther

ôther Female Relative

Other Male Relative

Other Dktlosun to r PmfWrional

Mental Heaith Professional

Physician

Police

Rape Counselor

CW~Y

Other Professional

Once

A Couple of Times 57.4 76.9 81.5 49.1 (las) 00) (24) (551 Several Times 35.3 17.9 28.2 43.8 (67) m 11) (49)

Lcss than 5 Minutes 11.1 (21) 5-1 5 Minutes

1530 Minutes 22.6 (43) Over 30 Minutes 29.5 (W Conünuad... NA. Unackn = Unacknowledged Sexual Assauii Victirns, Unwrt = Uncedain Sexual Assault Vidirns, Ackn = Acknowledgd Sexual Assaufi Vidims. Means with different roman numeral tubscripts am significantly diffennt. The pemntage of responses to each question do not atways sum to 100 due to participant non-response. Tamhane's 12 post hoc test was used with this variable due to unequal variances; Newman- Keuls was used for al1 other pst hoc tests. about their unwanted sexual experience. Participants on average spoke to 1.49 (SD = -84) professionals. fhey were most likely to speak to a mental heakh pmfessional (Le.. therapist, social mrrker, psychologist, psychiatn'st, etc.; 16.4%). Chi-squams and oneway ANOVAs wem calculateci to compare the thmserual assaun groups on the disclosure variables (see Table 5.8). There wen fw significant dmerencus kiwwn the sexual assauît gmups on the disdosure items. However, ASAVs wen more likely to disclose to a professional (38.6%) as compared to Unacknowledged (5.1%) and Uncertain SAVs (15.4%; ?(2) = 1269, p < .0005) and dixlosed to more pmfessionals (M = .47) than their Unadcnowledged and Uncertain counterparts (M = .O4 and -12 mpdvely, F(2,234)= 9.83, p < .ooo!5). 5.6 Port Tnumatic Growth lnventory (PTGI) Descriptive statisücs for the PTGI subxales are presented in Table AA.5 in Appendii M. ASAVs had highet PTGI total scale scores, as well as higher scores on the Relaüng to menand Spiritual Change subscales (M = 7.56.3.72, and 9.43 respeâively), as compared to Uncertain (M = 6.82.3.25.7.35) and Unacknowledged (M = 6.60, 3.13.6.84) SAVs (F(2,235) = 9.1 5, p c -0005; F(2,235) = 12.62, p < .0005; F(2,235) = 8.79, p < -0005). Then wen also trends towards significance for the remaining PTGI subscales (see Table 5.6). 5.9 Purdue Posîtraumatic Stress Disorder Scale - Revised (PPTSD-R) See Table AA.5 in Appendix AA for descriptive statistics on the PPTSD-R subscales. ASAVs reparted more overall PTS symptoms (M = 6.33) than Uncertain SAVs (M = SM), who in tum reportecl mon overail PTS symptoms than USAVs (M = 5.17; F(2.235) = 23.29, p < .0005). A similar pattern was found for the PTS Avoidance and Amusa1 subscales, with AWs repcrting mon avoidance and amusal symptoms (M = 4.05 and 3.85 respMiveIy) than Uncertain SAVs (M = 3.74.3.26). who in tum reported more avoidance and amusal symptoms than USAVs (M = 3.40.2.95: F(2,235) = 14.81, p c .0005; F (2,235) = 28.07, p < .W05). ASAM also reported more Re-experiencing symptoms (M = 2.91) than Uncertain (M = 2.67)) and Unacknowledged (M = 2.51) SAVs (F (2,235) = 9.63, p < .0005). See Table 5.6 for a summary of the results of the ANOVAs and post-hoc tests comparing the thm wxual assauit gmups on the PtS scales. 5.10 Social Rerctions Checklist (SRC)and Helpfulness Ratings Descriptive statisücs for the SRC subscales are pmvided in TaMe AA.5 in Appendii M. Mos&of the sample (96.8%) reported experiencing ernotional support f valiionfrom altiers and 19.5% nported receiving some fom of tangible aid or infornational suppoit- Over half of the participants (58.8%) reported being blamed or treated diiennüy, and 65.3% indicaïad thet they were discouraged fiom talking about their vidimizaîion or were distracted from the subject by athars Menthey brought it up. In addition, 28.4% reported Bat others look wntrol of their decisians, Parücipants experienced an average of 8.96 positive social readioris (SD = 3.69) and 3.26 negaüve social readions (SD = 3.03). 89 Thmi! were no steüstically anincant diffannces on the SRC subsceles, with the exception of Tangible Aid (se!Tabie 5.9). ASAVs reported mivingmore TangiMe Aid (M = 1.18) than Unacknowledged (M = 1-04) and Uncertain (M = 1.03) SAVs (62,187) = 8.95, p < .ooos). Fathers (M = 3.71, SD = 1.24) and mothen (M = 3.69, SD = 1.38) received the hiihest helpfulness ratings and other male ralatives received the lowest helpfulness raüng (M = 3.00, SD = 1.87). See Table 5.10 for a summary of descriptive statisücs for the helpfulness ratings for different significant others, There mis not a significant diierence in the helpfulness ratings given to male and female significant othen (t(125) = .198, p = .843). There were also not any statistically significant difierences among the three sexual assault groups' mean helpfulness ratings (se Table 5-10). 5.1 1 Circumstaneas of the Assault Results will be presented belw regarding the relationship with the perpetrator, force, resistance, and use of almholidmgs. 6.11.1 Relationshi~with Pemtrator Most of the women reporta that their assailant was an acquaintance or friend (58.4%), while 29.4% reported that he was a date, 7.6% indicated that he was a stranger, and 4.6% reporteci that he was a fiancé, common-law parîner, husband, or relative, Approximately a third of the women (31 -1%) reported having prior consensual sexual intercoune with the perpetrator, while a similar number of women (29.4%) reported no prior sexual intimacy. Most of the rmmen had not had sexual intercourse with the perpetrator since the event in question (77.7%) and had not continued a relationship with the perpetrator (68.1%). See Table 5.1 1 for a surnrnary of the descriptive statistics for the relationship variables. The three sexual assault groups dM not differ significantly on any of the relationship variables (see Table 5.1 1). 6.11.2 Force of Assault The mast wmmm aggressive strategy reported was the use of insistent arguments (68.5%). while the least common strategy employed was the use of a weapon (0%). See Table 5-12 for a surnmary of the rasponses to the force items. ASAVs were found to report that their parpetrator used more aggressive strategies (M = 2.87) than Uncertain (M = 2.12) and Unacknowleâged (M = 1.82) SAVs (Y2233= 11.47, p < .0005). Acknowledged (M = 3.38) and Uncertain (M = 3.07) SAVs also reported that their assailant was more aggressive than USAVs (M = 2.67, F(2,235) = 9.70, p < -0005). A similar pattern was found for the force composite scale (see Table 5.12). 6.1 1.3 Resittrnce Few SAVs reported that they did not resist at al1 (8.8%) and few indicated that they were not at al1 ûear in their -1 of sexual adMty (5.9%). The most common resistance strategy rsported was reasoning, pieading, or telling îhe man to stop (54.6%), while the least common mistance strategy was sweaming for help (5.0%). See Table 5.13 for a surnmary of the Tabk 6.9 Commrison d Munr for SRC Subruies

Ca O SRC Subscrles F " as 9 ,,*)

Negaüve Support 2.10 -125 Positive Support 4.57 .O12 2.Wi 2.e ZW, Emotional Support / Validation 1.99 ,139 Blame 1 Treated Differently 3.07 .M9 22, Bi .33, Distraction / Discouraged Talking 0.52 .594

Tangible Aid / Informational Support ' 8.95 .O00 1.M, 1.031 1.18" -Note. Means with different roman numerals subscripts ansignificantly different. 'Tamhane's T2 post hoc teçt was used with this variable due to unequal variances; Newman- Keuls was used for al1 oîher post hoc tests. Tabla 6.10 Comwiron of Milm foi Helpfulness Ratinas

Girffnend* Unadmowledged Uncertain

Boyfnend / Partner 1 Husband Male Friend Mother Father Sister Brother Other Female Relative ûther Male Relative ûther Mean Helpfulness Ratings '

un-wledged Ul~cerfain AcknaWd Mean Helpfulness Ratings for Females ünacknowledged Uhcertain AcknoWQed Mean Helpfulness Ratings for Males 3.44 1.26 1.03 2,136 359

-Note. ANOVAs were not calculated for all helpfulness variables due to small sample &es. Means with diierent roman numeral suhscripîs are slgnificantly diierent, Tarnhane's T2 post hoc test was used for this variable due to unequal varianas; Newman- Keuls was used for al1 other poà hoc te!5is. Tml I ReIitSanrhip Variables Sampb X' F =-c) K df P 8: ;3: Rehtiomhip a, Pslpemor Stnnger

Acquaintance I Friend

Date

Fiancé f Husband I Common-Law Partner / Relative # Priof lncIdentr None

1 lime

2 Times

3 Times

4 or More Times

Suwlîh Perprartar Since Total CWitionship Vlnobko

Peîting Above the 9.2 Waist (22) Petting Belw the 17.2 Waist 141) Sexual Intercoune 31.1 (74)

How wsll did puknow 1.12 0.57 2,235 .564 him? 0.13 Relaîionship C~mposite 1.78 0.51 2,235 .660 (6.701 Tibk 5.12 Fnuuerrcfes 1 Means - Force Variables

- Total c- Fone Variables Smple M " p j/g fC I.

Fone Conrposiîe

Insistent arguments Pleading

Telling you that you wers ftigid Threats of force

Twisting your am, holding you (103) down, etc. Hitting, slapping, 5.5 4.00 2 -135 etc. (1 3) Beating , 3.4 3.26 2 -196 choking, etc. (8) Showing 2.1 1.52 2 .467 weapon (5)

-Note. Means with different roman numeral subscn'pîs are significantiy dietent How much did you resist?

#of Resistance Strategies Empioyed . Clarity of Resistance

Resistance Composite

Resirtrnce Sbatcqies lgmred hirn

Became distant

Fmze, became 'paralyzed" Reasoned, plaaded, totd him to stop Cried or wbbed

Screamed for help

Ran away

Physically stnrggled. pushed him way, hit or Scretched He became more persistent -5 28.2 (s7) m.The percentage of respanses to each question do not ahyssum to 100 due to participant nonrespanse. Tamhane's 12 post hoc test was used with this variable due to unepual variances; Nemnan- Keuls was used for al1 other post hoc tests. mspons%s io the resistenœ items. While the thme sexual assault grwps did not differ in tenns of their reprting of most of the resistanœ strategies (see Table 5.131, ASAVs repoRed that they used more rasidance strategies (M = 2.85) and were dearer in Uieir nsistanœ (M = 3.99) than Uncertain (M = 231 and 3Zl respedively) and Unackmwîedqed (M = 1.88 and 326) SAVs (42- = 10.34, p < .0005; F(2,235)= 10.99, p < .000S). A similar pattern mis found for the resistanœ composite scate. 5.1 1A Alcohol I DNPS Tite use of alcahol and dmgs was cornmon in participants' malassaults. Just about threequarters (73.5%) of the sample indicated that they were using alcohol andlor drugs at the time of the samial assault. Similarly, 70.5% of pefpetratonwere also reporteci to have been using alcohol andlor drugs at the time of the assault. See Table 5.14 for a summary of the nsponses to the alcohol 1 dmg items. Reports of alcahol 1 dnig use dM not differ significantly among the ttiree gmups of SAVs (see Table 5.14). 5.12 Sûudunl 1 Path Analyses EQS (Bentler, 1989) was used to perfon the path analysis. The correlations among the variaMes used in the path analyses are presented in Table 5.1 5. Maximum likelihood estimation was employed ta test al1 models. The mode1 of sexual assault acknowledgment that was derived based on the literature review (see Fgure 3.1) was testeâ using path analysis. The independence maûel, which tests the hypothesis that al1 variabies are uncorrelated, was easily rejeded u('(60) = 497.14, p < .001]. The hypothesized model was, however, not supported w(26) = 86.28, p < .ml, CF1 = ,860, NNFI = .645, $Idf = 3.3181.'' Post hoc mode1 modifications were perfomied to develop a ûetter fÏtüng, more panimonious, model. On the basis of the muhivariate LaGrange Mulüpiier test six paths were added: Relationship and Perceptions of Societal Attitudes Towards Rape to PTG; Force of Assault and Perceptions of SignifiEant Othen' and Societal Attiiudes Towards Rape to Sexual Assault Acknowledgment, and a covariance between Resistance and Perceptions of Significant Olhers' Attitudes Towards Rape. Adding a path from Relaüonship to PTG appears to be reasonabie. as developing imprwed relationships with others (which is an aspect of PTG) may be more Iikely to owrwhen the assault takes place in the context of a dose rslationship. The addiion of the path fmm Perceptions of Societal Attitudes Towards Rape to PTG is consistent with the notion that there may be more potenüal for gmwVi when one is more aware

'' A non-significant chi-square uiggests a good-fitting model. as the chi-square -stic assesses the amount of residual variance- merfi indices (e.g., NNFI, CR, x%#) have been developed to take into account sampIe sàze, as the ai-square çtsüstic is sensitive ta srnall devlations In the madel with large sample sitesBSA $IMratio less than 2 and CF1 and NNFl indices greaterthan -90 indicates an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler, 1QQZ). Tabk 5.14 Fnaurncies - Alcohol / Dnim Use

Bot h

Nelher

Alcohol

Both

Neither 26.5 (63) m. 819 OUicH - SînMcant Othon', ATR = AIUludas TOWI* Rsp, Bsh Behavlor, SA Acün = Sfucuil Assaun AcknowWgment, PTG = PostîmumW Omwni. The dimiion of comlailons for variables whlch had bsen mversed in transfonation was changed (Le.,the sign of the corralniion wu feverwd) lo ewinisrpçstaîion. "p < ,ôôô5 (one-tailed). of negative sodeîal attitudes towards rape (e.g., when me is mare aware of negative atüiudas one may develop a greater a-don for one's relaüonships). Paths wen alsa Wedfrom Force of Assaun and Perceptions of Significant Others' and Socletal Attitudes Tawards Rape to Sexual Assauit Aduiowledgment; üiese variables were initially hypothesised to have indirad, rather than direct, emds on acknowledgment, However, given that there was no research on the attitude scales and ttiat 1 seems masonable for force to be directly related to acknowledgment, these paths were added. A covariance was alsa added between Perceptions of Significant mers'Atütudes Towards Rape and Resislance. This path was added as a covariance, rather than a direct path, based on theoretical considerations which suggesî mat 1 is unlikely that perceptions of signifiant athers' attitudes have a direct effed on msistance. More detailed discussion of Merature and research supporting the addiion of these paths k provided in the discussion section. Nineteen paths wen dmpped based on the Wald test: Self-blame, Disdosure, and Unsupportive Behavior to Sexual Assault AcknowIedgment; Relationship, Force, and Perceptions of Significant Othen' Attitudes Towards Rape to Petpetrator Blame: Relationship and Resistanw to Unsupportive Behavior; Perceptions of Significant ôthen' and Societal Attitudes Towards Rape to Self-blame; Perceptions of Signifiant Others' and Societal Mudes Towards Rape and Self-blame to Disdosure; and Sema! Assault Acknowiedgment to PTG. me following covariances were also dropped: Perceptions of Significant Othen' Aîütudes Towards Rape and Relatiorrshipwiü~ Perceptions of Sacietal Atütudes Towards Rape; Force and Relationship with Perceptions of Significant ôthers' Attiiudes Towards Rape; and Force wiîh Relationship. The revised model (see Figure 5.1) was a better ?Ming madel w(39) = 54.08, p < ,055, CF1 = 365, NNFl = -941, ?/df= 1.38q. No further modificalions to the mode1 were suggested. See Table 5.16 for the maximum likelihood estimates for the modified model.

6. DISCUSSION Measurement issuas related to the iâenîiilion of sexual assautt and rape vidirns will first be discussed. which will indude a discussion of the temporal stabirii of the SES, the prevalenœ of semial violence found in this study, rates of sexual assauit and rape acknowledgment, and Sexuel assauit reporting. This discussion will show that a substanüal number of both adrnowlsdged and unacknowledgeû sexuel assaults oimrrad and wuid be reliaMy rneasured, which is consistent with exMing therature. Next, a geneml discussion regarding the descriptive and bivarlate analyses wil be pmsented with regards to the demographic variables, the circumstances of the assault (e.g., relationship with the perpetrator, force of the assauit, mistance, and alcohol I dnig use), attitudes towards rape, Marne, disdosure, social support, PTS. and PTG. This discussion will help descrIbe and wntextualize the variables which are in the path analysis and were thought to be related to sexual assaun acknowledgrnent. The resuits of the path analysis will then be discussed, wiih the goal of making meaning of the most influential patterns amongst the networlr of variables. Finally, limlations of the current study will be highlighted, faltowed by suggesîions for futurtr rasearch. The condusion will focus on implications for educatian, intervention, and dinical pradice with sexual assault vidims. 8.1 Mmsunmrnt Issues Rolaîed to Sexuil Assault I Rape The central variaMe in this study is rimal assaut acknowtedgrnent. lhefef~re, rneasurement issues related to the identification of sexual assault becornes a crucial issue. The temporal stabilii of the SES, followed by the prevalenœ of senual violence oMained in this study compared to other similar studies, wiII be discussed below. The measurement of acknowledgment will also be discussed, after which there wilt be a discussion of sexuel assault reporüng. The results support the use of the SES for obtaining siamples of sexual assaufil rape vidims (adtnowledged and unacknowiedged) and illustrates the limiîaüons of using only samples of sexual assault / rape vidims who have repoited their assauit to the police. 6.1.1 Temporal Stabili of ait SES In this sludy, there was 88% mean item agreement using the revis4 SES and M% mean item agreement when the two items that wen aâded to the SES for this study were jnduded, Recall that tfie test-nt& interval was between one day and approximately six mdhs in this st~dy.~The temporal siabiîii of the SES found in this study was comparable to thut fourrd by Koss and Gidya (1985), who reparleci 93% mean item agreement when the SES was Paminisîered two wbsks apaR Thorefore, thii audy offen further support for the temporal stability of the SES. Cansistency in msponding on the SES was particularly high for items inquirinq about s8xwl inîercourse and sex aüs subsquent to the use orlhreat of physical force. Agreement was also high for items inquiring abut sex play and sexual intemurse subsequent to the miwse of authority. The reliability rnay have been hiiher for these items, as these events rnay be viewed as particulariy 'seriousmand anmore rare, which rnay make them more salient and mon easily ncalled. Consistency was lower for items inquiring about aitempted sexual intemurse and sex play subsequent to the use of verbal mercian and the use / threat of force; lower reliability for these items rnay be related to such incidents king viewed as relatively trivial and common and therefore difficult to recall. Women rnay have difficulty recalling forced senial experienws that are seen as unremarkable, minor, and cammon, as they wuld have no particular personal meaning which would warrant adive encoding in long-temi memory. Indeed, mernory research shows that forgeîîing often ocwrs because similar memories interfere with storage or refrjeval of information (e-g., Wickens, Barn, & Allen, 1963) and that memory is poomr for more neutral / unemotional events (e.g., Linton, 1982). For example, Unton indicated that mernorable events are experienced as highly emotional at the time, are perceiveâ as focal in tamis of the course of one's life, and must rernain relatively unique. Reliability rnay have been lower for items inquiring about attempted sexuat intercoume, as they ask women to recall whether they experienced coercive strategies in the context of an event (Le., sema1 intercourse) that did not ocwir. Thus, lems inquiring about attempted sexual intercourse rnay be more subjective, which rnay have wntributed to lower reliability for these items. There are several fadors which could have interfered with achieving greater temporal iak'lii on the SES. It is possible that Kirne women experienced addiional coercive expariences between the screening study and the main study, hichwould have led them to endorse mon items in the main study. Some women also indicated that theit responses were different on the SES in the main sîudy, as compleüng the SES during the scrsening made them recall more events. For example, one paRicipant mota the following: 'I first completed the survey as someone who had NOT had an experience. Then 1 remembered sameîhing and compieted it again.' In addiiion, wmpleting the SES in different environments (Le., in a classnoom venus labotatory setting) rnay have also contributeâ to inwnsistency (e-g., some wmen rnay have reporteâ more mercive experiences in the main study where they had greater pnvacy). Although the SES items Sthe to be as behavioral as possible, they am still subjed to

A mean test retest intetval cannot be provided. as the relevant data was not colItded. interPrMion. Just as mimen may be uncertain about whether they have been nped or ssxually assauttecl, they may also k unceriain about whether they had various sexual airpariences when ïhay didn't want tomdue to a man's pafticular actions. Of course, as with other sciales, variables such as carelessnes also corrtribute to inconsistency; for example, one woman mate '1 think 1 may have answered a bit diierently last time, kR I was mading carefully [now].' However, the SES has acceptaMe test-retest reliability and appears to be a masonable way to meosun women8sexperiences with various forms of sexual violence. Results regardim temporal StaMlii suggesi that the SES is particularly appropriate for assessing experienas of fodmual adnrity rasuthg fmm the use or threat of force.

Jwt over half of the -men (51.8%) in the screening sarnple reprted qeriencing some fom of sexual coercion since the age of 14. The results also indicateâ that 16.4% of wmen in the s#eenin~ample reported experiencing an adthat is consistent with legal definitions of rape and 28.1 % reporteci experiencing an adthat is consistent with legal definitions of sexual assault. Women were most îikely to report unwanted malcontac! subsequent to verbal coercion (36.3%) and were least likely to indicate that they had experienced sexual intercaurse subsequent to the misuse of authority (3.4%). The rates of vidirnization were siightly lower when Koss et al.3 (1 987) original scoring ciiteria were Using Koss et al.'s scoring procedures, 50.0% of women reported expeiiencing some fonn of sexual wercion, while 13.1% were dassifieâ as rape vidims, and 24.8% were dassifted as sarual assault vidims (SAVs). These prevalence ESultS are similar t0 those obtaineâ in national audies. For example, Koss et al. (1987) repoited that 53.7% of women in their national sample of college students in the United States reporled experiencing some form of sexual victimization and 15.4% were ciassified as rape vidims. DeKesemdy and Kelly (1993). using a national sample of Canadian university and wllege students, found that 45.1% of the women sampled indicated that they had experienced some fonn of semal vidimization since leaving high school. These prevalence resutts an, however, lower than was previously obtained in a studed sample from the University of Saskatchewan (Shimp, 1995). Shimp (1995) reportad that 65.0% of hm sample reportecl soma fonn of vidimization and 23.3% were dassifid as rape vidims. Hawaver, there were several important diffennces in methoâology th& may have contributed to the diffemnt prevalence rasults. First, student volunteen in Shimp's (1 995) study completed the SES in a rasaarch lab, rather than in a dassroorn. Completing the SES in a dassroom may have Ied to undsr-mporüng of vidimizaîion experiences due to a la& of privacy, although *ps were taken to try to maximize privacy. In addition, the seledion of participants in Shimp's

a Recall that Koss et al:s categorkation procedures do not indude the two items that were addeci mgarding unwanted experiences of sex play and sexual htercoum hile intoxicated. (1995) study may have contrikrted to the seledion of a more biossd (and vidimiwd) sample, as there was more self-seledion invotved (Le., participants in Shimp's çludy responded ta an advertisanent through the Psychology Subjed Poot and to calls for rssearch participants made in variaus undergraduate classe^).^ In merwords, vidimized women may be more liûeiy then nonvidimized wornen to voIunteer to parücipaie in a toseareti ttudy on sexuaf experiences 1 ett'iudes 1 prceptions conducted outside of class time, perhaps dw ta perceived dwancy of the marctt. Them are Iimitathnsta wing self-repart quesiionnaires sudi as the SES. Reporüng on such measures could over- or underdimate adual prevalence. Hovrever, DaKesendy and Kelly (1993} suggested several reasons to believe Viat the nsults fiorn the SES may undemMmate the adual prevalence of sexual vidimization. Reasons to suspect that the fmquencies am underestimations indude the following: (1) Same people do nat repoit incidents on such suweys due to fear of reprisal, embarrassment, and considering the incidents to be tao lrivial to mention. (2) Some people forget about some incide*, paftiwlarly if they ocuinad some time ago and were considered to be minor. For example, one participant recalled, hile handing in the questionnaire for the main study, experiencing additional coercive semat experiences involving the use of alcohal. (3) It is cornmon for women not to want b recall painful abusive incidents. For example, one woman came by the research lab a couple of weeks after carnpleting the study and indicated that she had since recalled experiencing physically foreed sexual intercourse during her teen years, which presumabiy was too pinful for her to previously recall andlor had been triggered by participating in the study. (4) Social dasirability rnay affect mqondents' reports of sexual agQression. Although a purely randorn sample was not colleded, the screening sampie #rnsisls of women fmm 15 different colleges at the University of Saskatchewan, who wen samplad fmrn 89 diierent undergraduate dasses. In addition, the sample of 2552 warnen repmented appruximately 28% of the female undergraduate population at the University of Saskatchewan (Jacquie Fraser, Director of Registration, Exarninations, and Convocation, personal communication, May 31,1999). White caution should be used in generaliing the fesub since a nonprobabitiisample was used, the high pemntage of wornen repoiting experienws of sexuat vidimization from mis large and divene sample is suggestive of the degree of sexual videnw experienced by univenity Mimen in Saskatchewan. 6.1.3 3 This study examined not only the labeling of rape, but also the labeling of sexual assauh and semial caereion. In the screening sample, 58.7% of rape vidims idenüfied by the SES did nat view themselves as having been raped, which is consistent mth *eus research which

" This study was deseribed to research participants as an investigation of perceptions of sexuat interactions. Parüupa* wefe anare that they wuld be asked questions about their own semal experiem. has found that between 43% (Koss, 1965) and 73% (Layman-Guadalupe, 1996; Layman et al., 1996; Muren et al., 1880; Pii& Schwartz, 1903) of rape vidims do not idenüfy themselves as having been raped. As expeded, npe vidims were more Iikeiy to apply the term 'senial assaun" to their forced sema1 experience as compafeâ to the tem 'rape". Just over half of rape victims (51.8%) indicated that they believed that they had been semially ossaulted. Therefore, 1 appears that the bmader tem 'sexual assault" is more medily applied by women to their foreed sexual ewrienas than the term 'rape'. One paiüupant wmrnented, while handing in her questionnaire, th& she was stnick by her hesitancy to label her experience as semial assault or rape. She noted that she was more able to appiy the term 'sexual assaultm,as she found that it 'sofiened' the meaning. However, a substantial proportion of rape vidims identiied by the SES do not view themselves as having been sexually assauited (48.2%) or even sexually coerced (23.8%). It was predided that there would be a substantial proportion of women who indicated that ihey had experienced behavior that is consistent with legal descriptions of sexual assault that would not appIy the terni 'sexual assault' to their experience. As expeded, a substantial proportion of SAVs (59.0%) in the screening sarnple did not view themselves as having been sexually assauited. Therefore, the proportion af unacknowfedged SAVs is similar to the proportion of unacknowledged rape vidirns. Thus, while severely assaulted women were more likely to apply the Canadian terni 'sexual assault" than 'rape* to their forced sexual experience, many women continued to not conceptualite their forced sexual experience as sexual assault. Rape acknowledgrnent has previously been conœptuaIized as a dichotomy: rape victims either acknowledqd or did not acknowledge that they were raped. In this study rape and sexual assauit acknwvledgrnent were treated as wntinuous, rather than dichotomous, variables. Treating acknowledgment as a continuous variable is also consistent with a larger trend in the sexual violence literature, which involves viewing sexual violence itself as existing on a continuum ranging from subtle forms of verbal wercion through to rape (e.g., Koss Oros, 1982). Part of the rationale for treating acknowledgment as a corrünuous variable was pradical (Le., conünuous variables anmore desirable in a path analysis). However. 1 was also noüced that some screening participants placed a mark between )ces' and 'no' for the questions mgarding sexual assault and rape (and same simpiy lefi the item biank), which su~gcsteâthe need for a more continuous conceptualiration of acknowledgment to mon aecurately capture vicüms* perceptions. The uncertalnty that anbe associateci with understanding experiances of mercion was captureci by one participant who indicated that 'It was never a Mack and white set of occurrences and 1 find it hard to answer yeslno quesüons about it.' The nsubshowed that many sexual assault (20.0%) and rape vidirns (18.5%) were sirnply uncertain about whether they have been sexually assaulted 1 raped and that there are degrees of acknowledgment I lack of acknowledgment One warnan indicated that she was bothered by her uncertainty about whether she was sexually assaulted I raped and wished that she had a better understanding of what ocwrred. Most of the uncettain sexual assauit (ï7%) and rape (75%) vidims indicated that they were not sexually assaulted I mped when they answend ttie dichotmws items regarding sexual assaun / rape in the screening sample. it appears that uncertain SAVs are similarto unacknowledged SAVs in many rwpeds. For example, only 18% (5 of 28) of post- hoc compatison of means found a signifiant diffennce blvmnunacknowfedged and uncertain SAVS.~Since Itiere are fe~statisücally signifiant dierances between unadtnowI~and uncettain SAVs, and most uncertain SAVs would be classified as unadcnowledged SAVs if glven a dichotomous sexual assault lem, it may not be too miquided to simplify and dictiatomke rape 1 sexual assauit aduiowledgment. White almost a lhird (30.3%) of acknwvledgeâ SAVs recognized that they were sexually assaulted immediately, many women did not recognize this until a year or more later (22.1%). These nsults are consistent with those reportecl by Kelly (1908), who found that over 80% of the women in her study did not identify their experience as sewual violence at the tirne of the incident, yet approximately 70% changed their definilion or conception of their mperience over time and ended up relabeling the experience as abusive. Post-hoc analyses indicated tnat there was a trend indicating that acknowiedged SAVs who reported that they were pmbably sexually assauited recognized this later than acknowleâged SAVs who indicated that they were definitely seirually assaulted (t(l36) = 2.98, p = .003). Thus it appears that the longer it takes women to recognize that they were sexually assaulied, the less certain they are in their belief that they were sexually assauiîed. Sexual assauit acknowledgment does not seem to be a static descriptor, as women's acknawîedgment (or lack of) may change over time- A number of women indicated, in conversaüons with the nesearcher afier they completed their questionnaires, that their conceptualkation about the event had changecl over time, which they attributed to greater maturity and experience. One woman expressed fear that her teenage daughter would have similar mercive experknces and diffiwlty appmpriately labeling the assault. Another woman repoded that she 'denied" the sexual assault for appmximaîely twu yean, until a girffriend disciosed a similar experience to her. Another woman who was dassified as an unacknowCedged sexual assault vidim changeci her wnwptuaüzation of the experience while completing the questionnaire: 'As Icornplete this questionnaire and mfieu on the definition of sexual assauit, I am beginning ta realize that same of my malexperiences should be classifïed diffemttîly. These experienees also happened a long time ago - and ILe feîi I put rnyself in the situation. The oid thwght - Viat ifyou Wear the wrong thing. drink too much .. . ' This change in acknowtedgment over time suggests the importance of mediing variables between the cirwmstancss of the assault and acknowledgment. In addition, it appears that there may be a developmental process whemby diffiwfty labeling the phenornenon

UnacknWedged and uncertain SAVs were found to be signifcantiy dinton three PPTSPR scales and the mean helpfulness fatÏngs for fernales and girlfriends. 109 of sexual assault can change to dear, outright acknowledgment (see Sedion 621for more discussion of ihis developmental pmcess). This has led Kelly (1Qû8) to suggest ihat the! availability of a supportive and accepüng social network, as wedl as the maüon of mv ternis (eq., marital raps) and personal development may contribute to mimen's changing mwptualitaüons and full nallzation of what has been done to them. 6.1.4 Re~ortinaSexurl Assauit ~faordinarilyfew SAVs reported the assautt to the police (3.8%) and shockingly, only one woman indicated that her perpetrator was chsqod end convided of sexual assauk Most mimen who repotted the sexual assault to the police (88.9%) and al1 of ttia wornen who were considering reporting the sexual assault to the police were clasified as acknowledged SAVs. It is possible that not having a charge laid after reporting the assault to the police may have led some initially acluiowledged SAVs to douM whether they had been sexually assauited (i.e., this may explain why not al1 of the warnen who reported the incident to the police wam dassified as acknawledged SAVs). Acknwvledgment is likely an important precursor to reporthg sexusl assauf. since most women who reported the sexual assauit to the police and al1 of the women who were considering reporting were classified as acknowledged SAVs. However, the shockingly fow reporting rates, even among acknowledged SAVs suggests that thsre are other issues impeding sexual assauit reporting besides a failure to acknowiedge the experienœ as sexual assauit. The low rate of sexual assauR reporting also indicates that studies which use sampies of sexual assauit vidims who have reported the crime to the police are likely using a vety biased and limited sarnple; resuhs from such studies may not genetalize well to the larger population of sexual assautt victims who do not report their assault to the police. Prevkw mearch has found that women are more likely to repart a rapor semal assauît if they sustain physical injuries or if the perpetrator uses a weapon machmen, 1998). None of the women in this sample reported that the perpetrator used a weapon, which could help account for the low reporüng rate. A study using a wllege sample suggests that self-blame and embarrasment are impediments to tape reporting (Finkelson 6 Oswait. 1995). Similady, Binder (1 982) found that the primaty reason for not reporting tape was a combinaion of guilt and embarrassment. It may be that physical injuries and the use of a weapon help offset feelings of shame and guiit. It appears that education is needed in order to mnterad Ming$ of guiit, embarrassrnent and shame. which seam to interfere with rape reporting. Increased police sensitivity and greater responsiviiy of the legal system would also be helpful in terms of incteasing sexual a~saultreporting. Previous ~searehhas shown that involvement mth the police predided negaüve initial and lasüng effeds atsaciated with the rape watt et al., 1990). Other studies have show that police are generally seen as unhelpful (Go~nget al., 1989; Wyatt et al., 1990). A study prepared forme Canadian Department of Justice found that 82% of mensampled beliived that 1would be a diicult parsonal wrperienœ to get involved with the criminal justice system if they were a sexual assauR viaim, 829b thought that it would be degrading, 48% believed that it would k warthwhile in ternis of receiving justice, and only 38% thoqht that it wouid be fair (Environics RaJaareh Group Umited, 1987). Bachman (1983) found that many women did not report their rape 10 the police because they believed that it was a private matter and thought that the police would be unhelpful. One miman commented that she wished that she had reported the incident to the police, but kingfrom a small town, did not îhink that she would be believcd. The findings mgarding the mie of shame and fear of mistreatment by the legal system was captured by another woman who wrote that 'l didn't want ta go thmugtt the shame and abuse of reporüng the aime." As will be discussed in more detail below, most SAVs were assauited by sorneone that they knew. Research has shwvn that the legal system is les responsive when there is a relationship between the vidim and the perpetratar. For example. Clark and Lewis (1977) found that the pmbability of a conviction resuiting from an acquaintance rape case is lesthan that in a stranger rape case. In addition, jumrs have reported that whenever there is a relationship betwwn the vidim and the perpetrator, ihey are less likety to find the defendant guilty of rape (LaFreu, Reskin & Visher, 1985). As long as the criminal justice system continues to be unresponsive to sexual assauit cases involving acquaintançes, vidirns will be unlikely to report. 6.2 üeseriptive i Bivanate Analyses Discussion of the descriptive and bivariate analyses regarding demographic variables, circumstances of the assautl, attitudes towards rape, blame, disdosun, social support, PTS, and PTG will follow. This discussion will provide necessary conteidual and interpretive information regarding eacti variable in the path analysis. A discussion of the resufts of the path analysis will follow. 6.2.1 üemoan~hicVariabks Consistent with previous researcti (Kahn et al., 1994; Kilpatrick et al., 1988; Layman, 1993; Layman-Guadalupe, 1998), most demographic variables were not found to distinguish between unacknowledged, uncertain, and acknowledged SM. However, acknowledged SAVs were found to be significantly older than their unaduiawledged and uncertain wunterparts. This difference in age does not appear to be a result of a differential seledion Mas in the main study, as acknowledged SAVs were alsa found to b8 signifiwntly older than unacknowledged SAVs in the screening sample (t = 5.45. p <: -0005). In this study, there was a trend @ = -053) indicating that there had bena greater period of time since the assauit for acknowledged SAVs. as compared to unacknowledged and uncertain SAVs. These results suggest that sexual assault acknowledgment is not a static vsriabie and changes over time. Thus, it muld seem that the- is a developmental process involved with sexwl amuit acknavrledgrnertt, wheraby grader age and maturity. along with more time to refiect on the experience, may contribute to greater acknowledgment. This conclusion is mnsistent with the comrnents of some participants: %fore the age of 20 1 was sexually ami assautted several times wtiich on some occasions 1 thougM 1 was me but naw that I am 29 and can assess the situations I realize that if 'no' is not adhered to then it is assaur; 'ln hindsight, 1 think many teenagers aren't aware of what is rape and not rape, especially Men associateci to alcuhol, parties and peer pressure.' Furthermore, there was also a trend towards gmater aeknowledgment being associateci with having more semal experience [Le., more sexual parbien More the assault (p = .058) and gnater likelihood of prior sexual intercourse (p = .084)]. which is supporteâ by previous rasaarch (KOSS,1985; Layman et al., 1996; Shimp, 1995). There was also a positive mlaüonship between age and number of sexual partnen. Thus, it is possiMe that older women may be better aMe to distinguish, on the basis of their greater sexual axperience, the diierence between coercive and non-coercive sexual experiences. Note, however, that merresearchen have not found a relationship between aga and adrnowledgment (iayman-Guadalupe, 1996; Kahn et al., 1994)'6 or a relationship between the time since the assault and acknowledgment (Layman- Guadalupe.lQ96; Layman et al., 1996). which may be due to smaller sample sizes and les power. Overall, then, it is possible lhat there is a developmental process involving age and sexual experience that allouis wmen to better distinguish between coercive and non-coercive sexuality. 6.2.2 Ciicumstanccs of the Assault Results regafâing the relationship with the perpetrator, force of the assault, resistance, and alcohol 1 drug use are discussed below. Findings hem are consistent with prior research and show that greater force and residance is asociated with greater acknowledgment. while use of alcohol 1 dnigs is not related 10 acknowiedgment. However, the relationship with the perpetrator was not associated wiih acknowledgment, which is inconsistent with some earlier research on acknowtedgment, 6.2.2.1 bIrO0115hi~~ith üM P@fp@dnto? Most of the women in this study knew their assailant (92.4%). which is consistent with previous research showing that most women who are sexually violated are assautteci by men whom they know (Koss et al., 1988; Russell, 1Bû4). The prevalent reality of women being sexually assaulted by known men is in wntrast with the cornmon perception that it is more typical for women to be sexually cuerced by strangen. There were no staüslically significant differences among the three semial aSSa~ltgmups on any of the relationship variables. These resulls are generally consistent with those obtained by Laymaffiuadalupe (1896) and Layman et al. (1898) who used the same questionnaire. However, Kws (1985), wito administered the sarne questions using an interview format, found that unacknowlaed rape vidirns (URVs) were more likely to have a dating relationship with

" TheSe researchers dii not provide the staüsücs which tested the relationship between age and acknowledgment, therefore it is und8ar if the* were trends towards significance. 112 iheir perpe4mtor1niare better acquainîed, and wre more IikeIy to have engaged in pvious consensual semal adivity with their asailant as cornparrd to acknowledged rape vidims (ARVs). it may be that Koss' sample, which volunteerad to complete an in-deplh intenriaw, sttraded participants who wem adcnowledged stmnger rape vidims ancilor unadrnowledged acquaintanœ 1 date rape vidims. it is also possible mat in the 14 yean that has passed sinœ Koss' study was puMished that increased awareness regarding violence minintimate 1 dating relaüonships has contributed to a redudion in the importance of the relaüonship between the vidim and perpetrator with regards to the IabeIing of forced senial experiences. 6.2.2.2 Force of AIsruIt Just about three-quarlers of the sample reported mat the perpetratorwas at least somewhat aggressive. The use of insistent arguments was the most commonly reported aggressive strategy experienced. As expeded, greater sexual assault acknowfedgment was related to reporting more forceful assauk. These resuits are wnsistent with those of Kahn et al. (1994), Layman-Guadalupe (1996), and Layman et al. (1996). Threatening to use force and the use of physically aggmsive strategies (e.g., twisting am, holding dom) were the aggressive strategies that were most stmngly related to sexual assault acknowledgment, perhaps because they are more wncrete and less subject to misinterpretationand are more consistent with legal and societal definitions of sexual assaun. Other clearly violent strategies (e.g., hitting 1 slapping, beating f choking, showing weapon) were likely not associated with sexual assauit acknowledgment due to tow rates of endorsement in this sample. It is possible that the low incidence of more violent aggressive sîrategies rnight be çontributing to the lack of acknowledgment amonq less experienwd, younger individuals. 6.2.2.3 Residance Few women reported that they dit not resist at all(8.8%) and were not at al1 clear in their refusal of sexual adivity (5.9%). As expeded, greater sexual aSSault acknowledgment was related to gfeater resistance. which is wnsistent with the research of Layman et al. (1986). The use of adive resistance strategies, such as physical (e.g., stniggled. pushed, hit) and verbal (e.g., reasoned, told to stop, pleaded) mistance, as well as crying, appeared to be most strongly associated with senial assault acknowiedgment. Other adive strategies (e.g., running away, screaming) did not mach significance, likely due to lm rates of endorsament. The use of Iess adive resistance strategies (e.9.. freeung, ignoring him, becoming distant) were likely not related to acknowledgment, as the women rnay have believed that they were less clear in cornmunicaüng their non-consent with these strategies. 6.2.2.4 AlcoAol/ Drums Approximately thmequarters of the vidims reporteci that they were using alcohol 1 drugs at the time of the assauk Similady, aporoximately threequarten of the sample also reported that the perpetmtor was using alcohol 1 drugs at the tirne of the assauk As med, alcohol 1 drug use by Vie vidim and perpetratorwas not associated with sexual assault adrmrwledgment. These mubare consistent with those reporteci by Koss (1985), Layrnan- Guadalupe (1998) and Layman et al. (1996). Comments provideci by participants inâicated that substance use may be assodatecl with minimization of the experience. For example, one uneartain sexual assauit vicüm wrote the foIlomomng:'1 dont think my experienœ was that senous, I was dnink and so what. But Ifreak when 1 think about RI so even though the study was hard, it forced me to nalita that it is okay to be hurt and angry.' Another participant said the following: Aithough 1 had sex when 1 didn? want to while under the influence of dnigs, I don? necessarily fee1 1 was raped . . . He did use some force, but he was ahvap a persistent pcmn . .. I dont think I'm in denial - if I am, oh well. Igot thmugh lthen. Then's no remnto bring it up now. 1 have no serious bad effeds fmm my e-ence.

Afwhol f drug use may fail to distinguish acknowledged and unacknowfedged SAVs because it is so mmmonplace in forced sexual experiences. 6.23 Attitudes Towards Riw This sîudy used modified societal and significant other short venions of the Attitudes towards Rape Vidims Sale and the Rape Myth Sale, in addiion to shortened self-versions. Afl versions were found to have good interna1 consistency in the main and pilot studies. The significant other venion also had good test-retest reliability, although there is concem regarding the stability of the societal version. The pilot study also provided some validity forthe societal and signifiant other venions of these attitudinal sales. Resuits regarding the societal version of the attitude sales should be interpreted cautiously given the poor temporal stabiiity of the instrument. As expected, there was no ielationship between sexual assault adrnawledgment and vidims' own attitudes towards rape and rape victirns. This is consistent with a fairfy large body of research that has found no differences between acknowledged and URVs in ternis of a variety of atti-tudinat measures including wnsewative attitudes towards sexuality, rejedion of rape myths, heterosexual relationships as game playing, acceptana? of sexual aggtession. unacceptability of aggression (Koss, 1#5), attitudes towards women (Koss, 1985; Layman- Guadalupe, 1996; Shimp, 1995). rape attitudes (Koss, 1985; Layman-Guadalupe, 1986), rape empathy (Layrnan-Guadalupe, t996), and social desirabiiïty (Layman et al., 1996). mus, 1 does nut appear that victims' attitudes help account for sexual assault acknowiedgment." 6.24 Bkma Factor analysis supported treating indices of extemal blame (e-g., perpetrator, societal, situation, and fate blame) separately, rather than as a global measure. As expected. greater

* This study was unique in examining the possibility that vidims' perceptions of signifiant others' and societal attitudes towards rape may be associated wiîh sexual assauk acknowledgrnent. The nlationsnip between these Smles and sexual assaun acknwvledgment wiil be disaissed in Section 6.3.3.5 in the context of discussing the results fmm the path analysis. perpetrator blame was associated with sexual assauR acknowledgment, which is consistent wiih the findings of Layrnan-Guadalupe (1996) and Layman et al. (1996). It appears that vidims who viwthe man as more blamaworthy are more likely to acknowledge serual assault. It seems that blaming the perpslrator is what is important for sexual assauit acknowledgment, as making other, edemal, attributions to society, fate, or the situation did not disuiminate among the thme groups of SAVs. fhus, it is holding the man responsib4e and not simply erdemalizing blame, which appears to fadiRate sexual assauit acknowledgment. Self-blame was not found to be mlated to sexual assauit acknowledgment diredly; this finding is also consistent with the msearch of Layman-Guadalupe and Layman et al. Examination of individual self-blame items indicated that most vidims Marne themselves at least samewhat. 8.2.6 Disclnsum Approximately 80% of the sample disclosed their assauit. with approximately a third disclosing immediately. Embarrasment and shame may k factors that contributed to non- disdosure: '! was embarrassed! 1 didn't want to admit I had been that stupid - I haven't even told my husband!" Women were most likely to first disdose to a girlfriend, pertiaps nlated to the expectation that a female friend would be most supportive and understanding due to greater likelihood of having had such experiences themselves. Contrary to the hypothesis, disdosure was not associated with sexual assauR acknowledgment. This finding is consistent with research reportecl by Layman-Guadalupe (1996) and Layman et al. (IBW), atthough they reporled a trend towards significance (p = .12 and .O09 respectively). Only a quarter of the sample diselosed to a professional, with achowladged SAVs king most likely to disclose to a professional. This is lower than professional disclasura rates reporteâ in other studies. For example, Ullman (1 996a) reported that 60% of her convenience sarnple spoke to a mental health pmfe~sional.~The rates may have been lawer in this study, as participants were students who had to be fundioning well eneugh to be attending university and thus this sarnple may have kenin less need of professional assistance. Sexual assauit acknowledgment was asociated with disdosure to a professional. It is likely that wrnen wtio acknowledge sexual assault would be more likely to diselose to a professional, as they would view themselves as having an experience that would warrant professional attention- In addition, as will be discussed below, gnater PTS symptomatology amonQ acknowiedged SAVs may also lead acknowledged SAVs to be more likely to seek professional assistance. It is also possible that those vidims who disdosed to professionaIs may have been encouragecl by the professional(s) to label their experience as sexual assauit.

Ullman's (t996a) sample was recruited from newspaper adverüsements and signs placed at vanous women's centres and counselling organirations indicathg that they wwe seeking women who had experieneed 'prassured or forced semal intemurse or other sexual experiences wtien they dii not want to at least one or more years ago". 6.26 Social Su~raort Women in this sample reported experiencing les negaüve and posiüve fomof social support relateci to their victimization than was reportecl in UllmanS (1996a) convenience sample of SAVs. It was noted that Ullrnan's sample was more psychologically diithan female SAVs from a representative community sample, which may hetp account forwhy they reported mon social reactions relevant to their vidimizaîion experience. The mean helpfulness raüngs given to most indlviduals were at the midpoint or slighüy higher, indicating that they were seen as sligtitly more helpful than unhelpful. Somewhat surprisingly, fathers received the highest helpfulness rating. It is possible ttiat since few vidims (6.8%) disclosed to their fathers, that the few who chose to do so had very posiüve relationships with their fathers. It may also be that support provided by an important male figure, such as a father, can have an unrecognked polive impad on women who have benviolated by a man. Although victims were more likely to disclose to fernales, their helpfulness ratlngs indicated that thete was no significant difference in the helpfulness of males and fernalas. This is somewhat sumsing given that previous research has found that male significant others displayed more unsupportive behavior than female significant others (Davis 6 Brickman. lm). There is a large body of research showing that men have more negative attitudes towards rape victims and endorse more rape rnyths than women. For example, in wmparison to women, men have been found to blame the victirn more (Calhoun, Selby, Cann, 6 Keller, 1978; Cann, Calhoun, & Selby, 1979; Jackson. 1991; Johnson & Russ, 1989; Kanekar et al., 1991; Kanekar & Vaz, 1983; LangIey & Beatty, 1991), blame the offender less (Jackson, 1991), attribute more responsibility to the vidim (Johnson 6 Jackson, 1988; TetreauR & Bamett, 1987, Szymanski et al., 1993). have less posiüve feelings towards vidims (De& et al., 1884; Garcia, Milano 6 Quijano, 1989; Szymanski et al., 1993), and are less œrtain abut the assailant's guilt @ehet al., 1884; Szymanski et al., 1893). In addition, men are more likely to believe that the vidim wanted sexual intercourse (Jenkins & Darnbrot, 1987), enjoyed being mped (Bridges, 1991; Johnson & Rus, 1989; Malamuth et al., i980), encauraged the rape @eitz, Littman, & Bentley, 1984; Stacy et al., 1992; Szymanski et al., 1993), and did not propefly resist the rape (Tieger, 1981). Furîhennore, men are Iess likely to believe that rape is a serious offemœ @eitz et al., 1W; Tieger. 1981), and they tend to rate the sevcnty of the psychological impad (Bridges, 1991; Deitz et al.. 1984; Szymanski et al., 1993), pain, and trauma associateci with rape as less than women (Malamuth et al., t 980). Men are also more likely to believe that rape is justifiable (Muehienhard. 1988), are more accepting of sexual coercion (Stnidvnan-Johnson & StnickmrMohnson, 1991), are less iikety to fabel a situation as rape (Bridges, 1991; Fischer, IW;Fom, 1992; Jenkins & Oambmt, 1983, and consider acquaintanœ ram to be les serious than women (Stacy et al., 1892). Women alsa rate men as having mon negaüve attitudes regarding malwnservaüsm, rapmyths, acceptance of interperxinal vioknœ, sex- role stereotypes. and adversarial sexual beliefs than even men's self reports indicate (Edmands et SI., 1981). Men's more negative attitudes towards rape victims and greater acceptanœ of violence, both of which women may overestimate, may lead women to be less likely to diiose to males. The results of this study are inconsistent wïih the overwhelming number of studies which indicate thaî men are Iikely to be les helpfut than women to vidims of sewual assault. That is, in this study, the males' helpfulness ratings suggest that males can be just as helpful as females to vidims of sexual assault, It Q possible that aiiiiudinal scates and ratings given to rape vignettes are nat related to the adual behavior that men may display when a woman in their lives discloses an unwanted sexual experience. It is also possible that women may be adept at disciosing to men who have more favourabie attitudes anû thus are more capable of offering supportive behavior. There were no statiçücally signifiant differences among the three groups of SAVs on the helpfulness ratings or on the Social Readions Checklist (SRC) scales, with the exception of Tangible Aid. Acknowledged SAVs reported receiving more tangible aid than uncertain and unacknowledged SAVs. It may be that the pmvision of tangible aid, such as helping get medical are and other information about wping with the experience, taking vidims to the police, and providing information and discussing options, conveyed to victims the perceived seriousness of Itie event. ft was expected that receiving more negative social reactions and blame would be associated with less sexual assault acknowledgment. However, contrary to expedations, receiving blame and kingtreated differently was actually related to geater acknowledgment. There was also a trend towards negative social support and mean helpfulness ratings being associated with greater rape acknowledgment. The surprising relationship between negaüve soaal support and sexual assault acknowledgment will be discussed further in the conte* of the path analysis (see Section 6.3.3.4). 6.2.7 Posttraumatic Stress A refationship was found between greater sexual assauit acknowledgment and PTS symptoms, which is consistent with the findings of Kilpatrick et al. (1988). Layman et al. (IQM), Layman-Guadalupe (1996), and Overi (1994). The level of PTS symptomatology found in this sample was similar to that reporied by Layman-Guadalupe, who used the same PTS measure. The tevel of overall PTS symptomatology reported by acknowledged SAVs was ahsimilarto that reported in a clinicat sample of female university students receiving therapy at a university counselling centre and a univenity rape sampie (Lauterbach & Vrana, 1996). R is dearthat semal assault can be associated w-hserious negaüve psychological diffiwlüet. Hawever, as one participant wrote: 'ltls been a long tirne, but although the facts may be fading sfiihtly. the feelings Ml1 surface - but it is so tnre that time does heal - sa does help: Uncertain SAVs reported a similar IeveI of PTS symptoms as campared to a unîversity nondinical female sample, whereas Unacknowledged SAVs adually reported fewer PTS sympiorns than a nondinical female sampie (Lauterbach & Vranr, 1996). Layman et al. suggested that URVs may have a general tendency to be relucîant to report negaüvs events or to not have strong readions to events, which could be related to atîenuated PTS sympiom reports. However, URVs have not reported fewer syrnptoms than ARVs on other masures of psychopatholagy inciuding measures of general fundioning (Layman et al., l9M) and specific symptorns of symptomatology (Kilpatrick et al., 1988). Thus, 1 is possible thet unacknawledged SAVs may be partiwlariy milient to experiences of trauma and PTS; whether this is conneded !O thelr lack of aduiowledgment requires further dudy. 6.2.8 PorOtnuMüc Growth Researchen are beginning to recognize that aithough there are many negative wnsequences associated with experiencing a trauma such as semal assault, there is also the passibility of positive, growth-oriented sequelae. As one participant cornmented, 7 have grined thmugh my experience a self resped that 1 didn't possess before. I believe that anyone can honestly take care of themselves." Another wornan indicated that her sexual experience has posiîively changed her life: '1 have dealt with my experience, fully, I know i! is a part of me. Currently, 1 do volunteer work with the sexual assault centre. My own healing and work at the centre has empowered my life." Results from this study showed that there is a positive relaüonship between sexual assault acknowledgrnent and PTG. Expenencing spiriîual change and improved relationstiips with others were aspects of growth that were most strongly assodated with sexual assault acknowledgrnent. The results of the path analysis have implicaüons for understanding the positive relationship between acknowfedgrnent and PTG (see Section 8.3.4). Overall the level of PTG reporteci by acknowledged SAVs was ximewhat Iower than that reported in a univenity student sample of women reporting a variety of senous traumas (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). It is possible that Tedeschi and Calhoun's sarnple consisteci of more traumatized students, as they included students who had experienced a vanety of traumas (not just those who had experienced a sexual assauit). It is also possible that the bene- that occur in the aftennath of trauma may Vary according to the nature of the traumaüc ment. The overall level of PTG reported by unacknowledged SAVs was somewhat lower than ttiat repotted in a university student sample of nontraurnatized students (Tedeschi & Calhoun, lm). Unacknowledged SAVs' lawer report of PTG may refled a general tendency to not have strong readions to events. Hawever, their lawer PTG scores rnay also simply be indicaüve of their lower PTS scores, as individuals who expefience less trauma generally report fewer associatecl gmwth expedenws redeschi & Calhoun, IQBô). 6.3 Stmctunl f Path Anrlysis The resufts fmm the path analysis will be discussed below. The impiications of the reviseâ modei will be ernphasized, although wmparisons will be made with the hypothC!~ued rnodel. First. the fit of the mode1 will be discussed. The specific results of the path analysis will Vien be diseussed. The ptedidion of PTS will k presented fifsl, as it was found to predid both sexual assauk acknowla@mrnt and PTG. Next, the prediiion of malassauit acknowledgment and PTG wiII be reviewed. Througitout the discussion of the path model, figures ri?!p~enüng portions of the mode! king discussed wlll be presented, alang with the relevant path coefficients (p). Black amare used to represrrnt hypcdhtsized and supparted findingo, whib open amare used to indicate hypolhesized Me& that wun unsupported or unexpecied effects. 8.3.1 Fiof ihe Model The fit indices indicated that the revised model provided an acceptable fit to the data. This revised model needs, of course, to be replicated with another sample. especially given the number of modifications that were made to the original model. The revised model was able to account for 29.1% of the variance in sexual assauit acknowledgment, 28.6% of Vie variance in PTG, and 23.8% of the variance in PTS. Sexual assauit acknowieâgment was Vie focus of the development of the original mode1 (Le., only variables that previous research and theory suggesled may be related to acknowledgrnent were induded). Aithough the revised mode1 was able to account for a reasonabte proportion of the variance in sexual assaun acknowledgment, there are deafly other important variables that affect acknwvfedgment (rape scripts, time since the assault, and positive social support may be three important variables that were not induded in the modei). The mediating variables wre less adequately explained by the model: self- Marne (6.5% of the variance was explained), parpetrator brame (14.€l%), disdosure (2.6%). and unsupportive behavior frorn others (7.1%). Due to limitations of sample sue, it was not possible to indude al1 the variables that would predict these rnediating variables. 6.3.2 Pisdidina PTS Events that induce feelings of intense fear, helplessness, or hormr and that involve actual or threatened serious injury are more likely to induce a PTS response. For example, research has shown Uiat PTS symptomatology is more likely to develop in SAVs who experience more violent assaults (Bownes et al., 1991; DantesBornoz et al., 1998, Epstein et al., 1097). PTS was also associated with pereeived Iife threat and physical injury in a sampfe of female crime victims (Kilpatrick et al., 1989). As expected, the force of the sexual assautt was a significant predietor of PTS, aithough this was a relaüvely small effed in this study.

The more aggtessive strategies that were used and the more aggressive the vidim perceived the perpetrator as being, the more likely she was to experience PTS symptomatology. As anticipated. receiving more unsupporüve behavior hum othen was rlso aSSOOated with greater PTS syrnptomatology. IIUnsupportive Readions From piEq p = .2I Several rasearchers have found a relationship between unsupporüve social responses and psychological difkuities follovdng rape (e.g., Davis. et al., 1991; Taylor, 1996; Ullman, 1996b). Receiving unsupportive behavior has been conceptualized as a 'second vidimirPüonm(Krahe, 1992). This 'second vidimization' was descn'bed by one participant struggling with PTS symptoms involving hypenrlgilance and intrusive images of the assault. haindicated that she had difficuity wping with the unsupportive behavior she received from her mother. (She believed that her mother doubted her accaunt because she reminded her of the seriousness of the accusation and asked her if she was sure that she was sexually assauited.) When a vidim receives negative support from her significant others, she has to deal not only with managing her own personal reaciions to the assault, but also the sense of betrayal and abandonment resuking from experiencing significant othen as unsupportive. As reviewed earlier, there is also a large body of research suggesting that self-blame for the assauh is associated with psychiatnc readions (e.g., Arata & Burichart, 1996; Frazier, 1990; Meyer & Taylor, 1986; Wyatt et al., 1990). Consistent wiîh this previous research, self-blame was found to be predictive of PTS.

Self-blame Posttraumatic Stress

Therefom, the more vidims engage in blame direded at the self, the more susceptible they are to devetoping PTS syrnptomatology. Wyatt et al. (1990) suggested that the immediate sense of self wntrol that may be assaciated with self-blame is counteraded by the long terni consequences of self-Marne on self-esteem. They argued that self-blame appean to only add to the trauma by increasing victims' sense of responsibilii and feelings of powadessness in relationstiips. The theoreücaf distindions that have been made in the rape literature regarding charademlogical and behavioral blame, suggests that behavioral self-Uame may be an adapüve response which enhances viâims' sense of personal control (Janoff-Bulman, 1979). AI[ self-blame items (inciuding those measunng behavioral blame) mre associateci mth PTS in this study. There was also no relationship between behavioral self-blame and PTG. Whne self- blame may be adapüve in the wntext of rewvery fmm other types of traumatic events, the exMing sexual assault research (as well as this study) demonstrates that self-blarne in the aftemath of Sexual assauit is damaging. Self-Mame was the arongest predidor of PTS in th& sîudy. Perpetrator blame was not found to predid PTS symptomatology. This is in wntrast to some research which suggests that biaming others for negative events is as-ated with psychological difficutties. For example, Tennen and Affleck (1890), based on their review of 25 studies examining the mlationship behmen other-blame and dysfundion. conduded that 'other- biame shatters either the illusion of self-sufficiency . .. or one's belief in a benign world and the reliability of others . . .ml appean to offer no adaptational benefb while wresting a great emotional cost" @. 226). However, it is important to note ihat most of ihe studies that wen reviewed consisted of samples of individuals who experienced medical 1 health traumas or accidents. Only one sîudy of rape vicürns was included (Meyer & Taylor, 1986) and this study was one of the few which did not report a relationship between other / perpetrator blame and adaptation. Similarly, another dudy, published after Tennen and Affleck's review, dM not find a relationship between perpetrator blame and depression (Frazier, 1990). Tennen and Affleck argued that other-blame leads to interference with adaptive coping strategies, challenges important worid views, and interferes with social support, which in tum compromises psychological funcîioning. It may be that other-blame (Le., perpetrator blame) is more socially sanctioned for rape victims, as compareci to victims of medical trauma, and is thus less likely to interfere with the psychological adjustment of rape vidims. 6.3.3 Predictina Sexual Assault Acknowkdament In discussing the predidion of sexual assauit acknowledgment, resuits will first be discused in terrns of PTS as a predidor of sexual assauit acknowiedgment. Following will be a discussion of perpetrator 1 self-blame and unsupportive behavior from othen as mediaton between the circumstances of the assauk and sexual assauit acknowiedgment: self-blame, perpetrator blame, and disclosure as mediators between the atütudinal variables and sexual assauit acknowledgment: and disclosure as mediator between self I perpetrator blame and sexual assauit acknowiedgment. Finally, the covariances beîween blame and unsupportive behavior will be discussed to clarify the nature of the relationship between these variables. 6.3.3.1 pTs As expeded, greater PTS symptomatology was associated with greater semial assauit acknowledgment. In fact, PTS was found to be the stmngest predidor of acknowiedgment.

It may be that when a vidim is faced with greater PTS symptomatology following a mercive sexual experlena that she h mom likely to acknawledge the serual assaut1 because her symptoms may be interpnted as evidence that a sexual assauft oawrred. 6.3.3.2 hfmbatw 8- as 8 Mdbtor 8- the CIfcumSancesof the As#uît and Semal llrsrult Achwh&ment

It was expecied that perpetrator Marne would mediate the relaüonship between the urwrndances of the assault (e.g.. the mlaüonship with the perpetrator, krce of the assautt, and resistance) and sexual assauit acknowledgment

Less Relationship with

Resistance

However, the force of the assaun had a direct, lhough rslatively srnail, relationship with sexual assauit acknowledgment.

Force of Sexual Assault Acknowîedgment

p= .16 Therefore, simply expenencing a more forceful assaulî leads to greater sexual assauit acknowledgment, without the involvement of a mediating attributional proces, More forceful assaults may be more likely to be acknowledged because ihey are more clearly consistent with legal definitions and xicietal stereotypes of sexual assault. As expeded. greeter resistance was associated with more perpettator Mame, which in tum was associateci with greater rape acknowledgment,

Thus, women who viewed themselves as resisting more. perceiveci the perpetmîor as more amuntable for the unwanted mualexperlence, and were more likely ta use the label 'sexual assault". It was surprising that the force of the assauR did not have a direct imwa on perpetrator brame, but rather only had an indirect Muence through resistance. p= .50 p = 26 ln other words, resistance was found to mdiate the relaüonship between the force of the assauk and perpetrator Marne. While the amount of resistance reported, as expeded, was show to be strongly affeded by the amount of force, only the vidim's own behavior (i.e., tesislance), ratherthan the perpetrator's behavior (Le., force), had the direct reIaüonship with perpeirator blame. The media campaign involving the slogan 'No means no', may have senred to highlight male culpabili in the face of female resistance. It may also be that the vidim is more Mainand confident in her report that she used vanous resistance strategies and the amount and ciarity of her resistance, as compared to the amount and types of aggressive strategies utilized (e.g., because a vidim would not have access to the perpetrator's intentions, she rnay doubt her judgment about the level of force 1 aggression). Thus, vidims may be more likely to base their judgments of perpetrator blame on their own actions, rather than those of the perpetrator. Therefore. if a woman has an unwanted sexual experience, despite using a lot of mistance, she is more likely to hold the man accriuntable for the asçauit, whereas if she vie* herself as not resisting much she is les likely to hold the man accountable and is more likely to blame herself. It was expeded that greater acquaintanceship with the perpetrator would lead to les perpetrator blame. Contrary to expectations, there was no relationship between perpetrator blame and the relationship with the perpetrator. In other words, vidims were no more or lm llkely to blame the man if they had a close relationship with him. The previous research showing a negative relationship beîween acquaintanceship and perpetrator blame (kg., Koss et al., 1988; Murnen et al., 1989; Mynatt & AHgeier, 1990) is appmximately a decade old. It is possible that educational efforts airned at raising awareness of violence accuning within inümate relationships has led women to judge perpetrator blame on the basis of resistance (and force indiredly), rather than on the basis of the nature of their relationship mth the perpetrator. It may be that the myths that boyFtiends 1 hutbands cannot sexually assauit their own partnen and that any unwanted sexual expenences in these relationships are simply a remit of miscommunicaüon have been successfùlly challenged and the nature of a man's relationship with a woman is no longer a primary determinant of perpetrator Mame. 6.3.3.5 Sdl.blame as r MrdlIfof Beïween îhe CIicumdrnces ofîhe Assiuli and Suurl AsuuIt Acknowledament

It was also expeded that self-biame would mediate the relationship belween the cimmstances of the assauit and sexual assault acknowledgment Relationship with the Perpettator

1 Force of Assauh 1 lhere was not a dired relationship between self-blame and sexual assault adrnawledgment as was hypotttesized. The relationship between self-blame and swalassault acknawlsdgment was mediateci by PTS and perpetrator blame.

p = .33 Acknowledgment

Less Perpetrator Acknowledgment

p = .23 Greater self-blame was associated with more PTS symptoms, whieti was in turn associated with greater sexual assault acknowledgrnent. In addlion, greater selFMarne was retaîed to less petpetrator blame and in tum, less perpetrator Marne was predidive of less sexual assauit acknowledgment. Therefore, it seems that other dudies (Layman-Guadalupe, 1996; Layman et al., 1996) and this study failed to find a relationship between self-blame and sexual assault acknowledgment using univariate statistics, because if self-blame is associateci with PTS R can lead to greater rape acknowledgrnent, yet when it is associated with fess perpetrator blame, it can also lead to lets sexual assault adrnowiedgment. As expeded, greater resistance was associated with lesself-blame. fherefore if a woman views herself as using a lot of resistance strategies and being very ciear in her desire to not engage in sexual adivity. she is leslikely to blame herself for the unwanted sexual adivity. Although greater force is associated with more resistance, which is in tum related to less self- Marne, 1 is surpnsing that there is also a significant (though small) dired positive relationship behveen the force of ttie asssutt and self-blame.'

Force of /-> (1 Blame p = -14 it was expeded that greater force wouid be associateci with less, rather than more, self-blame. However, Wyatt et al. (1990) abfound a significant positive relationship between the severity of the assaun and self-Mame. It is possible that some women who experience more forceful assaults may see themselves as blameworthy or sornehow deserving of the assault in an atternpt to make meaning of the event. Attribution theory suggests that vidirns are more likely to engage in an active attribuüonal search for ewnts with negative outcomes (Weiner, 1985). due to the need to make meaning of the event (Tenoen & Affleck, 1990). Indeed, SAVs in this study who reporteci more forceful assault also had a tendency to spend more time asking theniselves Why did this happen to me?" (r = .18, p < 402). As Tennen and Affleck (1990) arguad, making more attribulions increases the tikelihood of making any attribution. Thenfore, the small positive relationship between force of the assautt and self-blame may simply be a refledion of an effort on the pari of vidirns who experience more serious assaults to attempt to make meaning of the event. It is also possible that Waming themselves for a forceful assault allows them to maintain their view of others as benevolent and the world as safe. In other words. '[tlhey may prefer living in a benign worId where they are Rad or wrong than in a menacing world in which they are vuInerableW(Fairbaim, f 954 as cited in Tennen & Affleck, 1990, p. 225). lt was also surprising to find that women who reported a greater degree of relationship with the perpetrator reportexi less, and not more, self-blame.

Relationship wilh the

p = -.21 Prïor research has found a positive relaüonship between self-blame and aquaintanceship (Katz & Buri, 1988; Mumen et al., 7989; Mynatt 6 Aifgeier. 1990). When a manis in a nlationship wiih a man she has access to diiinctiveness and wnsistency infornation (Le., she has infornation regarding whether he &haves similady across time, various sluations, and

Resistance ads as a maderator benHeen the force of the assault and self-blame, as the diredion of the effea between force and self-Marne changes when resistance is taken into account. conte&; Tennen & Affleck, 1990). Therefore, if a wornan is in a relationship and is aware that her partner has violated other women, and pefiaps herself, in the past and acmss a number of dïïerent wntexts, she may be less apt to make intemal attributions and Marne herself.

It was also hypothesized that receiving unsupportive behavior would mediate the relationship between the circumstances of the assaut and sexual assauIt acknowledgment.

Relationship with the Petpetrator I

Sexual Assauîi Acknowledgment

However, there was no relationship behveen resistance or the relationship with the perpetrator and the receipt of unsupportive behavior. Therefore, significant others were not more or less supportive depending on whether the assailant was a stranger or had a well-established nrlationship with the vidim or aecording to how much resistance the vidim displayed. The predidion that having a greater relationship with the perpetrator would be associated with more unsupportive behavior was based on experimental research showing more negative readions to acquaintance rape vidims as compared to stranger rape vidims presented in rape vignettes. It is possible that this experimental research has little extemal validiiy and that the relatlonship beîween the vidirn and the perpetrator is simply not diredly relevant in detemining individuals' readions to women in their Iives who have been sexually assaulted. In addiion, the predidion that lesresistance would be associated with the receipt of more unsupportive responses was based on Iimited research. as only one study was located which examined the relationship Weenthese two variables (Renner et al., 1988). Contrary to expedations, vidims who experienced more forceful assaults adually reported receiving more unsupportive behavior from others.

I p = .27 p = .24 p = .35 This fnding is consistent with the results of Wyatt et al. (1990). who found that the severity of tape was negaîively assocïated with receiving supportive rwponses from oihers. It is posibie that support pmviders experience a heightened sense of personal vulnerability when they leam of a more foneful assault, wtiich they try to manage by blaming the vidim. Unsupportive imhavior doss not have a direct impact on semial assauit acknowldgmmt, but rather has an indirect mlaüonship. mdiated by PTS. It was anticipated that unsupparüve behaviorwuld be associateâ wiîh less sexual assaut acknowledgment diredly and to greater sexual =uit acknowiedgment when there is greater PTS symptorns. However, greater unsupportive bshavior cantributes only to ~raatersexual acknowledgmentthmugh its positive impact on PTS.

It was anücipated that self-blame, perpetrator blame, and disclosure would mediate the relationships beiween perceptions of significant others' and social attiiudes towards rapand semiai assaut acknowledgment.

More Negaüve Perceptions of

Acknowiedgment More Negative Perceptions of Significant Others' Disdosure

However, contrary to expedations. there was no relationship between perceptions of significant others' attitudes towards rape and self-blame, perpetrator blame or disdosure. Therefore, vidims wt~operceived their significant other as holding more negative attitudes towards rape dId not engage in more ~8lf-blame,less perpetrator blarne, or lesdisdosure. as was predicted. There was, however, a direct significant, but Small, relationship between perceptions of sQnificant others' attitudes towards rape and sexual assault adtnawledgment, which was consistent with the hypothesis that predided that more negative perceptions of significant otheneattiiudes would be associated with less sexual assaut acknowledgrnent.

More Negative Perwpions of Slgnificant Others'

Victiim who perceive their signfficant other as having more negative perceptions of mpe and rape vidims may not acknowledge sexual assauit due to wanting to avoid confmnting the attitudes and views held by their significant other. If women expect that others will rninimke their experiences. they are likely to minimue their expeciences as well, and avoid callinQtneir experience rape (Kelly, lQS8).

127 As expeded. there was a significant covariance between perceptions Of signifimnt others' atütudes t~WardSrape and receiving unsupportive behavior fmm others.

More Negaüve Perceptions of Significant ûîhers' ATR

Receiving unsupportive behavior fmm others may lead vidims to perceive their significant others' as holding more negaüve atütudes tmrds rape and rape vidims. Perce~ngsignificant others as having negative attitudes towards rape may also lead victims to percaive their behavior as more unsupportive. Self-blame and disdosure did not rnediate the relationship between perceptions of societal societal attiiudes towards mpe and sexual assaut, although perpetrator Marne was found to be a mediating variable. vl-~lw Aduiowledgment Societal ATR

However, more negative perceptions of societal attitudes towards rape were associated with geater, rather than less, pipetrator blame, ahhough the relationship was quite small. There was also a direct relationship between more negative perceptions of societal attiiudes and sexual assaus acknowledgment, although this effect was relatively small.

More Negative Sexual Assaut Perceptions of Acknowledgment Societal ATR

lt was anticipated that those hoviawed socieîy as holding more negative attnudes WOU# be kss inclined to acknowledge semal essaruit due to îhings such as fear of reprisal and mistreatment. lt may be that women who acknowledge sexual assauit becorne more awam of negaüve societal attitudes towards rape and rape vidims thmugh their own experiences, which suggestç that this variable may be an outwme of, merthan a prscursor to, sexual assauR acknowIedgment. It is also possible, however, that wornen who perceive more nagaüve societal attitudes towards rape are more knowiedgeable regarding feminist perspectives, which emphasize the societal fadors whictt enabie and support violence against rmmen, and thus may be more likely to acknowladge sexual aSSauIt and Mame the perpetrator. For example, Lsbowitr and Roth (1994) found, using a qualitative research design, that an awaromof the cuttural context of rape facilitated appropriate labeling of rape. However, previws research on vidims' attitudes, as well as results fmm this study using the self venions of the rape attitude scales, does not suggest that ASAVs hold attitudes that are consistent with a feminist belief system or that they have more selfïeported knowledge of rape. 6.3.3.6 b&tiosutw as Mediaior Betwwn Self / Pemîmtor Blam and Suurl ArrruIt Acknowie&ment

Disdosure was hypothesized to mediate the relationship between self and perpetrator Mame and sexual assault acknowledgment.

However, there was not a direct relationship between self-blarne and disdosure as predicted. aithough there was an indirect relationship between disclosure and self-blame mediated by perpetrator blame, as was expected (the relationship between perpetrator blame and disclosure

p = -.23 p = .16 Less self-blame appears to lead to greater perpetrator blame, which in tum leads to greater disdosure. Not blaming oneself does not seem to be enough to lead victims to disclose more, pemaps because they continue to fear negative social readions, as the relative absence of self- blame may still leave others wondering about the cause of the assauit. However, greater attributions to the perpetrator rnay facilitate greater disdosure, pefhaps because women can offer an explanation regarding who is respansible for the assault and not just who is not nsponsible ( i.e., themselves). In other words, vidims who say 'It's not my fault" rnay perceive a greater likelihood of receiving negative social readions and may be leswilling to disdose, as wrnpred to vidirns who say 'RS not my fault and the man is to Marne", as the later statement is less likely to lead significant othen to make subjective and potentially negative interpretations of vidims' culpabilii and blame. There was no direct or indirect relationship between dixlosure and sexual assauit acknowledgment. Note that the hypathesis predicting a positive relationstiip between acknowledgment and disdosure was based on Iimited research, which has found a trend between these two variables (Layman-Guadalupe, 1996; Layman et al., 1996). It was thwght îhat previous failun to find significant results may have been related to low power. Howsver, the resuits fmm this study, which had a larger sample sire. confimis the previous non-signifiant findings qarding disclosure and acknowledgment The adof disdosun, does not appear to make a diirence In ternis of labeling sexual assauit.

As was anticipated, therie was a signifiant posiüve covariance between self-blame and mceiving unsupportive behavior.

It is suspecteci that those who engage in more self-blame invite more negative social support. as significant others may be more likely to accept and perhaps reinforce the vidirn's internai attributions for the assault. It is also likely that receiving unsupportive behavior fmm significant othen' encourages vidims to blame themselves. It was expected that there wuld be a negative covariance between perpetrator blame and unsupportive behavior.

Less Unsupportive Behavior

In other words, it was expected that those who blame the perpetrator migM invite fewer negative responses from significant others, as they were holding something outside themselves as responsible for the assault It was also expeded that fewer unsupportive sociat responses may encourage greater petpetrator blame because if a vicüm is not king blamed or treated differently she may be more fikely to feeI justifieci in holding the perpetrator accounlaMe for the assauit. It was thus unexpeded to find that there was a positive covariance between perpetrator Mame and unsupportive behavior, indicating that greater perpetrator Marne was associated with receiving more unsupporlive behavior from othen.

Hawever, this finding is consistent with Tennen and Affteck's (1 990) argument that other-Marne for negaüve evenîs cm interfere with social support. Their argument as applied to cape vidims would suggest that sorne significant othen may not be supporüve because the vidims' Maming of the pefpetrator leads to a sense of personal vulnerabilii in othen. ln other words, sources of support may find it more comforting and lesthreatening to believe that the woman was to Mame and thus could have potentially avoided the assauit. Therefore, signifiant others may be unsupportive in the face of vidims' perpetrator blame in an attempt to maintain their own sense of personal invulnerability. It is also possible that since many women were assaulted by aquaintances and partners that they share a social support network and that confiided loyaities on the part of signifiant othen' Ieads to unsupportive behavior when they hear vidims Mame the perpetrator. Tennen and Affleck also suggested that vidims may be les likely to receive support fmm other vidims if they engage in perpetrator blame. Other vidims who are tMng to resurred shattered assumptions about jusüce in the world, their own invulnerability, and an orderly meaningful existence (JanofF-Bulman & Frieze, 1983), may well be reludant to expose these battered and fragile assurnpüons to the meaninglessness, injustice, and impotence implied in blaming someone else for one's misfortune (Tennen 6 Affleck, 1990, p. 226).

The dinical literature emphasizes the importance of labeling sexual assault in order to facilitate recovery and pmmote gmwth following sexual trauma. Therefore. it was expeded that sexual assault acknowledgment would lead to PTG. Although there was a significant wmlation between sexual assauit acknwvledgment and PTG, there was not a direct relationship behveen these two variables. A third variable, PTS, appears to account for the observeci relaüonship between sexual assault acknowledgment and PTG (Le., PTS acts as a moderator variable here). Greater PTS symptomatology leads to greater acknowledgment and more PTG experiences.

Sexual Assauit Posttraumatic Stress Acknowiedgment

Posttraumatic p =.32

Therefore, sexual assauit acknawledgment does not appear to be necessary in order to experience beneficial effeds fmm having kensexually assauited. It may be that dinicians, having obsenred the cosccurrence of growth and acknawledgment, ermneously interprated acknowledgment as the precumr of gmwlh, rather than attn'buting gmwVi and acknowledgment to PTS. Consistent with pnvious literature on PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun. 1898). greater trauma. as indicated by the force of the assautt and the level of PTS symptomatology, was asuiciatad with greater gmwth. PTS was a particularly stmng predidor of PTG, while the force of the assauk had a smaller effed. I"",'I, 71 Posttraumatic

The greater the trauma. the more one has to develop and utilire coping drills and personal rrsources in order to survive and persevere. Tedeschi and Calhoun (1QQS) reviewed research in psychology, as well as religion, philosophy, and Meratun, and concîuded that some suffering is newssary in order to achieve growth. More forceful assaults are likely more diiruptive to exisüng schemas abut the self (e.g., regarding invulnerabiiii and controi), others (e-g., that others are trustworlhy), and the world (e.g., that the world is safe and predidable). Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) suggested that 'growth is possible only because of change in schemas; {they] pmpose[d] that growth is change in schemas' (p. 81). More forceful assaults thus likely necessitate remnslruction of core schemas about the self, others, and the wodd (Janoff- Bulrnan, 1992), which pmvides the opportunity for greater personal growth (Tedeschi 6 Calhoun, 1995). As was expected, greater disdosure was also assoctated with more growth-oriented experiences follwving the sexual assault.

Posttraumatic Gmwth

Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996) suggested that recognizing the need to discuss the trauma can lead to greater emotional expressiveness, acceptance of social support, increased sensitivity towards othen, and more effort directed towards impmving relationships, which promotes PTG. It is likely that interactions and discussions with othen facilitate the pmcess of making meaning of the trauma, thereby increasing the likelihood of gmwth experiences, Inîerestingly. having a greater relationship with the perpetrator was also nlated to nparting more positive benefts associated with expen'encing the sexual assault,

Relationship with the Perpetrator p =.22 One aspect of PTG is developing improved relationships wiüi othen. It may be that sxperiendng semial violence in the wntext of a close interpersonal relationship, may present a grnater impetus to examine one's neds/ wants in relaüonships. may provide addiüonal inantbe ta work on pmblernatit relationships, aWor may preçent a pteater need to alter mre schemas about athe~.If the perpetrator is a stranger the* may not be the same reevaluaüon of exisüng relaüonships and beliefs about others. There was also a relationship, aithough relalively small, between mon negative perceptions of societal attitudes towards rape and greater growth expefiences.

Negative Perceptions of Soùetal Posttraumatic Attitudes Towards Rape

This finding is consistent with the research of Lebowitr and Roth (1994), who found that increased awareness of the cultural context of rape facillated resolution of the trauma. Post- hoc examination of the carrelations between the PTGl subscales and the perception of societal attitudes towards rape victirn scale indicatw that the greatest correlation was with the Relating to Others subscale (r= 26,p < .0005). It is possible that SAVs who perceive greater negative societal attitudes towards rape experience more gmwth because they are more appreciative of their relationships and the support they received, given their greater awareness of negative societal attitudes towards rape vidims. It is also possible that there is more suffering, and thus more potential for growth, when one is more aware of the negative societal sügma towards SAVs. 6.4 Limitations of the Presint Study This study used a univenity student sample because of the relevancy of sexual assault to this population. One limitation of the study, however, is the homogeneity of participants (e.g., young university students who were predominantiy Caucasian), which limits generakaüons to victims of other socioewnomic and ethnic backgrounds. ln addition, since women in this study were fundioning well enough to be attending university, it is unclear whether these results would apply to a sarnple of more distressed and less educated vidirns. The sample was also limited in terrns of the range of sexual mercion that was represented; for example, none of the women reported that the perpetrator used a weapon. The focus on mercive heterosexual experiences since the age of 14 also limits the generalizability of Vie results. Since a nonprobaMlii sample was used, some caution should be exercised even Men generalizing the results to other student samples. Although the sample was large enough to test the hypothesized model, it was relatively mal1in amparison to other paih analytic studies. The results of this study need to be replicated, preferably with a lafger sample, to validate the effeds that were found. This is especially important since some of the measures had Iimited research attesüng to their reliabiiii and validii. Pilot work indicaieci that the test-West reiiability of the societal version of the attitudinal scales was parücularly pmMematic. meuse of muitiple indicators for each wnstnict in Mure studies would be helpful in ternis of deaiing with measurement emr. It was al= a concem that same of the scales used in the study remained non-normal, even after transfomation. However. only twa variables that were used in the païh analysis nmained non- nomal and the deviation fium nomality was relaüvely small. The use of transforrned variables made interpretaüon diffiwlt because Vie values were no longer readiIy wmprehensible in temis of the original scales. This stuây relied on victims' self-report and used only paper and pencil measures. Thus. some of the relaüonships between variables may have been augment& by error associatecl with shared method. In addition, al1 of the data was retnwpedive, which inmases the likelihood of inaccuracies in reporting. and was based solely on the penpedive of the vidims. It would have been desirable, for example, to have ahobtained signifiant others' repoits of their provision of social support andlor to have arranged for some obsenration of intendions betvaen vidim and signifiant other. The order of the questionnaires was not wunterbalanced for pradial reasons; thus, it is possible that the* wuld have been an order affect. The process of sexual assaut! acknwvledgment is likely very wmpiex, Madel rnispecification is ahways a wncern in this type of research. Demonstrating causation is very difficult in psychological research. Causation requires three elements: covariance, time order, and nonspuriousness (Hagan, t 989). This study clearly demonstrates covariance among variables &y showing that the predidor, mediating, and outcome variables covary in a meaningful way, which is statistically significant. However, the cross-sedional design does not allow for verification of üme order. It is possible that some of the predidor variables eould be outcome vaRables and vice versa. For exampie, it is possible that unsupportive behavior from others mates a vulnerability to the development of PTS, as was predided, andlorthat those with PTS symptoms elicit more unsupportive behavior or perceive others' khavior more negatively (Davis et al., 1991). Similarly, self-blame may cause PTS or 1 wuld simply be a cornlate of having undergone a diftÏculty recovery. It is also possible that perceptions of societal attitudes towards rape and rape vidims is an outcome of sexual assault acknowledgment, rather than a ptecunor to acknowledgment. Similady, achowledgment may affed recall for the circumstances of the assauR or, as ptedicted, the circumstances of the assault may affed acknowledgment. Although the seledion of variables was based on a thorough review of the exMing titerature, it is also possible that some important third variables were not inciuded. The mode1 was created on the basis of ptesumed temporal ordering of variables. however. it is aiways possible mat retmspedive repoding intmduced ar nmoved retationships menvariables that might have exjsied (or not) as the pmcess of acknwgment unfolded (Fontana & Rosenheck, t998). 6.5 Directions for Future Research Results fmm this study indicate that sexual assault acknowiedgment is nota staüc variable, but rather changes over time. Longitudinal studies are needed which examine Vie change in acknowledgment over time. Longitudinal research would ahallow for examination of pre-assauit characteristics which might be related to acknwvledgment and would also provide addiüonal information mgaiding whether the variables measured are best conceptualized as predidors, mediators, or outcorne vafiables. In addiin, as argued above, the mults of Ws study need to be replicated, preferably with a larger sampie and more refined measures. M would also likely be ftuitful to examine the pmcess of sexual assauit acknowledgment using a qualitative research design. Research to date has examined acknowledgment in university student samples, wiih the exception of the study canduded by Kilpatrick et al. (1988). Research on acknowledgment is needed using non-univenity student samples. tt would also be useful to examine the pmcess by which PTS symptoms can lead to personal gmwih (e.g., are lhere variables wtiich mediate / madetate the relatianship between PtS symptams and PTG experiences?). Vemnen and Kilpatrick (1883) presented four possible models (i.e., the life threat-life appreciation model, the agency-, institution-, and system-mediated change model, rape as a consciousness-raising experience model, and management of rape readion as test or challenge model) ta explain how a sexual assauIt rnay pmmote positive changes; these models should be examined in future research. The possibility that unacknowledged SAVs may be paitiwlarly resilient to experiences of trauma and PTS should also be examined (Layman et al., 1996). The helpfulness of fathen and men in this study is surprising given the research using questionnaires and rape vignettes, wtrich demonstrates men's more negative attitudes towards rape vidims; this diicrepancy illustrates the danger of assurning exlemal validii fmm experimental studies and suggests the importance of exarnining mal life contexts, with al1 their complexity. 11 may also ba that men's attitudes / behaviors change depending on whether thy are responding to an important individual in their life who has Mnsexually coerced or a hypothetical woman describeci in a sexually coercive scenario; it wuld be useful to investFgate this possibiliîy in future research. It is important for future researcherç to recognire that parlicipating in research may contribute to a change in acknowiedgment. For exarnple, three participants mported spontaneously to the researcher following their participation in the study that completing the questionnaire changed their conceptualùations of previow coercive sexual experiences. One participant vurote the following: This study has ken Iike a mini-theapy session for me. It has shown me what happened to me in a different view and also the different nadions I received from different friends. f have also learned that since this happened to me 1 can take control and make sure I dont put myself in these positions ever again.

The potential change in acknowledgment andior understanding of the event aises the need for researchen conduding such studies to have some clinical skills in order to be equipped to handle such issues. R also raises ethical issues regarding giving informed consent to participants about possible wnsequences of participaüng in such research. This ob!iervaüon of change in conœptualization based on completing the questionnaire also suggests several interesüng avenues for future resesrch. For examp!e. is it stntdureû refledion on the event, such is provideci thmugh compleüon of a questionnaire, that may alter conceptualiions andlor is it specific inquiry that is needed to affed changes in acicnowledgrnent? In other words, does recalling fadual information about the asault (e.g., aggiessive / mistance strategies used), or does simple inquiry regaiding biame and attributions, PTS symptorns, gmwth experiences, andlor a!iitudes have ttie potential to change vidims' conceptuaiiiions of ttieir experienœ? If asking quesüons does abrvictims' wnceptualizations, does it matter who asks the questions (e.g., thenpist, significant other, maarcher)? 7. CONCLUSION The high percentage of women reporting experiences of sexual victimizaüon in this study is suggestive of the degree of sexual violence experienced by women at the University of Saskatchewan and on ather college campuses. This finding has many important implications. Semial assault education, prevention, and support services must become a primary underiaking for university and college campuses. Perhaps the need for fumer education and service is best captured using the words of vidims: 'More information should be made available to students because there are students out there who are vidims of sexual condud with men, but are scared.' '1 think sexual assaults have occurred to almost every female I know.' 'I like confronting this, especially since Idon? remember much about my mpe. Since it is hard to know hmto feel when you canY remember exactly what happened it helps to think about it." 'Believe it or not, I am glad I had the opportunity to refiect on my experiences again.'

It would appear that there is a real absence of education in high school and univenity setîings if simply completing a questionnaire can increase awareness and acknowledgment. Although the replacement of the ten'rape' with 'sexual assault" in Canada seems 10 have had the desired effect of having victims more readily use the terni to label their mercive sexual experiences, there is still a substantial propottion of sexual assault vidims (59.0%) who do not view themselves as having been sexually assaulted. Thus, there appean to be a population of hidden, unscknowledged sexual assault vidims, similar to the unacknowledged rape vidims identified in the United States. Surprisingly few vidims repoited their sexual assauit to the police. While acknowledgment appean to be related to reporting, it is clearly not enough in and of itself to lead a vidim to report, Failing to acknowledge a sexual assault is dearly not the only variable that is interfering with sexual assault reporting. It seems that education is needed in order to wuntemd feelings of guit. embarrasment and shame, which seem to inteffere with rapt? reporting. Furthemore, efforts afe needed to encousage sensitivity on the part of police officers and more positive interadions with the police should be disseminated to those who are at high nsk for sexual assault (Feldman-Summen & Nonis, 1984). lncreased interpersonal sensiüvity and more effective Iegal resolution is imperative (Golding et al., t989). The relatîvely high prevalence of sexual violence obtained in this study indicates ihat mental health workers should mutinely inquire about past experiences of =al coercion. Many vidims will not spantaneousiy self-disciose sexual assault due to fears of negative nodions (e.g., ratribution. disbelief, Mame), because they may not perceive a relaüonship betwen their presenting pmblem and their history of vidimizaüon. negaüve experiences with prior disdosure, andlor because they may not conceptualire their experience as sexual assault (Kilpatrick, 1983). It is dear that ttie responses vidirns pcuvïâe to inquiries regarding vidim*uon experiences depend on the way the relevant questions are asked. If mental hsalth worken want to know about the presence of past cDsrcive experienœs, they need to ask behaviorally-based qussüons (similar 10 items in the SES), mther than global questions (e.g., 'Have you been sewually assaulted / raped / abused?") Mich will only identify acknowledged vidlms and possibiy Mme uncertain vidims. It is particulady important to leam about the presence of previous coefcive experiences, as disdosure was found to k predidive of growth experiences. It is essential that dinical training pmgrams teach the use of behavioral questions to obtain information on sexual history. The use of a nonjudgmental and accepting stance is, of course, essential in creaüng a safe conte& that will facilitate disdosure. This study illustrates the complexity surrounding the phenornenon of sexual assauit acknowledgrnent. The circumsbnces of the assautt and attitudinal vanabtes affed mediating variables (self / perpetrator blame, unsupporîive behavior, PTS), which contribute to aciutowledgment in varied and cornpiex ways. T hus, there are many possible paths to adrnowledgrnent (or ladthereoi). Mediaüng variables, such as blame and unsupportive behavior, occur after the assauit and are more subjed to alteraüon than situational variabtes of the assault and pre-existing atiitudinal variables. Therefore, it seerns reasonable for prevenîion and treatment program to focus on attributional variables, disd~sure,and social support, in order to affect changes in PTS and PTG. Clinicians need ta tarefully examine vidims' level of social support, partiwlarly the presence of negative social support, and their attributions for the assauR given the impact of these variables on PTS. The results of iiris çtudy also suggest which situational variables may be aswciated with pmblemaîic attributions and unsupportive behavior. For example, the resurts indicate that lhose vidims who are lesacquainted with the prpetrator are more likely to engage in self-blame, wtiich contributes to PTS. Similarly, those who experience more forceful assaults are more likely to receive more unsupportive behavior, which also contributes to the development of PTS symptomatology. These victims should be specifically targeted for early intervention efforts. The rasults also speak to the need to educate vicüms mgarding fadors that inmas8 their risk for developing PTS symptoms. The hypothesized mode1 of rape I sexual assault acknowledgment emphasds the imporiance of acknowledgment in terms of promothg grwuth in the aftermaîh of rap/ sexual assault. The emphasis on acknowledgment as an important step towards growth is consistent with the dinical literature and models of therapy for abuse sunriw~~,as ml1 a6 with feminist mitings. The beiÏef that acknowledgment facilitates the development of positive changes appears to be widely accepted. Thus, rnany dinicians encourage SAVs to acknowledge the assaut and dinicians rnay even inform iheir clients that they were sexuaily assauned in an effort to enmurage acknowledgrnent. However, the modiimodel indiithat acknawledgrnent daes not play a central mte in the devetopment of PTG; that [s, the results from this study fait to support the widely accepted notion that aduiowledgment leads to PTG. The failure to find a dired relationship in mis study mensexual assault acknowledgment and PTG is e serious challenge to general dinical pradice regarding the tnatrnent of vidims of semial violence. If acknowief&ment does not facilitate gmwth experiences, than the cornmon dinical appmach of encouraging acknowledgment needs to be seriousiy questioned. The resulîs of this study do not provide any evidence that sexual assault vidims shouM acknowledge the assauit. Indeed, il appears that çexual assault vidims may conceptualize their experlence in ternis other than 'sexual assault" and still grow fmm the experience. Hawever, discimure seems to be important in facilitating grwvth and as reviewed above, acknowledgment is likely sîill a vital step in ternis of promoting sexual assault reporting. Acknowledgment also appean to be an important variaMe in ternis of gaining accass to mental heaith services. Although this study and othen (layman et al., 1996; Layman- Guadalupe, 1996; Overt, 1894) have shawn that unacknowiedged sexual assault victims experience less PTS symptoms than acknowledged vielims (and perhaps even non-victims). they are similar ta acknowiedged rape vidims on other measures of adjustrnent and distress (e.g., Kilpatrick et al.. 1988; Koss, 1985; Layman et al.. 1996). Similarity between acknowledged and unacknowledged viciirns on other indices of adjustment suggests the need for mental health services to be availaMe and accessible for both groups of vidims. FacilHating unacicnowledged vidims' a- to mental heanh services may be accomplished by advertising these services to women who have had 'unwanted semial experiences' rather man direding such services to 'rape / sexual assauit vidims'. Calhoun and Tedeschi (1998) wisely suggested that clinicians should understand and accept that individuals experiencing a trauma may have different perspectives on their trauma. They argued that 'a good clinician can support the different perspectives taken by sumivon' (p. 236). The issue does not seem to be one of asking how clinicians tan facilitate acknowledgment in order to increase the likelihoad of growth expenences. but rather, how can clinicians reduce the suffering that vidims experience and promote personal growth, regardles of wtiether or not they lakltheir experience as sexual assauk Aùôey, A. (1Qô7). Perwpüons of pnonal avddaûility venw mponsibility: How do thsy diffefl Basic and Andiad Social Psvcholq&& 319.

Aldwin, C. M., & Sutton, K. J. (1908). Pwttnumaüc growth: Concaplual issues. In Tedeschi, R G., Park, C. L. & Calhoun, L G. (Eck.),Poattrsumaüc a- Positive chanaes in the aftermath of (pp. 4343). Whwah, NJ: Lnnrsnw Erlbrum Assodates.

American Psychiaüic Assodation (1W). moaicand staüstical manual of mental disorden (4* ad.). Washington, DC: American Psychirtrlc Assodation.

Amir, M. (1971). Paîtem in foieoable mq. Chicago: University of Chicago Prass.

Andenon, K. B., Coopr, H., & Okrmun, L (1997). IndMdual differencw and attitudes tamrd mp: A mai-analytic revïeu. Socieîv for Penonalitv and Social Psvchology, a@),295-315. Arata. C. M., & Burûhart, B. R. (1996). Post-tmumatic stress disorder rmong collage student vicîims of acquaintanw assault. Journal of Psvcholoav and Human Sexualihr. 6(l-2), 7992. Ashton, N. H. (1902). Validation of RapMyth Acœptance Scale. Pwcholoaical Reports. 50,252.

Atkason, B., Calhoun, K., Rosi&, P., & Ellis, E. (1962). Vidims of mp: Repaated assassrnent of deprosive symplom. Journal of Consulîirta and Clinical Psvcholaav. 50,s 102.

ûachman, R. (1993). Pmâiding the reporthg of np viûîmiutions: Have mp refomis made a differenw? Criminal JWœ and ûehavior. 2Q(3), 254-270. Bachman, R. (1ûW). The fadon relaîed to np reporling behavior and arrast: New eviâenw from the National Crime VidimMlon Sunrey. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 25(1). 6-29.

Baker, A. I,& Peteiran, C. (ion). Saif Mme by mpe victim as mfundion of the mp's conquencss: An aürikitknil malysls. CrWs Intervention. a@), 92-104. Baron, R. M., & Ksnny, O. A. (lm).The madentor-medirtor variabie disündion in social prychologicrl march: Concspturl, stmtegic, and strtistical cocrsidaraüons. Journal of Personalrtv and MalPsvchdoPv.@), 1173.1182. Bass, E, & Davis, L (lm. wumi to heal: A auide for mimen uinrivors of diildu.NewYoilc Hupw& Row.

ûentler. P. M. (1992). On the fit of modeîs to covr~Wnosrand methodology to the Bulîeün. BulMh. 11 4ûMM.

Binder, R. L (lm.Why mndont mpod sexual usrult. mai of Clinicai Psvchiiliu. 42(1 l),437-438. üiumberg, M. L, & Lbsbr, 0. (1991). High saiod and cdb~estudents' Ptüludes tawrïd m. MdssesneS. 2Q, 721721729. Borden, L. A, Km, S. K., 6 Caidm(CCOlbert, A 1. (lm).Effecb of a univers@ rape prsvention pragram on tttRudm and mplaiy îoward m. Journal of Colliwe Sfudant moument. 2ûL132-1s. Bourque, L B. (119). psfinlriP m. Durhm, NC: Duke univedty Press. Me.S. I., SlMman. O. C., Kalick S. M., & €dm, S. 0. (lm. BI& mpe ind confidence mp: ImplkaWm for dinkal intewantion. Amerltrn Joumal of Pwchattiaraw, fi@), t81-188-

Barnies, 1. T., O%onnan, E. C., sayem, A. (1991). PsychisMcsymptoms, behavioral

Bridge& 3. S., 6 McGmll, C. A. (1989). AtlrlkRlons of rssponsiMity fw date and slronger m. S~XRob. 21(34), n2W. Brodsky, S. (1870). Saxual msault: Perrpadhres on prwention and assailants. ln V. Walker a S. Brodsky Eds.), $auel assaut The vMm and the fa* (pp. 1-7). bxington. MA: Lexington Press. Brownmilkr, S. (1975). &ainst wrwilk Men. wmen and mw. New York Simon a scttuster. Burgess, A., a Holmstrom, L. (1O78). Racovary from mpe and prior IMe stress. Resaarch. Nunino Health. 1,165474.

Burt, M. R. (1 QW). Cultunl myths and supporîs for mpe. Soumal of Pemnaîii and 21 7-23û.

Cabhoun, K. S., Atkeson, B. M., & Rea& P. A. (lm.A kiiQitudinal examinaiion of bar nidkns in nps uidtms. JwmllofCouqpslinnh ô5-1.

Calhoun. L O., & Tedswhi, R. G. (1W6). Pasüfaumlic gtouiRh: Future di~ons+In Tecieschi, R G., Pwk, C. LI & Calhoun, L G. m.),Posür8umitic amw(h: Posiüw citanaes Campbdl, R, 6Johnson, C. R. (1997). Police oniœrs' pmpüons of rape. Journal of Intrimenonal Violence. lA(2). 255274.

Cann, A., Colhoun, L O., il Selby, 1. W. (1979). Attrfbuüng ~ssporismilityto the vidirn of mm: Influence of information mgarding semal axpwknca. Human Relations. 32,57- 07. C-di. M.. Rigus, 0. S., HerrB-Ikeda, D., 6 Foi, E. B. (lm).Oîgective raüngs of assauit 8s pmdidon of PTSD. Journal of lntetwnonli Wnœ. 11 (i), S78. Check, J. V. P., a Mafamuth, N. M. (1Q85). An ernpirlul lu*?~linedof soma feminist hypathms about mpe. &!temational Journal of WomSStudies. Q, 414423. Clark, L, a w,o. (1977). Raw: The miœ of caercive sexuality. Toronto: The Women's Press.

Cohen, L J., & Roth, S. (1ûûf). The psydiologi~ilaitemath of npe: Long-terni effds and incliviâual dmemnces in racovery. Journal of Soeisl and Clinical Psveholonv. 5, 525534.

Cohen, S., & Wlls, T. A. (1905). Sîress, social support, and tha Maring hypothesis. PsvcholmlcaI8uUetin. 94,31&357.

DurvasBomot. J. M., Lépine, J. P., Choqua, M., Berger, C., baiwanni. A., Gaillard, P. (1W). Ptsdicüve fiaon of dironic poot-tnumitlc stms dMethi npe vidlrns. @roman Pmhfstnr. IM),281-287.

DavidJori, J. R. T., Hughes, O,, Bluet, D. G., George, L K. (1001). Past-tnumaUc s&ess disorder in the community: An rpîâemiologlcal study. Pmhlt#ical Madicine. 21,713- 721.

Davis, R. C., ûridvnan, E, 6 Bakw, T. (1991). Sugportive and unsupportive respanses of otnm to mm vfaims: Effds on concurmnt vldim rdjuamant. Amsrlcan Journal of Communh Pnenolm- 10,143451.

Dent, S. R., Utbnrn, M., 6 üenîley, B. J. (1984). Attrlkgion of msponsibility for rape: me idimncs of obsstvm ompithy, vldlm Nsktance, and victim ittndiveness. Qqr Rotes. nt-280. L-10(34),

Candian unh& and colm-datii reldmhips. Cnrdkn &mlof SocWav. la@), 137-150.

Du Bois, B. (lm).Pr#ionate sdidimhip: Notm on wluw, knowhig and rmttI~din ferninisi sbdsl sciones. In G. 6wles 6 R. Mi Klein W.),Thsorb of niomen's ~tudisq. London: Rouüuâge & Ksgin Paul. Edmonds, E. M., 6 Cehoan, O. D. (lm).The 'nW sexirm'. FamrW mgiüvism toward malaj. ,Journalof Soda Bstiovior and Pemnalitv. a@), 48147. Edmonds, E. M., Cihoon, D. O., Shipnun, M. (1991). Preâidions of oppoaits-sex aiüiudw conœming gender-related social bues. BuIlMn of the Psvchonornic Sodetv. 29(4), 285.296. Ulis, E. M., Atksson, B. M., 6Colhoun, K. S. (1981). An assessmm of long-terni madion to mpa. Journal of Abnamul Ptvdiolwv. 94(3), 263-266.

Epstein, J. N., Saunden, B. L, & iüiprtrick, 0.0. (1997). Prcrdkfing PrSO in women with a history of childhood mpe. &urnal of Tnumaiic Stms. iQ(4). 573588.

Fdeml Bureau of InvmtQaüon. (1001). Crime in the United States Uniform morts. Wastringlon, DC: U.S. Dibparûmï of Jwliœ.

Feild, H. S. (1978). Attitttô~iowards np: A compamtîve anamof pollœ, mpists, Msis counsello~,and cnizens. ,loumri of Psno~litvand Social PsvcholoPv, 36> 156-A 79.

Feifd, H. S., & eienen, L 0. (IWO). Juron and nw. Lexinglon, MA: DC Hwlth,

Feldrnan-Sumrnen, S.. & Ashworth, C. D. (1981). Faclon felated to intentions to report a mpe. Journal of Social issues. 37(4), S70.

Feldman=Summem, S., Gardon. P. E., 6 Meaghrr, J. R. (1979). The impact of rape on sbxuaJ sathfadion. Journal of AbtomJ Mm.U(l), 101-105. Feldman-Summen. S.. 6 Nomis. J. (1W). DMemnœs betwwn mm vicüms who report and thb~W~O do mi npOn to a Pi#IC w&y. JOum8l of qpp(lsd ~wc~~o~ooy, -14(a), 562-573. Rnkelhor, D. (1fM4). Cnl#:NW thson and muiEh. New Yo* Fme Prsss.

finkelhor, D. (IWO). The tnumi af chU sexuil abusa: Tvm modek In O. Wyaü & O. Powell (Eds.). The Iasüm 6fWs of diiü mrkuip@p. 64-82). Nmbuy Piik, CA: me* Finicoison, L, & Osmnl, R (lm.Coliege d8:e np: Incidema and rsparting. PsvchQipPicaI Reoorîs. 77,25ô.

Mer,O. J. (1986). coiiege sWmt itüludes toward fordbie daîe npe: 1. Cognitive pr6dtdon. Archives of -1 mlwbr. m,457-406. flannery, R 6. (1990). Sodil support and psychological trauma: A mütodological rsviw. Journal of Tnumrtic -1 1. Famt, S. S. (1992). ths infiuancs of gondor and qmfîemon Ment dsfinitian of npe and sexuai himament IWkcomin Sodoim~(2-31,m9.

Frank, E., Tw,S. M., 6 üufïy, 8. (1079). ûapmssive symptoms in rape vidims. JOUllUl Of Albdhfb ûbOd@fS1, mm. Frank, E., fu~,S. M., & Stewart, 8. (lm. Initial mspnse to npe: The irnpad of facion within the mpa srtuakn. Journal of ûehrvionl Asmssmeni. 42 3853. Frstler, P. A (1Wû). Wdlm ittilkRlons ind pompetrauma. Joumal of Fenonality and Social PsvcholoPv. 50(2), 29b304.

Fmier, P. A (1901). Self Mme as 8 madiaior of posi rapdepressive symptoms. amalof Social and Clinieil PsvehdqyJQ(l),47-57.

Frazier, P., 6 Sehauben, L. (1991). Causal rtuikrtlons and meryhm mpe and other nrauful iiiavsnta Journal of Social and Clinka1 Psvtholwv. 13(1), 1-14.

Garda, L. Miiu~i,L, & Quijano, A. (1WQ). Panapions of coerciw -al behavior by males and temalm. SaRolus. 27 (QIO), SM.

Giacoplui, D. J., 6 DuIl, R. T. (10bb). Gender and racial diffsnnces in the acceptana of mpa rnyths min a collegs wlnion. Ssx Rolm. 15(1-2), 6S75, GIf, E. (lm.OutPmwim tho Dain: A book for and about iduiis ibused as childnn. New York MI PublbMng.

Golding, J. M., W~al,J. M., soremsan, S. B., Burnam, M. A, & Stsin, J. A (1989). Sada1 supgoit sources fdkwing semal osiult Journal d Cornmunitu Psvehda92-?Of.

Hrgin, F. E (1987). mahods in alminil and aiminolapy (4' Ediüaii). man: AJlynandmon Hmîltm, M., & Yee, J. (1990). Ripe and mndtyto mpe. The Journal of Sex Reswcft. 2% 11 1-122

Hw&h, C. C., Andi, L. M., GiWs, J. P., & Fournier, O. G. (1991). Validation of the Purdue Pwt-Triumrtic Strass Scik on 8 mpk of Wtmm wtenns. Jawrl of Traumatic pQs%7(2), 2-2 Hill, J. L, 6 Zautn, A. J. (19ô9). &If Marne aüribuüons and unique vulnembility as prsdktoo of post-np demomliution. ,Ioumol of Sodal and Cliniml Psvcholoav. 8(4), 364 37s. Howsid, J. A (1987). fhe conœmMmtion and metasursmant of attributions. humai

Huntsr, N. J. (1 094). De offct of ilcohol on women's bkllinn of smil assa& UnpuNished honaur's thmis, Unhrsnity of Windsor, Windsor, OMO,Canada.

Jackson, T. L (1 991). A univeMy aîhletk department's npe and assauit sxptrfences. Journal of Colieae Student ûevelomnt. zl77-76. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Chandaroîogicrl vamus bshrvionl seif Marne: lquirks into depression and mp. Journal of Penonalihr and Sacial Psvchol~~u.37(lO), 1~1809.

Jsnoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shrttefed assumotlong. New Yok- FmPress.

Janoff-Bulrnan, R., & Frieze, 1. H. (1 43). A thwraiul pempcthe for understanding madions to vialmiration. Journal of Sacial Issues. 3% 1-17. Jenkins, M., & Darnbrot, F. (1947). The sttribuüon of dste mpe: Obsmen' attitudes and sbxual expariencm and îhe dating situation. Journal of AdldSocial Psvcholo~v.17,875- 895. Jensen, 1. W., 6 Gutek, B. A. (lm.AtûibWons and msignment of responsibility in mxual hament. Journal of Social Isum. 34(4), 121-136.

Johnson, J. O., & Jackson, L A (1968). Assessing the eflhds of factors that migM underlie the dlfferenüal perception of acquainûnca and slnnger np. Sex Rolw. f 0,3745.

Johnson, J. O., 6 Russ, 1. (1069). Effaâs of salienœ of ConsckwnssMaisi~ inionnation on pm@ionsof aequrintrm versus rtnnger nps. Journal of Awlfd Sacial OIOPV.1Q(14), 11 42-1 107.

Kohn, A. S., MsVik, V. A.. 6Toipler, C. (1994). RapsaIm ird mpa acknowlsdgmnt. Psvdiolom of Women Quarterlv. 14 5366.

Kinakar. S., Shahemillr, A., Fm,B., Kunju, T., & Pinto, A. J. (4991). Ttte acquainlpnœ grdicament of r nps vidm. 1 i24-lSU.

Kmekar, S., 6 Vu. L (113). Wamiinints of pMwhnd likalihoocl of mpe and vietim'~huit. Jwniil of 147-148.

KiIpiMck, O. G. (1963). Rape vidimr Daecüon, i**rilwnrnt, and iraaünent Ciiniai Plvchabau92-0s. KilpaWk, O. G., ûmt, C. LI &unden, B. E., Amkk-McMullrn, A. E.. Lipovsky, J. A., a Haskett, M. (IW.August). of mm influence risk of mental haalth dwPap prose- 1Vie 9P Annual Convention of the Americln Psychobgitsl AswcWon, Manta, Gao~ia.

Kllgitrfdr, O. G., ûest, C. L, Saunden, B. E., Veronen, L J. (1W). Raw in marriaga ind in ditirtg mlaionships: Harn bad is it for menW hm?Aimaki of the New York Audemv of Sciences. a 335.344. KilpaMdr, O. G., Rosi&, P. A, & Veronan, L J. (lû81). Effeds of a mpe mqerience: A longitudinai siudy. Jwmal of Social I55uos. 37(4), 10S122.

Kllpstridr, O. G., Saunden, B. E., Arnidr-MMullan, A., bst, CL,Veronen, L J., 6 Rssnidr, H. S. (1WQ). Wmand aime f8dm 8ssochM wiVi the development of crime- rslated post-traumatic sbws disoider. ûehavior Thenm. a@),199214. Küpotndr, 0. G., Saunders, B. E., Vemnan, L. J., Best, C. L, &Von, J. M. (1987). Crimin81 vidimlulion: Lifeîime prwaknœ, mporling to poliœ, anâ psychologicsl impact. Crime Md Delfmuencv. a 47M. Kilp&trick, O. G.. Veronen, L J., & Resick, P. A (19791. The aftermath of rap: Rmnt empirlal findlngs. Amrrian Joumal of Ortho~~vchittrv.49, W8-689.

Klem, L. (100S). Path analysis. In L G. Grlrnm 6 P. R. Yamold (Eds.). Readina and understandim muiüv~staiistics@p. 6597). Wsshinglon, DC: Amerlcan Psycholagical Association.

Klmmadr, S. H., 6 Klemmack, D. L (197ô). mesocial definition of mp. In M. J. Walkw 6 S. L Bmdsky (Ws.), @xuaI assaun. Lexington, MA: D.C. Herlîh.

Koss, M. P. (llS), The hWan np vidirn: Psnonality, atütudinal, adsituaîional chandsrislics. PsvCnoloov of WmnQuarterfv. $193-212 Koss, M. P. (lm).Hiâden np: Inddenœ, paknw, and dealpiive chandsristics of mxtml aggrssdoir and vidimiution in 8 nrtknrl sampie of collage students. In A, W. Bm(Ed.), VOL l[ (m. 1-25). F(sw Yoik Girirnd. Kas, M. P., Dlm, T. Et, Seiôd, C. A., 6 Con S. L. (lm.strsnger and acqueintam rips: Ars Wm~~ in the Mm%axpfience? Ps~~cholo~yof Women Quaderiv. la 1-24. Koss, M. P., 6 Giâya, C. A. (1965). SexU Expsrkncas Sumy: Reliaôility and valiâity. Mmlnof Coi#ulfjap and Clinhl PIVdlol~422423, Koss , M. P., Oldyer, C. A., 6 WisribvW, N. 11W7). fhe scope of npe: Inciâence and pmaienœ of se%u8t iggmsion ind vidimlution in r nitional simple of higher ducation sludmî~.Joumil af -ici1 Psvchal~162-170.

H,B. (1991). Pdics ofifcors' Mnhnsof np: A pmiatyps My. Joumal of Çommunîîv anâ Awli4d SoeW PsvcndpplLI, 223-244. Knhl, B. (1992). Coping with npe: A socirl psydidogiat pmpedhe. ln L Montrdi, S Fiiim, & M. J. Lemr (Eds.), Ufs abes and exœ~of Ioss in rdulthoad. Hlkdaîe, NJ: bwma Eilbrum Assudsies.

KruIwb, J. E,& Payne, E. J. (1976). Atblknions ab& mp: Efl- of *st force, observer sa and sex mk 8üWes. Joumal of Andid Sodil Pndidopv.(4), 291-3ô5. LaFm, O. O., Wn,B. F., 6 Visher, C. A (lm.Jumo' mpmes to vidims' bshiviot and logml issues in mal~ssiutt trials. malProblem. a 3ûB=4ô7. bngley, T., 6 Ebatty, G. (1 991). Hmbehivioml eues in a daie rape scenario lMubnce judgements qarding vidim and -or. Forensic Rewrts. 4(3), 355-358.

Um, K. S., & Long, E. (lm). Atüîudes tavualid ssx-rnles: Traditional or egallarian? SaROM. 19(l-2). 1-12.

Loutsrbich, O., 6Vmna, S. (1996). Thm St~dle~on Vie nliability and validity of a self-report masure of pwtlriumrtic sms dbrder. &semmt. 3t12 17-25 Layman, M. J. (1993). Acknowladned and unadurowkdPd vidirns of mm in colleae students: A camwntive audu. Unpublîshed maste& thesis, Ohio Unimrsity, Athens, Ohio.

Layman-Ouodalup, M. (1996). Evalwtioir of an muahtance ram awareness gr#imm: Oi~nnCûI(moi& on rdu\mand unrdrnow(adaeâ mm uidlms. UnpuMished dodorai dkssrtaüm, Ohio Univedty, Aîhm, Ohio.

Layman, M. 5.. Wycz, C. A., & Lynn, S. J. (1Ktô). Unoduiwiedgaâ versus aeltrowledged npe viüim Situtional factm and po3ttnumrticsCm& Journal of Abnomal Psuchotwu. 105(1), l2Cl3l. Lebornitz, L, 6 RoVi, S. (lm).'1 lblt like a siut? The cultural context and mimen's nsponse to baing mpd. #uml d Traumatic Stmss. 7(3),38%3W.

Lm, H. B., & Cheung, F. (1 001). The Altiludes Tmrd Raps VIdIms Sale: Reliability and validity in a Chinesu eontsld. Rolm, M(elO), SQWû3.

Lm%,M. C., 6 Oinnon, L R. (1983). Plydioiogiml wnsequiirtœs of mpe and variables inîlwndng A mrkw. -2(1), 3740. Levino=MaGomh,J., 6Koss, M. P. (lm.Acqurlniance m. Efïecüve woidance miss. d Worirsn W.10.311-320.

Ubonr,J. A., 6 Day, D. W. (197û). An expbmtoy apgroreh to soif Mmeand M- damgatïon by npa vidims. M9(4),610670.

Unton, M. (W2). Tmm&mWom of mmory In ewrydiy Illb, In U. Msser (Ed.), Memon obse- in natuml wnIm (pp. 77-91). Sin Fmntiseo: Frwman. Lonswiy, K. A., & msnld, L F. (la).Ripa myths. Psvcholoav of Women Quaiterlv. II@),1W1M.

Malamuth, N. M., Haber, S.. 6 Fesilbrch, S. (lm).Tmng hypothsses mgarding nps: Expsurs to smal violence, sex dinmnœs, and the 'normrlny' or mm. Joumal of Rmoarch in Pemnrlitv. 121-137. Margdin, L, Miller, M., &Monn, P. B. (lm.Wh a k&s is not just a kiss: Relsüng violations of eoiilssrit in Wngto mpa mylh acœ@ance. SaRob, 2Q(54), 231-243.

McMillen, J. C., Fisher, R. H. (1997, Novsmbw). The PerceMc! MneR Scates: Mersurimi mrc8ived mitive lHcr chrmes aitw nwithre ew@. Symposium presentsd at the Intemationai Sacisty for Tnumaüc Strsss Studies, Montrail, Quwac.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind. seif and sociaysociayChi-: University of Chi- Press.

Meyer, C. B., Taylor, S. E. (lûûô). Adiustmint to npa. Journal of Penonaiitv and Social Pnrcholog~.50(6), 1220.1234.

Miiler, B., & MalstirIl, J. C. (1W). Cowdve sex on the university campus. Joumal of Collwe Student Personnel. a(l),-7. Monîaûa, L (1902). Niribution of rssponsibitii for losses and pmivdinjwtica. In L Montada, S. Filipp, & M. J. Lemer (Eds.), wecdw and ex~~riencssof lm in adulthood @p. 133-161). Hilbdaie, KI: Lmrsnce Erlbrum Assochtes.

Mwhknhrrd, C. L, & MlcNaughton, J. S. (1W8). Womun's bsliefs about women who %rd man on*. Jaunrilofl), 67(79.

Mumen, S. K, M.A., 6 Byrna, D. (1WQ). Coping wiih univintaâ senial rctivity: Normithrs rwpom, situational âeterminrnts, and indMdwl difierences. The Joumal of Sex Research. a(t),ûS-106.

Mynotl. C. R, 6 Allgebr, E. R. (IWO). Risk fidon, seif aürlkrtlons arid aâjustmant problenw among ndims of sexurl wardon. Journal of AmMd SOdll Psvchol~~v. 130- 153.

Pe!efson, C., & Wlgman, M. E. P. (1983). hmedhefpks#isss and viâimitriüon. Sodrl IM.3p. 1û2-116. ProdduKi, M. L,t Halier, K. (1963). Mamms of pembdsocial support fmm friends and fmm family: Thm validation audies. Amdan Joumrl of Communitv Psvcholoay, a 1-24. Qu&nk#ti, R L (19ôB). A cornparison of androgynous, misailins sbx-typeâ, and undifkmntiatsd maies on dim- of atütudes t~rdrape. ,humal of Reseorch in Pewnalihr. #,31 b342. Renner, K. E., Wmdceü, C., 6 Underton, S. (lm).The 'sociar nature of sexual rssruk pnaâian Ptvcholomr. a@),16S173. Resick, P. A., Calhoun, K. S.. Aiûeson, B. M., 6 EUk, E. M. (Ill). Soda1 adjustrnent in victims of sexual asmult. Joumal of Conwitim and Cliniwl Psvetidm. 49(5), 705-712.

ResnIdr, H. S., KnpWîck, D. O., ûansky, B. S., Saundsn, B. E., 6 84sl, C. L. (1993). Pmvaknœ d cMlkn mm8id posnnurnatic shudisoidst in a representative naîional sample of women. Journal of Consullirm and Cllniul Psvchol-fl), OO1 . Rmidt, H, S., KiIprMdr, O. G., 6 Upavsky, J. A (1991). Asswsment of mm-mlated

Riggs, O. S., Kilpatrick, D. O., Rmick, H. S. (1892). Long-terni psychological distress associateci with marital mpe and aggmvatai ossrun: A compadson to oîhar crime viaims. Journal of Int-l Violence. 7,283296.

Rothbaum, B. R., For, E. B., RW,D. S., Murdock, R., &Walsh, W. (1992). A prospdve examination of pOSt.tnumrtic strws disorder in npe viûims. Journal of Traumatic m.5(31,455475. Russel!, O. E. H. (1984). -1 eidoitaüon. Bevetly Hilis, CA. Saga. Ruch, L. O., 6 Chindkr, S. M. (1ûô3). Ssmrrl amaurt tnumi during the rcute phase: An expiorstay moâd and muîüvarfate analysis. ,humil of Hwh and Sadil ûehwior. 24, 174-185.

Ripch, L O., Oimll, J. W., Amedw, S. R., 6 Coyne, B. J. (1 Wl). nie Saxual Adsault Syrnplom Suie: Memuring self-ispoitad mualusrutt tnuma in the emerpincy mm. oîmW Amwsmant: A Journal of ind Clinlal esvEhol-f). 36.

Schailer, J. A, 4 Moos, R H. (1W). The conte%! for ~umrticgmwVi: Life crises, indMbuil and social rssoufœs, and co@ng. In Tdeschl, R. O., Puk, C. L, 6 Calhcun, L G. W.),postimurnrtic-: eodtrw in the aftmrüi of a4siq (pp. ûW25). Mihwih, PU: Lmmœ MhumAssodrtes. Scheppde, K. L, 6 Bart, P. B. (1Qû3). Thmugh womn's eyes Dakiing danger in the wrko of #mir1 ttsiuk Journi of Social 3@,63-âô. Sh-, K. G., & Dromi, D. (1008). On crusality, mpomîbüiiy, and self Marne: A thaomiiEll noie. &mal of Perwnolb and Social Psvchol~~~.5Q(4), 697-702. Snimp, L N. (1985). Uniwnitv men and -ns of wcual mercion. Unpuübheâ miaefs Visris, UnhmRy of SasbMwan, gukltoon, Saskatchmmn, Canada.

Spohn, R B. (1993). Wil dusinbility oorrsfabs foi rcesptinœ of npe myth. Parcholonical RQQQ&. 1218.

Stiey, R D., Prîsbell, M., 6 TdleWud, K (1 992). A campirison of attitudes among collage rhidents toumrd smalvioîence cornrnitted by mqpo and by aqudrdr-: A researdi report. Journal of Sex Educmtion and Thenm. 1W). 257-P3. Slnickman-Johmon, O., a StniduniwJohnson, C. (1901). Men and womm's rcceptanw of merelva smal slntugias viriad by initktor gondor and couple inUmacy. RM(1l-13, ûû1476.

mr,S. (IW). Smktoiic intendionism: A wcial stnsctunl vsnion. Palo Alto, CA: üenjamin-Curnmings.

Stymandil, L A., kvlin, A. S.. Chrisier, J. C., & Vyse, S. A (lm). Gondar mle and attitudes toword mpin mila and femile co11age sîuâents. Sm Roias. a(1-2), 37-57. Tomhane, A. C. (1978). A comprilron of pmœdures for rnultfpie comparlsons of means wah unequrl variancas. 1I aîi n 74 471-480. Tsylor, B. G. (lm).The Dsvdioloaical rscwanrmmss for mevidims whct seek service$: A LISRUm. UnpuMished doctoral dissertation, RuQom Unhrsmity, Newark, New Jemy.

Tadeschi, R O., 6 Calhoun, L Q. (1Wû). The Posttnumrtlc Omwth Inventory: Meuuring aie posihe lagicy of trauma. ,loumil of Traumatic Strssa. 9[3L 455471.

Teâmehi, R Q.. Park, C. L., 6 Cilhoun, L G. (lm. Posttmumitic growth: Concefluil issues. In Tadeschi, R, G., Park, C. L, b Calhoun, L G. (Eds.), ?Posttnumatic pmunh: hsMm dams in the of crlslp (m.1-22). Mihwah, HI: Lmirsrm Môaum Assodates.

fçiMni~n,B., Rydrmrn, R, KiidifW,O., m,J., K8CEWI L, & KüohW, R (1I8). Rerdion to sM-mkitedvldim mponsiülity: A cornpidiva anmm ofnpcrbis wu-nd Iiyobsem. ,!m~40@-422. Ullman, S. E., Siegei, J. M. (1993). Vldim-dfmder mlationshlp and swal assault. Violencm and Vidims. Q(2), 121-134.

Vmnen, L J., 6 Kilprtr(dr. O. 6. (lm).Raps: A prsainot of change. In E. J. Callahan & K. A. McCulskey (Eâ&), Ltfs-sPin d8v-m mchobm Nonnonative life men& (PO, 167491). New York Admk Prwt. Wad, C. (lm.T'hi AüMes Tomid Rips Wcüm Scrle: ConJlnrdion, validation, and a~ssaihunlappiicaôility. PNcnokov of Wmen Quafloriv. 12 127-146.

Wald, c., NdOtl, B., mhd, 8.. mambo, K., hyr#, M.. T-h, y., Yuskssl, S., GhaâiaHy, R, Kurnrt, U. Lm, H. B., Chaung, F. M., Upodhyaya, S., Patnw, J., Kirby, C.. GomeA. V., Pm,E., 6 Ca(osia, L (lm.ï?~ A~~IJ&s Tmrd Vidims Sale: PsychomarIc data fiwn 14 eountrki. ml and ûehaviml Sci4ncss Documents. 18(2), No. 2877.

Wamhaw, R. (1û88). 1 nwrcrlleâ rt mm. New York: Haqmr & Row.

Watt, D. (1W). The nsw Mences ipoinsl the wmn: The auvisions of BUI C-127. Tmnto: Butteiworths. Wttt. O., a Furint, M. (19W). The annotated 1W4 Tmmeeats criminal code. Toronto: Carswall Thomwn Protibssional Puûiishing.

Weiner, B. (1w. 'Spontinwus' causal ihinklng. Psvcholoplcal Bulletin. 87,7484.

Wtckins, O. D., Born, O. G., 6Alkn, C. K, (lm). Pmrdiw inhibition item similarity in short-tom rnemory. Joumai O f Valhmim mi Verbal Bohaviar. 2 144145.

Wileox, B. L (1961). SodJ support, IR strsu, and psychdogkal idjustinent: A test of the buffefing hypaai-. -Joumrl4), 371-3ûS.

Wiiiiams, J. E., & Hointas, K A. (1961). The sewd sssrun: Rme and wblic aîtitudeq. WestpoR. CT: Gmwood. Wood, L A,& Wk.H. (1994). Fmulrang mm: The ditainhre wnsûudion of vidims and vill&s. mfse and SocMv. Xl), 125-146. APPENDIX A Hypothurs Depicted in Path Dkgm

1. More forceful assaults am expected to lead to greater vidirn resistance.

2. Self-Mame is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between the dfwmstances of the assault and sexual assault acknowledgment. That is. greater acquaintanceship with the perpetrator, less forceful assaults, and less vidim resistanca is expec&edto be assodated with greater self-blame, which is expeded to lead to less acknowledgment.

3. Perpetrator Mame is expected to mediate the relationship between the drwmstances of the assault and sexual assault adcnovdedgment. That is. less acquaintanwship wlth the perpetrator, more forceful assaults, and greater vidim resistance is expected to be associated with greater perpetrator Mame, which is expected to lead to more admowledgment.

4. Greater self-blame is expected to lead to less perpetrator blame.

5. Greater self-blame and less perpetrator blame are expected to be related to less disclosure. which is hypothesized to be related to less acknowledgment.

6. The receipt of unsupportive behavior is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between the circumstances of the assault and sexual assault acknowledgment. That is, greater acquaintanceship with the perpetrator, less forceful assaults, and less vidim resistance is expected to be assclciated with more unsupportive responses, which is expected to lead to less acknowledgment.

7. Self-blame is expected to covary positively with receiving unsupportive behavior.

8. Perpetrator blame is expected to covary negatively with receiving unsupportive behavior.

9. More negative perceptions of significant others' attitudes towards rape is hypothesised to covary positively with receiving unsupportive behavior.

10. Self-blame is expected lo mediate the relationship between perceptions of significant others' and societal attitudes towards rape and sexual awautt acknowledgment. Thus, it is expected that mote negative perceptions of significant others' and attitudes towards rape will lead to more self-blame, which is expected to lead to less acknowledgment.

11. Perpetrator blame is expeded to mediate the relationship between perceptions of significant others' and societal attitudes towards rape and sexual assault acknowledgment. Thus, it is expected that more positive perceptions of significant othen' and societal attitudes towards rape will lead to more perpetrator blame, which is expeded to lead to greater acknowledgment.

12 Oixlosure is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between perceptions of significant others' and societal attludes towards rape and sexual assault advlowtedgment. Thus, it is expected that more negative perceptions of significant others' and societal attitudes towards rape will lead to leu disclosure, which is elrpected to lead to less acknonrledgment.

13. More forceful assaults, greater self-blame, and more unsupportive behavior from others are expected to lead to greater PTS.

14. PTS is expected to have a dired positive effect on posttraumatic growth and an indirect positive effect through sexual assault acknowiedgment (i.e., greater PTS is expeded to lead to greater acknowledgment, which is in tum expected to lead to greater PTG).

15. More forceful assautts and greater disclosure is expeded to lead to greater PTG. APPENDIX B Reliability and Validity for Scales Used in the Study

Table 6.1 Rellrbilhand Valldlhr for Scaks uaeâ in the Study

Sw8l .74 (Koss 6 GMycz, 1985) 93% mean Hem r = .73 wHh viaimization revealed in an Interview - only 3% who lEsrprri~cu agreement, wHh were categorized as rape vldims were judged 10 have Sumy (SES) a test-retest misinlerpreted Ihe questions or to have given what appeared ta be lnîewal of 2 false Informalion (Kos 6 OMycz, 1985) wseks (Ross a GMycx, 1985) SomtaI NAbacause quesiionnaire None low vidirnized, moderalsly vidimized, and hlghly victimlxed -.i doam nal measure a sinole women were compared and reported expeded dlfferences in tenns InWtW FEI) canstrud of foms of physical violmut, oflender aggression, vldim resistance and noncansent (Koss, 1885) D/scInrun Appendîx Y for a None none - items are stratghtfofward and seem to have face validlty Qu.alonnah. dhcwslon of Intemal conslsiency founâ In thls audy (32for 3 items that wre on a coritlnwus response scale) Socirl RwtlYainr nsgnive sWrl miciions Nono factor analysis supportad hypothesized dimensions, although Chochlkl FRC) (.te);positive social readlons some loaded jointly (Ullman, 189Ba) (bl); ranges batween -43 and positive social readions (with the exception of iislening) ware nol .78 for the 8 conceptually- relatad to self-ratad recovery, while negative social readions (4th derlved suuibscrles; ranges the exception of Mame)'were related to poorer selbrated recovery bawean .89 and 30 for (Uilman, 1996b) iactorderivsd subscales (Ullman. 19Wa) Table 8.1 Contlnwd

see Appendlx Y for a Nona the memn rallng glvan by expsrl raters was 4.25 on a Spolnl discussion of intsmrl scele (SD= .74), indlcathg lhaî the Rems were perceived as coc~s(stenqfwnd in ils *udy measuring the lntended wnotruct (plloi study) (mngsd betwsen .71 and .Bq factor analysis generelly supported the hypothedzad scales {se AmdkV) severtal of the soif and perpetmtor Mime iîetns have ben dlscovemd ta have posillve relatlonshlps wiîh olher concepîually mlaled variables (frazler, 1990; Mumen et al., 19119; Llbow & Ooîy. 1970) dlscrlmlnam validlty for global items 88msdng Mime anrîbuled Io chance, society, and self Mame (Taylor, lm) validny for global Items assessing perpstrotor and vidim Marne Is alsa suppotted by msearch using similar items in examlninp jucigments about rape scsnarios (CIeHx, Bladrwell, Daley & Benllay,lQB2; Wiener 6 Rinehaft, 1BM; Bmes4 McGmil, 1889) . . .. mm ,ôS-.I (Bufl, 1W3: Kmhd, .74 owr 1-2 cowlabâ poslüvily with gsnôar stsrsatyplng, aôvemrlal senual ~cc8pfmncaSmh 1991; Margolln, Miller, 6 m&ln a bslieb and acceplanœ of Interpersonal vldima (Buri, 1983) (RmA) - IlrII rd Moran, 1W9) collegs mals moderately positively cormlated with the Altltudss towerâs VWSIO~ sampte Women scele and moderately negaüvely correleted with the (Gmendllnger, Femininity scale of BernasSex-Role Invantory (Quackenbush, ises) ioeo). comlaled JignlliC8ntly with UofJmatIsm and lnvenely correlateci wiîh trustwrthlnsss (Ashton, 1882) not mlated to saclal deslrablliîy (Spohn, 1003) RUA - r/gnMcant .77 4 .ô9 (pilot work) -74 over 2 parllcipanls viewed rapists as havlng the most negative attltudas, othmr wrslon ' weeks (pllot followsd by society, their significant other, and rape counsellors wrk) (pilot worlr) Conlinued... sïa3wo eqlod ueuuo~)JO qcluims r Ul Ct* 10 UOIWlWW lWWPU popauoa ebaionr ur pur 8L' = - 8 Pr4 WW SAW Ou1 j0 UOWOA UO~~& pOUOWUS @ podol0~P(Wb) 8UW 'WC "lu le WM) wpnw ur(pium e~1UI es* - 02' ww pie 'hab 'pirN\) oldurr wopnw niw 041 uls- 02' uiq 'qduim W~pnCswdski!s ou1 Ul gc' - 92' UMIb POklUJ SUO~lOUW lrlol Ol pepauol (ma9 I. 'PP wNi) 09' 9 ôu!iiodw ospwnw oulu uw '(mWl>(wuun 'WIW u0lrrwu.r MN) 6U' - (o3pcW) 99' //W - (MY) WaS eldurs rurww-bl oh1103umm~s3 8 ut 99' 4-w ~nwllv Intaml Connlitency Tist-Retost Validity , AM- .rOnHlant .83 & .O0 (pllot work) - .ô4 over 2 -paflidpants viewed rapists as having the most nagalive aNltudes, Otnv~~ mks@Ilol follomid by society, their signiticant other, and npe counsellors mi*) (pila1 work) ARVS - sochbl .O0 ,87 Wlot&) - -50 over 2 -perllclpanis viswed rapists es having the mosl negalive altitudes, wnlon waeb (pllot followed by society, thdr slOniricant ather. end rape counsellon MW (pilot work) Putam -,O1 brthe total suls in an -.72 over a - corrslald Wh atre~rslatedsymplomalolagy and less strangly PorlarunmUc u~rpraduatesarnple psrlod of two wilh measures of anxiety and depression SClrrrDtwrdw -.#, .79 and -81 for the ret- weeks In an -in a univenity sample, InôivMuals nsportin~8 Iraumalic event iS Scala (ppTs6-fV sicpsrlsndng, avoidance, and undeqjraduale obtained significantly hbher total PPTSû-R msand m amusal subscales respedively sample {n 51) expriencing and arousal subscales (the dlffemnce an the ~aorrsdsditem-scak tolal for the total score avoidanw subscale dM not mach slgnlflcanw) (han a wmîlt)ons nngsd from ,24 - .71, .87, and nontnumatlzed gmup to .7 1 (Lluterbach 6 Vmna, .M for the -the PPTSDR is smdüve to the type of trauma sirpsriencdd: lm) arourrl, sxpcrrlenclng an event thd ïs 7w diMwH to dhssw,mp, and avddancs, and abuse producad the highest scores on the PPTSD-R, Mila thois re-experlendng experiendng eccldents, natunl disarten, or flrsslelrplodys had subscelss the lowc~slscoms on the PPTSPR mpedively -sîudenis ntcbiving psychotherapy al 8 audent cwnselling centre (Lauterûach di who were rewlving therapy for pmblems rslatd Io a tr%umallc Vrana, 1986) event obiaineci higher scores comparecl 10 a nondinical group on the avoidance, amusal, re-experiencing and total scores, and hed higher scores than clients seeking treatment unrelated to lraume on the re-experiencing and total sales - those seeking therapy for dlfficullies no1 releteâ to trauma did not obtain sbnificenlly diflerenl scores lhan the nonciinlwl control gmup (Leuterbach & Vrana, 1998) ContinuM...

2 Religion:

O Catholb O Jewish O Protestant O No Religion O ôther Religion Phase Sm:

O Cauasian O Native 1 Métis O hian O Black O East lndian 0 Oîher Plsass Spadfy:

4. Oros Family lncome (If you anrewiving financial support hmyour parents or are tiving at home Neas% indicate ywr pannls' incorne. Hmwr, if you anself-supporting please indieate your parsonal inwme, induding yaur partnefs if you are married oc living common- iaw):

5. Year of Univeus@:

O 1st year O 2nd yeat O 3rd year O 4th ymr O 5th year or mm O Agriaillure t2 Arts and Scienea O Cornmeres 0 mntistry O E~U~WI P Engineering O Medicine a Nutrition and me5 P Pharmacy a PII~~CBIMudon O Physical Therapy O Vetrrrinary Medicine Q UndassMed

7. Please sm major.

8. Marital Statur

B. If you ansingle, divorcsEsrrpimted, ot widamrd, am you daüng?

10. If you said "yes" to quedion a,am yau: 14. Have you &en sexuaily osspultod since the agei of 147 Pieam rnswer the fmllowhg qdonsin bim of your sexud experiencm rince

Note. 'Tha#lt8mt,rr)3dira~w+iCriibndhMBoird.maiIO#LI(L~i~1~lddedto =SES. APPENDUC E Sexual Eirprrienm Sufvey (SES) - Men% Venlon Plarse anmnr the followlng qurrtionr in ternis of your mxml experienoar rince the rat

Yes

1.' Have you engagd in sex play (fondling, Wng, or Wng, but not O intemune) with a woman when she didn't want to by mrwhalming her with continual arguments and prsssure? 2. Have you engaged in ssx piay (fondling, kissing, or psttrng, but not O intemurse) wfth a wuman Men site dMn1 want to by w*ng your position of atdhority @os,teacher, camp coumaIlor, supenrisor)? 3. Have you engagd in sax piay (fondling, Wng, or petüng, but not O intemurse) with a miman when she dMn't want to by threatening or using some degm of physM force (twisling her am, holding her dom, etc.)? 4. Have you attempfed swal Intercourse wiîh a man(Oot on top of O her, attempted 10 insert your pnis) when she dMn't want to by threatening or using some degree of force (Wisting her am, hotding her down, etc.), hi intercourse did not ocwr3 5. Have you attemptad sexual intemurse wiîh a man@at on top of O her, attemptad to insert your penis) whsn she diân't want to by giving her alcohol or dnigs. but intercourse not ocwr? 6. Have you engaged In swilintemurse wiîh a wman when shs didn't O want to by overwtialming her with continual aiguments and prsssun? 7. Have you engaged in wual Intercourse wiVi o woman whrn she didn't O want to by using your phion of authority @oss, teacher, camp counsellor, supenrisor)? 8. Have you engaged in maial intemume with a manwhen she didn't O want to by giving hrr a-otiol w dnigs? 9. Have you engaged in sexurl intercoune with a woman when she didn't O want to by thrs8trning or ushg sœne dogme of phyucil force (twisting her am, holding her down, etc)? 10. Hava you engmIn wx ids (inilw ml iirtsrwursuor penstntion a by objetAs other îhan ihe pnb) when she didnt want to by thrwtenkiq w usiw sama dogme of ph-l kHes (hvisüng hM am, Wkrg her domi, etc.)? APPENDiX F Sexuil Expohnwo lnvlntory (SEI)

Did you mmnr "y& to any of Questions U112 on Page [enter page # here)

O No GO TO PAGE [enter page # hem]

O Yss Wiut mt tha highmt numkred qwsüon to which you rnmrrnd *yuT

We would like to ukyou mon questions about thrt experienw. tf you have iud this exparience more üun once, think of the incident you nmember bert 1. How long ago did it happen? -yean -months 2. What was your age at the Ume of the incident? -years 3. What was your nlaüonship to the man /men at that time? (choose one) (If mom than one man was involved, what was your relationship wiîh the oldast?)

O Stranger O Acquaintanw 1 friend O Date How long had you bendaüng? -Yeats -months O Fiancé how long had you been dating? -pars -monihs O Husband or commorrlrw partner how long had pubssn married 1 wmmon-lm -years -months O Relative (father, stepflther, unde, kolher, etc.)

4. How well dM you know Mm? O Not at al1

O Moderately acquainteâ

O Very well acquaintd

5. How many times has a similar ïnciâent happenad with the same man?

O 4 or mon limas 6. What is the mOSt ssxual inümacy that you voluntarily had wiVi the man / men before this happened (ch& only one)?

O None

O Kissing only O Peîting above the waist

O Peîting balow Vie waisl O Sexual intercoum

7. Was the man 1 men using any alcohol w dniqs on 2his occasion? O Alcohol

O ofuQs

O Bath

O Neiiher O Dont ~now

8. Were you using any alcohol or dnigs on this occasion?

O Alwhol

O DWS P 00th LI Neiiher P Oonr know

B. Oid the man do rny of the ldlovulng to make yw woperate? (check al1 that appiy)

P InsiSent arguments O Pleaâing

O Telling you that yw vilam Mgid O Thm8tsoffocw O Twisüng your am, holding pu dami, etc. Q Hlttlng, sl8~@ng,etc. O ûeating, dioklng, etc. O Showingwea~ O ~singweapon O Other - please spdQ 10. How aggressive was the min?

O Not at al1

O Alide

O Somewhat

Q Quit% a bit

O Very much

1 1. Dii you do any of the followi~ to rssist his avances (check al1 that am)?:

O Tum wld

Q Reason, plead, te11 him to slop

O Cry or sob

O Smam for help

O Run away

O Physically stniggle. push hirn away, hit or scratch 12. How much did you

O Not at al1

O Somewhat

13. How dear did you make it to the min that you dkln't want to partldpate in the semal adii

Q Very much 14. How much do you feel rsJponsibh for what happenad?

O Not at al1

O A little

O Somewhat

O Quite a bit O Very much

15. How responsible is he for what happened?

O Somewhat

O Quite a bit

O Very much

16. Rate the impact of your resislance on the man's unwanted sexual behavior (circle one number). He He became dopped mon violent 1 2 3 4 5

?7. Did you continue a relationstiip wiîh lhii prson?

O Yes a No O NotApplicaMe

18. Have you had intemume wilti the man invohfed in Mis experience since tiiis happenecl?

O Yes

a Yes

O No

20. How many men have you hrd saxul imsreourse with sinœ mis happenad? 22. Did you report the inciâent to the police?

O Yas -D Go to Question #24

23. Do you think you migM report the incident to the police at any future time? O Yas

O l dont know 4 Go to PAGE [enter page # herej 24. Was the man involvad charged with sexual assault?

O Yes

O No, he was charged with another offence I, please specify:

O No, he was not chargeci wiih any offence

25, Did you go to court to testffy rihgarding this mattan

O Yes

26. Was the man convided of seml assaull?

O Yas 4 Ma was hi$ sentence? O pobation O 1-1 1 months jail O 1-5 years jail O &IO years jail O oîher 4 mase spedfy:

What was hïs sentence for îhis offence? O probitian O 1-11 months jail Ci 16ysris jail P SI0mis /ail O -r* pkassspscffy:

O No, he was not wnvided of iny Mence APPENDIX G îtem Pool for Bi8fne Qwstionnrire

RELEVANCE OF ATTRIBUTtûNS:g

1. Have you ever asltsd yourself 'Why did this happen to me3' (Abbey, 1987)

O Yes, frequently

O Yes, occasionally

O Yes, a few times

O No

INTERNAL A~BUliONS:SP

2. Have you spent a lot of time thinking about how much to Marne you are for what happened to you? (Ubow & Doty, 1979)

Most of the time

3. How much do you believe thai you wem to Marne for the incident? (Fmier, 1990; Frazier, 1991; Mumen et al., 1989)

O Not at al1

O Totally

a The saum k pro- followDng orch Item. The sales of som of the items have benalterd from their oriqinâl source in ader ta provide corisiaency amss the messure-

îtem 114 in the SEI, ragardiw vidim msponsibi~ity,was i~soincludeâ as part of the iniemal attrikition measure. How often have you had these thoughts iagarding the inddeni? (Hill 6 Zuatra, 108s)~' Most Never of the Time 4. 1 didn't resist 12345 5. I didn'i know h4w to defend mysM 12345 6. 1 put myself In a situation f wuldn'l get out of 7. 1 didnY scrsam for help 8. 1 diin? know how to say no 9. 1 was sornewhere I shouid not have been 12345 10. 1 didn't handle the diuatiori as well as I mQM have 12345 11. I'rn a camless person 13. I'rn a bad person 14. I'm weak and vulnerable 12345 15. 1 trust people too much 16. I'rn a gullible person

17. Laoking badt, do you thlnk you took adequate pmcautions and wsre careful enough? (Lia Daty, 1979)

Not at al1 careful

18. t n retrosped, do you ml that lhe ~~was avoidable? (Abbey, 1987) O Yes 19, Hwmuch do you believe that the man invohred was to Marne for ihe incident? (Fm'er, 1990; Mumen e4 al., 1888)

O Somewhat

O Quite a bit

O Totally

20. If you could be the judge, hmdo you think the man involved should be punished? (you may check more than one tom of punishment) (Ubow & My,1 87Q5

O He should not be punished

O Community service

P Mandatory psychoiogical treatrnent

R Jail terni (piease~ch- one of the follom'ng):

O 6 monlhs - 1 year jail O 1 - 5 vars jail O 5 - 10 pars jail O over 10 yuan jail Chance

21. How much do you believe that chance I fate is to blame for what happened? (Frarier,

O Not at al1

O Somawhat

O auite a bit

O Totally

22. How Iilyis 1that what happnad to you muld have happened to enyone? (Libow 6 Doty, 1979)

veiy very tikely Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5

23. How much do you believe that society is to Hame for what happend (e.g., how much do you blieve that the values and ûeliefs of soddy wntrlbuted to what ocamcd)P (Fraùer, 19ûû)

Q Not at al1

The expianation in parentheses was added to Fmzieh (1990). qucaion in order to darify the meaning of the hm. 171 24. How much do you think the draimstances surrounding the incident (le., the sluaîion) are to Marne for whaî happene

O Noi al al1

O AWe

O Somewhat

O Quite a bit

O Totally

This item was indudd based on thoroüd work suggssllng that sItuaüonal blame is an imporbnt aspe~ctof mpe aîûlbuüons (Brodsky, 1976). 172 APPENDUC H Directions GCven to Erprit Ratam Judging Biame Questionnaire

Unfodunately, experienω wunsellom am seldom consulteci in the devalopment of clinicai merch. We raquire your expertise regsrding purknowiedge of vidimr of semal Pssault to help us develop a dinically mlevanl rneasurs of #am and msponsibility.

On the aüached qdonnrire you will find 8 copy of lhe Blune 1 ResponsibiliSciale on the left hand sida of the page and space for your cornmen& and müngs mgafdlng this scale on the rigM hand side of the page.

Please read each item on the Blarne 1 Reqmnsibilii Sale (on the Ieft side of the page) and answer the corresponding question for eaeh item (on the right side of the page).

Please make any comments diri6dly on the questionnaire rsgarding awkward or unclear wording.

Note: Prior to cornpieting the scale -men wiîî be asked questions about their -al assault and will be asked to answer subsequent qWrsin temis of this experience. The following is rssponses ghren by exprts on each aspect of the quesiionnaire:

Dinctionr: -are you suggesling them is a diffemœ bdwwn 'opinion' and ïhink" or anyou emphasizing the dmersrrcs mmen "peoplemand ihe siirgulir wu? - a major issue to consider in the kmsof mis questionnaire - as a survivor will be üie nspondent it would be impoitant to croate a tiüe thet is mors neubol, such as 'march qusstionnaiien. The present üüe wuid be interprstd to -est a survivor shouid have some responsibility or Marne for the incident. - explain at outset that in sexual assaut vidims tend to Marne themselves and am not rssponsible for the adions of the other pefson, they need to knaw th& & not assessino or mningMarne

1. Have you ever uked younrlf Wmy did thb hrppnto Suggestions: 'Do you find youfseîf esking W... *DO YOU find that YOU w YOU~wy..Y

2. Hrm you spnt r lot of thaiinking about how much to bûme you rm for what happemd to you? - worûing implies that viûims am somsnrtiat to biame (2)' - Suggestions: 'Have you spent r lot of time bîaming yourself for what happeneci to youii" 'If you believe you ara to blame, how much time hmyou -nt thinking about thW (and Nvnch order wiVi 423) Po you find that you spand a lot of üme mindering about whether or not you are to biame for whlha-T not thinking about blame 1al1 miy k blcW pnoii b csrtiin that it's their fiult and so thsy dont think about it a lot - Ihave hidthis expîef~cevvtth die- who won searrliy issaulted 3. How much do you klkvm that you mmto blunr for thincident? - Mingimplies that viûïms am somewhat to Mame - my first madion was Mat incident?" b th- another mird imtead of rhe7

6. I dTdnY know how to âefend vif Suggestions: 'If I had only kiauini haw to defend mpKthismiuld not ïuw hrppensd"

The numôer in pnmnüwes indicaies the number of who made a sirnilar comment "Why didnt Iluam scrifdefencew - Ifind this ambiguaus - wuld be interpreted as positive (i.e., 'I was a chiid sci 1is masonable not to know how to defend mysefe) - could be a healthy w an unhealthy response 6. I put mymlî in a situdion 1 couldnY get out of Suggesüons: "...and thafs why it's (prüy) my fault" - ver' seif-Maming 7. I didnt scmm for help - need to add "if not, why not?" Suggestion: "Why didn't I scream for helpn

8. IdidnY know how to my no - If someone doesnY say "no" is ii rape? is 1 sexuel assault? Suggestion: "Why didn't Isay non

9. 1 wu soanewhsre Ishould not have iraan Suggestion: "...and that's why Ithink ifs my faun"

10. I didn't hmdk aM sihrfaon as well as I might Rave Suggestion: 7 didn't handle the situation as well as I stiould havew - W?,8,10 - unleu these are test questions with posiiive answers towards appropriate self responsibility then the lsnguage is again ambiguaus - may not know Mat "gullibie" means - Suggest change language !O ueasily fooled" - more commonly used words - I don1 think 'nevef captures blame or la& of Marne, rettier denial or something else and someone who Vtequently" has these thoughîs probaMy does Marne lhemselves. We are taugM to have an intemal locus of contml and in QMwomen can look at a situation like this to help re- establish safety and to rationalite why Viey are safe enough to go out. Some kind of follow-up question or rpwoiding to mflect self-blame rnay be helpful - some af thse questions may refled the process of warklng thtough a tape vs. someone who is stuck in self-btame or taking responsibnity for a rape. Some questions rnay nfled a strategic position taken by the vidim to minimizs damage (e.g.. ruammate) - Qs #î3-15 may be tnie as in the case of dkabled or elderly vicüms, but rtat necessarily a judgment of self-blame. Perhaps some n-wording: '1 should have fwgM bac& or fought back haidef Ishouid have known bettef or '1 shouid have seen the signsnor7 shouMn1 have tnisted or beliawd him"

16. LaoMng kk,do you think you took muatepmrutions and wen anful mough? - blaming (3) - Suggestion: "Do you think you could have done something to prevent the assaulïr - -est you drop this one - this question attributes Marne and should be frained diierentIy 17. In ntrospact, do you Ibal that tha axprrianw wu avoidibie? - Maming Suggesüons: "Do you feel that the expriena was unavoidabiey Po you feet that the experience may have been avoidable?" Wow rnuch do you find yourselfwondering if the experïence was avoidabte?" - Could questions 4-17 nat focus on the vldims perceptions of how much the perpttrator is to biame for an abusive incident? This could süII indicate how much self-Mame the vidlms feels wiihout pssibly increasing the self-biame she already feels

19. if you could k the judge, how do you think the nun involvld should k punistnd? - anmiering this question may be more indicative of the vidim's angerirage and nOt addressing rssponsibilii at al1 - this quesiion, not based on a five point scale, may involve perceptions and attitudes not related to sexual assault. Thoughts on length / tenn of punishment are not necessarily related to Mame and responsibility

20. How much do you klieve that chance I fate is to blame for what happened? - thii questian leads a sunrivor into denial, Iwuld eliminate it - I am not sure a victim would know how to answer this 23. How much do you think the circumstances surrounding the incident (Le., the situation) are to blarne for what happened?

- maybe specify party, intoxication, date, mameci to person, partner of person - experience of forms of self punishment as a result of self-blame Genanl Comments: - fear that questionnaire will increase vidims' self-blame (2) - wording needs to be changed to not imply that the vidim is responsible for even soma parl of an abusive incident - Suggestion: "How much do you believe your upbringing / history is to blame..." 'Did you knwv that the onus is on the alleged offender not to take advantage of vulnerable people? If he does so, he comrnits a crime." - suggest a discussion session to debrief and counter any further self-blame and put responsibirity whem it belongs - wiîh the petpetrator - Say manhaman -> may have been abused by a lesbian "i it only men who sexually assault women?" - Iminder if some informational statements might help to alleviate guilt? Did you know that in Canada the criminal code has a provision for assaul of a spouse or partnefl Did you know that men often use alcohol as an excuse for assault? In most provinces this is nat allowable as a defence. Did you know that if a man rapes a woman who is drunk he can be charged because she is unabie to give consent? - wme vidims tend to blame or hold others (ie parents, friends) responsiMe fortheirdrwmstances - primps a question nlated to this - vidims often Mame themselves for being such poor judoes of charader, situations, for tnisting someons who plays them for a patsy; they lose self-confdenœ (trust) -a Mame themselves for these qualities that are lacking -a sexual assault - be careful, exlra careful, in your language to ensun survivors are not re-traumaüzed by the mrrdings of question that may insinuate there should be Mame. Possibly you may allow a handout on appropriate I healthy blarne to be given !O each respondent afler filling out a questionnaire so that they are reaffirmed or supported rather than convinced they should be rssponsibie or ashamed. - you may want to ask if there is a diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive disorder - they wauld obsess over details - may not be that reliable an indicator for them APPENDM J Msui RaSngs of Büme bmr Oivrn by Expert Raters Table J.l -mMean rt Ratmm

1. Ham yw evw asked yourseif 'Why did thk happn to me?' ' 2. Ham yw mnta Id of thethinking about hm mudi to blame yau am for what happemed to youP 3. How much do you Wieve Qat you wre to Mame for the inddent? Howolhnhawyounrdtlirr,IhougMrngr~n~UmliKidmt? 4. 1 didnl resist9 S. I didnl know how to defend mysW 6. 1 put mysel in a situation I couidnt get wt of 7. 1 dMnY saeam for hslp* 8. 1 diin't know how to say no* 9. 1 was sotnevuhem I should not have bwn

10. l didnl handle the situation as well 8s I migM have* 11. I'mscanla$spsnon* 12. I'm a bad person 13. I'm weak and vuInersMe* 14. 1 tmst peapie tw much* 15. I'm a gulllôia psmn* 1%. Looiüng brck, do you thhk you took adequ~pmwuüom and were camfùl enough? 17. In mîmpd, do you mlthit the experïerics wu wddsbieT 18. Howmuch~youWfsMthittnsmrnwrsto#rmef#~i~ IO. Hpucou#beîhaj@p,howdoyouthinkthernmshou#be pinW3 20. Hanmu&doyoubdkwtMdiim/~bto~forM

21. Honrliblykitthrtrvhrt~toyou~~h~to -ne? 22 Howmudidoyou~lhrtWvrl~rndWkfsafradayarsto Mame for what ocainsd3 Conünuad... Table J.l Continurd

hm M SD 23. How much do you believe that the way men ire soâalhad in wr sodety 4. 0.53 is to Mame for what happend? 24. How much do you think thlsocMy% eccsptrnw of vioknœ Is to Mme 4-14 0.69 fwwhat happened? 25. How much Go you think the dmmstances sumundin~the inddent (in., 4.14 0.60 the situation) anIo bfame forwhat happenad (e.g., party, intaxication, date)? Overall, hm well do you fael that the sale aptums issues of blame and 3.9 0.65 rssponSiMW -Note. n ranges bstween S Pnd 8 due to no-. The response sciies for wch item can be found in Appendk G, items wre removeâ from the sak. l T~KIS~items mecwvorded based on cornmen& mwived fiom miers. One of the thingr m rn inbnrtid In k how pmpk who iuvo had the typof rxprrknca you idrnanld dkr[on Sw], undentuid what happenad to tfnm.

1. Do you ffnd ywmlf asking Why ûid ttils himn to me?' (fevefse scored)

O Yss, frequently

O Yes, a few timss

2. Have you -nt a loi of time biamlng youmif for whaî hapQened to you? (drds one nurnbsr) Narie at Mod of al1 the îime

3. How much do you klieve th& the man InvoMwas to Mame for what happened?

O Nôt ât al1

D A lMe

O Somswhat

Q Quite a bit

O Toîally

4. Haw much do you Miem thrt you wmto Mmefor what happe^?

O Not l rll

O Alb 5. How much do you believe th& the values and Misfi of s06ety am to Marne for what occurrsd?

O ~ota ail

O A lie

O Sornewhat

O Quite a bit

O Totalîy

6. How much do you believs that ehanœ 1 fate is to Marne for what happened?

O Not at al1

O A litlle

P Somewhat

O Quite a bi

O Totally

How often have you had thoughts mgarding wtirt happenad? (drde one number)

7. 1 put myseff in r situaiion I couMn? get out of Almost Never -Ys

8. 1 was sornewhere I stiould not have been Almost -Ys 10. How much do you bdeve thai iha wymen are Walked / mised in Our weW is to blarne for what happened?

O Not Pt al!

Q A litüe

11. How likely is it lhat what happened to you could have happened to anyone?

very VsrV tikely Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5

12. How much do you think that society's acceptance of violence is to Mame for what happened?

O Not at al1

O A tiiie

O Somewhat

O Quite a bi

O Toîally 13. If you wuld be the judgs, how do you thlnk the man should be punished? &ou rnay ch& more than one fom of p~nishmnt)~ O He should not be punished

O Probation

O Mandatory psychologiraiümûwnt

O Jail tem (pieam check one of the follom'ng if you believe that jail would be an appropriate fom of punishment): O 1 - 6 rnonths jail O 7 months - 11 monW jail O 1 - 5 yean jail O 6-10yearsjail

Q over 10 years jail

14. How much do you think the drcumstarrees sumunding the incident (Le., the situation) are to Marne for what happened (e.g., party, krloxicatîon, datdpartner, etc.)?

O Not at al1

O A linle

Cl Somewhat

O Quite a bit

O Totally 1. Did you diissihis exparience with anyone? (KOSS, 1985)

O Y=+ Golo question #3

0 No 4 GotOqWon#2

2. Why did yw not ûilkto inyone about th& experlenw?

Go to Page # -Wetî proper page nurnber] 3. When did pufimt tell somwne about this experience? (Ullman, 1ffla)

O lmmediately

0 Days later

O Weeks later

P ~yeariaier

O More than one parlater

4. Who was the first prson you told? (check one only) 5. Who rise did you îalk lo about this ~nœ?(check al1 Viat aDDly) D Girlfrisnd O BoyMend I parlnsr 1 hwbsnd (pieme cirele one) D A male frisnd l3 Mother Ci Father O Sistsr O Brother O merfernala reîaüve O mermale reliüvs P OVier (piease spseify.. ) O No one

6. Have yau -ken mth any ofîhe following regarding your expefience (check al1 that a~Dlu? (modiied hmUHman, lm)

O Mental Maith pmfbssional O Clefgy O Rape crisis centre O Physician O ûther (piease spedfy) O None of the above

6. How many ümes have you spoken about îhis experienca?

O 6 or mom limes 7. In your convenation(s) wiih mers how much have you talked about ywr îhoughts and feelings about what ha9psnad? 9. Please raie how helpful/ unhtgful ereh of the folMng people wen by cirding one number for each person you told about aie incident (madifiad from Ullman, 1ffla)

Not AppltcaMe VW VerY (check hem) Unhelpful Helpful O 12345

Boyfriend 1 partner 1 husband (please arde one) A male friend

Father

Other female relative

Other male relative

10. What was the most helnfUl ttiing somaone said ardid? (Unman, 1998a; Golding et al., 1989; Pitts & Schwartz, 1963) APPENDUC M SocW Reacüonr Checkli (SRC)

The following is a list of ùehaviors lhat other pwpie respnding to a pemn Mth this experience often show. Phase indicate whether you slepsrienced each of Vie lisied rssponses from mer people by pladng a check mark in tb box next to uach Rem.

O Told you it was not your fault

O Saw your side of things and did not maice judgment

O Helped you get medical car%

O Comforted you

O PUIM away mm you

O Wanted ta wek rsvsnge on the man

O Distracted you wiih otherthlngs

O Speculated about why the man did mis

O Tried to discourage you from talUng about W experience

O Focussecl on their nesds and neglsdsd yw~

O Told you that you wem not to Hame

O Reframed the experienœ 8s mpe or as a eker case of vtdimization

O Helped you gat infornation of iny Mid about wping with the exparience

O Made you feel loved

O Made you fm1 uncomfortabie by tiseüng you diif@rsntlythen Wre you lofci thema

O Tried to taûe antdof what you did I dudsions you made

O Told you to go on wiüi purîïf8

O said that he dM not mmto huit you, he hdss dl mrmsn

0 Encwngsdyout0Wths~~-

a SI# umy knm ~IOWy#i fat

O Respndedlnibhmlngw~my O as unaüe to rsiw icespt your iccftint of your eqmbnea O Taalt you to Ue polka

This rtam has been rnodfieâ to impmm ihwording. The ariginai item was: Treateâ you differenüy in soma way than More you bld thbm that mrde you unamforlPbfea. 166 O Ustenad to ywr feelings

O Made dedsions anb did things for you

O Told you to siop thinking about it

O Told you to stop Wking about it

O Told you that you could have done more to prevent ihis sxperience fom ocwrring

O Believed your account of what has happened

O Pmviâed information and diswssed options

O Showd understanding of your exprionce

O Enwuregd you to do thinos for youmlf

O AHId you to tplk as much or as lWe about the experienw as you needed to

O Tdd yw that you wen irrwponsible or not cautious enough

O Spent time wiîh you

O Seemed to understand how you wam feeling

O Owrprotedad you

O Felt sorry for you

O Patmnized yw as if you dM not know hciw lo teks tare of youmlf iJ Reasured you APPENDUC N Shortend Ripe Myth Acœptuice Sule (RMA)

completely wmpletely disagm Wree

1. A woman who goss to îhs home or apartment of a man on their first date impliss that she is willing to have sex. 12345 2. Any female cm gat mm.* 12345 3. One reawn that women fakly repart a rap is 12345 that they frcquently have a need to cal1 attention to themselves. 4. Any hsaithy wman can successfully a 12345 rapist if she really wants to2 5. When women go around kslsss or wearing short 12345 skirts and üght tops, they am just asking for tmubk. 6. In the majorlty of rapes, the vidim is pmmiscuous or has a bad reputation. 5. If a girl engages in necking or patlng and she lets things get out of hand, it is her ami fault if her partner forees sex on her. 8. Women who get mpad while hitchhiking get what 12345 they daserve. 9. A woman who is stuck-up and thinks she is tw 12345 good to talk to guys on the street deserves to bs taught a lesson. 10. Many women have an unconsdous wish to be raped, and may then unwnsciously set up a situation in which they am liksiy to ôe ittocksd. 11. If a miman gets drunk at a party and has intercourse with a man she's just met thers, she should be considerad Yair gamd to othr miles 1 the Party who want to hava sax with hsr too, Mer she wanîs to or not. Personrl Attitudes

We am also interested in your atlitudes and Wi&. Plea!ie answer the following questions in ternis of your omi opinioris. Thers are no rïgM or wrong ansvuers.

We am interssted in what you thlnk sudutal opinions am on the following topics. Please answer the questions in tenns of how you think a Mcalmmn in this sodety would answer.

PercePtions of SianMcrnt Othrm' Attitudes

Instructions for thora who did not tall an- about thair experknw:

If you were to tell someone about your expeiienœ, who would you be most likely to tell? (check one oniy).

O Girîfriend O Boyfriend / partner / husband (drds one) O A male friend O Mother 0 Father O Sister O Brother O Other kmak refaîive O metmale nlaüve O mer(plbase specify: )

We are intenstad In that person's bdkfs and itlltudss. PIeass amrthe following quesüons in temis of what you think that psnon Wkm.

Instructions for thou wlio dïd Qliï somaone about mir oxperknu: ldentify one mso~that you to# about your experlena that had the grestest impct on you (posiüvely or negaüvely).

We are interssted in thrt pmmsbdbb and aîlhdes. Pkmse ansmat the fdlawing questions in ternis ofwhat you think thit psnon bdkm. APPENDUC P Pilot Study Exuninhg SignMunt ôther and SocW Vanions artha RMAurd ARVEI

A pilot sîudy was undertsbn to oMain Mme pmlimlnary evidencs rugarding the reliabiiity and valldity of the shortend dgniiicant merand sockttal vsrsions of the ARVS and the RMA. midi wem used in th& study.

Thirty-wen underpraduate psychology students at the University of Saskatchewan parlidpstd In the piiot stuây. The mean rge was 23.03 years and 81 .l%(n = 30) of the sampk was female.

Materlals useâ in the pilot study consistd of the shortend signifiant merand ~odefalversions of the RMA and ARVS (m Appendix N and Q), as ~ellas a npist and rape counseior version.

Parücipanh wsm asâeâ to complete the RMA and ARVS in ternis of their perceptions of sodetal attitudes. They were alsa askd to chose one parson wilh whom they discuss personal mattem and were asked to ansnrer the scales in tamis of îheir perception of that person's etühides. The signHicant othsr and sadstel version of the RMA and ARVS wsre administered an two occasions, ssparated by two weeks. The order of these scales was counterbalanced.

PartEdpants wn then asked to answer the scak iri tasms of th& perceptions of mpisls' and rap eoumlon' attiîudw; the order was wunterbalanced with halthe paiticipants eompieüng the mpist wdon at Tlme 1 and îhe wunsslor versian at lime 2 and hal completing the wumior version at Time 1 and the mpist versian at Time 2.

Ratings wmsummed lcrws Vis 14 Lmsof the wdail and signifiant other ARVS and the O items d the wûeîal and signifiant orner RMA to -ln toW scons. High scores indiate more iwgrthre ittihides tomrdr mpe vidims and gmder endomment of mpe myths.

The means far signifiant m.rodail, counseia, md npist versions mmcompand (the means were ivtraged hhwen Time 1and 2 for th significrnt and sodetal wrsions for this analysis; ssa Table Pa. As expected, parüdpanis vhed npists as having the most neqative atütudes, followd by 506ety. theîr signiiicant other, and tape coumlors on ihe ARVS, RMA, and the combined scale; al1 dfffanncss wsre aatiaically signffican!.

The shortend signifiant other versions of the ARM and the RMA had good intemal consistency and test-ratest mliability; these rwults am compnmble to those ohined using the original, full self-versions of thsse scalss. The shortend sodarl &ns of the ARVS and the RMA demonstratsd exwlknt intmal consistency; howbver, the test-retest mliabilitîesfor these scales wsre l~r.The sales appear to bo operating a intendod given thrt rapisls were seen as haviftg the most negethre rttnudss, follawad by socieiy, significint othen. and rap wunselon. Participants provkid wriîten fdbadt ind-sting th& they had difficulty with the mirding of two of the items on the ARVS scale; these Rems wsm abrad to improw darity."

* item 6 Evenwomn who fml guilly about engrging in prsniurtol sax are nat likeiy to falsely daim np3of the ARVS wu diangd 10: Women who fsa guilty aôout en~agingin pmmarital sex are not likely to frlsely cûim mpem. Item 7 (%en, not mn,am rwponsibte for npe")of the ARVS inconsdly usurnes thlonly womm anmm uid hab8en changed to the following: "Men, not womn, are rssponolble Wîhe mpof wumen". Tale P.l Pilot Studv: Rmliabilitv of Attitudinal Scrhr

Coefficient Alpha

Signifiant mer ARVS 0.83 0.69 .74-

Combineci 0.69 0.94 .76- Socieîal ARVS

Combineci 0.95 0.95 -49- -Note. n varies between 38 and 37 due to subjsd non-rsspoiue. n = 30. Test-West interval was two wasks. p c .os. -p < .01. -p c .O005

Table P.2 2

ARVS 51.86' 26.38 32.95 41 35 53.89 APPENDUC Q Shortrnad Attitukr towuds Rape Vidims Suk(ARVS)

1. The extent of the womanls mistance should lm 12345 the major fad~in âebnnining if a npe has occumd. 2. Women oRsn daim rape to @sd their nputatian. 3. Womrn do nol provoke mpe by their appaamnce or behavior.' 4. Intoxitatedmen an uwally willing to have 12345 semial mlations. 5. 'Gd'girls am as liksly to ôe mpsd as 'bid' 12345 girls.' 6. Ewnwomem who fw1 guitty about rngaging in 12345 prs-marital sex am not tikly to hklydaim rape.* 7. Men, not wornen, anmponsible for mp.' 12345 8. A woman vrho goes out abne at nigM pub henelf in a position to be mped. 9. Many wmen daim cape if thq have consentad 12345 to semal relations kit have changed their minds aftenvaids. 10. Accusations of npe by hrgirls, danw hastesses and pmslhks should be viewed wiVi suspicion. II. A woman should not blarne herscrff for npe.'

14. Women who mrshort rkffts or tQM #ousss 12345 M nat kivillng np: APPENDIX R Purdw Po~umiticStmm Dirordrr Suk - Revised (PPTSDU) Pkass inwr=ch question by circling omnumber to indiuîe how anyou have experiencrd srch ruetion during thW.

In the krt month, how oiten... 1. were you bathed by memorios or thoughts of the event when 1 2 3 4 5 you dMn? want to think about it? 2. have you had upsetüng dmams about the event? 12345 3. have you suddenly fait as if you wmexpsriencing the event 1 2 3 4 5 again? 4. did you feel very upsat when something happened to remind 12 34 5 you of the event? 5. did you avoM adivities or situations that migM remlnd you of 12 3 4 5 the event? 6. did you avoM thoughts or feelings about the event? 12315 7. dM you have difiicufty nmembsring important aspeds of the 1 2 3 4 5 event? 8. dii you maa physically (hoait racing, breakhg out in a swsat) 1 2 3 4 5 to things that mmindal you of the event? Since the event.. 9. have you Iost interest in one or more of your usual adivities 1 2 3 4 5 (8-g., wrk, hoôôies, entertainment)? 10. have you fel ~n~allydlaant or cut off fmm people? 12345 11. have you felt emationilly "numba or unable to rwpond to 12345 thlngs emotionally the way yw usaâ t07 12 have you hnbs oplimiaic about ywr Murs? 12345

13. h~ you hd moia trwbie siwping? 12345 14. Iuve you been mors îmbbk wanqry? 12345

17, inyou mom jumpy or dlystiRled by noises? 12345 tndiute for oach of the rtrtmirnts klow the degnr to which this change hm occurred in your lih as r msult of the axperknw you idmtffkd on SES], using the following sak:

1 = Idid nat expefience this change as a msull of my experlenec. 2 = Iexperlenad th& charne ta r wyunill dm@mas a result of my apedenœ. 3 = 1 expfienesd this change ta a mdl as a rewlof my OXpOrlf!nW. 4 = 1 exprienœd this charne to a mok- drgin as a msult of my exparience. 5 = 1 experiencsd th& change to a gnif &#me as a rssult of my experlena. 6 = Iexprienad th& change to a vrry gnrt wm as a mult of my experience.

1. My priorities about w(\at & Important in IHe. 2. I'm more likely to iry to change things whleh nwd changing. 3. An appredation for the value of my own Iife. 4. A feeling of self-nliance. 5. A bette?understanding of spirituai rnatters. 6. Knowing mat Ican wunt on peopie in Urnes of trouble. 7. A sense of dosaness with oîhers. 8. Knowing Ican handle difficuiües. 9. A willingness to express my emaüons. IO. Being aMe to accept the way things work out. 11. Appreciaüng each day. 12. Having compassion for oQhers. 13. I'm abie to do bater things with my IHe. 14. New opportunities am rvailable whieh wouldn't have Men othemise. 15. Putting effort into my ralrtionships. 16. 1 have a stronger rellgiaus fam. 17. 1 discovered îhat I'm mngw than ItnMigM 1 was. 18. Ileamed a gmat deal about how wonderful pOpb are. 19. 1 developed new interes&. 20. l ampt ndingothers. 21. 1 establisheâ a new peth for my lHe. APPENDIX T Contrnt Fonn for Puticipiang in Scmning

InWgrtom: Lana Shimp, MA., Gnduate Student Brian Chartier, Ph.& Assodate Professor

Dlscrlpffon of trie ChSomeh R@a& This study b investQating the semial experiences of pst-sscondaiystudents. You will be ukbd to provide demographic infomwtion and to answer quesüons mgarding your past semal experiences. Some people may find the questions upsaüng. Participation will take apploximately 10 minutes.

This is to certify that 1, ,hemby agret, to participate as a voluntwr in a sdentific study as an suthoritecl part of the reseanh undertakings within the Depariment of Psychology at the University of SeskPtehewan under the supervision of Dr. Brian Chartier.

The investigation and my part in the investigation have bmfully explained to me by Lana Shimp and I undentand her explanatlon. The procsdures of the invesügation and their risks and discornforts have bem fully âesaibod and dtvrmrd with ma

I have been given an opportun@ to ask whatewr questions 1 rnay have had and al1 such quesüons have Wnanswered to my satisfaction.

1 understand that I can retùse to anmrspMc items or questions on the questionnaire.

1 understand that any data or answerç to quesüons will mainconfidential with regard to my icienîity.

I understand thai I can withdmw my wnsent and tminate my participation at any time mthout WnaltY*

Date

1, the undersignecl, have fully explained the investigation to the above individual. We are lwking for participants with 8 vlriay of sexuai expefiencas to cornpiete snother quaaionnaire which witl tab ippr~ximrtsly45 minutas. This qwstionnalre will consist of idcntional questions mgaiding your put ssrairl expwknœs, as wll as quaslions regarding rRUtudes and Mkfs and ywrsodil wppR system. ifyw m interestd in completing this questionnaire for in idditional coume cndp, pbasa provide your name and phone numkr below.

Phone Number:

Providing your name and phone numôer places you under no obligation to participate in this study - you may refuse to partidpate 8t any tinte. Pkase note that not averyone who provides thsir name and phone number will be contaded for participation in the larget study. You will notice that them is a code number on this shwt lhat matches the number on your questionnaire. This nurnbsr will be used to allow the msmarctiefto match the questionnain yau answered today with ü18 nsid one th8t you will cornplde. Onw you have completed the next questionnaire (or indicaie that you are no longer interestad in partidpaüng in th& study) this will be destmyed and thete will be no wyof #mngyour questionnaire, which will ensure your anonyrnity.

The phrase mgarding ths miIibility of couns uedit was induded only on ihe fm given to students in hychology 110, who cou# mm ccruise asdit for participation in rweatch siudies. -DU( v Consent Fonn for Putielpating in the Main Study

Ifmsî@rtorr: Lsna Shimp, MA, Gmduate Shrdent Brian Charîier, Ph.D., Assodate Pmfessor

OIscd@on ofthe Ruearrh Thk study k imrastigaüng the maletpsrienœs of posbsecondary siudents. You will be osked to wrslnsr questions rsgarding your past sexual -ences, attitudes and beliefs, and your social support system. Some people rnay find the questions upssttlng. Participation wiît take appmidmitely 45 minutes. mb is to ceili~that 1, hereby agrw to panicipate as a volunteer in a scientific study as an auîhorized part of the rssearch undertakings within the Oapartment of Psychology at the University of Saskatchewan under the supervision of Dr. Bn'an Chartier,

The investigation and my pait in the hvesügation have ôeen fully expiainad to me by Lena Shimp and Iunderstand her expianation. The procsdurss of the investigation and their ri* and diimforls have benfully describeâ and discussed in detail with me.

I have been given an opportunity to ask whaîever questions I may have had and al1 such questions have ben answersd to my satisfaction.

I understand that I cm refuse to answer qmiiic items or questions on the questionnaire.

Iundsrstand that any data or anwmto questions wiIl ramain wnfdantial with regard to my Menüiy . I understand that Icrin wiüidraw my wnssnt and teminate my participation at any time without Penalty- I undentand that Imay request a summpry of îtte mubof this study.

Oatm Puticipant's Signature

1, the undenigned, have fully expiainad th invssügation to the above individual. APPENDM W ûebriefing Shwt for Puticipaüng in Scmening

Rmunhers. Lana Shimp, MA. Man Chartier, Ph.D.

Scmning produras anoRen ussd in psychological ntbearch. The purpose of sueening a pool of potential participants is to obtain a sampie of subjwts wiîh partiwlar charaderistics. You were ghren the Sexual Experiences Suwey (SES; Koss 6 Oros, 1W), which is a widely used instrument for assessing sexual experiences. The SES is being used in this study to obtain a sample of partidpants with various sexual expefienœs. Previous research has found the SES to have high teskiatest reliability over a priod of two wwks (KOSS & GMya, 1985), whlch means that individuab tend to give similar ansumis to the SES if they cornpiete 1 on two occasions separated by two mks. The SES also has good valiâity (Koss & Gidycz, 19115). Validity mfers to the ability of a tesi to measun what it intends to m6asure. Koss and Gidycz (1885) rasearched the vaiidity of the SES by comparing rssponses on the SES to information obtained in an interview regarding malexperienws and found a high degme of corrsspondenw. The process of seleding indMduals to partidpate in a study is very important sinœ the sample of participants will detemine the extent to Wich our condusions can k generalized. Demographic questions were a&ed sa we wuld see if people who agW to participate in the larger study am different from those who dM nd If the pm@ewho rgm to partidpate in the study am âiiemnt from the individuals who do not agm to partidpate, this will limït the generaribility of the rwults. R is commm for rosearchers to include demographic variables such as age, race, and religion to compare the indMduals who agm to participate with those that do not. However, the podsibility remains that the groups may k different on important variables that were not measursd.

Thank-you for considering andlor participatirtg in this study. If you have rny questions or conœms about th& study, feel fme to Wntad Lana Shimp 1geedel (or kave a message at 9666657) or Dr. Brian Chartier 19666919.

If partidpating in th& sludy hm mked any C#mOnaI issues for which you would like to receive counselling, piease contact Sîudent Counselling Services (eee4920). meriwourws in the communrty indude: Aitematives Pmgnm (for man who am Whtto thair partnefs) ...... 6557900 sukloon Semal Asmult and Infomirtiori Centre...... 244-2224 Sldtrtwn Intavd House (srfa house) ...... 244-0185 APPENDiX X ihbrkfing Shmt for Puticiprting in the Main SMy

Remarchm Lana Shlmp, MA Brian Chartier, Ph.D.

Pnvious mardihas found thlsxperiences of unwantd sexual adviiy b ex!remaly mmonammg univenity and allego students. ôMeser#iy anâ Wly (1993) conductecl a stuüy using a national sample of Candian university and collage Whnts. They inquimd abut unwentad sexual ~~ncessinœ highsehool. In thb study 32% of women mparied engaging in se% play (ie., fondling, Wngor putüng, but not Intercourse) and 20% nported erigaging in sexual interwum due to a man's continual arguments and pressure. ln addlon, 14% indicated that a man had aemplsd intercours4 and 15% reportad that a man mpieted intercourse wiih them when they did not want to when they wem dmnk or high. aven percent raportecJ engaginq in serual intemoune, 3% reportad engaghg in sex ads (Le., anal or oral intercouse or penetretfon by objsàs other than the pnis), and 8% rsported engaging in sex play because a man thmatenecl or mdsome amount of forw. In sum, 45% of the womeo reportai that they had experienced some fonn of semal coerdon sinœ baving hïgh school.

In 1083 Itis Criminal Code of Canda was changd with regards ta sexual offaces. fhe semal offence of gmpetnwas mplaced with "sexual assauHm. This change was intandecl to koaden the maloffaces by induding unwantd waltwching and diminaüng the mquimment of pnetraüon. We wanted to examine how menappiy the terni 7apemand malassaur to their unwanteâ sexu8l exporionces. It wu -ad thlwomen would be mmlibly to ippiy the tom sexuel wault to Mir unmnted sexual exgeriencss iscomparexi to the tem mm. In iddition, we wanted ta see if the way wmnlabel ttisk unmnted semai -riances k nlated to their social support, perceptions of @nificint othan' and wc*sty's atütudes towards np and mpvidims, and attributions of their uiimntd sexual expetionces. it was expectad that womsn with grnater social support, niom who pemived th& significant nhar and soday to have more posih ittitudes towirds np and ropvidlms, and women who Marne the man (mer thln îhmseluas) for the incident wwkî be mmlikcly to appiy the terni "ragsnor malassaur to mir unmntd mxwl experiatl~a.

If yw have any quwtions or concsms about th& My,fW fme to contret LMI shimp at M6- 66ûû (or baver ~eat~arDr.BriinehrrWtit~19.

Thank-you for your pmrtidpition. APPENOIX Y Sule Cmüon and Intemal Consittancy

Table Y.l Sule Cdonand Intemal Consistancy

Societal Version Combined the ATRV (13 items) and RMA (11 0.93 items) sales - dmpped one item on îhe ATRV Signilrcant Otttm' scale (Women who feel guilty about engaging in 0.80 Version premarital sex are not likely to falsely daim rape") - this item was removed fmm al1 thm attiiudinal msifh l'"Pd scales kause it had low comtcted item-total 0.93 (n = 151) correlations on each aleand its deletion resulted in an increase in coefficient alpha. Several lrnpaQ padicipants ntro left îhis item blank.' (n = 34) Seff Version 0.80 Blame Questionnaire Created using factor analysis - set? Appendix BB, Selfslame 6 items 0.87 Societal BIame 3 items 0.78 Perpetrator BIame 2 items 0.71 Fate Blame 1 item NIA Situation Blame 1 item NIA - - -- A composite variable refieding was fofmed by 0.92 combining Vie following variables: number of times spoken abut experience. longest conversation, degree to which they discloseci thoughts and feelings mlated to the event. and the number of different individuals they spoke to about ttieir qrience (excludinq professionals). Note that since the variables had different rating scales, they were first transfomed into z-scores and then summed. PTGI Total As described in method sedion. New Possibiïdks 5 items Relating lo Osiers 7 items Personal Stmngth 4 items Spifitual Changé 2 items AParectafim ofm 3 items Suk Cnition ofScaie a

4 items 0.78 AwBmm 7 items 0.78

16 items 0.80

3 items 025

A composite verli#a ms lofmed by ccirnbining 0.54 twovrrlrblss:mungof~eSsand numhr of- stntsgk rsportd. Sinw the WWes had difïemnt tating scales, they wem fia îmdonned into z-scorw and then summad. APPENDIX z Prowdunr for lhndling Miuing Diti, Nomulity of Varübko, and lktrealon and Eliminition of Outîkn

Mean substitution pritem, was used to mplscs mWng valuss @or to daia analysis. Overall. them was miniml missino dahm The rttitudinal $cales lud the mosI mWng data, with 28 missing daîa points on the wK atütuâe scak, 13 on the sodetal attitude scale, and 32 misslng data points on the signfficant airotülude scaleœ MMng drtr was disiributed among participants and no single participlnt was missing a wbstsntial portion of data. Nonnality of Main Vaikbk

The nonnaiii of variables was aswaed by testlng &mess and kuriogis, as well by examining frequency histograms. Several variables appeamd to lm non-nonnal and wen transformeda The type of trarufmation chosan was busd on the shap of the frequency distributions and examination of the resulüng sk~ess,kurtods, and fieqwncy distribution. Sec Tabie 2.1 for the skawness and kurtosis (along with the appmpriate signitkanœ tests) for each original and trsnsformad variable. Transfomation was unaôie to impmve the diarikitions of soms variables 0.e.. Blame Preoccupation is sligMly positively skeweâ (Sk = SS, z = 3.47, p < .ml) and Sexual Assauit Acknawledgment is snghüy negative skewed (Sk = 40, z = -3.78, p < .W1)]. Soma variables remained non-nomal even after ûansfomation, aithough transformation improveâ their distributions sornewhat. In particular, ths variables of Fate (Sk = 1-03, z ~6.52,p * .ml) and Petpetrator (Sk = 39, z = 3.73, p e .W1) Blame continuad to b posiüwly skawad. The SRC variable Taking Control of Vidims' Dacidons is nag8üvely sicewed (Sk = -1 .O& z = -5.W. p < .001), as is ik Tangibie Aid varlaMe (Sic = -1JO, z =-9.67, p < .ml), whkh also has positive kurtosis (K = 120, z = 3.42, p < .ml). In iddition, the PTGl Appreâaüon of Ufe variable has positive skewnes (Sk = .Ml z = 5.05, p < .W1) and the PTSD Arousal (K = -1 -09, z = -3.48. p * -001) vanaMe has nagative kurtosis.

MahalinoMs distrnœ w8s calculated for mch case to invc#llgate the possible prsssnœ of rnulüvarfne outlien. Udng Mahrbno#s distance wilh p c .Wl, one trsa was

Theris was only two mbslng data points on th8 PTOI, four misshg diti poinls on the PpTsD.RthmmEsdngditrpdntsmm~~ngIkes**~ditipokits~ ilams~nwhd.nw,anemissingdltipoinîon~~~,indons mbsfng drtr point on îha mhîimship vrrkbio.

a lhefMowingtnnsl;omuitktrs~~:(t)squrrsrOa~eteBkm, Pe-r Biame, S#urtknd 81im0, Disdosurs, SRC Sodrl Reaûioru, SRC Dislrsctiori/D- Tilklng, PTGl Totil Swre, PTGI ApQrsektion of Ula, PTGl New Possibilitk, PTGl R- tû ûüWS, PTSO Totd e,PrsO AMidU'iW, PTSO kûusal, PTSD Rcwpedmâng), CZ) mm(Setf AîtMm Tawuds FZlpa, SRC Blamdtreat Diffamnüy, SRC Pwithre Sodrl Mcüons), and (3) hem @.a,Signifkant ûthers' Mtudes Towards Rape, SRC Taking Contrd of Vidim' Dôd~bns,SRC Tingiüe Aid). idwMed as a multhrafiaîe ouüier and was mmwdfmm the âata setY Mahalanobis distance was calailated again for each case MerüIe fia&multhririate oullier was ideinilid and mmovad, and andhsr muwaiists outlier was identifid and subsequmüy mmoved from the âaia seta No furlher multivarhb ouüiers weidantifid in subssquenî analyses. Very large stondardizeâ smw (z > 32û,p < .001) wam consiâemd to be potenüil univariae outliers; no univariate outliers wu18 identifled.

This ase htul extrema scores on disdosure, dgniliunt oMah ittiluâes, 8nd perpstrstor aggression. In Mi,tham was Mgh reportal parpalrelwrOgmssion in conjundlon wüh low eTSD ornusiil. Tabla 21 Skewnoss and Kurtasb for Oriai~land Tmnsfemmd Varkbks

Distribution

1.52 1 log 1.03 40 (QSS") (3.79") (6.5z") (-1 3)

-1.12 .78 Square Root .59 -.43 (-7.11") (247) (da) (3.73") (1.36)

Self

-.a2 -.O7 SqUm ROO~ .38 46 Situational (5.21") (0.21) (nfia) (242) (1.80)

PfGl

Sqrim Root Disdosure

1.23 Square Root Negaüve Social Readions (3.52-) Blame I Treat ûiierenüy Dirtndion l Dimungd Talking Taking Contml of Vidims' Dacisions .lQ Square Root Positive Social Rwdions (54) (rdected) Emoîionrl Support I Validation

Tangibb Aid

Total Score

.64 -25 Spuim ROO~ -27 -.H Avoidance (4.04") (-.7Q) (1 -70) (-226) Table AA.1

Variable F (dl P Blame Prsocarpaüon 4.06 2,235 .O18 Situational Blame 6.15 2,235 .O02 SRC Tangible Aid 54.90 2,187 .Mû PTGl Appreciation of Me 5.22 2,235 ;OW PTGl New Possibilitis 3.39 2,235 .O35 PTSD Total Scale 7.32 2,235 .O00 PTSD Avoiâanca 3.94 2,235 .O21 PTSD Amusal 11.40 2,235 .O00 PTSD Re-Experiendng 4.38 2,235 .O14 Total # of Professional Disdosures 3928 2,234 .O00 C of Rssistanœ Stmtegiss 5.03 2,235 .O07 AQe 11 .U 2,229 .ûOû Tibk AA.2 Punon Corniaiion CoMcionts btween Sexurl Aurult Acknowkdammt and thr Othar Suies

Self Signifiant Other

Blame Preoccupation 35 .O00

Societal Blame .O8 -104 Perpetrator Blame -30 .O00 Fate Blarne .O7 .t44

Situational Blarne 23 .O00 PTGI Topal Score .26 .O00 Relating to Othen 31 .O00 New Possibilities .2t .O00 Penonal Strength .18 .O00 Spintual Change 26 400 Appreciation of Life -17 .O05 PfSD Total Scora -39 .O00 Avoidance .31 .O00

Circumstinces of the Asault Force of Assauit 30 .O00

Relationship .O7 .O00 Negative Support .18 .O07

Emotional Suppott 1 Validation .12 ,046

Distraction 1 Discoureged Talking .O8 .133

Mean Male Helpfutness -.O9 .136 -Noie: n = 238. One-tailed tests of signiîicanw wsre used. On= 190 for SRC subscalss due to nondisciosun: Unacknd~ed(n = 3Q), Uncertain (n = 39) and Aduiwed(n = 112) semal assauit viciims. n ranges between 138 and 189 for these items due to nondisdosure. Table AA.3

Scmning &mpk Sexual Auiuit Samplt (n- 2üS2) (n = 238)

Semial Contact 132 11.8 12.6 10.9 (3w ma (30) (a) Sexual Coercion 14.9 16.6 5.0 13.4 (581 (423) (1 2) (32) Aîtempted Rape 7.3 8.2 13.9 19.7 (1 87) (2091 (33) (47)

-Note. Some participan& in lhe screaning sampie could not b dassified (n = 8) due 10 giviq incamplete rwpoms on the SES. A description of the revised and original SES caîegorizaîion procedures can b found In Sedion 4.2.2.1. -~ - RIyrorhd the incidrnt to the police 3.9 8 3.86 2 -139

Dont Know u-w 2 1 Umwiain 6.3 3

AwvvlWipdd 9.0 13 &put mmething Iike îhk îo ha$&mnspin 3.04 4 .428 Yes 7.1 17 No 56.3 134 Dont Know 36.6 87 For those who nporteâ to the paîk Table AAS DarcriMïve Staüstiu for Oriainal and Transfomiad Viriabkr

Original Variable Tnnsformed Variable

Self 39.73 9.66 24-76 1-59 0.10 1.30-1.88 SignMcant Oîher 45.28 14.87 24-105 0.02 0.01 .01-.O4 Positive Effed 41.06 9.37 24-76 Negative Effed 66.44 18.7 28-105 Societal 73.74 17.03 29-117 Blame Measuns Blame Preocwpation 2.04 0.97 14 Self-blame 16.24 5.83 6-30

Sotietal Blame Ei -24 2.82 3-1 5 .Petpetrator Blame 8.47 1.S6 3-1 O 1.52 0.47 1.00-283 Fate Blame 1.73 1.17 1-5 1.26 0.24 1.00-2.24 Situation Blame 3.65 1.14 1-5

Total Score 53.34 23.6 21-120 7.2 1.58 4.58-10.95 Relating to ahers 12.96 6.22 5-30 3.5 0.85 2.24-5.48 New Possibiliîies 17.91 8.18 7-40 4.12 0.96 2.65-6.32 Personal Strength 11 .O9 5.02 4-24 Spiritual Change 8.45 4.43 3-1 8

Total Score 36.75 14.63 17-83 5.95 1.19 4.12-9.11. Avoidance 15.4!5 6.28 7-33 3.85 0.79 265-5.74 Re-Experiencing 8 -06 3.56 4-20 2.77 0.61 200-4.37 AmMl 13.24 6.47 6-30 3.53 0.87 2.45-5.48 Tabk AAS Continurd

Negaüve Support 3.B 3.03 G18 1.84 0.71 14.12 Posiüve Support 8.86 3.69 G16 276 0.65 14.12 Emotional Support I 8.62 3.43 0-13 0.63 0.31 .ûO-1-15 Validation Blame 1 Traated 1.41 1.73 0-7 028 0.29 .W-30 OifferenUy Distraction I 1.51 1.6 04 1.51 0.40 1.00-265 Disoouraged Talkiq

Tangible Aid / 0.33 0.78 0-4 0.88 0.24 2û-1-00 Informational Su~port m. n = 238 mwpt for SRC subscales whsre n = 100 due to nondisclosure.

@ Nat al1 variables wem transfomal. Seo Table Z 1 in Appdbr Z for a mmmary of the transformations prfomed. APPENDIX 88 Fadot Analpis of Bkme items

A principal components analysh was peifomed followed by a direct oblimin rotation (see Table BB.l).n.m The mtated fador pattern matrix does not support treaüng the extemal blame items as a single factor. The analysk produceci four-factors with eigenvalues greater than one. The four factors accounted for 62.7% of the variance. To minimire wmplexity (Le., Items loading on mon than one factor), only items that loaded higher than .55 on one of Uie resulting factors were retained for the sutsales. The first fador, sdf-blame, had six items loaded onto it; this fador accountcd for 29% of the variance and coefficient alpha was -87 for the scale. The second factor, socIetal Mme, had thme items load onta 1. This fador accounted for 17% of the variance and coefficient alpha was -78 for the scale. The third factor, pp&mtor blame, consisted of two items. This factor accounted for 10% of the variance and coefficient alpha was -71 for the ale. The fourth factor, hte blame, consisted of one item; this factor accounted for 7% of the variance. The item taping situation blame (e.g., 'How much do you think the circumstances surrounding the incident (Le., the situation) are lo blame for what happened (e.g., Party, intoxication, datelpartner, etc.)?" did not load on a factor and therefore this item was retained separately. This item was retained for exploratory purposes because the literature suggests that 1 may be an important component of extemal blame that may be especially relevant to sexuaI assauit vidims' attributions of blame. Only one other item did not load on a factor ("How much do you believe that chance I fate is 10 blame for what happened73 and this item, which was intended to be indicative of fate blame, was dmpped. An examination of the wnelations between factors, reveals minimal to moderate relationships between factors (see Table 08.2).

" The blame preoccupaüon item was not incfuded in the fador analysis, as it was not intended to refiect one of the factors asswed.

A direct oblimin rotation was used since attributions of blame were assumed to be correlated.

" The item regarding punishment appropriate for the perpetrator was not inciuded in the factor analysis due to the nominal response sale format. Table 66.1 Factor Lordinas of Items in Blame Questionnaire

Factor Lordingr: I 11 III N Factors and Blme ltbms

Have you spent a lot of time blaming yourself for what .a0 .O5 23 -.O5 happened to you? tlow much do you believe that you were to blame for what .88 O -06 -.15 happened? How much do you feel responsible for what happened? .a2 -.A2 -03 -20 I put myself in a situation I couldn't get out of .72 .46 .19 -.O3 1 was sornewhere I should not have been .70 .ll 14 -.O8 I'm a bad person .65 .O9 .18 22 Fctor 2: Socletal Blame (17% of Variance) How much do you believe that the values and beliefs of Society -18 .76 -.38 -04 are to blame for what occurred? How much do you think that Society's acceptance of violence is .O7 .76 -.O9 -09 to blame for what happened? How much do you believe that the way men are -18 -75 -45 .O3 sacializedlraised in our Society is to blame for what happened? Frctor 3: Petpetntor BIame (1636 of Variance) How much do you believe that the man involved was to blame -.36 .54 -57 -23 for Hathappened? Hwresponsible is he forwhat happenedt -.24 .48 .5? -.31 Factor4: Fite Blame (7%of Variance) How likely is R that it could have happened to anyone? .20 -.O1 24 .88

How much do you believe chance I fate is to blame? -19 .19 .O9 .U How much do you think the circumstances surmunding the 4 -.Il -.U -.32 incident o.@., the situation) are to blame for what happened (0.g.. paru, intoxicaîion, datelpartner, etc.)?

-- Nate Rems were selected with factor loadings of at least .55. Loadings and proporüons of variance reportecl are ftom a principal companents analysis and direct oblim -on of 14 items from the Mame questionnaire. Trbh 88.2 Inteitornlations ûetween Blame Subrulas

2 Societal Blame - .tg* .O2 .O4 3. Perpetrator Blame - -.O7 -25- 4. Fate Blame - .O4 5. Situation Blarne -