Violence and Victims, Volume 21, Number 6, December 2006

Rape Acknowledgment and

Postassault Experiences: How
Acknowledgment Status Relates to
Disclosure, Coping, Worldview, and
Reactions Received From Others

Heather L. Littleton, PhD

Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, TX

Danny Axsom, PhD

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, PhD

Abbey Berenson, PhD
University of Texas Medical Branch
Galveston, TX

Many rape victims are unacknowledged. These victims do not label their experience as
rape; instead they give the experience a more benign label, such as a miscommunication.
The current study examined the relationship between victims’ acknowledgment status
and post-assault behaviors, moving beyond prior research. Analyses of covariance were
conducted comparing the post-assault experiences of unacknowledged and acknowledged
college rape victims (n = 256), controlling for differences in victims’ assault character-
istics, multiple victimization, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Results supported that
unacknowledged and acknowledged victims differed in their coping, disclosure, belief in
justice, and receipt of egocentric reactions following disclosure. Implications for future
work examining the dynamic interplay among assault characteristics, sexual scripts,
acknowledgment status, and post-assault factors are discussed.

Keywords: rape acknowledgment; rape; sexual assault; scripts; coping

K
oss’s (1989) groundbreaking work in the 1980s assessing sexual assault among
college women led to the first widespread recognition of “unacknowledged”
rape. Unacknowledged rape occurs when an individual who has experienced rape
(e.g., unwanted, forced sex) does not label this experience as a rape, but instead gives the
experience a much more benign label, such as a seduction or miscommunication. Her
national study revealed that over 70% of women who endorsed having experienced forced,
unwanted sex did not believe that they had been raped (Koss, 1989). Other studies have

© 2006 Springer Publishing Company 761

762 Littleton et al.

similarly found that the majority of victims do not label their experience as rape (e.g.,
Bondurant, 2001; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003; Frazier & Seales, 1997; Kahn,
Mathie, & Torgler, 1994; Koss, Figueredo, Bell, Tharan, & Tromp, 1996).
An examination of the rape scripts and normative sexual scripts held by most individuals
helps elucidate why so many victims are unacknowledged. These scripts are cognitive
structures that serve to guide behavior in social situations and contain information about
the roles of the individuals in the script as well as the chronological sequence of events of
that situation (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Individuals’ scripts often are activated unconsciously
and are resistant to change (Demorest, 1995). In addition, they aid cognitive processing
in social situations, influencing attention, organization, interpretation, and recall of situ-
ational information (Baldwin, 1992; Zadney & Gerard, 1974).
Part of the reason that victims of sexual assault do not acknowledge their experience
as rape may be because their rape experience does not match their rape script. Studies of
individuals’ rape scripts support that individuals’ scripts for rape often involve high levels
of force by the assailant, clear resistance by the victim, and a nonintimate relationship
between the victim and assailant (Krahé, 1991; Littleton & Axsom, 2003; Littleton, Radecki
Breitkopf, & Berenson, 2006; Ryan, 1988). In contrast, the rapes of unacknowledged
victims often occur in the context of a romantic relationship, do not involve high levels
of force by the assailant, and the victim often does not engage in clear resistance behav-
iors (Bondurant, 2001; Botta & Pingree, 1997; Frazier & Seales, 1997; Kahn, Jackson,
Kully, Badger, & Halvorsen, 2003; Kahn et al., 1994; Koss, 1985; Koss, Dinero, Seibel,
& Cox, 1988; Layman, Gidycz, & Lynn, 1996). In addition, unacknowledged victims, as
compared to acknowledged victims, appear to be more likely to hold a “stereotypical” rape
script—that is, a rape involving a highly violent stranger attack (Bondurant, 2001; Kahn
et al., 1994).
In addition, the scripts that many hold for normal sexual interactions can potentially
lead to confusion among victims regarding whether their experience represents something
“going badly” during a normal sexual interaction, rather than a victimization (Phillips,
2000). For example, part of many individuals’ sexual script is that women should not
initiate sexual activity or appear overtly sexual. As a result, men may regard women’s
resistance to sexual overtures as token, or not genuine (Frith & Kitzinger, 2001; Metts
& Spitzberg, 1996; Muehlenhard, Andrews, & Beal, 1996) and so ignore their sexual
refusals (Byers & Lewis, 1988; Byers & Wilson, 1985; Muehlenhard et al., 1996; Quinn,
Sanchez-Hucles, Coates, & Gillen, 1991). Also, because of these script-based beliefs, men
are often highly attuned to potential sexual cues from women and regard indirect behaviors
(e.g., drinking alcohol, going to a man’s apartment, kissing) as indicative of interest in sex
(Abbey, 1982; Frith & Kitzinger, 2001; Jenkins & Dambrot, 1987; Kowalski, 1993; Metts
& Spitzberg, 1996). Thus, many unacknowledged victims may believe that their genuine
resistance to sex was interpreted as token, or that their behaviors were misinterpreted as
indicating sexual interest.
Much of the research regarding rape acknowledgment has focused on these scripts
and how they affect a woman’s label for her experience of unwanted sex. However, the
implications of victims’ label for their experiences of unwanted sex for their post-assault
behaviors have not been investigated. It seems logical that women who believe that they
have been victimized will act in a manner consistent with that conceptualization. It also
seems likely that individuals’ scripts may contain information about how traumatic expe-
riences, such as rape, affect people and how individuals should behave after a traumatic
event (Yates, Axsom, & Tiedeman, 1999). In addition, the act of labeling one’s experience
Rape Acknowledgment 763

as a rape or victimization potentially has implications for how that experience affects
the victim. Some areas where victims’ acknowledgment status could affect post-assault
behaviors include coping strategies, disclosure of the rape, how others react to victims’
disclosure, and victims’ worldview.

COPING

One key area where victims’ acknowledgment status may affect post-assault behaviors is
their coping strategies. It would be expected that a woman who conceptualizes her experi-
ence of unwanted sex as a rape or victimization would regard it as a more serious stressor
than a victim who does not. Indeed, most individuals regard rape as a serious stressor with
a persisting emotional impact (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Barnett, Tetreault, & Masbad,
1987; Buddie & Miller, 2001; Krahé, 1991; Krulewitz, 1982; Littleton et al., 2006; Proctor
Gerdes, Dammann, & Heilig, 1988; Schneider, Ee, & Aronson, 1994). Therefore, because
the amount of coping resources allocated to a stressor is dependent on the individual’s
severity appraisal (Folkman, 1992; Snyder & Pulvers, 2001), it would be expected that
acknowledged victims would engage in more extensive coping effort in managing the
assault experience. Unfortunately, no studies have compared the coping strategies of
unacknowledged and acknowledged victims.

DISCLOSURE AND NEGATIVE SOCIAL REACTIONS

Telling others about the rape also is often a component of individuals’ rape scripts and
may be a way for victims to gain assistance after the assault (Dunn, Vail-Smith, & Knight,
1999; Littleton & Axsom, 2003). Further, seeking support from others is often regarded
as necessary to recover from the trauma of rape (Dunn et al., 1999). Indeed, Botta and
Pingree (1997) found that acknowledged victims were significantly more likely to have
disclosed the assault than unacknowledged victims. Similarly, Layman and colleagues
(1996) found that over 90% of acknowledged victims had disclosed the rape, compared
to 73% of unacknowledged victims, although this difference was not significant likely
because of small sample size. Given this, it would be expected that acknowledged victims
would be more likely to disclose the assault than unacknowledged victims and would tell
more people as well.
Unfortunately, while acknowledged victims may be more likely to disclose the assault,
they also may be more likely to receive negative reactions from others because they are
likely to describe their experience of unwanted sex to others as a rape or victimization
(Dunn et al., 1999; Ullman, 2000). These negative reactions include being blamed for the
rape, being stigmatized, and having the other person attempt to make decisions for the
victim or become very angry or upset (Ullman, 2000). Acknowledged victims may be more
likely to receive negative reactions because hearing about another’s victimization threatens
individuals’ belief in a just world (i.e., belief in a world where individuals get what they
deserve; Crome & McCabe, 2001; Lerner, 1980). In response, individuals to whom victims
disclose may respond by attempting to convince the victim and themselves that the rape
was deserved to maintain this belief (i.e., through blaming or stigmatizing the victim). In
addition, learning that someone experienced a sexual victimization or hearing the details
of a victim’s account of this experience may elicit strong emotional responses (Dunn et al.,
764 Littleton et al.

1999), making it more likely that the individual responds in an egocentric manner—that is,
by becoming very upset and angry, as opposed to focusing on the victim’s emotional needs
(Ahrens & Campbell, 2000). Finally, if the victim’s experience is not consistent with the
rape script of the person to whom she discloses, he or she may respond by minimizing the
severity of the victim’s experience. However, no extant studies have examined the relation-
ship between acknowledgment status and receipt of negative reactions.

WORLDVIEW

Another potential consequence of conceptualizing an experience of unwanted sex as a rape or

victimization is alteration in aspects of one’s worldview. Specifically, there are three aspects
of individuals’ worldview that have been shown to be threatened by trauma: belief that the
world is benign; belief in a meaningful and just world; and belief that the self is worthy
(Aldwin, 1994; Roth & Newman, 1991). Conceptualizing the assault as a rape or victimiza-
tion could heighten the threat to the victim’s worldview in several ways. For example, being
violated by another person represents a clear threat to one’s belief in a benevolent and just
world. In addition, given the continued infrequency of rape reporting and convictions, it is
highly unlikely that the victim’s assailant would be formally punished for his actions, further
threatening the victim’s belief in a just world (Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005; Filipas & Ullman,
2001; Horney & Spohn, 1991). Finally, many individuals’ rape scripts include the belief that
victims of rape are vulnerable or weak (Buddie & Miller, 2001; Littleton & Axsom, 2003);
thus, identifying oneself as a rape victim represents a potential threat to the victim’s belief in
her own worth. However, no empirical work has evaluated these relationships.

GOALS OF THE CURRENT INVESTIGATION

Given the potential impact of the victim’s label for and conceptualization of her experi-
ence of unwanted sex on post-assault behaviors and experiences, the current study sought
to examine the coping strategies, disclosure behaviors, reactions received from others, and
worldview of acknowledged and unacknowledged victims. This investigation represents the
first study to comprehensively empirically evaluate the relationship between acknowledg-
ment status and victims’ post-assault experiences. It was hypothesized that acknowledged
victims would engage in more extensive coping, disclose the assault to more people, and
report weaker beliefs in several aspects of worldview than unacknowledged victims. Further,
it was hypothesized that, as acknowledged victims would likely describe the assault as a rape
or some other type of sexual victimization to others, they would elicit more negative reac-
tions than unacknowledged victims. Finally, it was hypothesized that differences between
unacknowledged and acknowledged victims would persist after controlling for differences in
the circumstances of their assaults and psychological distress between these two groups.

METHOD

Participants
A total of 1,253 women recruited from the psychology department participant pool at a
large southeastern university participated for course credit during the spring 2002, summer
Rape Acknowledgment 765

2002, fall 2002, and spring 2003 semesters. Of these women, 256 (20%) endorsed having,
since the age of 14, an experience of forced, unwanted sex or sex that occurred while they
were incapacitated. Thus, the final sample consisted of these 256 women. Demographic
data were not obtained.1

Procedure
A Web-based procedure was chosen for several reasons. First, prior research suggests that
individuals are less likely to respond in socially desirable ways in online surveys (Booth-
Kewley, Edwards, & Rosenfeld, 1992; Kiesler & Sproull, 1986). Second, use of a Web survey
facilitated obtaining sufficient numbers of rape victims. Third, due to several university
policies in place (e.g., required computer ownership for students, free or discounted Internet
access offered to students), selection bias due to participants not having access to the Internet
was less of a concern. Finally, use of an online study reduced missing data by prompting
participants who did not complete items on any of the measures. Pilot testing with 18 under-
graduate students found that they were comfortable completing the measures online.
Women were recruited using posted fliers and an announcement on the psychol-
ogy department Web site. Posted information stated that participants would be asked to
complete a confidential survey about their beliefs, psychological functioning, and sexual
history. Participants were excluded if they were male or under 18 years of age and could
not obtain parental consent to participate. To receive course credit, participants provided
their student identification number. This identification number was encrypted and was
removed from the data files before responses were downloaded. This procedure prevented
duplicate participation as women who entered a student identification number already in
the system were denied access.
Potential participants were given a brief description of the study and information about
counseling resources available on campus and were asked to provide their electronic
consent. Behaviorally specific screening questions were used to determine whether partici-
pants had been raped or had experienced attempted rape; the responses of attempted rape
victims were not examined in the current study. Participants who answered affirmatively
to any of these items were asked several questions, derived from a study by Layman and
colleagues (1996), about the “experience with unwanted sexual contact” they regarded as
the most serious of the ones they endorsed. Victims were also given six potential labels for
the assault: rape, attempted rape, some other type of crime, miscommunication, seduction,
and not sure. Those who did not label the assault as a victimization (i.e., rape, attempted
rape, or another crime) were considered unacknowledged. In addition, victims completed
several measures of post-assault behaviors and psychological distress, including measures
assessing coping strategies, negative reactions received from others, worldview, and
psychological symptoms. Women who did not endorse a rape or attempted rape experi-
ence completed measures of their psychological symptoms and worldview. The study was
approved by the institutional review board and followed the guidelines for ensuring the
confidentiality of online data outlined by Reips (2002).

Measures
Victimization Items. Four behaviorally specific screening items to assess experiences
of rape since the age of 14 were derived from the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss &
Gidycz, 1985). The items were developed to be consistent with the definitions of rape
and sexual assault in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The items assessed experiences of
766 Littleton et al.

unwanted sex (vaginal, oral, anal intercourse, or object penetration) obtained by force or
the threat of force or that occurred when the victim was incapacitated or unconscious.
Assault Characteristics Questionnaire. Victims were provided with a questionnaire
regarding the circumstances of their experience of unwanted sex (or the one they regarded
as most serious, if they had multiple experiences). This questionnaire was based on one
developed by Layman and colleagues (1996). Several assault characteristic variables were
coded based on victims’ responses. Three force variables were constructed regarding
the types of force victims endorsed that the assailant used from a list provided: verbal
threats, less severe physical force (using his superior body weight, twisting your arm or
holding you down), and severe physical force (hitting or slapping you, choking or beating
you, showing or using a weapon). Three resistance variables were constructed regarding
the types of resistance strategies victims endorsed that they used during the experience:
nonverbal resistance (turned cold, cried), verbal resistance (reasoned or pleaded with him,
screamed for help), and physical resistance (ran away, physically struggled).
Victims were also asked to indicate their relationship with the assailant at the time
of the experience of unwanted sex. The relationship was then coded as romantic (dating
casually, steady date, romantic partner) or nonromantic (stranger, just met, acquaintance,
friend, relative). The victim was asked to estimate the number of drinks both she and the
assailant had consumed prior to the assault as well. Two variables were created to reflect
heavy drinking by the victim and the assailant. For both variables, heavy drinking was
defined as consuming four or more drinks prior to the experience. In addition, victims
were asked to indicate whether they had experienced multiple experiences of unwanted sex
by the same man as the index experience and if they had experienced unwanted sex with
another man or men. Victims were then coded into two dichotomous categories of multiple
or single victimization by index assailant and victimization or no victimization by other
assailants. Finally, victims were asked to indicate how long ago the assault occurred from
several options provided (less than 6 months ago, between 6 months and 1 year ago, 1 to 2
years ago, 2 to 3 years ago, or more than 3 years ago). Two dummy coded variables were
created for time since the assault occurred: the first with assaults that occurred within the
past year as the reference group and the second with assaults that occurred within the past
two years as the reference group.
Coping Strategies Inventory. The Coping Strategies Inventory (Tobin, Holroyd,
Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989) was designed to assess two main types of coping: engage-
ment and disengagement, which are synonymous with approach and avoidance coping. A
sample Engagement (approach) Coping item is, “I let out my feelings to reduce stress.”
A sample Disengagement (avoidance) Coping item is, “I wished the situation would go
away or somehow be over with.” For each item, individuals rated how often they used the
described strategy in coping with the experience of unwanted sex identified on a five-point
Likert scale anchored by 1 (not at all) and 5 (very much). Alpha coefficients for the sub-
scales have ranged from .71 to .94, and two-week test-retest reliabilities have ranged from
.67 to .83 (Tobin, 1984). In the current research, the alpha coefficient was .93 for the
Engagement Coping scale and .92 for the Disengagement Coping scale.
Social Reactions Questionnaire. The Social Reactions Questionnaire (SRQ; Ullman,
2000), was designed to assess common positive and negative social reactions received by
sexual assault victims upon disclosure. Because the focus of the investigation was differ-
ences in receipt of negative reactions upon disclosure, only the negative reaction scales
were administered. For each item, individuals rated how often they received the described
response on a five-point Likert scale anchored by 0 (never) and 4 (always). Alphas for the
Rape Acknowledgment 767

seven subscales of the measure have ranged from .77 to .93, and eight-week test-retest reli-
abilities have ranged from .64 to .81. Scores on the measure also have been associated with
greater post-traumatic stress symptom severity among rape victims (Ullman & Filipas,
2001). In the current study, the alpha of the subscales of the SRQ ranged from .73 to .87.
World Assumptions Scale. The World Assumptions Scale (Janoff-Bulman, 1989) was
designed to assess adherence to several commonly held assumptions that are theorized to
be affected by the experience of trauma (e.g., self-worth, benevolence of the world). For
each item, individuals rated how much they agreed or disagreed with the statement on
a six-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 6 (strongly agree). Alpha
reliabilities of the subscales have ranged from .67 to .78. In addition, several subscale
scores differentiated college students who had experienced a traumatic event from those
who had not (Janoff-Bulman, 1989).
A principal axis factor analysis using an oblique rotation was previously conducted on
the measure in response to low internal consistency estimates obtained for a number of
the subscales (i.e., alpha less than .60; Littleton & Radecki Breitkopf, 2006). Results of
this analysis yielded four interpretable factors that explained 45% of the variance. Three
of these factors were examined in the current investigation: Benevolence Beliefs (human
nature is basically good), Belief in a Just World (people’s misfortunes result from mis-
takes they have made), and Self-Worth (I am very satisfied with the kind of person I am).
Adherence to these three beliefs were hypothesized to differ between unacknowledged
and acknowledged victims. The fourth factor, Belief in Chance, was not included in the
current analysis because adherence to this belief was not hypothesized to differ between
unacknowledged and acknowledged victims. The Benevolence Beliefs scale consisted of
items from the Benevolence of People and Benevolence of the World subscales of the
original measure, the Self-Worth subscale was identical to the Self-Worth subscale of
the original measure, and the Belief in a Just World subscale consisted of items from the
Justice and Control subscales of the original measure. Alpha coefficients for these three
subscales ranged from .77 to .88.
PTSD Symptom Scale. The PTSD Symptom Scale (PSS; Foa, Riggs, Dancu, &
Rothbaum, 1993) is a brief measure designed to assess the presence of symptoms of post-
traumatic stress (PTS). The measure contains three subscales assessing the three types of
symptoms of PTSD: re-experiencing, avoidance, and arousal. A sample item is, “Having
upsetting thoughts or images about the event that came into your head when you didn’t
want them to.” For each item, individuals rated how often they have had the described
symptom in the past week on a four-point Likert scale anchored by 0 (not at all or only
one time) and 3 (five or more times per week or almost always). For the current study,
participants rated how often in the past week they had the described symptoms in connec-
tion to the most stressful negative event they had ever experienced. They were also asked
to describe the event they were thinking about when completing the measure. Forty-eight
percent of victims reported that they completed this measure with regard to an unwanted
sexual experience, 22% with regard to another type of potentially traumatic experience
(e.g., witnessing or being involved in a serious car accident, sudden unexpected death of
a loved one), 24% with regard to a nontraumatic experience (e.g., end of a relationship,
exams), and 5% could not think of an event or left this item blank.
Cronbach’s alpha for the whole scale has been reported to be .91. The PSS was found
to have a sensitivity of 62% and specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of PTSD when
compared with a structured clinical interview (Foa et al., 1993). In the current study, the
overall alpha of the PSS was .90.
768 Littleton et al.

Personal Disturbance Scale. The Personal Disturbance Scale (PDS), developed by

Bedford, Foulds, and Sheffield (1976), was designed to assess symptoms of psychological
distress. The measure is a brief self-report measure of anxious and depressive symptoms. A
sample item is, “Recently I have been so miserable I have had difficulty with my sleep.” For
each item, individuals rated how much they have been bothered by the described problem
in the past month on a four-point Likert scale anchored by 0 (not at all) and 3 (unbearably).
The alpha coefficient of the PDS has been reported to be .85, and factor analyses have
supported its factor structure (Bedford & Deary, 1997; Bedford, Grant, de Pauw, & Deary,
1999). Additionally, the PDS has been found to predict such diverse outcomes as use of ser-
vices among the elderly, development of postpartum depression, and pathological gambling
(Bedford & Deary, 1997). In the current study, the alpha coefficient was .93.

Analysis Plan
Pearson chi-square tests were conducted comparing the proportion of assaults of
unacknowledged and acknowledged victims that contained specific characteristics (e.g.,
use of less violent force by the assailant, a romantic relationship between the victim and
perpetrator). T tests were also conducted comparing unacknowledged and acknowledged
victims’ levels of general distress and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Analyses of
covariance (ANCOVAs) were then conducted comparing unacknowledged and acknowl-
edged victims’ scores on the post-assault behaviors and experiences measures (coping,
number of individuals disclosed to, negative social reactions, worldview) with the assault
and distress variables that differed significantly between acknowledged and unacknowl-
edged victims entered as covariates. Prior to conducting each ANCOVA, analyses were
conducted to test for homogeneity of regression coefficients for each potential covari-
ate (Pedhauzer, 1997). If the result of an analysis suggested that there was evidence for
heterogeneity of regression coefficients (p < .20), that particular variable was not entered as
a covariate (Pedhauzer, 1997). Use of ANCOVA allowed us to compare unacknowledged
and acknowledged victims on post-assault behaviors and experiences while statistically
controlling for differences between these groups of victims in assault characteristics and
psychological distress (Pedhauzer, 1997). Thus, the relationship between acknowledgment
status per se and post-assault experiences could be examined more clearly.

RESULTS

Assault Circumstances and Distress

Forty percent of victims (n = 101) acknowledged that they had been victimized, whereas
60% did not (n = 155). Forty-five percent of unacknowledged victims labeled the assault
a miscommunication, 11% labeled it a seduction, and 45% were not sure. Sixty percent of
acknowledged victims labeled the assault a rape, 20% an attempted rape, and 20% as some
other type of crime. Unacknowledged rapes, as compared to acknowledged rapes, differed
to a greater extent from societal rape scripts. The assaults of unacknowledged victims were
less likely to involve physical force by the assailant as well as resistance by the victim (see
Table 1). Additionally, unacknowledged victims were more likely to have engaged in heavy
drinking prior to the assault and were more likely to report that their assailants were drinking
heavily. Unacknowledged assaults were also more recent, being significantly more likely
to have occurred in the past year than acknowledged assaults. Unacknowledged victims
Rape Acknowledgment 769

TABLE 1. Characteristics of the Assaults of Acknowledged and Unacknowledged

Victims
Acknowledged Unacknowledged χ2
Force by assailant
Verbal threats 24% 15% 3.25
Less severe physical force 84% 59% 17.6***
Severe physical force 10% 5% 2.9
Resistance by victim
Verbal 64% 36% 20.5***
Nonverbal 64% 49% 5.8*
Physical 56% 32% 15.5***
Heavy drinking by victim 51% 72% 11.7***
Heavy drinking by assailant 40% 67% 18.8***
Romantic relationship 28% 30% 0.7
with assailant
Time since assault
Less than 1 year 26% 48% 13.1***
1 to 2 years 44% 43% 1.0
Multiple victimizations 13% 13% 1.0
by assailant
Victimization(s) by 28% 17% 4.4*
other assailants
*p < .05. ***p < .005.

were not more likely to have experienced multiple victimizations by the same assailant as
the index assault but were significantly less likely to have experienced victimization by
another assailant or assailants. However, unacknowledged victims were not more likely to
be romantically involved with their assailant at the time of the assault, with less than a third
of all victims reporting a romantic relationship with the assailant.
Both unacknowledged and acknowledged victims reported moderately severe levels of
distress, with 25% of victims reporting symptoms of depression above the clinical cut-off
and 36% reporting symptoms of anxiety above the clinical cut-off (Bedford & Deary,
1997). Additionally, 25% of victims reported the requisite number of PTS symptoms on
the PSS to meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD and reported that these symptoms were in
connection to a potentially PTSD qualifying event (American Psychiatric Association,
1994). ANOVAs of victims’ total scores on these measures revealed that acknowledged
victims reported significantly more PTS symptoms, F (1, 254) = 8.9, p < .01, but not more
symptoms of general psychological distress, F (1, 254) = 3.4, p < .10 (see Table 2).

TABLE 2. Summary Scores on Psychological Distress Measures of Unacknowledged

and Acknowledged Victims
Acknowledged Unacknowledged Possible Effect
M (SD) M (SD) Range Size (d)
Psychological distress (PDS) 10.9 (9.0) 8.8 (8.8) 0–42 .23
Posttraumatic symptoms (PSS) 14.4 (11.6) 10.7 (8.6) 0–47 .38***
***p < .005.
770 Littleton et al.

Based on the above analyses, the following variables were entered as covariates in the
ANCOVAS examining differences in the post-assault experiences of unacknowledged and
acknowledged victims: use of less severe physical force by the assailant, use of all resis-
tance strategies by the victim (verbal, nonverbal, physical), heavy drinking by the victim
and assailant, time since assault occurred, victimization by other assailants, and level of
PTS symptoms.2

Coping
Victims reported engaging in fairly extensive coping efforts in managing the assault and,
on average, reported moderately frequent use of both avoidance and approach strategies.
The ANCOVA comparing unacknowledged and acknowledged victims’ use of avoidance
coping was significant, with acknowledged victims reporting more extensive reliance
on avoidance strategies (see Table 3). The ANCOVA comparing unacknowledged and
acknowledged victims’ use of approach strategies was not significant.

Disclosure and Receipt of Negative Social Reactions

The vast majority of victims in this study (80% of unacknowledged, 91% of acknowl-
edged) had disclosed information about their unwanted sexual experience, although
acknowledged victims were significantly more likely to have done so, χ2 (1) = 5.7, p <
.05. The ANCOVA comparing the number of individuals to whom acknowledged and
unacknowledged victims had disclosed among the subset of victims who had disclosed to
anyone was significant, with acknowledged victims having disclosed to more individuals
overall (see Table 3). Both groups of victims who had disclosed rarely reported receiving
negative reactions. The ANCOVA comparing the frequency with which victims received
egocentric reactions was significant, with acknowledged victims reporting receiving these
responses more frequently. None of the ANCOVAs comparing the frequency with which
victims received other negative reactions were significant (see Table 3).

Worldview
Victims reported a somewhat negative worldview, tending to disagree or only slightly
agree with statements regarding the world’s benevolence, the possibility of justice, and
their self-worth. The ANCOVA comparing unacknowledged and acknowledged victims’
adherence to belief in a just world was significant, with acknowledged victims reporting
greater adherence to belief in a just world. The ANCOVAs comparing unacknowledged
and acknowledged victims’ benevolence beliefs and belief in their own worth were not
significant (see Table 3).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that how a victim conceptualizes her experience of
unwanted sex could potentially affect post-assault behaviors and experiences. Women who
labeled their unwanted sexual experience as a rape or victimization differed from those
who did not in several ways, even after statistically controlling for differences between
unacknowledged and acknowledged victims in assault circumstances, number of vic-
timizations, and post-traumatic symptoms. These differences included coping behaviors,
disclosure, reactions received from others upon disclosure, and worldview.
TABLE 3. Results of ANCOVAs Assessing Differences in Postassault Experiences of Unacknowledged and Acknowledged Victims,
Rape Acknowledgment

Controlling for Assault Characteristics, Multiple Victimizations, and Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms

Unacknowledgeda Acknowledgeda Possible Range F p

Coping
Avoidance coping 105.1 112.3 36–180 4.4 .036
Approach coping 88.6 91.4 36–180 1.9 .174
Number disclosed tob 3.4 5.3 1–30 8.7 .004
Negative social reactions
Egocentric 3.7 6.5 0–16 16.1 .000
Victim blame 2.2 2.5 0–12 0.1 .754
Treat differently 2.5 4.2 0–24 1.3 .261
Distraction 5.3 6.0 0–24 0.5 .493
Take control 4.1 6.2 0–28 3.5 .064
Worldview
Belief in a just world 17.7 19.0 5–30 6.0 .015
Benevolence beliefs 41.2 40.6 10–60 0.3 .562
Self-worth 16.5 17.0 4–24 1.2 .281
aAdjusted mean scores.
b Three women who reported disclosing to more than 30 people were removed from the analysis.
771
772 Littleton et al.

Being an acknowledged victim was associated with greater use of avoidance, but not
greater reliance on approach coping strategies. Snyder and Pulvers (2001) theorize that
individuals rely more heavily on avoidance coping strategies (e.g., suppressing thoughts
or emotions about the stressor, fantasizing) when aspects of a stressor are perceived as
overwhelming the individuals’ coping resources. Given the commonly held belief that
rape is a highly distressing event (e.g., Buddie & Miller, 2001; Littleton & Axsom, 2003;
Littleton et al., 2006), it seems likely that many acknowledged victims may have regarded
the rape as an overwhelming stressor and turned to avoidance strategies. Additionally,
certain avoidance strategies may be part of women’s rape scripts. Indeed, Littleton and
Axsom (2003) and Littleton and colleagues (2006) found that denial and concealing of the
rape were often components of individuals’ rape scripts.
Being an acknowledged victim also was associated with an increased likelihood of
receiving egocentric reactions, suggesting that victims who describe their experience of
unwanted sex as a victimization may have to provide support to individuals to whom
they disclose rather than receiving support. However, inconsistent with the hypothesis
that acknowledged victims would receive more blaming and stigmatizing responses
because disclosure of their experience of unwanted sex threatens others’ beliefs in a
just world, there were no differences in the frequency with which unacknowledged
and acknowledged victims received these responses. Indeed, these responses were
very rarely reported. One possible explanation for this finding is that individuals have
increasingly come to reject many stereotypes about rape and rape victims, such as the
belief that victims are to blame for the rape (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Buddie &
Miller, 2001; Hinck & Thomas, 1999). As a result, individuals may use other strate-
gies to maintain their belief in a just world, such as attempting to enact revenge on the
assailant, spreading rumors about him, or excluding him from their social circle. This
may also potentially explain why egocentric reactions, which include expressing anger
at the assailant and desiring to enact revenge on him, were by far the most frequently
received negative reaction.
Inconsistent with our hypotheses, being an acknowledged victim was associated with
greater belief in a just world. This finding is difficult to interpret, but one possibility
is that because experiencing sexual victimization is such a strong threat to one’s belief
in a just world, acknowledged victims may have engaged in more strategies to main-
tain or restore their just world beliefs, such as attempting to impose social sanctions
against the assailant (e.g., rumors, social ostracism) or by making a report to the police.
Alternatively, acknowledged victims may have received more supportive and helpful
reactions from others than unacknowledged victims, which could serve to restore victims’
beliefs. However, because these behaviors were not evaluated in the current study, it is not
possible to ascertain whether acknowledged victims were more likely to have engaged in
these behaviors or received these responses. In addition, although it was predicted that
individuals’ beliefs about rape (e.g., it is a serious trauma that has a persisting effect on
the victim) and rape victims (e.g., that they are vulnerable, weak) would heighten the
threat to acknowledged victims’ beliefs in the benevolence of the world and their own
worth, being an acknowledged victim was not associated with less adherence to these
beliefs. This last finding could in part reflect changes in acceptance of these beliefs about
rape victims (Buddie & Miller, 2001; Hinck & Thomas, 1999). In addition, as previously
stated, acknowledged victims also may have received more supportive responses from
others than unacknowledged victims, which could have helped to restore these beliefs
among acknowledged victims.
Rape Acknowledgment 773

The results of this study also suggest that as victims’ post-assault experiences appear
to be influenced in part by their conceptualization of the assault, it is also possible that
victims’ conceptualization of the assault can be influenced by experiences after the assault.
As in the current study, it has been found that the assaults of acknowledged victims tend to
be less recent (e.g., Botta & Pingree, 1997), suggesting that some victims who are initially
unacknowledged may later acknowledge the rape. One factor that may affect victims’
acknowledgment status could be reactions received from others, including being told by
others that she was raped. If the victim experiences severe or continued distress following
the assault or finds herself relying heavily on avoidance coping strategies, this could also
prompt a change in her conceptualization of the assault.
The results of this study also replicated many of the findings regarding the preva-
lence of unacknowledged rape and differences in the types of assaults experienced by
unacknowledged and acknowledged rape victims. For example, similar to prior studies
of college rape victims, a majority of the victims in this study did not acknowledge that
they had been victimized. In addition, as in prior studies, the assaults of unacknowledged
victims, as compared to acknowledged victims, were less violent and were more likely to
involve heavy drinking by the victim and her assailant. However, some key differences
emerged between the current sample and some earlier investigations. For one, there were
no differences between acknowledged and unacknowledged victims with regard to the
percentage of victims who reported a romantic relationship with the assailant at the time of
the rape, with less than a third of victims reporting that they were in some type of dating or
romantic relationship with him. In contrast, some earlier studies found that a sizable por-
tion of unacknowledged victims were romantically involved with their assailant at the time
of the rape (e.g., Frazier & Seales, 1997; Koss, 1985; Koss et al., 1988). However, it should
be noted that two other recent studies have similarly found no differences in the proportion
of acknowledged and unacknowledged victims who were romantically involved with their
assailant (Bondurant, 2001; Fisher et al., 2003). This could represent a shift in college
students’ dating practices, whereby casual encounters or “hook-ups” at parties or in other
social settings have become normative (Paul & Hayes, 2002; Paul, McManus, & Hayes,
2000; Regan & Dreyer, 1999; Weaver & Herold, 2000).
In addition, a much larger percentage of rape victims in this study had disclosed
the assault than has been found in some previous investigations (Koss, 1985; Koss et
al., 1988). This may be in part due to reduced concerns among victims about receiving
blaming or stigmatizing responses from others because of changing attitudes (i.e., greater
acceptance) toward women who experience rape or who engage in casual sexual encoun-
ters, particularly among college students who were likely a frequent target of disclosure
in this college sample (Buddie & Miller, 2001; Hinck & Thomas, 1999; Paul & Hayes,
2002; Weaver & Herold, 2000). Indeed, consistent with some prior research (e.g., Ahrens
& Campbell, 2000; Ullman & Filipas, 2001), victims rarely reported receiving blaming
or stigmatizing responses when they disclosed. Additionally, because the women in the
current sample generally were not romantically involved with the assailant, they were
likely not highly invested in having a relationship with him and he may not have been part
of their social circle. As a result, victims may have been less concerned about damaging
the reputation of the assailant by disclosing or not being supported because the person to
whom she disclosed was a friend of the assailant.
Despite the existence of clear differences between unacknowledged and acknowledged
victims, similar to prior studies (e.g., Frazier & Seales, 1997; Harned, 2004), the current
study supports that, regardless of how the victim characterizes the assault, experiencing
774 Littleton et al.

unwanted, forced sex is often a highly distressing experience with persistent negative
effects. Both unacknowledged and acknowledged victims reported elevated psychological
distress, damage to their worldview, and engaging in extensive coping efforts. In addition,
both unacknowledged and acknowledged victims experienced more distress and more
damage to their worldview than women who had not been raped (Littleton, 2004). Finally,
our data suggest that acknowledging or not acknowledging a rape can have both positive
and negative implications for a victim’s recovery, defined as integrating the traumatic
experience into one’s life in an adaptive manner, including the meaning of the trauma,
one’s memory of the trauma, and the emotions associated with it (Bernsten, Willert, &
Rubin, 2003; Park & Blumberg, 2002; Tuval-Mashiach et al., 2004). For example, while
acknowledged victims reported seeking more social support, they also reported engag-
ing in more maladaptive avoidance coping and receiving more egocentric reactions from
others when they disclosed.
Limitations of this study should be considered. First, use of a Web-based survey in
this area is relatively untested and could be associated with under-reporting. However,
the high levels of distress reported by participants as well as the number of women who
endorsed a rape experience suggest that under-reporting was unlikely. Another potential
risk associated with use of a Web-based survey is high levels of attrition, as participants
could easily withdraw by closing the Web page. However, the electronic consent form
stated that participants could contact the first author to receive course credit if they did not
wish to complete the study and no participant did so. Further, because the study involved
young adult, primarily White university women, it is unclear whether these results would
generalize to other populations of rape victims. In addition, while ANCOVA was used to
control for differences between acknowledged and unacknowledged victims, the use of
statistical control is not a substitute for comparing equivalent groups. Thus, it is impos-
sible to completely tease apart the extent to which differences in post-assault behaviors and
experiences among unacknowledged and acknowledged victims are due to their concep-
tualization of their assault experience as opposed to differences in their levels of distress
and assault characteristics or other uncontrolled factors. Finally, the cross-sectional design
limits the confidence with which causal inferences can be drawn.
It should also be noted that the current study used a somewhat broader definition of
acknowledged rape than in some prior research. A number of previous studies have labeled
victims who conceptualize their experience of unwanted sex as rape as acknowledged
victims, whereas in the current study victims who considered their experience of unwanted
sex to be a crime were classified as acknowledged. This classification scheme was chosen
for two reasons. First, whether an individual who experiences unwanted, forced sex con-
siders this event to be a victimization is likely more important in guiding her behavior
after the assault than if she specifically labels the experience as a rape. Second, the legal
definition of rape varies from state to state, but nearly all states define the experiences
assessed in the current study as some type of crime—for example, aggravated sodomy,
sexual battery (Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005; Horney & Spohn, 1991).
The results of this study provide several directions for future research. For example,
studies of rape victims should include both unacknowledged and acknowledged victims,
because the experience of sexual assault is often a highly distressing experience, regardless
of how the victim herself conceptualizes it. Longitudinal research examining acknowledg-
ment status and what factors influence changes in acknowledged status over time is also
an important area for inquiry. Additionally, research should focus on how the experience of
rape and the victim’s conceptualization of this experience are affected by scripts regarding
Rape Acknowledgment 775

rape and victimization as well as normative sexual interactions and, conversely, how expe-
riencing sexual victimization affects these scripts. Research in these areas will help lead to
the development of a more comprehensive understanding of victims’ conceptualizations of
their experiences of sexual assault, the post-assault behaviors and experiences of victims,
and ultimately recovery following sexual assault.

NOTES

1. All participants during two semesters participated in another study that obtained demographic
information. Eighty-three percent of participants characterized their ethnicity as White, 6% as
African American, 6% as Asian American, and 4% as another ethnic group. Ninety-four percent of
participants were between 18 and 22 years of age (Chelf, 2004).
2. These analyses were repeated using a more restrictive definition of rape acknowledgment
(victims who labeled their experience as rape). The overall pattern of results was identical to the
analyses using a less restrictive definition of rape acknowledgment.

REFERENCES

Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive
females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830–838.
Ahrens, C. E., & Campbell, R. (2000). Assisting rape victims as they recover from rape: The impact
on friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 959–986.
Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York:
Guilford Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
Barnett, M. A., Tetreault, P. A., & Masbad, I. (1987). Empathy with a rape victim: The role of simi-
larity of experience. Violence and Victims, 2, 255–262.
Bedford, A., & Deary, I. J. (1997). The Personal Disturbance Scale (DSSI/sAD): Development, use
and structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 493–510.
Bedford, A., Foulds, G. A., & Sheffield, B. F. (1976). A new Personal Disturbance Scale (DSSI/
sAD). British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 387–394.
Bedford, A., Grant, E., dePauw, K., & Deary, I. J. (1999). The Personal Disturbance Scale (DSSI/
sAD): Structural cross-validation and proposed short forms. Personality and Individual
Differences, 27, 251–261.
Bernsten, D., Willert, M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Splintered memories or vivid landmarks?
Qualities and organization of traumatic memories with and without PTSD. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 17, 675–693.
Bondurant, B. (2001). University women’s acknowledgment of rape: Individual, situational, and
social factors. Violence Against Women, 7, 294–314.
Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability,
and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 562–566.
Botta, R. A., & Pingree, S. (1997). Interpersonal communication and rape: Women acknowledge
their assaults. Journal of Health Communication, 2, 197–212.
Buddie, A. M., & Miller, A. G. (2001). Beyond rape myths: A more complex view of perceptions of
rape victims. Sex Roles, 45, 139–160.
776 Littleton et al.

Byers, E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples’ disagreements over the desired level of sexual
activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 15–29.
Byers, E. S., & Wilson, P. (1985). Accuracy of women’s expectations regarding men’s responses to
refusals of sexual advances in dating situations. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 4,
376–387.
Chelf, C. M. (2004). An intervention model for recruiting rape victims into treatment. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 65, 2B.
Clay-Warner, J., & Burt, C. H. (2005). Rape reporting after reforms: Have times really changed?
Violence Against Women, 11, 150–176.
Crome, S. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Adult rape scripting within a victimological perspective.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 395–413.
Demorest, A. P. (1995). The personal script as a unit of analysis for the study of personality. Journal
of Personality, 63, 569–591.
Dunn, P. C., Vail-Smith, K., & Knight, S. M. (1999). What date/acquaintance rape victims tell others:
A study of college student recipients of disclosure. Journal of American College Health, 47,
213–219.
Filipas, H. H., & Ullman, S. E. (2001). Social reactions to sexual assault victims from various
support sources. Violence and Victims, 16, 673–692.
Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Acknowledging sexual
victimization as rape: Results from a national-level study. Justice Quarterly, 20, 535–574.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Foa, E. B., Riggs, D. S., Dancu, C. V., & Rothbaum, B. O. (1993). Reliability and validity of a
brief instrument for assessing post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6,
459–473.
Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory,
research, and application (pp. 31–46). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Frazier, P. A., & Seales, L. M. (1997). Acquaintance rape is real rape. In M. D. Schwartz (Ed.),
Researching sexual violence against women: Methodological and personal perspectives
(pp. 54–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing a discursive
psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory and Psychology, 11, 209–232.
Harned, M. S. (2004). Does it matter what you call it? The relationship between labeling unwanted
sexual experiences and distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1090–1099.
Hinck, S. S., & Thomas, R. W. (1999). Rape myth acceptance in college students: How far have we
come? Sex Roles, 40, 815–832.
Horney, J., & Spohn, C. (1991). Rape law reform and instrumental change in six urban jurisdictions.
Law and Society Review, 25, 117–153.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the
schema construct. Social Cognition, 7, 113–136.
Jenkins, M. J., & Dambrot, F. H. (1987). The attribution of date rape: Observers’ attitudes and sexual
experiences and the dating situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 875–895.
Kahn, A. S., Jackson, J., Kully, C., Badger, K., & Halvorsen, J. (2003). Calling it rape: Differences
in experiences of women who do or do not label their sexual assault as rape. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 27, 233–242.
Kahn, A. S., Mathie, V. A., & Torgler, C. (1994). Rape scripts and rape acknowledgment. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 18, 53–66.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 50, 402–413.
Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193–212.
Koss, M. P. (1989). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of
students in higher education. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating
relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 145–184). New York: Praeger.
Rape Acknowledgment 777

Koss, M. P., Dinero, T. E., Seibel, C. A., & Cox, S. L. (1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are
there differences in the victim’s experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 1–24.
Koss, M. P., Figueredo, A. J., Bell, I., Tharan, M., & Tromp, S. (1996). Traumatic memory
characteristics: A cross-validated mediational model of response to rape among employed
women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 421–432.
Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423.
Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Inferring sexual interest from behavioral cues: Effects of gender and
sexually relevant attitudes. Sex Roles, 29, 13–36.
Krahé, B. (1991). Police officers’ definitions of rape: A prototype. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 1, 223–244.
Krulewitz, J. E. (1982). Reactions to rape victims: Effects of rape circumstances, victim’s emotional
response, and sex of helper. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 645–654.
Layman, M. J., Gidycz, C. A., & Lynn, S. J. (1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape
victims: Situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105,
124–131.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. New York: Plenum.
Littleton, H. L. (2004). The coping process of the unacknowledged rape victim. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Littleton, H. L., & Axsom, D. (2003). The rape and seduction scripts of university students:
Implications for rape attributions and unacknowledged rape. Sex Roles, 49, 465–475.
Littleton, H. L., & Radecki Breitkopf, C. (2006). Coping with the experience of rape. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 30, 106–116.
Littleton, H. L., Radecki Breitkopf, C., & Berenson, A. B. (2006). Rape scripts of low income
European American and Latina women. Unpublished manuscript.
Metts, S., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-
based approach. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 49–91). New
Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Andrews, S. L., & Beal, G. K. (1996). Beyond “just saying no”: Dealing
with men’s unwanted sexual advances in heterosexual dating contexts. In E. S. Byers & L. F.
O’Sullivan (Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp. 141–168). New York: Haworth
Press.
Park, C. L., & Blumberg, C. J. (2002). Disclosing trauma through writing: Testing the meaning-
making hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 597–616.
Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of casual sex: A qualitative exploration of the
phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
19, 639–661.
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of col-
lege students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37,
76–88.
Pedhauzer, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women’s reflections on sexuality and domination.
New York: New York University Press.
Proctor Gerdes, E., Dammann, E. J., & Heilig, K. E. (1988). Perceptions of rape victims and
assailants: Effects of physical attractiveness, acquaintance, and subject gender. Sex Roles, 19,
141–153.
Quinn, K., Sanchez-Hucles, J., Coates, G., & Gillen, B. (1991). Men’s compliance with a woman’s
resistance to unwanted sexual advances. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17, 13–31.
Regan, P. C., & Dreyer, C. S. (1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults’ motives for engaging in
casual sex. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11, 1–24.
Reips, U.-D. (2002). Internet-based psychological experimenting: Five dos and five don’ts. Social
Science Computer Review, 20, 241–249.
778 Littleton et al.

Roth, S., & Newman, E. (1991). The process of coping with sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 4, 279–297.
Ryan, K. M. (1988). Rape and seduction scripts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 237–245.
Schneider, L. J., Ee, J. S., & Aronson, H. (1994). Effects of victim gender and physical vs.
psychological trauma/injury on observers’ perceptions of sexual assault and its aftereffects. Sex
Roles, 30, 793–808.
Snyder, C. R., & Pulvers, K. M. (2001). Dr. Seuss, the coping machine, and “Oh, the Places You’ll
Go.” In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping with stress: Effective people and processes (pp. 3–29). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Tobin, D. L. (1984). User manual for the Coping Strategies Inventory. Unpublished manuscript.
Tobin, D. L., Holroyd, K. A., Reynolds, R. V., & Wigal, J. K. (1989). The hierarchical factor
structure of the Coping Strategies Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 343–361.
Tuval-Mashiach, R., Freedman, S., Bargai, N., Boker, R., Hadar, H., & Shalev, A. Y. (2004). Coping
with trauma: Narrative and cognitive perspectives. Psychiatry, 67, 280–293.
Ullman, S. E. (2000). Psychometric characteristics of the Social Reactions Questionnaire. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 24, 257–271.
Ullman, S. E., & Filipas, H. H. (2001). Predictors of PTSD symptom severity and social reactions in
sexual assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 369–389.
Weaver, S. J., & Herold, E. S. (2000). Casual sex and women: Measurement and motivational issues.
Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 23–41.
Yates, S., Axsom, D., & Tiedeman, K. (1999). The help seeking process for distress after disasters.
In R. Gist & B. Lubin (Eds.), Response to disaster: Psychosocial, community, and ecological
approaches (pp. 133–165). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Zadney, J., & Gerard, H. B. (1974). Attributed intentions and informational selectivity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 34–52.

Acknowledgments. We would like to acknowledge Fred Anthony Miller, who developed the online
survey. Portions of this work are based on the first author’s doctoral dissertation.

Offprints. Requests for offprints should be directed to Heather L. Littleton, PhD, Department of
Psychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State University, Campus Box 2447, Huntsville, TX
77341-2447. E-mail: hlittleton@yahoo.com