| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
ORIGINAL ARTICLES |
From the Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Brian P. Marx, PhD, Temple University, Department of Psychology, 1701 North 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122. E-mail: bmarx{at}temple.edu
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONNOTESREFERENCES |
|---|
Methods: Acknowledged and unacknowledged victims of sexual assault and nonvictims (n = 97) listened to a hypothetical date rape interaction and were asked to indicate the point at which the man had become sexually inappropriate. Self-report and physiological measures of emotional responding and a measure of risk recognition were used to evaluate both between- and within-subjects’ differences.
Results: Relative to nonvictims and acknowledged victims, unacknowledged victims of sexual assault took significantly longer to recognize risk. Acknowledged victims displayed decreased heart rate activity to a portion of the hypothetical interaction, but self-reported greater arousal in response to the interaction and greater posttraumatic stress arousal symptomatology relative to nonvictims only. Posttraumatic stress symptomatology was related to self-reported emotional reactivity and response latency.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that acknowledged and unacknowledged victims exhibit specific autonomic and behavioral response patterns that may perpetuate the cycle of traumatization.
Key Words: sexual assault • unacknowledged victims • risk recognition • psychophysiology • posttraumatic stress disorder
Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance; BPM = beats per minute; HR = heart rate; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder; PDS = Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale; SCL = skin conductance level; SES = Sexual Experiences Survey; SAM = self-assessment manikin.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONNOTESREFERENCES |
|---|
Research has shown that acknowledged and unacknowledged victims differ in what they consider to be characteristic rape scenarios. Specifically, acknowledged victims believe a typical rape involves individuals who are already familiar with one another and less force, whereas unacknowledged victims typically believe rape involves two strangers and greater force (4). Additionally, acknowledged victims report greater levels of posttraumatic stress symptomatology than unacknowledged victims (5). These findings suggest that how one construes sexual assault may be associated with labeling personal experiences as such and that greater distress is associated with labeling an experience as a sexual assault.
Although acknowledgment of sexual violence has been associated with psychological difficulties, not acknowledging an experience as a sexual assault may also have negative repercussions. For example, if a woman does not recognize an experience as a sexual assault, then she may be prone to not recognize potential threat or danger cues in subsequent situations and, as such, may be at risk for future sexual assaults.
Indeed, investigators have found that the failure to recognize threat may increase risk for sexual revictimization and that women who have been previously victimized are more likely to have deficiencies in risk recognition (6,7). In a study of the psychophysiological correlates of risk recognition (8), results showed that, relative to nonvictims, victims of sexual assault displayed an impaired ability to recognize sexual threat cues and decreases in autonomic reactivity during those portions of the interaction that are most ambiguous and, thus, most relevant to the risk recognition task. In contrast to their attenuated autonomic reactivity, victims of sexual assault rated the vignette as being significantly more unpleasant and arousing than nonvictims. The results of these previous investigations suggest that differences in risk recognition may serve as a mechanism by which the cycle of victimization is perpetuated and that altered physiological responding to relevant threat cues may be related to individuals’ inability to identify and react to sexually threatening situations. Importantly, this investigation did not examine the differences between acknowledged and unacknowledged victims in risk recognition and its psychophysiological correlates.
Thus, the present study examined the differences in risk recognition and its psychophysiological correlates among a sample of acknowledged and unacknowledged sexual assault victims and a comparison group of nonvictims with the same risk detection procedures used in other investigations (6–8). Given that unacknowledged victim scripts are typified by stranger rape scenarios with greater force and that acknowledged victim scripts are typified by acquaintance rape scenarios with less force, we hypothesized that acknowledged victims would display better risk recognition abilities (i.e., detect threat sooner) than both unacknowledged victims and nonvictims in response to a hypothetical date rape scenario. Accordingly, we hypothesized that acknowledged victims would display greater autonomic arousal in response to earlier portions of the hypothetical date rape scenario and self-report higher overall levels of emotional responding relative to unacknowledged victims and nonvictims. We also hypothesized that nonvictims would display better risk recognition abilities and greater corresponding autonomic arousal in response to the hypothetical rape scenario relative to unacknowledged victims. Finally, we hypothesized that acknowledged sexual assault victims would report more severe posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology relative to both unacknowledged sexual assault victims and nonvictims, and that more severe PTSD symptomatology would be related to better risk recognition, increased autonomic arousal, and self-reported emotional responding.
|
METHOD |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONNOTESREFERENCES |
|---|
Through these recruitment procedures, 97 women volunteered to participate. Of these 97 women, 50 had no history of sexual victimization, and 47 reported at least one unwanted sexual experience in adolescence or adulthood. One participant in the victim group was excluded from subsequent analyses resulting from equipment malfunction and another did not complete all questionnaires, resulting in a final sample of 95. For the purposes of this investigation, sexual assault was defined as unwanted sex contact, attempted intercourse, or completed intercourse occurring after the age of 14 resulting from a man’s continual arguments and pressure, use of threat or some degree of force, or through the use of alcohol or drugs. This definition is consistent with current statutory definitions of sexual assault that no longer limit the crime to vaginal penetration alone and to forcible situations only (10).
Acknowledged /unacknowledged victim status was determined by comparing participants’ responses on the SES and Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS (11)) checklist. Participants who acknowledged having any of the experiences on the SES as well as sexual assault (either by stranger or acquaintance) on the PDS were included in the acknowledged victim group. Participants who indicated having any experience on the SES but did not report a sexual assault of any kind on the PDS were included in the unacknowledged victim group. Participants who indicated no experience of sexual assault on either the SES or the PDS were included in the nonvictim group. This process resulted in 26 (out of a total 45; 58%) sexual assault victims being assigned to the unacknowledged victim group and 19 (42%) victims being assigned to the acknowledged group. The mean age of the sample was 19.55 years (standard deviation [SD] = 2.76). The majority of the sample was white (52.6%) but also included representation from blacks (24.7%), Hispanics (11.3%), Asians (3.1%), and those of other or mixed ethnicity (8.2%).
Measures
Sexual Experiences Survey
The SES is a 10-item measure that assesses individuals’ unwanted sexual experiences occurring after age 14. The measure assesses a variety of possible victimization experiences, including unwanted sex play, attempted intercourse, completed intercourse, and insertion of objects resulting from a man’s continual arguments and pressure, use of threat or some degree or force, or through the use of alcohol or drugs. The instrument encourages accurate responding of experiences by avoiding the use of words such "rape" or "sexual assault." The instrument has strong psychometric properties.
Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale
The PDS is a 49-item, self-report questionnaire assessing the presence and severity of posttraumatic stress disorder, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria (12). This measure was chosen over other PTSD measures because it yields both diagnostic information as well as a PTSD symptom severity index (13). The PDS includes a checklist of objectively defined events that are potentially traumatic and asks individuals to indicate all events that they have experienced (e.g., motor vehicle accident, disaster, sexual assault by acquaintance, sexual assault by stranger). This checklist was used to categorize individuals as either being acknowledged or unacknowledged sexual assault victims. Respondents then report on PTSD symptoms with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity. Symptom severity scores are calculated by summing responses to the items, with a possible range of 0 to 51. Severity scores below 10 are considered mild, 10 to 20 moderate, 21 to 35 moderate to severe, and above 35 is severe (11). In addition to the total severity score, the PDS provides scores for the reexperiencing, avoidance/emotional numbing, and hyperactivity symptom clusters. The PDS has strong psychometric properties (13).
Self-Assessment Manikin
Self-reported emotional responses to the stimulus were collected using the nine-point valence (pleasantness) and arousal scales of the self-assessment manikin (SAM (14)). Responses on the valence dimension range from one (extremely pleasant) to nine (extremely unpleasant). Responses on the arousal dimension range from one (extreme calm) to nine (extreme excitement, arousal). Previous research has demonstrated that the valence and arousal dimensions reliably covary with physiological reactions associated with emotional response (e.g., skin conductance response, heart rate), suggesting that the SAM is a valid measure of emotional responding (15). On termination of the auditory stimulus, participants were instructed to rate their emotional experience to the vignette using both the valence and arousal dimensions of the SAM.
Auditory Stimulus/Response Latency
The auditory stimulus (16) portrays a man and woman engaged in a sexual encounter that concludes in a date rape. Participants are asked to listen to the encounter and indicate when the man has "gone too far" by pressing a button on a computer keyboard. The portrayal depicts strong inhibiting and disinhibiting cues for sexual contact that both intensify as the vignette proceeds. The physical intimacy demonstrated by the couple is portrayed through dialogue and audible breathing and kissing sounds. The man uses verbal persuasion, argument, verbal threats, and then physical force to obtain intercourse. Initially, the woman responds with verbal refusals and resistance beginning at 75 seconds. The woman’s refusals escalate in intensity (reasoning, refusing, pleading, and crying) over time in response to increased sexual advances. The total running time of the stimulus is 370 seconds. The vignette consists of six distinct segments: mutual interaction (0–74 seconds), polite refusals (75–97 seconds), verbal refusals and apologies by the man (98–136 seconds), verbal pressure and refusals (137–179 seconds), verbal threats and adamant refusals (180–276 seconds), and forced sex (277–370 seconds (17)).
The primary dependent variable used with the auditory stimulus is response latency, operationalized as the length of time needed by participants to indicate when the man depicted in the vignette has "gone too far," implying that the woman is in danger of being sexually coerced or assaulted. In this study, latencies were recorded in seconds using a reaction time program on an IBM-compatible computer activated at the start of the vignette and terminated by a participant’s computer key press. The auditory stimulus was played as a sound file (.wav) through the computer through a set of headphones. The response latency measure has been shown to have a 2-week test–retest reliability of 0.87, as well as good convergent and discriminant validity (18). Higher responses latencies are indicative of poorer risk recognition. This auditory stimulus has been used in other studies (6–8) and has been rated as being highly realistic by participants (8).
Physiological Measures
Participants’ heart rate (HR) and skin conductance level (SCL) were collected during the procedures. A Biopac MP150 system and AcqKnowledge software, connected to a Pentium IV PC, were used to acquire and amplify the signals. HR was collected using two disposable, pregelled Biopac 35-mm electrodes attached to the frontal region of each forearm, with a third electrode placed on the left forearm serving as a ground. SCL was collected with two 4-mm Ag-AgCl unpolarized electrodes that were affixed to the palmar surface of the middle phalanges of the first and third fingers of the left hand. These electrodes were filled with NaCl Unibase paste. HR was sampled at a rate of 1000 Hz continuously. Heart rate was measured by the detection of cardiac R-waves; the stored interbeat intervals were converted to second-by-second beats per minute (bpm) values. SCL was sampled at a rate of 30 Hz and averaged over half-second intervals. Outlier HR values below 40 and above 140 bpm were rectified by replacing the outlying value with the average of the previous and subsequent bpm values.
Procedure
On arrival, each participant provided informed consent and was then seated in a reclining chair in a dimly lit room. Electrodes were then attached, as described. A computer keyboard was situated on a small table next to the right side of the participant’s chair within arms’ reach. Headphones were placed on the participant and then the experimenter asked the participant to close her eyes, relax, and clear her mind of all thoughts while the experimenter left the room to ensure that the physiological signals were being properly acquired. After 60 seconds of continuous recording, the experimenter informed the participant by intercom to continue relaxing for an additional 2 minutes. A 120-second resting baseline period of HR and SCL activity was then collected. This 3-minute baseline period is similar to that used by others who have examined psychophysiological responding among trauma survivors (19). After the baseline period, participants were told that they would be listening to an interaction between two college students, Jenny and Dan, who have just returned to Dan’s apartment after a date. They were told that the couple had been on two dates before this occasion but have never had sexual intercourse. The following instructions were then given:
Your task is to listen to the situation and signal, by pressing the shift key on the keyboard next to your chair, if you feel that the man has gone too far. If you decide to press the button, do so at the point in which you feel he has gone too far. You will only need to push the key one time. I would like you to then just continue to listen to the rest of the interaction until it is finished. Once it ends, continue to relax in the chair, keeping as still as possible, until I come back into the room. Do you have any questions?
Participants were told that the key press would not terminate the vignette and that, after their key press, they would be able to hear the interaction in its entirety. Words such as danger and risk were excluded from the instructions to minimize participant priming and the influence of social desirability. To minimize movement artifact, participants were told to place their hands directly next to the keyboard before beginning the task. After participants expressed an understanding of these instructions, the experimenter left the room, began the physiological recording, and initiated the presentation of the auditory stimulus. During this phase of the experiment, HR was continuously collected for 380 seconds (10 seconds of preparation and 370 seconds of audiotape presentation). Using the Acqknowledge software, three points in the physiological data file were manually flagged: the onset of the stimulus, the moment that the "shift" key was pressed, and the end of stimulus presentation. These flags in the data file made it possible to match physiological activity to precise moments in the vignette.
After stimulus presentation, participants were instructed to rate their emotional responses to the vignette using the SAM. Participants were then asked to close their eyes and relax until the experimenter reentered the room. This 120-second recovery period was used to reduce any transient distress that participants may have been experiencing. After the recovery period, the electrodes and headphones were removed. Participants were then escorted to an adjacent room where the SES and PDS were completed. After completion of the measures, all participants were fully debriefed and compensated.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONNOTESREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Sample Characteristics
There were no significant differences between the three victim groups with respect to age (F[2, 91] = 2.58, p > .05) or ethnic composition (
2[2, N = 92] = 11.21, p > .05). Participants’ self-reported PTSD symptoms were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results showed only significant group differences for PTSD arousal symptoms (measured by the PDS arousal subscale) (F[2,88] = 4.30, p < .05), with acknowledged victims reporting more severe PTSD-related arousal symptoms than nonvictims (acknowledged victims mean = 4.11, SD = 4.32; unacknowledged victims mean = 3.38, SD = 3.03; nonvictims mean valence = 1.76, SD = 2.75). No significant group differences were observed for PDS severity scores (overall mean = 8.96, SD = 9.97) or other subscale scores. In light of these findings, PDS arousal scale scores were used as a covariate in subsequent analyses.
To compare differences in experienced assault severity across the victim groups, we ranked acknowledged and unacknowledged victims responses to the SES, such that more severe items were assigned higher ranks. Then, we assigned the highest endorsed score to each participant. Using a Mann-Whitney U test, we found no significant difference between acknowledged and unacknowledged victims in assault severity (Z = –0.95, p > .05).
Response Latency
The hypothesis that acknowledged victims would exhibit shorter response latencies than other participants was tested using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). A significant group difference was observed (F[2, 94] = 4.47, p < .01). A Tukey post hoc test showed that unacknowledged sexual assault victims (mean = 167.74, SD = 59.19) exhibited significantly longer response latencies than acknowledged victims (mean = 140.62, SD = 73.04) and nonvictims (mean = 127.21, SD = 43.55). The mean response latency for the entire sample was 140.63 seconds (SD = 54.34), with a range of 46.16 to 295.70. Approximately 14% of all participants signaled during the first segment, 18% signaled during the second segment, 33% signaled during the third segment, 12% signaled during the fourth segment, 2% signaled during the fifth segment, 3% signaled during the sixth segment, and 3% signaled during the seventh segment that the man had gone "too far." A small percentage (2%) signaled before the first segment and approximately 14% signaled that the man had gone too far between the third and fourth segments. During this portion of the interaction, the couple is negotiating the extent of their physical intimacy.
Heart Rate Reactivity
To examine potential within- and between-group baseline and recovery period HR differences, the 120-second baseline and recovery periods were divided equally into 12 10-second segments and the mean HR for each individual for each 10-second period was calculated. Using a mixed ANCOVA, no within- (F[11, 85] = 0.982, p > .05) or between- (F[2, 85] = 0.960, p > .05) group differences in baseline HR were observed and no significant interactions were noted (F[22, 85] = 0.996, p > .05) (see Fig. 1). Similarly, no within- (F[11, 85] = 0.332, p > .05) or between- (F[2, 85] = 1.203, p > .05) group differences in recovery HR were observed and no significant interactions were noted (F[22, 85] = 0.680, p > .05).
|
A series of Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality showed that the distribution of HR change scores for each stimulus segment was not significantly different than the normal distribution. To examine HR reactivity to the vignette, a mixed ANCOVA was conducted using the change scores in HR for each of the eight segments as a within-subjects factor and victim status as the between-subjects factor. Findings revealed a significant main effect for segment (F[7, 85] = 9.37, p < .001), indicating a significant change in arousal across different segments of the stimulus. However, this effect was qualified by a significant segment by victim status interaction (F[14, 85] = 1.90, p < .05). Post hoc analyses revealed that nonvictims experienced significantly greater HR reactivity than acknowledged victims during the third (p < .05) segment of the auditory stimulus. Specifically, nonvictims showed a mean HR increase of 4.10 bpm during the third segment of the vignette, whereas acknowledged victims exhibited a mean HR increase of only 0.73 bpm during the third segment of the vignette. No additional significant group differences in HR reactivity were found (see Fig. 2).
|
Skin Conductance Level
To examine potential within- and between-group baseline and recovery period HR differences, the 120-second baseline and recovery periods were divided equally into 12 10-second segments and the mean SCL for each individual for each 10-second period was calculated. A mixed ANCOVA showed a within-subjects effect for segment during baseline (F[11, 85] = 18.51, p < .001) (see Fig. 3). Similarly, a within-subjects effect for segment was observed during the recovery period (F[11, 85] = 6.58, p < .001).
|
A series of Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality showed that the distribution of SCL change scores for each stimulus segment was not significantly different than the normal distribution. To examine SCL reactivity to the vignette, a mixed ANCOVA was conducted using the change scores in SCL for each of the eight segments as a within-subjects factor and victim status as the between-subjects factor. Findings revealed a significant main effect for segment (F[7, 85] = 4.81, p < .001), indicating a significant change in arousal across different segments of the stimulus. Follow-up contrasts showed that the mean SCL value for segment 2 was lower than that for segment 1, segment 6 was lower than segment 5, and segment 8 was lower than segment 7 (all p’s < .05). Additionally, the mean SCL value for segment 7 was greater than that for segment 6 (p < .05) (see Fig. 4).
|
Subjective Emotional Response
Participants’ SAM ratings of valence and arousal were compared using two one-way ANCOVAs, with PDS arousal scores as the covariate. Results indicated no significant group differences in ratings of stimulus valence (F[2, 94] = 1.92, p > .05) (acknowledged victims mean valence = 7.22, SD = 1.63, unacknowledged victims mean valence = 7.00, SD = 1.41; nonvictims mean valence = 6.28, SD = 1.57). However, results did show a significant group difference in ratings of arousal (F[2, 94] = 4.08, p < .05). Post hoc tests revealed that acknowledged sexual assault victims reported the auditory stimulus to be significantly more arousing than nonvictims (acknowledged victims mean arousal = 5.39, SD = 1.91, unacknowledged victims mean arousal = 5.21, SD = 2.22; nonvictims mean arousal = 3.91, SD = 1.78).
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Severity
Pearson product-moment correlation analyses revealed that PTSD symptomatology was significantly related to self-reported emotional reactivity. Furthermore, self-reported posttraumatic reexperiencing symptoms were significantly related to response latency (see Table 2). Correlational analyses revealed that PDS severity total scores (r = –0.21), PDS avoidance (r = –0.21), and PDS arousal (r = –0.19) subscale scores were significantly correlated with participants’ HR during the third segment of the stimulus (all p’s < .05). Also, PDS avoidance subscale scores were significantly correlated with participants’ HR during the final segment of the stimulus (r = 0.19, p < .05). Finally, correlational analyses showed that participants’ HR during seventh and eighth segments of the stimulus were significantly correlated with participants’ self-reported SAM arousal ratings (r’s = 0.18 and 0.21, p’s < .05).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONNOTESREFERENCES |
|---|
For acknowledged victims, the process may differ such that an increased capacity to detect threat may not necessarily translate into an increased capacity to successfully avoid it. Although these women may recognize threat at the same time as nonvictims, their defenses may not be adequately activated. Although there is some preliminary evidence for this hypothesis, it contradicts other previous work showing that acknowledged victims report greater resistance during their assault than unacknowledged victims (5). Unfortunately, this previous work is limited by the sole use of retrospective, self-report data, and it is possible that the construal of the event as a sexual assault might influence how it is remembered.
In contrast to the finding that, relative to nonvictims, acknowledged victims showed diminished physiological responding to a particular segment of the stimulus, these same individuals reported the entire stimulus to be significantly more arousing than nonvictims. Although the reason for the discrepancy between the self-report and physiological data here is unclear, a possible explanation may lie in the fact that participants’ HR during seventh and eighth segments of the stimulus were significantly correlated with participants’ self-reported SAM arousal ratings and that, although nonstatistically significant, a visual inspection of Figures 2 and 4 shows that acknowledged victims experienced heightened autonomic arousal during these segments. Future studies should further examine this conflicting pattern of responding.
Self-reported posttraumatic reexperiencing symptoms were significantly related to response latency, such that greater reexperiencing symptoms was related to better risk recognition. Previously, Wilson et al found that greater PTSD-related arousal was associated with enhanced risk recognition. From these findings, the authors suggested that heightened levels of PTSD-related arousal might serve to increase selective attention and response to threat-relevant stimuli and buffer women against revictimization. Given the overlap between the reexperiencing and arousal clusters of PTSD (e.g., physiological reactivity to cues that symbolize the event, exaggerated startle, hypervigilance), the explanation offered for the relationship between PTSD-related arousal and risk recognition may also be relevant here.
Previous research has shown that, relative to those without PTSD, individuals with current PTSD display heightened psychophysiological responding to trauma-related imagery and cues (19). In this study, PTSD symptomatology was significantly related to self-reported emotional responding as well as to HR reactivity during certain portions of the stimulus. Interestingly, however, the group with the highest levels of PTSD-related symptomatology (acknowledged victims) did not show greater reactivity to the stimulus than the other groups. One possible explanation for this finding is that, generally speaking, the level of PTSD symptomatology reported by participants in this study was in the mild range. Another possibility is that the act of attempting to recognize threat in the hypothetical scenario was sufficiently distracting, such that it produced a diminished physiological response for all participants. Finally, it might have been the case that the stimulus was too generic and a more personalized stimulus might have resulted in greater physiological responding (19).
Similarly, analyses revealed that the later segments of the stimulus (portions during which the man was more aggressive and the rape occurs) did not produce physiological reactivity that was much greater than baseline levels for both victim groups and nonvictims. This is particularly surprising for the acknowledged victims, who reported both greater PTSD-related arousal and subjective arousal during the task. A possible explanation for these results is that, once participants made their risk recognition responses, they disengaged from the stimulus. It is also possible that a lack of visual information, combined with the understanding that the date rape portrayal was contrived, dampened the stimulus’ affective aura.
Several limitations of the current investigation should be noted. Foremost, the absence of positive, neutral, or nonsexual threat stimuli limits the interpretability of the psychophysiological data. This study is also limited by its reliance on participants’ self-reports of unwanted sexual experiences. Such self-reports are often affected by response biases that may threaten the validity of the current findings. The use of police or medical records to corroborate self-report would strengthen future investigations. Furthermore, participants in the laboratory setting are cued to assess risk and then make a response, a luxury that people in natural contexts do not have. Consequently, the response latency measure examined in this study may be limited in generalizability. Although HR and skin conductance are reliable and accurate measures of autonomic arousal, other indexes of emotional responding (e.g., electromyographic facial activity, startle reflex, and electroencephalogram) should be used in future studies to provide a more complete assessment of physiological responding. Another limitation of this study is that many of the participants were self-selected.
Finally, although the response latency measure has already received some empirical attention (6,7), it is still unclear what this measure actually assesses. It may indeed be a valid measure of risk recognition. Alternatively, it could be a measure of either risk tolerance or moral judgment regarding sexual behavior. In such cases, increased response latencies (as well as accompanying decreased physiological reactivity) could indicate that, rather than being deficient in recognizing threat cues, some victims of sexual assault may be less averse to risk-taking, more tolerant of certain male behavior, or have less stringent rules about sexual behavior. Such possibilities may also have important implications for sexual revictimization. For example, stricter rules regarding sexual behavior may reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted. Additional research is needed to further determine the validity of response latency as a measure of risk recognition.
Despite the noted limitations, the findings of this investigation suggest that acknowledged and unacknowledged victims exhibit specific response sets that may perpetuate the cycle of traumatization. Additional research using experimental and prospective designs with sensitive measurement procedures is needed to strengthen and refine the findings reported here.
|
NOTES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONNOTESREFERENCES |
|---|
Received for publication March 23, 2004; revision received February 10, 2005.
DOI:10.1097/01.psy.0000171809.12117.79
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONNOTESREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  H. Littleton and C. E. Henderson If She Is Not a Victim, Does That Mean She Was Not Traumatized?: Evaluation of Predictors of PTSD Symptomatology Among College Rape Victims Violence Against Women, February 1, 2009; 15(2): 148 - 167. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Littleton, C. Radecki Breitkopf, and A. Berenson Beyond the Campus: Unacknowledged Rape Among Low-Income Women Violence Against Women, March 1, 2008; 14(3): 269 - 286. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Littleton An Evaluation of the Coping Patterns of Rape Victims: Integration With a Schema-Based Information-Processing Model Violence Against Women, August 1, 2007; 13(8): 789 - 801. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
