1155122

research-article2023
JIVXXX10.1177/08862605231155122Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceCatton et al.

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Disclosure of Sexual
2023, Vol. 38(13-14) 8332­–8356
© The Author(s) 2023

Victimization: Effects of Article reuse guidelines:

Invalidation and Shame sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08862605231155122
https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231155122

on Re-Disclosure journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Ashley K. H. Catton,1 Martin J. Dorahy1

and Kumar Yogeeswaran1

Abstract
Research on disclosure of sexual victimization has consistently demonstrated
that the act of disclosure and the disclosure recipient have a synergistic
effect in facilitating either positive or negative post-assault outcomes.
While negative judgments such as victim blame have been argued to serve
a silencing function, experimental investigations of this claim are lacking.
The current study investigated whether invalidating feedback in response to
self-disclosure of a personally distressing event produced feelings of shame,
and whether shame influenced subsequent decisions around re-disclosure.
Feedback type (validating, invalidating, no feedback) was manipulated in a
sample of 142 college students. Results partially supported the hypothesis
that shame resulted from invalidation, however shame was better predicted
by individual perceptions of invalidation than the experimental manipulation.
Although few participants opted to make changes to the content of their
narrative for re-disclosure, those who did had higher levels of state shame.
Results suggest that shame may be the affective mechanism by which
invalidating judgments silence victims of sexual violence. The present study
also supports the distinction previously made between Restore and Protect
motivations in managing this shame. This study provides experimental
support for the notion that an aversion to being shamed, communicated via

1
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:
Martin J. Dorahy, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.
Email: martin.dorahy@canterbury.ac.nz
Catton et al. 8333

an individual’s perception of emotional invalidation, features in judgments

of re-disclosure. Perceptions of invalidation, however, vary individually.
Professionals working with victims of sexual violence should be mindful
of the importance of shame attenuation in facilitating and encouraging
disclosure.

Keywords
sexual abuse, child abuse, anything related to child abuse, treatment/
intervention

Disclosure of Sexual Victimization: Effects of

Invalidation and Shame on Disclosure Inhibition
The ubiquity of victimization from sexual violence is an urgent problem to be
addressed. Although surveys measuring the frequency and nature of sexual
victimization vary in their methodology, international studies of 12-month
incidence rates estimate that up to 59.2% of women and 55.5% of men are
victims of sexual violence (Dworkin et al., 2021). The negative sequelae of
sexual victimization are vast, including the acquisition of sexually transmit-
ted infections, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, dissociation, and
self-blame (Aiken & Griner, 2022; Oshodi et al., 2020; Stermac et al., 2014;
Ullman et al., 2007). While disclosure of sexual victimization is an important
step towards recovery, the mere act of disclosing is not sufficient to ensure
positive outcomes. For instance, it is argued that the first person a victim
discloses to has a greater impact on the victim’s wellbeing than all subse-
quent disclosure recipients (Bonnan-White et al., 2018). Further, a victim’s
decision to approach formal service providers is often preceded by disclosure
to a close confidante (Barrios et al., 2022; Bonnan-White et al., 2018;
Halstead et al., 2017; McElvaney et al., 2020). Indeed, victims may approach
formal service providers such as counsellors or clinical psychologists for dis-
closure because of their perceived professional values of trust, confidential-
ity, and lack of judgment (Chouliara et al., 2011; McGregor et al., 2010). This
suggests that the act of disclosure and the response by the disclosure recipient
have a synergistic effect in facilitating recovery.
Researchers have identified distinct disclosure patterns among victims,
capturing differences between timing, motivating reasons, and choice of dis-
closure recipient (Ahrens et al., 2010; Bicanic et al., 2015; Collings et al.,
2005). Such patterns are defined in part by the salience of different barriers to
disclosure. One common interpersonal barrier is the anticipation of negative
8334 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

social reactions (Carson et al., 2020; Sivagurunathan et al., 2019; Weiss,

2010). Negative social reactions are responses to disclosure that provide
unhelpful or harmful feedback, and include expressions of disbelief, and stig-
matizing responses such as victim blame (Catton & Dorahy, 2022; Iles et al.,
2021; Wager et al., 2021). Such responses may produce distress if they vio-
late the victim’s expected reaction from a disclosure recipient (Dworkin et
al., 2019). Reactions can include taking control or attention away from vic-
tims and their situation or stigmatizing and blaming them for their behavior
(Ullman, 2000). Stigmatizing responses can invalidate the victim’s (a) expe-
riences, (b) interpretation of their experiences, or (c) their decision to dis-
close. Relatedly, negative reactions to rape disclosure have been argued to
serve a silencing function by reinforcing extant self-blame and uncertainty
about whether the victim’s experience qualifies as rape (Ahrens, 2006).
Invalidation informs the victim that their interpretation of their own expe-
rience is wrong while also labeling their reaction as socially unacceptable
(Linehan, 1993). Rather than ameliorating distress and providing a narrative
that places the victim’s interpretation and experience within an accepted
social context, invalidating responses maintain the disunity between the vic-
tim’s experience and an accepted social expression in which to channel that
experience. Indeed, invalidating feedback has been associated with increased
physiological arousal and negative affect (Greville-Harris et al., 2016; Shenk
& Fruzzetti, 2011; Weber & Herr, 2019). Invalidation has also been associ-
ated with avoidance behavior. For instance, Greville-Harris et al. (2016)
invalidated participants and found that 80% declined to participate in further
research. Seemingly strong affective underpinnings motivate post-invalida-
tion behavior. Weber and Herr (2019) found a moderate effect for negative
affect associated with invalidation, but no significant effect for the specific
emotions of guilt or sadness. Thus, the immediate affective product of invali-
dation remains to be identified. Invalidation communicates what qualities
and behaviors are socially unacceptable and thus stigmatized. Stigma confers
a threat of shame that imposes social control by enforcing in-group boundar-
ies (Lewis, 2003). To bear stigma is to have one’s social image tainted or
discounted due to having some attribute that is socially undesirable (Goffman,
1968). Thus, alongside challenging victims’ interpretation of their own expe-
rience, invalidating feedback may also communicate that the act of disclosure
has violated a social norm, and the victim is punitively shamed for their
transgression.
Theories of shame often refer to aspects of the social self, specifically its
preservation and position on a social hierarchy (Dickerson et al., 2009;
Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Gilbert, 1997). Shame is associated with global,
stable, internal attributions (Tracy & Robins, 2006; Van Vliet, 2009). Hence,
Catton et al. 8335

shame arises in situations where a social transgression is perceived to reflect

something permanent about one’s character. In line with this, research has
found strong associations between shame and attributions of self-blame, par-
ticularly characterological self-blame (Tilghman-Osborne et al., 2008; Van
Vliet, 2009). As such, shame is associated with a conscious belief that the self
is flawed or defective in the eyes of others. Thus, state shame is an affective
state stemming from an undesired shift in one’s social standing and is experi-
entially and qualitatively similar to feelings of humiliation and degradation
(Gilbert, 1997). Hence, elicitors of shame entail a threat to the social self—
where an individual’s social identity may be discredited (Kemeny et al.,
2004; Macdonald, 1998). Budden (2009) outlines two classes of social threat
associated with shame: domination/subjugation, and acute norm violation.
As invalidation signals norm violation, it follows that invalidating feedback
ought to produce shame. In addition to shame in the presence of social threat,
victims of interpersonal violence, such as sexual assault, are likely to feel
shame given the physical dominance such assaults entail. Consistent with
this, shame has been reported by victims of sexual violence. For example,
DeCou et al. (2019) reported a small positive correlation between assault-
related shame and assault severity. Drawing on national crime victimization
data, Weiss (2010) found that victims reported shame-related phenomena
such as feelings of humiliation, attributions of self-blame, and fear of public
scrutiny. More generally, individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder have
been shown to be hyper-sensitive to social threat (Stevens & Jovanovic,
2019). As a result, it is likely that victims’ hypervigilance to being shamed is
sufficient to inhibit disclosure.
While the prototypical behavioral response to shame is submission (e.g.,
Gilbert, 1998), there are individual differences in how shame is managed. For
instance, shame is often associated with avoidance tendencies (Schmader &
Lickel, 2006). However, shame has also been shown to motivate approach
behaviors to restore the positive reputation of an individual’s social identity,
and this may be preferable to avoidance if there is minimal risk of further
damage (de Hooge et al., 2010, 2011). However, the preference for approach
or avoidance may also depend upon the individual’s willingness to internal-
ize shame. Nathanson (1992) argues that internalized shame refers to an
acceptance of the flawed self, whereas externalized shame is a deflection and
rejection of the shame message resulting in the aggressive maintenance of
one’s positive social identity, at the expense of others.
While there is a dearth of research on shame coping behavior, other work
may suggest which factors could be implicated. For instance, a study investigat-
ing the connection between non-disclosure and self-blame explained this asso-
ciation as a function of self-esteem protection (avoidance of exposure), and
8336 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

preservation of interpersonal relationships by avoiding disapproval and/or rejec-

tion (Finkenauer & Rime, 1998). Relatedly, interpersonal sensitivity has been
associated with shame internalization in work by Nystrom et al. (2018), where
they explained that shame may be internalized to preserve personal relation-
ships. Thus, it is likely that the prioritization of an individual’s social relations
relative to the maintenance of their social identity is an important determinant in
how shame is managed. Regarding disclosure, this would result in determining
whether receiving validation was more important than maintaining or restoring
positive social relations after receiving an invalidating response. If positive
social relations were prioritized, norm conformity may stem from shame inter-
nalization, where either an acceptable reformulation of the disclosed narrative
occurs, or an aversion to re-disclosure altogether develops. Conversely, avoid-
ance of disclosure might also be associated with a primary motive to maintain a
positive social image, suggesting that disclosure would not be a viable option at
any stage. However, these theoretical possibilities remain to be tested.
To date, there has been no experimental research examining if invalidating
feedback to disclosure of a shame-related event, such as sexual assault, pro-
duces feelings of shame. In addition, it is not yet known if shame elicited
from invalidation causes an aversion to re-disclosure, or a desire to reformu-
late the disclosure narrative to conform with perceived social norms. It is also
unclear if individual differences in coping with shame results in distinct moti-
vations for re-disclosure. The present research addresses these aims with the
following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There would be a significant difference in levels of state

shame depending on whether individuals received validating or invalidat-
ing feedback to self-disclosure, such that those who received invalidating
feedback would exhibit the highest levels, and those with validating feed-
back the lowest.
Hypothesis 2: Those who received validating feedback would be more
likely to re-disclose to a new disclosure recipient, than those who received
no feedback or invalidating feedback——the latter of which would have
the weakest association with this outcome.
Hypothesis 3: Those receiving invalidating feedback would be more likely
to amend their narrative for re-disclosure.
Hypothesis 4: The association between invalidation and amendment to the
disclosed narrative in the invalidating condition would be driven by
changes in state shame.

Due to a lack of previous empirical and theoretical work on the topic, there
was no expectation about direction and strength of the relationships between
Catton et al. 8337

disclosure choices around changes to content or recipient, the motivations

underlying those choices, and the presence of expectancy violations.

Method
Participants
One hundred and forty-two psychology undergraduate students from a New
Zealand university were recruited as a convenience sample, and all com-
pleted the study. They ranged in age from 16 to 52 years (Mean [M] = 21.92;
Standard Deviations [SD] = 6.46). One hundred and six were women (74.6%),
33 were men (23.2%), and three identified as “other” (2.1%). Most partici-
pants (82.4%, n = 117) identified as New Zealand European, with a minority
identifying as Māori, Pacific Islander, Chinese, Japanese, or other ethnicities.
Participants received course credit for their participation in the study. The
study was approved by the University’s Human Ethics Committee.

Materials
Self-report measures. The demographic questionnaire assessed participants’
age, gender, ethnicity, level of education, mental health history, and relation-
ship status.

The Compass of Shame Scale – modified.  The Compass of Shame Scale

(COSS) is a self-report questionnaire measuring the shame-coping styles of
Avoidance, Attack-Self, Withdrawal, and Attack-Other (Elison et al., 2006).
An approach dimension was developed for inclusion with the COSS to
produce the Compass of Shame Scale – modified (COSS-m) (Wu, 2020).
The revised scale includes 60 items, across 12 scenarios assessing each of
the five coping styles. Participants rate the frequency with which they find
themselves using each coping style in each scenario (e.g., “At times when I
am unhappy with how I look. . . [a behavior based on each of the five cop-
ing styles is then presented]”). Responses range from 0 (never) to 4 (almost
always). Higher scores indicate an increased tendency to adopt that coping
style. The COSS-m has good psychometric properties, specifically construct
and face validity (Wu, 2020) and in this study had good internal consistency
(Cronbach’s α = .90).

The Experience of Shame – behavioral subscale.  The Experience of Shame

– behavioral subscale (ESS-b) is a 9-item self-report subscale of the ESS mea-
suring levels of shame associated with an individual’s own behavior (Andrews
8338 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

et al., 2002). Items ask respondents whether feelings of behavioral shame have
occurred to them during the past year (e.g., “Have you avoided people who
have seen you fail?”). Responses range from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much).
Higher scores reflect greater behavior-related shame-proneness, with a maxi-
mum score of 36. The ESS-b has good psychometric properties such as inter-
nal consistency and test-retest reliability (Andrews et al., 2002) and in this
study had a Cronbach’s α of .86, indicating good internal consistency. The
ESS-b was used to prime participants for memories of behavioral shame.

Perceived Emotional Invalidation Inventory.  The Perceived Emotional Inval-

idation Inventory (PEII) is a 10-item self-report measure gauging respon-
dents’ perception of emotional invalidation at the present moment (Elzy &
Karver, 2018). Items ask respondents whether they feel their emotions have
been invalidated by another party (e.g., “I felt ignored when I shared my
feelings”). Responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived invalidation, with a maxi-
mum score of 50. Several items were amended to refer to “the psychologist”
as the source of feedback for the present study. The PEII has demonstrated
high reliability and construct validity (Elzy & Karver, 2018) and in the cur-
rent study had a Cronbach’s α of .94, reflecting good internal consistency.

Restore/Protect Scale.  The Restore/Protect Scale (RPS) is a 10-item self-

report scale measuring respondents’ tendency toward either reputational res-
toration or self-protection following an experience of shame (de Hooge et al.,
2010). Items ask respondents to reflect on the reasons underlying decisions
they have been presented with in the experimental setting (e.g., “Improve my
self-image”). Responses range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very strongly). Higher
scores indicate higher motivational tendencies, with a maximum score of 35
for each tendency. The RPS has demonstrated sound construct validity (de
Hooge et al., 2010) and in the current study had good internal consistency
with a Cronbach’s α of .90 for the Restore scale, and .95 for the Protect scale.

The State Shame Scale.  The State Shame Scale (SSS) is a 5-item self-report
scale measuring feelings of shame as they are felt in the present moment and
is a subscale of the State Shame and Guilt Scale (Marschall et al., 1994).
Items ask respondents whether feelings of shame are being felt in the moment
(e.g., “I want to sink into the floor and disappear”). Responses range from
1 (Not feeling this way at all) to 5 (Feeling this way very strongly). Higher
scores indicate greater levels of state shame. The SSS has sound construct
validity (Ghatavi et al., 2002) and had a Cronbach’s α of .90 in this study,
indicating good internal consistency.
Catton et al. 8339

Expectancy violation.  Two questions were asked of participants in the Vali-

dation and Invalidation conditions that gauged how much they believed their
received feedback was typical of what a clinical psychologist would offer,
and how much they expected that feedback. Respondents rated their agree-
ment from 0 (not typical at all) to 10 (very typical).

Disclosure task.  After completing and being guided by the questions within
the ESS-b, participants were asked to disclose an instance of behavioral
shame but were cautioned not to disclose something they found personally
traumatizing. To aid this, they were presented with a visual scale from 0 (no
distress) to 10 (extremely distressing) and asked to recall experiences within
the range of 5 to 8 on the scale. They typed out a paragraph detailing what
happened and how they felt about the event before clicking on a button to
submit their story to a clinical psychologist who was on standby to evaluate
it. A psychologist was chosen as the disclosure recipient because clinical psy-
chologists are central to providing therapy and support to victims of sexual
violence. Moreover, clinical psychologists are considered to have many qual-
ities important for disclosure recipients such as confidentiality, lack of judg-
ment, and a willingness to listen (Chouliara et al., 2011). However, all
responses from the psychologist were presented automatically according to a
timed programmed script. After being presented with a “wait” screen for 30 s
and depending on the assigned condition, they received either validating
feedback, invalidating feedback, or were given an error message indicating
that no feedback was provided within the timeframe expected. The exact
wording of these is available online at https://osf.io/xth8r/. Participants were
then asked whether they wanted to amend their narrative before continuing,
and whether they wanted to redisclose to the same psychologist they received
feedback from, or a different psychologist. Two measures stemmed from this
task: Disclosure Content, and Disclosure Recipient.

Procedure
The study was completed with the researcher using an online survey platform
on a PC computer in a lab setting. Participants were recruited within the psy-
chology department to take part in a study entitled “Social Sharing of
Emotional Experiences.” Upon completing the written consent process, they
were informed of the nature of the tasks involved. Participants completed the
demographic questionnaire, and any participant who indicated a diagnosis of
a trauma-related disorder was automatically excluded from the invalidation
condition. Participants then completed the COSS-m followed by the ESS-b.
Next, they were given the disclosure task where they were asked to disclose
8340 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

an event of behavioral shame in writing to a clinical psychologist who was on

standby to read their narrative. Participants were then instructed to complete
the SSS and PEII and were then presented with the two disclosure choices.
After indicating their choices, all participants received validating feedback
after a 30 s delay. They were then administered the RPS and asked how
believable they perceived the psychologist’s responses to be before being
debriefed. The debrief phase consisted of distress alleviation if necessary,
asking participants about their experience of the study, and whether they had
any strong experiences during their participation that was not captured in any
of the state or trait measures they completed.

Design and Data Analysis

The study was a between-subjects single factor design. The independent vari-
able was disclosure feedback type: validation, invalidation, or no feedback.
The main dependent variables were (a) State shame, (b) Disclosure content,
(c) Disclosure recipient, and (d) Expectancy violation. Perceived Invalidation
was intended as a manipulation check. SPSS v23 (IBM Corp, 2015) was used
to perform statistical analysis.

Results
Data, including additional tables, are available at: https://osf.io/xth8r/. In
examining the distribution of each scale, only State Shame was skewed at
1.28 (SE = 0.20), and the skew remained after attempting an inverse transfor-
mation, making this data suitable only for non-parametric analyses. Table 1
shows the means and SD for the rating scales. Correlation coefficients were
calculated for all state measures as shown in Table 2 and illustrate a large
positive correlation between Perceived Invalidation and State Shame. A one-
way ANOVA examining levels of Perceived Invalidation between the
Validation and Invalidation conditions found a significant large effect for
feedback type, F (1,96) = 58.20, p < .001, ηp2 = .38. This was repeated for
both Perceptions of Expectancy and Typicality, finding significant moderate
effects for Perceived Typicality (F [1,96] = 20.26, p < .001, ηp2 = .17), and
Perceived Expectancy (F [1,93] = 11.63, p = .001, ηp2 = .11). This indicates
that participants in the Invalidation condition perceived their feedback was
more invalidating than those in the Validation condition, and this feedback
was not believed to be typical of what a clinical psychologist would offer nor
was it expected.
A Kruskal–Wallis test conducted for testing the first hypothesis that
there would be differences in state shame by feedback type found a
Catton et al. 8341

Table 1.  Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Number of Participants (n) for
Self-Report Measures.

Scale n Minimum Maximum M SD

Compass of Shame: Approach 142 14 47 28.96 5.99
Compass of Shame: Attack Other 142 0 34 12.67 7.01
Compass of Shame: Attack Self 142 4 48 29.38 9.26
Compass of Shame: Avoidance 142 9 36 23.05 5.23
Compass of Shame: Withdraw 142 3 47 25.10 8.86
Experience of Shame: Behavioral Subscale 142 9 36 25.66 5.29
Perceived Expectancy of feedback 95 0 10 3.78 2.90
Perceived Invalidation Inventory 98 10 47 24.91 10.10
Perceived Typicality of feedback 98 0 10 4.07 3.12
Protect Motivation 142 5 35 13.13 8.29
Restore Motivation 142 5 35 16.04 7.67
State Shame Scale 142 5 23 8.52 4.38

Table 2.  Correlations for State Measures.

Variable n 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Perceived Invalidation Inventory 98 —  
2. Perceived Expectancy of Feedback 95 −.42* —  
3. Perceived Typicality of Feedback 98 −.51* .79* —  
4. Protect Motivation 142 .40* −.07 −.02 —  
5. Restore Motivation 142 −.26* .12 .12 .63* —  
6. State Shame 142 .59* −.15 −.12 .53* .34* —

*p < .01.

non-significant trend for differences in State Shame between conditions (see

Supplemental Table at https://osf.io/xth8r/), H(2) = 4.88, p = .09. As this
hypothesis specifically stated that Shame levels would be lower in the
Validation condition compared to the Invalidation condition, post-hoc Mann-
Whitney tests revealed a significant difference between State Shame in the
Invalidation (mean rank of 55.81) than Validation (mean rank of 43.44) con-
dition with a small effect; U (Nvalidation = 50, Ninvalidation = 48) = 897.00, z = −2.21,
p = .03, r = .22.
To investigate whether Feedback Type or Perceived Invalidation was
more predictive of State Shame, a hierarchical linear regression was per-
formed but the resulting model violated assumptions of normality, even when
an inverse transformation of State Shame was attempted. To recover the data
8342 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

for this analysis, a new categorical variable of High/Low Shame was created
from a median split of the SSS. A hierarchical logistic regression was then
performed, with Perceived Invalidation (Exp[B] = 1.14, p < .001) as the first
step in a model, Χ2(1) = 30.20, p < .001, explaining 39% of the variance in
Shame, Nagelkerke R2 = .39. The addition of Feedback Type in the second
step was not a significant predictor (Exp[B] = .30, p = .06) and the resulting
model, Χ2(2) = 34.19, p < .001, did not increase the proportion of variance
accounted for (Nagelkerke R2 = .39). This suggests that individual beliefs
about the nature of the feedback received were more predictive of state shame
than whether that feedback was explicitly validating or invalidating.
Given the small effect for Feedback Type on State Shame, and the large
effect for Feedback Type on Perceived Invalidation, it may be that the rela-
tionship between Feedback Type and State Shame is mediated by Perceived
Invalidation. The Hayes (2017) PROCESS macro for SPSS was used to con-
duct a simple mediation analysis with High/Low Shame as the outcome,
Feedback Type as the predictor, and Perceived Invalidation as the mediator,
with 5,000 bootstrap samples generated. While a direct effect for Feedback
Type on High/Low Shame approached significance (b = −1.21, SE = 0.64,
p = .06, 95% CI [–2.5, 0.04]), there was greater support for an indirect effect
via Perceived Invalidation as the bootstrap confidence interval estimates did
not include zero; b = 2.15, SE = 0.55, [1.35, 3.52]. This further supports the
conclusion that the effect of feedback type on feelings of shame is explained
by individual perceptions of invalidation. However, upon comparing results
for the direct effect of Feedback Type on High/Low Shame, and the relation-
ship between Feedback Type and Perceived Invalidation, the direction of the
relationship in both instances differed. Specifically, the direct effect coeffi-
cient was negative, yet the coefficient for Feedback Type on Perceived
Invalidation was positive (b = 12.35, SE = 1.62, p < .001, [9.14, 15.56]). As
the direct effect merely approached significance, this suggests some partici-
pants in the validation condition felt shame that was not explained by percep-
tions of invalidation.
The range of experiences disclosed (from minor embarrassment to highly
traumatizing experiences) and the amount of information conveyed within
each disclosure suggested that further understanding may be gained from fac-
tors that contribute to both participants’ perceptions of invalidation, and sub-
sequent disclosure choices. Thus, each narrative was coded by the
experimenter (a clinical psychology doctoral student) for word length, per-
centage of narrative that references the self (e.g., possessives and pronouns),
percentage of narrative referencing the participants experience of an emotion
(e.g., “I felt ashamed”), and intensity of the amount of distress likely experi-
enced by participants in the situation they disclosed using the same scale that
Catton et al. 8343

participants were presented with. References to emotion and self have been
used in other narrative assessments and have been found to be important in
understanding an individual’s self-concept (Dost-Gözkan & Küntay, 2014).
Inter-rater reliability was calculated after a second rater evaluated a random
sample of 50 narratives, with weighted kappa values suggesting almost
perfect agreement for the number of references to self (κ = .88, p < .001), and
moderate agreement for number of references to emotion (κ = .59, p < .001)
using guidelines by Landis and Koch (1977). Further, an Intraclass Correlation
Coefficient was calculated for distress ratings (ICC = .88, p < .001), resulting
in excellent agreement per Cicchetti (1994) guidelines.
A correlation between State Shame and Distress illustrated a significant
positive association (r = .23, p = .005), indicating that the severity of the
events disclosed related to feelings of shame during participation in the study.
A Supplemental Table showing the distribution of these ad-hoc measures is
available at https://osf.io/xth8r/. In addition, references to self positively cor-
related with Restore motivation (r = .21, p = .01), and references to emotion
positively correlated with Protect motivation (r = .24, p = .005), indicating
that distinct types of personalization of the disclosed narrative were associ-
ated with different post-feedback motivations. By contrast, overall narrative
length negatively correlated with Restore motivation (r = −.19, p = .02). To
examine whether any of these ad-hoc measures predicted Perceived
Invalidation, a backwards stepwise linear regression was performed that
included these new measures alongside Feedback Type and Perceptions of
Typicality and Expectancy. The resulting model explained 45% of the vari-
ance, F (2, 92) = 37.85, p < .001, with Feedback Type (β = .48, p < .001), and
Perceived Typicality (β = −.31, p < .001) making significant unique contribu-
tions. This indicates that individual perceptions of invalidation are informed
by the feedback received and beliefs about its typicality.
To test the second hypothesis, that recipients of validating feedback would
be more likely to approach a new disclosure recipient for re-disclosure, a Chi-
Square test assessing differences in changes to Disclosure Recipient between
conditions showed a non-significant result, Χ2 (2, 142) = 3.98, p = .14. This
test was repeated for the third hypothesis, that there would be a significant
difference in changes to Disclosure Content between conditions. The result
was not significant, Χ2 (2, 142) = 2.07, p = .36. The number of changes to
Disclosure Recipient did not differ markedly between conditions, and few
participants (n = 14) made changes to Disclosure Content (see Supplemental
Table at https://osf.io/xth8r/). Half of the changes to Disclosure Content were
in the Invalidation condition and tended to include the addition of informa-
tion that justified their emotional experience (i.e., the inclusion of more
8344 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

reasons to explain the emotion they described experiencing). However, one

participant re-disclosed a different event that was more extreme. Changes in
the Validation condition involved adding more contextual detail or emotion,
suggesting that validation encouraged some participants to be more forth-
coming about their experience. No discernible pattern was evident among
changes in the No-Feedback condition.
Due to the nonsignificant result for the third hypothesis, the planned medi-
ation analysis to test the fourth hypothesis that State Shame would mediate
the difference between feedback type and changes to Disclosure Content,
was not performed. However, a Mann-Whitney test was conducted to assess
differences in State Shame using Disclosure Content as the grouping vari-
able. This analysis was significant with a small effect; U (Nchange = 14,
Nleave = 128) = 572.00, z = −2.28, p = .02, r = .19, indicating that participants
who changed their Disclosure Content had higher levels of State Shame than
those who did not, regardless of Feedback Type.
Correlation coefficients between disclosure choices, motivation types, and
trait measures are presented in Table 3. Given the large correlation between
both motivation types (Restore, Protect), a backwards stepwise binary logis-
tic regression was performed with both motivation types examined as predic-
tors of change to Disclosure Content. This resulted in a model consisting of
only Restore Motivation as a significant predictor (Exp[B] = .91, p = .01) of
Disclosure Content, Χ2(1) = 7.03, p = .01, that explained 10% of the variance
(Nagelkerke R2 = .10). Thus, Restore Motivation positively predicted disclo-
sure change. However, upon comparing levels of Restore and Protect motiva-
tions for those who changed content, Restore was consistently high across all
conditions (M = 21.53, SD  = 6.65), whereas Protect was more variable
(M = 18.07, SD = 9.73) due to it being much lower in the Validation (M = 11.67,
SD = 7.02) and No-Feedback (M = 11.75, SD = 10.24) conditions than the
Invalidation condition (M = 23.63, SD = 7.39). A one-way ANOVA found a
significant effect for Protect motivation between conditions, F (2,12) = 4.00,
p = .047, ηp2 = .40, showing that among those who made changes to their nar-
rative, invalidation elicited higher levels of Protect motivation than valida-
tion or no feedback. The same regression procedure was repeated for changes
to Disclosure Recipient comparing the Withdraw and Attack Self scripts of
the COSS, given their correlation with Disclosure Recipient, and only the
Withdraw trait measure remained as a significant predictor (Exp[B] = 1.05,
p = .03) in a model, Χ2(1) = 5.17, p = .02, which explained 5% of the variance;
Nagelkerke R2 = .05. The direction of this relationship suggests that the
Withdraw script predicts participants’ decision to approach a new recipient
for re-disclosure.
 Table 3.  Correlations for Disclosure Choices, Motivation, and Trait Measures.

Variable n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Changes to Disclosure Content 142 —  
2. Changes to Disclosure Recipient 142 .07 —  
3. Restore Motivation 142 −.22** −.04 —  
4. Protect Motivation 142 −.18* −.04 .63** —  
5. Experience of Shame: Behavioral Subscale 142 −.09 .14 .09 .21* —  
6. Compass of Shame: Attack Self 142 .10 −.17* .07 .16 .69** —  
7. Compass of Shame: Avoidance 142 .09 .06 .17* .19* .20* .32** —  
8. Compass of shame: Withdraw 142 −.06 .19* −.02 .20* .69** .75** .28** —  
9. Compass of Shame: Attack Other 142 −.07 .11 .09 .20* .39** .40** .42** .46** —  
10. Compass of Shame: Approach 142 −.03 .01 .33** .17* .02 .17* .24** −.15 −.14 —

*p < .05. ** p < .01.

8345
8346 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

Discussion
This study tested four hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that there would
be a difference in state shame across experimental conditions of differing
feedback from a psychologist. Second, it was hypothesized that those who
received validating feedback would be more likely to approach a new disclo-
sure recipient for re-disclosure. Third, we hypothesized that those who
received invalidating feedback would be more likely to amend their narrative
for re-disclosure, and fourth, that this relationship would be mediated by state
shame.
The finding that state shame did not differ overall between the three condi-
tions, and only a small effect arose between the validating and invalidating
conditions was unexpected. Rather, the relationship between invalidation and
shame was better explained by individual perceptions of invalidation in the
feedback received. This echoes the distinction in the disclosure literature
between perceived and received feedback. Dworkin et al. (2019) describes
received responses as those that are objectively observable whereas per-
ceived responses are the individual appraisals of received responses. In prac-
tice, Dworkin et al. (2018) found that responses categorized as “positive” by
researchers were received negatively by disclosers if (a) they violated the
discloser’s expected response, (b) were unhelpful, or (c) made the individual
feel uncomfortable—especially if they did not have a close relationship with
the disclosure recipient. In addition, Elzy and Karver (2018) found greater
variability among self-reported perceived invalidation scores when partici-
pants were invalidated, than when they received neutral feedback. Taken
together, this suggests that individual differences in how feedback is per-
ceived can vary to a large degree. Researchers and professionals dealing with
victims of sexual violence must be mindful of the way in which their feed-
back may be interpreted differently within the population.
Regarding the present study, as participants understood they were disclos-
ing to a psychologist, it is possible that the brief response given in the valida-
tion condition lacked the insight or specificity that might be expected from a
psychologist and was perceived as invalidating. This suggests that invalida-
tion may produce shame through either explicit expression or implicit impres-
sion. As an explicit expression of invalidation, this communicated to
participants that their choice of a shame-related event to disclose was not
sufficiently severe to justify disclosure as their distress was disproportionate
to the events described. As psychologists may be regarded as authority fig-
ures on emotions, their feedback communicated that participants’ distress
was not normal. By fostering disunity between subjective experience and an
acceptable social expression of it, it is likely that shame resulted from the
Catton et al. 8347

social threat of a discredited social identity from a perceived norm violation

(Budden, 2009; Kemeny et al., 2004; Macdonald, 1998). In other words,
explicit invalidating feedback conveys that the distress or shame participants
expressed was disproportionately high and thus inappropriate relative to the
situation participants described. By contrast, as an implicit impression, par-
ticularly for those in the validation condition, shame may have arisen from an
attribution made by participants about the lack of depth or substance in the
feedback received, that the psychologist did not invest enough time to com-
pose a more considered response and this reflected something about them-
selves (e.g., “I’m not valuable enough for the psychologist to provide a more
dedicated response”). While both the explanation and the distinction between
explicit and implicit invalidation as elicitors of shame remain to be further
explored, this interpretation suggests that a response designed to be validat-
ing can be perceived as unsympathetic. Indeed, dismissive reactions are
argued to shut down discussion on the topic of sexual victimization, thus
discouraging further disclosure (Scoglio et al., 2022).
The large effect of perceived invalidation between the validation and
invalidation conditions did not result in a similarly large effect for state
shame. This indicates that some participants who received invalidating feed-
back, and perceived it as such, did not report feeling shame. This may be due
to the diverse nature of the subjective experiences disclosed. While partici-
pants were guided toward disclosing an intense but not extreme shame-
related event, there was little control over what events were disclosed and
how much personally meaningful information was included in the narrative.
For instance, distinctions have been made between the breadth, length, and
depth of disclosure, the inclusion of which are determined by multiple con-
textual factors (Omarzu, 2000). Given this, it follows that decisions around
breadth and depth of disclosure are associated with how personally meaning-
ful the disclosed narrative is, such that the narrative is a characteristic expres-
sion of the person disclosing it, thus increasing the risk of shame.
Similarly, results suggested that some participants may have reported feel-
ing shame that was not explained by perceived invalidation. Given the rela-
tionship between state shame and the level of distress perceived to have been
experienced in the disclosed events, it is possible that shame was either primed
via the recollection of a distressing event, or disclosure of a more extreme
event conferred greater shame-related exposure through the risk of negative
evaluation. However, it is also possible that after being validated, maintaining
unity between experience and expression, some participants were more forth-
coming reporting their shame. Lepore et al. (2004) found that participants who
were validated reported higher levels of distress the day after participating in
the experiment than those who received feedback that “challenged”
8348 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

their disclosure. In this way, validation may encourage individuals to both

experience and disclose their emotions more freely. This possibility, however,
also implies that invalidated individuals are less likely to share their emotional
experiences honestly and is another possible explanation for the lower levels
of self-reported shame in the invalidation condition. Invalidation has been
argued to communicate to the invalidated individual that their interpretation of
their own experience is wrong (Linehan, 1993). This possibility is supported
by recent findings that trait invalidation, the tendency to experience invalidat-
ing responses, is inversely associated with emotional expressiveness yet posi-
tively associated with emotional reactivity per self-report measures (Schreiber
& Veilleux, 2022). Hence, future studies may benefit from directly investigat-
ing the role of validation and invalidation in affecting individuals’ willingness
to be forthcoming and honest about their experiences, while exerting tighter
control over the range of experiences being disclosed.
The lack of support for the second hypothesis, that participants whose dis-
closure was validated would be more likely to approach a new disclosure
recipient for re-disclosure, was also surprising. It is unclear what might moti-
vate individuals to re-disclose to the same recipient after receiving either vali-
dating or invalidating feedback, but this plausibly reflects a desire for more
feedback than was originally provided. Regarding the decision to approach a
new disclosure recipient, the presence of a small association between this
choice and the Withdrawal response suggests that choosing a new disclosure
recipient may have been motivated by a means of coping with shame.
Specifically, the Withdrawal trait refers to a tendency to retreat from a sham-
ing situation and is associated with escape-avoidance tendencies and interper-
sonal sensitivity (Elison et al., 2006; Nathanson, 1992). In this case, shame
experienced from the first disclosure was, for some participants, an experience
they did not wish to repeat and escaped the situation using the only other
option immediately and obviously available to them. Thus, some participants
may have avoided re-disclosure altogether if this choice was available.
While not directly supported, the third and fourth hypotheses that partici-
pants who had been invalidated were more likely to change the content of
their narratives due to feeling more shame, were indirectly supported by post-
hoc analyses. Participants who changed their narrative content felt more
shame and were more likely to be motivated to restore their social image in
the eyes of the original disclosure recipient. This echoes findings in the litera-
ture that non-disclosure and shame internalization are associated with a
higher prioritization of social connections over self-assertion (Finkenauer &
Rime, 1998; Nystrom et al., 2018). By perceiving disapproval or rejection in
the feedback received, some participants were motivated to redeem them-
selves by amending the version of events originally expressed. However,
Catton et al. 8349

very few participants opted to make changes, which limits the confidence
with which this can be firmly concluded.
Taken together, these results support the notion that feedback perceived as
invalidating after disclosing a personal event produces feelings of shame.
Regarding previous findings showing that invalidation is associated with
increased physiological arousal and general measures of negative affect, or
reductions in positive affect (Benitez et al., 2020; Greville-Harris et al., 2016;
Schreiber & Veilleux, 2022; Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011; Weber & Herr, 2019),
it is likely that shame was a contributing factor. Further, the finding by
Greville-Harris et al. (2016) that invalidated participants were least inclined
to participate in further research may be explained by shame-related avoid-
ance. These results also support accounts that shame is associated with
attempts to restore a damaged social identity if this can be done without fur-
ther damage (de Hooge et al., 2010, 2011). For instance, some participants in
the present study chose to amend their narrative for re-disclosure to the origi-
nal recipient after being invalidated, whereas others opted to preserve their
narrative and re-disclose to a new recipient. This may have resulted from a
snap decision about which options were associated with the least risk of fur-
ther invalidation and/or shame. Some models describe disclosure as a balanc-
ing act between subjective utility and risk (Omarzu, 2000), or visibility and
concealment (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). In the present study, participants
may have balanced the potential utility of social image restoration, motivat-
ing increased visibility, against the risk of further shame, motivating protec-
tion through concealment, the latter being more salient among those who
were invalidated. However, it remains unclear whether or how shame inhibits
further disclosure. Regardless, it is apparent that an aversion to being shamed
is a salient factor in determining whether to re-disclose. This has important
implications for professionals working with victims of sexual violence and
speaks to the importance of attenuating shame in an effort to both encourage
an initial disclosure and to avoid discouraging further re-disclosure.
While it has been suggested that negative outcomes associated with the
receipt of negative responses to self-disclosure may be explained by expec-
tancy violations (Dworkin et al., 2019), this was supported only by correla-
tion in the present study. Participants endorsed lower levels of expectancy
and typicality for invalidating than validating feedback, yet neither of these
beliefs predicted shame. By contrast, perceived typicality of feedback was
more predictive of perceived invalidation, the latter being a predictor of
shame. As such, this at least supports the notion that cognitive factors, such
as anticipatory beliefs and the evaluation of feedback received, may lead to
maladaptive outcomes.
8350 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

Limitations and Future Directions

The data collection phase ended prematurely due to a COVID-19-related lock-
down, resulting in a smaller sample size than anticipated. In addition, the feed-
back designed to be validating was perceived by some participants as
invalidating, and this was likely due to participants expecting more personal
feedback from a psychologist. This may be overcome by research designs with
verbal disclosure to a confederate as has been the predominant approach (e.g.,
Elzy & Karver, 2018; Greville-Harris et al., 2016; Lepore et al., 2000,
2004;Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011) or written disclosure to an anonymous “peer”
(e.g., Weber & Herr, 2019). Similarly, it is unclear whether differences in shame
would have emerged if the present study was conducted verbally to a clinical
psychologist and further research is needed to determine whether online ano-
nymity acts as a buffer against the intensity of shame. In addition, the partici-
pants in the current study disclosed a self-selected shame-related event, to
maximize ecological validity, however the diversity of experiences they
selected for disclosure, as well as how they were disclosed may have con-
founded findings. Specifically, given the multifaceted nature of shame, the
shame-related event for disclosure may not have been the same type of shame
experienced by victims of sexual violence. Further studies may benefit from
either the inclusion of a measure gauging subjective severity associated with
the disclosed event or asking participants to disclose their feelings and thoughts
of an experience embedded within the study itself that evokes a type of shame
conceptually similar to that faced by victims. Similarly, the present study
sought to investigate whether invalidation produces shame, and whether that
shame results in an aversion toward further disclosure. Given that all partici-
pants were required to re-disclose, and few opted to change the content of their
narrative, future designs may benefit from providing an alternative task to re-
disclosure, such as a menial cognitive task that has a minimal risk of shame.
Finally, this study investigated the role of invalidation on immediate deci-
sions to re-disclose. However, disclosure of sexual victimization has been
argued to be a continuous process, with each successive interaction influencing
the decision to re-disclose (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010; McElvaney et al., 2012).
The longitudinal effect of invalidating feedback on re-disclosure choices
remains to be explored, as one study has demonstrated changes in measures of
distress and arousal the day following feedback (Lepore et al., 2004).

Summary
The act of disclosure and the disclosure recipient have a synergistic effect in
facilitating or hindering recovery. The present study contrasted the role of
Catton et al. 8351

validating and invalidating feedback upon disclosure of a personal shame-

related event, finding that individual perceptions of invalidation is associated
with shame, fueling decisions around whether to amend their original narra-
tive, and whether to approach or avoid the original disclosure recipient. As
such, this study provides empirical support for the notion that an aversion to
being shamed features in individual judgments of further disclosure.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iD
Martin J. Dorahy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0171-4913

Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
Ahrens, C. E. (2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reactions on
the disclosure of rape. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3–4),
263–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9069-9
Ahrens, C. E., Stansell, J., & Jennings, A. (2010). To tell or not to tell: The impact
of disclosure on sexual assault survivors’ recovery. Violence and Victims, 25(5),
631–648. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.5.631
Aiken, J., & Griner, S. B. (2022). Health associations for male survivors of unwanted
and non-consensual sex. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(21–22),
NP19378–NP19394. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211042806
Andrews, B., Qian, M., & Valentine, J. D. (2002). Predicting depressive symptoms
with a new measure of shame: The experience of shame scale. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 41(Pt 1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466502163778
Barrios, V. R., Corpora, M., Pawlecki, E., & Caspi, J. (2022). My sister’s keeper:
Survivors disclosing sexual violence to a sibling. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
37(19–20), NP19106–NP19131. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211043581
Benitez, C., Howard, K. P., & Cheavens, J. S. (2020). The effect of validation and
invalidation on positive and negative affective experiences. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 17(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.183
2243
8352 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

Bicanic, I. A., Hehenkamp, L. M., van de Putte, E. M., van Wijk, A. J., & de Jongh,
A. (2015). Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female adolescents and
young adults. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 6, 25883. https://doi.
org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
Bonnan-White, J., Hetzel-Riggin, M. D., Diamond-Welch, B. K., & Tollini, C. (2018).
“You blame me, therefore i blame me”: The importance of first disclosure part-
ner responses on trauma-related cognitions and distress. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 33(8), 1260–1286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515615141
Budden, A. (2009). The role of shame in posttraumatic stress disorder: A proposal for
a socio-emotional model for DSM-V. Social Science & Medicine, 69(7), 1032–
1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.032
Carson, K. W., Babad, S., Brown, E. J., Brumbaugh, C. C., Castillo, B. K., &
Nikulina, V. (2020). Why women are not talking about it: Reasons for nondis-
closure of sexual victimization and associated symptoms of posttraumatic stress
disorder and depression. Violence Against Women, 26(3–4), 271–295. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077801219832913
Catton, A. K. H., & Dorahy, M. J. (2022). Blame attributions against heterosexual
male victims of sexual coercion: Effects of gender, social influence, and percep-
tions of distress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9–10), NP7014–NP7033.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520967153
Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding
disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living
with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236–256.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018193
Chouliara, Z., Karatzias, T., Scott-Brien, G., Macdonald, A., MacArthur, J., & Frazer,
N. (2011). Talking therapy services for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse
(CSA) in Scotland: Perspectives of service users and professionals. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 128–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2011.55
4340
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating
normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological
Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
Collings, S. J., Griffiths, S., & Kumalo, M. (2005). Patterns of disclosure in child
sexual abuse. South African Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 270–285. https://doi.
org/10.1177/008124630503500207
de Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2010). Restore and protect
motivations following shame. Cognition & Emotion, 24(1), 111–127. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02699930802584466
de Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2011). A functionalist
account of shame-induced behavior. Cognition & Emotion, 25(5), 939–946.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.516909
DeCou, C. R., Kaplan, S. P., Spencer, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2019). Trauma-related
shame, sexual assault severity, thwarted belongingness, and perceived burden-
someness among female undergraduate survivors of sexual assault. Crisis, 40(2),
134–140. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000549
Catton et al. 8353

Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2009). Psychobiological

responses to social self threat: Functional or detrimental? Self and Identity, 8(2–
3), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802505186
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses:
A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological
Bulletin, 130(3), 355–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
Dost-Gözkan, A., & Küntay, A. C. (2014). Linguistic representation of emotion
terms: Variation with respect to self-construal and education. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 17(4), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12071
Dworkin, E. R., Brill, C. D., & Ullman, S. E. (2019). Social reactions to disclosure
of interpersonal violence and psychopathology: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 72, 101750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cpr.2019.101750
Dworkin, E. R., Krahé, B., & Zinzow, H. (2021). The global prevalence of sexual
assault: A systematic review of international research since 2010. Psychology of
Violence, 11(5), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000374
Dworkin, E. R., Newton, E., & Allen, N. E. (2018). Seeing roses in the thorn bush:
Sexual assault survivors’ perceptions of social reactions. Psychology of Violence,
8(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000082
Elison, J., Lennon, R., & Pulos, S. (2006). Investigating the compass of shame: The
development of the compass of shame scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 34(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.3.221
Elzy, M., & Karver, M. (2018). Behaviour vs. Perception: An investigation into the
components of emotional invalidation. Personality and Mental Health, 12(1),
59–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1403
Finkenauer, C., & Rime, B. (1998). Keeping emotional memories secret: Health
and subjective well-being when emotions are not shared. Journal of Health
Psychology, 3(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539800300104
Ghatavi, K., Nicolson, R., MacDonald, C., Osher, S., & Levitt, A. (2002). Defining
guilt in depression: A comparison of subjects with major depression, chronic
medical illness and healthy controls. Journal of Affective Disorders, 68(2), 307–
315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(01)00335-4
Gilbert, P. (1997). The evolution of social attractiveness and its role in shame, humili-
ation, guilt and therapy. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70 (Pt 2), 113–
147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1997.tb01893.x
Gilbert, P. (1998). What is shame? In P. Gilbert & B. Andrews (Eds.), Shame:
Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture. Oxford University Press,
Incorporated.
Goffman, E. (1968). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Penguin
Books.
Greville-Harris, M., Hempel, R., Karl, A., Dieppe, P., & Lynch, T. R. (2016). The
power of invalidating communication: Receiving invalidating feedback pre-
dicts threat-related emotional, physiological, and social responses. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 35(6), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1521/
jscp.2016.35.6.471
8354 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

Halstead, V., Williams, J. R., Gattamorta, K., & Gonzalez-Guarda, R. (2017). Sexual
violence screening practices of student health centers located on universities in
Florida. Journal of American College Health, 65(8), 548–557. https://doi.org/10
.1080/07448481.2017.1351447
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. (Version 23.0).
Iles, I. A., Waks, L., Atwell Seate, A., Hundal, S., & Irions, A. (2021). The unintended
consequences of rape disclosure: The effects of disclosure content, listener gen-
der, and year in college on listener’s reactions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
36(7–8), NP4022–NP4048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518781799
Kemeny, M. E., Gruenewald, T. L., & Dickerson, S. S. (2004). Shame as the emo-
tional response to threat to the social self: Implications for behavior, physiology,
and health. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 153–160.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lepore, S. J., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., Ragan, J., & Ramos, N. (2004). It’s not that
bad: Social challenges to emotional disclosure enhance adjustment to stress.
Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17(4), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1061580041
2331318625
Lepore, S. J., Ragan, J. D., & Jones, S. (2000). Talking facilitates cognitive–emo-
tional processes of adaptation to an acute stressor. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(3), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.499
Lewis, M. (2003). The role of the self in shame. Social Research, 70(4), 1181–1204.
Linehan, M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disor-
der. Guildford Press.
McGregor, K., Glover, M., Gautam, J., & Julich, S. (2010). Working sensitively with
child sexual abuse survivors: What female child sexual abuse survivors want
from health professionals. Women & Health, 50(8), 737–755. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03630242.2010.530931
Macdonald, J. (1998). Disclosing shame. In P. Gilbert & B. Andrews (Eds.), Shame:
Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture. Oxford University Press,
Incorporated.
Marschall, D., Sanftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The state shame and guilt scale.
George Mason University.
McElvaney, R., Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (2012). Containing the secret of child
sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(6), 1155–1175. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260511424503
McElvaney, R., Moore, K., O'Reilly, K., Turner, R., Walsh, B., & Guerin, S. (2020).
Child sexual abuse disclosures: Does age make a difference? Child Abuse &
Neglect, 99, 104121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104121
Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride: Affect, sex, and the birth of the self.
Norton.
Nystrom, M. B. T., Kjellberg, E., Heimdahl, U., & Jonsson, B. (2018). Shame and inter-
personal sensitivity: Gender differences and the association between internalized
Catton et al. 8355

shame coping strategies and interpersonal sensitivity. Bulletin of the Menninger

Clinic, 82(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1521/bumc.2018.82.2.137
Omarzu, J. (2000). A disclosure decision model: Determining how and when indi-
viduals will self-disclose. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 174–
185. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0402_05
Oshodi, Y., Macharia, M., Lachman, A., & Seedat, S. (2020). Immediate
and long-term mental health outcomes in adolescent female rape survi-
vors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(1–2), 252–267. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260516682522
Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2006). The approach and avoidance function of guilt and
shame emotions: Comparing reactions to self-caused and other-caused wrongdo-
ing. Motivation and Emotion, 30(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-
9006-0
Schreiber, R. E., & Veilleux, J. C. (2022). Perceived invalidation of emotion uniquely
predicts affective distress: Implications for the role of interpersonal factors in
emotional experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 184, 111191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111191
Scoglio, A. A. J., Lincoln, A., Kraus, S. W., & Molnar, B. E. (2022). Chipped or
whole? Listening to survivors’ experiences with disclosure following sexual vio-
lence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9–10), NP6903–NP6928. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0886260520967745
Shenk, C. E., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2011). The impact of validating and invalidating
responses on emotional reactivity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
30(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163
Sivagurunathan, M., Orchard, T., MacDermid, J. C., & Evans, M. (2019). Barriers
and facilitators affecting self-disclosure among male survivors of child sexual
abuse: The service providers’ perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 88, 455–465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.08.015
Stevens, J. S., & Jovanovic, T. (2019). Role of social cognition in post-traumatic
stress disorder: A review and meta-analysis. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 18(1),
e12518. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12518
Stermac, L., Cabral, C. M., Clarke, A. K., & Toner, B. (2014). Mediators of post-
traumatic mental health in sexual assault survivors. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 23(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.20
14.881948
Tilghman-Osborne, C., Cole, D. A., Felton, J. W., & Ciesla, J. A. (2008). Relation
of guilt, shame, behavioral and characterological self-blame to depressive symp-
toms in adolescents over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(8),
809–842. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.8.809
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt:
Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32(10), 1339–1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206290212
Ullman, S. E. (2000). Psychometric characteristics of the social reactions question-
naire: A measure of reactions to sexual assault victims. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 24(3), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00208.x
8356 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(13-14)

Ullman, S. E., Townsend, S. M., Filipas, H. H., & Starzynski, L. L. (2007). Structural
models of the relations of assault severity, social support, avoidance coping,
self-blame, and PTSD among sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 31(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00328.x
Van Vliet, K. J. (2009). The role of attributions in the process of overcoming shame:
A qualitative analysis. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 82(Pt 2), 137–152. https://
doi.org/10.1348/147608308X389391
Wager, N. M., Goodson, S., & Parton, L. E. (2021). A systematic review of experi-
mental studies investigating attitudes towards sexual revictimization: Findings,
ecological validity, and scientific rigor. Journal of Criminal Justice, 75, 101832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101832
Weber, D. M., & Herr, N. R. (2019). The messenger matters: Invalidating
remarks from men provoke a more negative emotional reaction than do
remarks from women. Psychological Reports, 122(1), 180–200. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0033294117748618
Weiss, K. G. (2010). Too ashamed to report: Deconstructing the shame of
sexual victimization. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 286–310. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1557085110376343
Wu, C. (2020). Differential behavioral patterns associated with aspects of trait
shame. University of Canterbury.

Author Biographies
Ashley K. H. Catton, BA(Hons), is a doctoral candidate in the School of Psychology,
Speech, and Hearing at the University of Canterbury. His research focuses on devel-
oping an explanatory framework that accurately conceptualizes the complexity of
sexual victimization disclosure.
Martin J. Dorahy, PhD, is a professor of clinical psychology in the School of
Psychology, Speech, and Hearing at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand. He has a research interest in self-conscious emotions, trauma, and
dissociation.
Kumar Yogeeswaran, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Social Psychology at the
University of Canterbury in New Zealand. His research broadly examines intergroup
relations and conflict in pluralistic nations comprised of ethnic, racial, religious, and
ideological diversity. His secondary research applies social psychological theory to
understanding human-robot interaction, social media communications, health, and
politics.