Original Research

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

2022, Vol. 37(7-8) N
 P4212­–NP4237
Empowerment or ! The Author(s) 2020

Threat: Perceptions Article reuse guidelines:

of Childhood Sexual sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0886260520925781
journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv
Abuse in the
#MeToo Era

Melissa S. de Roos1 and

Daniel N. Jones2

Abstract
The rise of the #MeToo movement has shed light on the prominence of
sexual violence, and its victims who often remain silent. Despite increasing
awareness, victims or survivors of sexual violence who disclose may be
faced with negative reactions such as disbelief or blame. Such reactions
extend to child victims of sexual abuse. This study aimed to shed light on
gender differences in responses to sexual violence against a backdrop of
#MeToo. Through an online survey (N ¼ 253) on Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk, we assessed participants’ exposure to and perception of the
#MeToo movement. In addition, we measured proximity to a victim or
perpetrator of sexual violence. The effect of these variables on participants’
response to a disclosure of childhood sexual abuse was examined. Results
indicated that men are more likely to perceive the movement as threatening
than women. Furthermore, a discrepancy in proximity to sexual violence
emerged, with women more likely to know a victim and men more likely to

1
University of Roehampton, London, UK
2
University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Corresponding Author:
Melissa S. de Roos, Department of Psychology, Whitelands College, University of Roehampton,
Holybourne Ave, Roehampton, London SW15 4JD, UK.
Email: [email protected]
2de Roos and Jones NP4213
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

know a perpetrator. In response to a disclosure of childhood sexual abuse,

men were more likely to respond in a skeptical manner than women.
Positive perceptions of the #MeToo movement translated into more sup-
portive responses to a disclosure. Proximity to a victim of sexual violence
did not impact how people responded to a disclosure, but proximity to a
perpetrator was associated with a more negative response. Although the
aim of this movement is to give a voice to victims of sexual violence, it may
trigger a defensive response from men, which makes them more skeptical
toward disclosures of victimization.

Keywords
sexual abuse, child abuse, reporting/disclosure, sexual assault, cultural
contexts

The #MeToo movement gained widespread attention on Twitter in

October 2017. It was an attempt to highlight the prevalence of sexual
violence and to give a voice to victims particularly in the workplace,
many of whom had stayed silent before (Smartt, 2017). Ten years before
then, counselor Tarana Burke started this movement to draw attention
to sexual violence, especially as experienced by members of racial and
ethnic minority groups (Snyder & Lopez, 2017).
The hashtag was used as a way to empower female victims of sexual
violence and to highlight the prevalence of sexual victimization
(Ohlheiser, 2017). In the first 24 hours, 4.7 million people shared the
hashtag on Facebook, and 45% of Facebook users had at least one
friend who shared the hashtag (Santiago & Criss, 2017). The hashtag
trended on Twitter in at least 85 countries (Strum, 2017), showing the
international impact of the movement.
Since the rise of the #MeToo movement, responses to the movement
have not been universally positive. Criticisms of #MeToo take several
forms. For example, people have questioned what its ultimate purpose
is (Wilhelm, 2017) and whether it accomplishes any goal. Furthermore,
some people have characterized the movement as a witch hunt, and
some think that the focus should be only on the worst types of abuse,
rather than on mere misconduct, to prevent the public from becoming
desensitized (Stephens, 2017). Some have criticized the movement for
putting the burden of having to come forward on the victims, with a
NP4214
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
3

risk of retraumatizing them in the process (Gerson, 2017). Finally,

concerns have been expressed regarding the possibility of false allega-
tions and blaming accused perpetrators without due process (e.g.,
Cromwell, 2017; Stephens, 2017).
Although it has been suggested that victims should be referred to as
survivors, there is some disagreement over the appropriate term
(Schwark & Bohner, 2019). It should be the individual’s choice whether
they want to be referred to as a victim or survivor. Both terms are
imperfect, but “survivor” suggests recovery (Thompson, 2000), which
is a complex, ongoing process that the authors cannot assume pertains
to all individuals who participated in research. For this reason, we have
chosen to use the term “victim”.

Gender Differences in Responses to Sexual Violence

There is a well-documented gender difference in how people respond to
sexual violence, with men more likely to respond skeptically to a dis-
closure, and to blame the person who makes the disclosure (for a
review, see Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Several explanations for this
gender difference have been proposed, and this article will focus on
defensive attribution theory (DAT; Shaver, 1970) and proximity to
sexual victimization. DAT might be particularly relevant because the
high visibility of the #MeToo movement may increase the likelihood of
defensive responses.
Research has shown that when people feel threatened because of
their membership of a social category, they feel more strongly con-
nected to that category, especially if it represents a minority in society
(e.g., Brown & Ross, 1982; Grant, 1992). Social categories people read-
ily identify with include ethnicity and gender (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Although women have traditionally represented a minority group, ini-
tiatives such as the #MeToo movement may operate in a manner that
makes women feel empowered in a way they have not felt before. Based
on research on social identity, we may expect that because of this shift,
some men will feel a stronger identification with other men. This iden-
tification may include those accused of sexual violence, when they are
confronted with accounts or repostings of #MeToo. The increased
attention on mostly women’s experiences of sexual victimization may
serve as a threat that triggers some male observers to make defensive
attributions in response to disclosures. These defensive attributions
(e.g., Walster, 1966) may stem from the perception that they may
4de Roos and Jones NP4215
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

become the victim of an erroneous claim of causing sexual trauma,

which could potentially create perceptions of persecution (Lyon et al.,
1994).
Another proposed explanation for gender differences is proximity to
sexual victimization, whether through own experiences or those of close
others. Several studies have found that people who experienced (sexual)
victimization were more likely to believe allegations of sexual violence
(Cromer & Freyd, 2007; Miller & Cromer, 2015; Nuttall & Jackson,
1994). These findings fit with the DAT to explain gender differences and
expand on it. Women tended to have closer proximity to traumatic
events than men, either through their own experiences or the experien-
ces of others close to them (Miller & Cromer, 2015). After
controlling for this proximity, gender differences were no longer signif-
icant. This finding poses the question with regard to the #MeToo move-
ment: Does the raised awareness increase people’s proximity to sexual
violence thereby making them more supportive of disclosures from
victims?
On the other side of proximity to victimization, proximity to
perpetration may play a role in shaping responses to sexual
violence. Antisocial peers are a well-established risk factor for criminal
behavior (Gendreau et al., 1992; Humphrey & Kahn, 2000). The
chance of engaging in a behavior increases if the individual and
their peers have positive views of the behavior (Bagozzi & Burnkrant,
1979). Thus, the importance of association with sexual
perpetrators may then play a vital role in how people respond to
sexual violence.
Defensive attributions are not limited to victims but may extend to
perpetrators. Indeed, if the observer perceives themselves as similar to
the perpetrator of a crime, the observer expresses more lenient attitudes
toward the perpetrator (Feather, 1996). Back and Lips (1998) hypoth-
esized that the reliable gender differences found in victim-blaming
research are a reflection of DAT, with men more likely to perceive
similarities between themselves and the usually male perpetrator.
More recent studies have found a similar effect when assessing whether
perceived similarity indeed affects attributions of blame (e.g., Kahn
et al., 2011). These studies found that male observers attribute more
blame to female victims than female observers because they do not
identify with the female victim to the same extent that female observers
do (Davies & Rogers, 2009; Donovan, 2007; Kelly, 2009).
NP4216
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
5

Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures

The #MeToo movement has been accused of having too narrow a
focus, highlighting victims who “fit” a certain narrative, while exclud-
ing, for example, nonheterosexual victims, people of color, and people
who are viewed as “undeserving” of empathy (Gill & Orgad, 2018).
Another group of victims who may be overlooked is a group who
may be at an even greater disadvantage of speaking up and being
heard: child victims. It is estimated that one in eight people worldwide
are victims of sexual abuse during their childhood (Stoltenborgh et al.,
2011). The majority of CSA victims do not disclose the abuse in child-
hood. Several studies have found that disclosure during childhood is
rare, with most victims not disclosing until several years after the abuse
took place (Alaggia, 2010; McElvaney et al., 2012).
Unfortunately, even if children do disclose, there is no guarantee that
the abuse will stop, as evidenced by high-profile cases such as the Jimmy
Savile (“Savile and Hall: BBC ‘missed chances to stop attacks,’” 2016)
sexual abuse scandal, and the Larry Nassar case (Chowdhury, 2018).
Despite victims disclosing to adults, the abuse was allowed to continue
for decades (Bilefsky, 2016; Lavigne & Noren, 2018). These experiences
are not exceptions. A recent study showed that victims who came for-
ward with experiences of sexual abuse were only believed in one third of
cases, and, in almost half of these cases, no steps were taken to stop the
abuse (Stiller & Hellmann, 2017).

The Present Study

The aim of the present research was to explore people’s exposure to
sexual violence and how this relates to their perceptions of sexual vio-
lence as well as the #MeToo movement. A recent study explored per-
ceptions of #MeToo and found that men had more negative views of
the movement than women (Kunst et al., 2019). The results of this study
indicated that underlying ideologies such as sexism shaped people’s
perceptions, and that proximity to sexual violence had a comparatively
small influence. However, this study did not ask participants about their
responses to a specific disclosure scenario, nor did it include proximity
to perpetration other than participants’ own perpetration. Case
vignettes are the preferred way to assess responses to sexual violence
(Font, 2013). Whereas self-report questionnaires have been criticized
for pertaining to abstract, artificial, or generalized situations
6de Roos and Jones NP4217
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

(Alexander & Becker, 1978), vignettes allow for more natural responses
to realistic scenarios.
The key question in the present study is whether increased awareness
of sexual violence is perceived as a threat, and/or whether it is able to
increase perceived proximity to sexual victimization, which may make
people more supportive. This study explored exposure to and percep-
tions of the #MeToo movement and examined the role that proximity
to victimization or perpetration plays in shaping responses to a CSA
disclosure. Furthermore, with regard to perceptions of the #MeToo
movement, we selected the response categories from news articles as
well as social media, where the #MeToo movement has been character-
ized as both positive and negative. Although the victim depicted in the
scenario was a child when the abuse happened, at the time of disclosure
she is an adult. Given that this is the time when most victims will dis-
close the abuse for the first time, we feel that this is an important first
step in examining how people respond to such a disclosure. In the
future, we would like to extend this to vignettes where children disclose
sexual abuse. We expected that most participants would have had some
exposure to the #MeToo movement. Furthermore, we expected that
participants with a proximity to victimization would be more support-
ive of the movement and a disclosure. In contrast, we predicted that
participants with a proximity to perpetration would be more skeptical
of the movement and a disclosure. Finally, we expected that gender
differences in response to sexual violence could be triggered by a
video on #MeToo, with male participants responding more negatively
than female participants.

Method
Participants
Participant recruitment occurred through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.
Use of MTurk in this study was preferential to college students because
college students may represent a well-adjusted, homogeneous popula-
tion that is not representative of the general population (Buhrmester
et al., 2011). Furthermore, data collected on MTurk is found to be
equally reliable as data collected through student participant pools
(Buhrmester et al., 2011), with some studies suggesting that MTurk
participants may be more attentive than more traditional samples
(e.g., Hauser & Schwarz, 2016).
NP4218
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
7

A power analysis indicated that 200 participants were required to

detect the desired effect size (R-squared ¼ .12). To account for missing
data and participants who may fail attention checks, 275 participants
were recruited for this study. Participants were compensated US$0.80
for their participation. The sample was restricted to participants from
the United States, with an approval rate of their work on MTurk of at
least 95%, and with at least 50 approved answer submissions.
Any participant who did not stay on the page displaying the video
for at least the duration of that video was excluded, as was any partic-
ipant who could not correctly answer the questions about the video they
watched. A total of 253 participants were included in the final sample.
The mean age was 35.44 years (SD ¼ 11.32), with an age range from 18
to 75 years. There were slightly more male participants (54.2%) and the
majority of participants identified as straight (88.5%), bisexual (9.5%),
or homosexual (1.2%) (See Supplemental Material online for detailed
demographics).

Materials
#MeToo questionnaire. To assess exposure to, and perceptions of, the
#MeToo movement, we developed a brief questionnaire. The first
four questions ask about exposure to the movement. Two of these
ask about proximity to sexual violence either through knowing some-
one who perpetrated sexual violence or who was victimized. The
Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOSS; Aron et al., 1992) is included
to assess the degree of perceived closeness. This scale displays seven
images of increasingly overlapping circles, representing the participant
and someone the participant knows. The participant is then asked to
pick the set of circles that best represents their relationship with this
person.
The subsequent questions ask about perceptions of and feelings
toward the movement. These questions were based upon the criticisms
of the movement, as well as on its proposed objectives, to determine the
extent to which participants agree with different characterizations of the
movement that have been proposed by news and social media.
Perceptions include six items (three positive and three negative) that
are scored on a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Feelings include six feelings (three positive
and three negative) that are scored on a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The feelings included
8de Roos and Jones NP4219
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

emotions that might trigger defensive responses, such as feeling

attacked or persecuted.

#MeToo manipulation. A 5-min video from Time Magazine about the

Silence Breakers and the #MeToo movement were used as the manip-
ulation for the #MeToo condition (Time, 2017). It includes various
accounts, from men and women of different ethnicities and with differ-
ent backgrounds. It discusses the importance of giving a voice to victims
and it encourages viewers to stand up against sexual violence. For the
control condition, a 6-min video about pollution in the ocean was
watched (National Geographic, 2016).

CSA vignettes. When using vignettes, it is vital to avoid language that

creates demand effects in participants. Examples highlighted by Cromer
and Goldsmith (2010) include words like “assault” or “rape” that prime
people to think about violence. On the contrary, words like
“relationship” or “affair” paint a picture of a consensual relationship.
The key then is to focus on neutral, factual language with behavioral
descriptors. For this study, the following 125-word vignette was used:

You’re talking with your friend Zoe about #MeToo. She was one of the
people who reposted the status on her Facebook wall. She tells you she
reposted the status because from when she was thirteen until she was
fifteen, her mom’s boyfriend would come into her bedroom at night
when everyone was asleep. She tells you he would undress and get
under the covers with her. He would touch her and rub against her and
“do some other stuff.” It only stopped when her mom broke up with him
because she had to move to a different city for her job. Zoe has never told
anyone about what happened to her, but now that more people are speak-
ing up, she feels that she can too.

After the vignette, participants were asked the extent to which they
believed the CSA account (rate on scale of 1 to 100), how harmful
they thought this experience was (1 ¼ not at all harmful, 5 ¼ very harm-
ful), how much Zoe, Zoe’s mom, and Zoe’s mom’s boyfriend are to
blame (rate on scale of 0–100), and how avoidable the experience was
(0 ¼ not at all avoidable, 5 ¼ completely avoidable). These responses to
disclosure variables were based on barriers to disclosure as identified by
victims. Such barriers include a fear of not being believed or of being
blamed, as well as their experience being minimized (e.g., Alaggia,
2010).
NP4220
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
9

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS–Short Form

(PANAS-SF; Thompson, 2007) is a brief assessment of positive and
negative emotions. It uses five items to measure positive emotions
and five items to measure negative emotions. Each item is rated on a
5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5
(extremely). It was used to assess participants’ feelings after watching
one of the videos. The internal reliability in this sample was good
(a ¼ .84)

Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to the #MeToo manipulation con-
dition or the control condition. After watching the video, participants
answered three questions to ensure they paid attention to the video. On
the next screen, participants were presented with the vignette. They
were asked to carefully read the vignette before moving onto the next
screen. The following screens asked the participants to what extent they
believed the vignette, how harmful they thought the experience was,
who was to blame, and how avoidable they thought the experience
described in the vignette was. On the final screen, participants were
asked to complete the #MeToo questionnaire.

Results
What Are Participants’ Exposure to, and Perceptions of, the #MeToo
Movement?
Exposure. The majority of participants (91.3%) had heard of the
#MeToo movement. The 22 participants who reported they had not
heard of the movement were excluded from all analyses that included
questions about #MeToo. Nearly 17% of participants stated they had
reposted #MeToo. Two out of three participants knew someone who
had reposted #MeToo, and nearly 43% of participants knew someone
who had done something that would make someone else repost
#MeToo.
Next, the closeness to someone who reposted was assessed using the
IOSS. A series of seven images depict two circles that increase in over-
lap, and participants are asked to choose the image that best represents
their closeness with the other person. These images were recoded as a 1
to 7 scale, ranging from 1 (no overlap) to 7 (complete overlap).
Participants reported a mean closeness to someone who reposted
de Roos and Jones
10 NP4221
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Independent Sample t Tests of #MeToo

Exposure Variables.
Men Women
Exposure Frequency (%) Frequency (%) t

Heard of #MeToo 124 (90.5%) 107 (92.2%) �0.49

Reposted #MeToo 22 (16.1%) 20 (17.2%) �1.25
Prefer not to say 3 (2.2%) 6 (5.2%)
Do you know anyone who 84 (61.3%) 87 (75%) �2.33*
reposted #MeToo
Do you know anyone who did 57 (41.7%) 51 (44.0%) �0.39
something to make someone
else repost #MeToo

M SD M SD t

Closeness to person you know who 3.48 1.94 3.48 1.74 .01
reposted #MeToo
Closeness to person you know who did 2.94 2.08 2.46 1.74 1.69†
something to make someone else
repost #MeToo
†
p < .10. *p < .05.

#MeToo of 3.48 (SD ¼ 1.84). The same question was asked for close-
ness to someone who did something that would make someone else
repost #MeToo. A slightly lower mean closeness was reported
(M ¼ 2.72, SD ¼ 1.94).
Independent sample t tests were conducted to assess the difference in
exposure to the #MeToo movement between men and women. Details
are displayed in Table 1. Women were significantly more likely than
men to know someone who had reposted #MeToo. Furthermore, the
difference in closeness to someone who had done something that would
cause someone else to repost #MeToo was marginally significant
(p ¼ .09), with men reporting a greater closeness than did women.
Finally, correlations were calculated between the exposure variables
for men and women.
Details are displayed in Table 2. For both men and women, all expo-
sure variables were significantly, positively correlated.

Perceptions. Perceptions of #MeToo were assessed by asking partici-

pants the extent to which the movement could be described by the
NP4222
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
11

Table 2. Pearson Correlations Between Exposure to #MeToo Variables for Men

and Women.

Perceptions 1 2 3 4 5

1. Reposted #MeToo – .29*** .45*** .25** .49***

2. Knowing someone who .25* – .33** .24** .32**
reposted #MeToo
3. Closeness to someone who .26* .19*** – .24* .73***
reposted #MeToo
4. Knowing someone who did .22* .33** .27** – .28**
something to make someone
else repost #MeToo
5. Closeness to someone who did .35** .27** .39*** .30** –
something to make someone
else repost #MeToo
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Men above diagonal.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Independent Sample t Tests of Perceptions of

#MeToo for Men and Women.

Men Women

Perceptions M SD M SD t

#MeToo is
Helpful 3.89 1.00 4.24 .88 �2.84**
Important 4.07 1.04 4.50 .78 �3.53**
Divisive 3.15 1.29 2.99 1.40 0.92
Witch hunt 2.68 1.37 2.06 1.32 3.51**
Empowering 3.90 1.02 4.30 .91 �3.9**
Gone too far 2.67 1.38 2.21 1.30 2.56*
#MeToo makes me feel
Supported 3.15 1.19 3.94 1.00 �5.51***
Persecuted 2.44 1.32 1.78 1.14 4.07***
Worried 2.42 1.31 2.08 1.30 1.96†
Empowered 3.08 1.25 4.02 1.13 �5.92***
Heard 3.09 1.30 3.96 1.10 �5.44***
Attacked 2.32 1.38 1.70 1.07 3.86***
†
p < . 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

first six variables displayed in Table 3 and to what extent the movement
made them feel the last six variables in Table 3. Each answer was scored
on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5
(agree strongly). We conducted independent sample t tests to compare
de Roos and Jones
12 NP4223
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

Table 4. Factor Loadings Based on Principal Component Analysis for Perceptions

of #MeToo.

Component

Perceptions 1 2

Helpful .701
Important .579 �.315
Divisive .576
Witch hunt �.279 .705
Empower .682
Gone too far �.363 .672
Supported .910
Persecuted .904
Worried .795
Empowered .918
Heard .903
Attacked .912

men and women in their perceptions of the #MeToo movement. The

results are displayed in Table 4. Every variable showed a significant
difference between men and women except divisive and worried.
The perception variables are highly correlated with each other (sig-
nificant correlations .19–.84; nonsignificant correlations: feeling heard
with feeling attacked and feeling heard with feeling worried). Negative
perceptions show a strong positive correlation with each other, strong
negative correlations with positive perceptions, and vice versa.
Due to these high correlations, a principal component analysis with
varimax rotation was conducted to assess the uniqueness of the percep-
tion variables. A Varimax rotation was chosen to allow for the possi-
bility that positive and negative perceptions were uncorrelated. Two
components with eigenvalues above 1 emerged, and these components
explained 68.11% of the variance. The component matrix is displayed
in Table 4. Loadings below .25 are not displayed.
The identified factors appear to be positive perceptions and negative
perceptions. We created a composite score for positive perceptions by
summing the items that indicated positive perceptions of the movement
(a ¼ .90). Similarly, a composite score was created for negative percep-
tions by summing the items indicative of negative perceptions (a ¼ .89).
We used these composite scores in all subsequent analyses where per-
ceptions of #MeToo are mentioned. We ran independent sample t tests
NP4224
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
13

to examine gender differences on positive and negative perceptions.

Women (M ¼ 25.00, SD ¼ 4.97) were significantly more likely than
men (M ¼ 21.15, SD ¼ 5.22) to hold positive perceptions of the move-
ment (t ¼ –5.68, p < .001). Similarly, men (M ¼ 15.70, SD ¼ 6.50) were
significantly more likely than women (M ¼ 12.82, SD ¼ 5.91) to hold
negative perceptions of the movement (t ¼ 3.49, p ¼ .001).

Vignette variables. Participants were asked seven questions about the

vignette describing the CSA disclosure.
Correlations between variables are displayed in Table 5.
Finally, we examined the link between perceptions of #MeToo and
responses to the vignette. Positive perceptions of #MeToo were associ-
ated with more positive responses than negative perceptions (Table 6).
Interestingly, participants with more negative perceptions were more
likely to blame Zoe’s mom, and to find the vignette more avoidable.

Does Proximity to Victimization or Perpetration Affect How

Participants Respond to Sexual Violence?
Proximity to victimization. First, we computed correlations between prox-
imity to victimization and perceptions of the movement. For men,
having reposted #MeToo was associated with both stronger positive
(r ¼ .19, p ¼ .04) and negative (r ¼ .38, p < .001) perceptions, whereas
for women, reposting was only associated with negative perceptions
(r ¼ .27, p < .01). Knowing someone who reposted the status and close-
ness to such a person was linked to positive perceptions of the move-
ment for both men (r ¼ .36, p < .001) and women (r ¼ .32, p ¼ .001).
Second, we performed analyses to assess the effect of proximity to
victimization on responses to a CSA disclosure. A series of stepwise
multiple linear regressions were conducted for believing the vignette,
harmfulness of the vignette, avoidability of the vignette, and amount of
blame allocated to Zoe, Zoe’s mom, or Zoe’s mom’s boyfriend. For
each regression, the entered variables were knowing someone who
reposted the status, closeness to that person, as well as positive and
negative perceptions of the movement and gender. Due to skewness
of the blame variables, normality assumptions were violated and, as
such, a robust estimator (MLR) was used. No significant equations
with the proximity to victimization variables emerged.

Proximity to perpetration. Correlational analyses showed that men who

knew someone who had done something that would make someone
de Roos and Jones
14 NP4225
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

Table 5. Pearson Correlations Between Response to Disclosure Variables for Men

and Women.

Response to Disclosure 1 2 3 4 5 6

Believe – �.34*** .54*** �.08 .42*** �.13

Blame Zoe �.32*** – �.49*** .26** �.41*** .16
Blame mom’s boyfriend .33*** �.64*** – .11 .61*** .03
Blame Zoe’s mom �.23* .28** �.09 – .08 .19*
Harmful .38*** �.41*** .63*** �.04 – �.06
Avoidable .01 .09 <.01 .35*** .07 –
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Men above the diagonal.

Table 6. Correlations Between Perceptions of #MeToo and Responses to a CSA

Vignette.

Variable Positive Perceptions Negative Perceptions

Believe .39*** �.38***

Blame Zoe �.14* .56***
Blame boyfriend .15*† �.32**
Blame mom �.21** .33***
Harmful .26*** �.33***
Avoid �.16* .19**
Note. CSA ¼ childhood sexual abuse.
†
p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

else repost #MeToo were more likely to have negative perceptions of

the movement (r ¼ .25, p ¼ .006). Following this, a similar approach, as
for proximity to victimization, was taken for the effect of proximity to
perpetration. We performed stepwise multiple regression analyses to
assess the effect of proximity to perpetration on responses to a CSA
disclosure. The variables entered were knowing someone who had done
something that would make someone else repost, closeness to this
person, positive and negative perceptions toward the movement, and
gender. Two significant equations with proximity to perpetration vari-
ables emerged. Believing the disclosure was predicted by knowing some-
one who did something that would make someone else repost (b ¼ .16,
p ¼ .03) even with positive (b ¼ .24, p < .01) and negative (b ¼ –.28,
p ¼ .001) perceptions entering the model. Similarly, for harmfulness,
closeness to someone who did something that might make someone
NP4226
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
15

else repost entered the model (b ¼ –.19, p ¼ .01) in addition to negative

perceptions of the movement (b ¼ –.29, p < .001).
A regression with an MLR was run for the blame variables due to
skewness of these variables. Knowing someone who did something that
would make someone else repost predicted the amount of blame allo-
cated to Zoe (b ¼ –.01, p ¼ .04).

How Do Participants Respond to a Potentially Threatening Video of

#MeToo?
Emotional response. Of this sample, 123 participants watched the
#MeToo video (48.6%) and 130 participants watched the environmen-
tal video (51.4%). The PANAS was completed by each participant,
after watching the video, to rate how the video made them feel. We
conducted independent sample t tests to assess whether men and women
differed in their emotional response to either video. The results are
displayed in Table 7. For the #MeToo video, three significant differ-
ences emerged. Men recorded significantly more shame than women.
Furthermore, women reported higher levels of feeling both inspired and
determined. No significant differences emerged for the environmental
video.
We performed two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for each
PANAS variable to determine whether there was an interaction effect
of gender and video for any of the variables, but no significant inter-
actions emerged.

Disclosure response. We examined the interaction effects of gender and

video on the vignette variables. For belief in the vignette, a two-way
ANOVA with gender and video as predictors and belief in vignette as
the outcome variable was used. No significant interaction effect was
found. Similar analyses were conducted for the harmful and avoidable
variables. No significant interaction effects were found.
With respect to the blame variables, a multiple regression with
dummy variables was conducted (with a robust maximum likelihood
estimator for the blame allocated to Zoe and Zoe’s mom’s boyfriend).
None of the interaction effects were significant.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine exposure to and perceptions of the
#MeToo movement, and to assess how these factors related to
de Roos and Jones
16 NP4227
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of PANAS-Scores for Men and Women for Both
Videos and Independent Sample t tests.

#MeToo Environmental

Men Women Men Women

PANAS M SD M SD t M SD M SD t

Upset 2.82 1.30 3.11 1.10 �1.29 2.62 1.15 2.97 1.26 �1.62
Hostile 2.18 1.22 2.07 1.05 0.51 2.04 1.25 1.93 1.28 0.49
Alert 3.35 1.17 3.65 1.02 �1.50 3.75 .98 3.85 1.15 �0.53
Ashamed 2.19 1.32 1.65 1.00 2.56* 2.71 1.35 2.77 1.32 �0.27
Inspired 2.88 1.34 3.60 1.36 �2.93** 3.55 1.22 3.80 1.15 �1.21
Nervous 2.01 1.20 1.91 1.09 0.50 2.36 11.32 2.43 1.23 �0.32
Determined 2.84 1.30 3.33 1.29 �2.08* 3.53 1.28 3.59 1.06 �0.30
Attentive 3.56 1.10 3.85 1.15 �1.46 3.91 1.01 4.07 .96 �0.88
Afraid 1.94 1.27 1.65 .96 1.41 2.33 1.27 2.56 1.37 �0.97
Active 2.94 1.26 2.87 1.23 0.30 3.52 1.12 3.23 1.28 1.39
Note. PANAS ¼ Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

participants’ responses to sexual violence. Most participants had heard

of the #MeToo movement, and 17% reported they had reposted the
status. Most participants knew someone who had reposted the status
and close to half knew someone who had done something to make
someone else repost #MeToo.
These findings suggest that #MeToo is a well-known movement and
most people have had first- or secondhand exposure to it. As hypoth-
esized, a gender difference emerged with women more likely to know
someone who had reposted the status. Interestingly, the results indicat-
ed that men were marginally more likely to be close to someone who
had done something to cause someone else to repost, highlighting the
importance of further exploring the concept of proximity to victimiza-
tion as well as perpetration.
The observed gender differences are in line with previous research
that suggests women tend to have a closer proximity to victimization
through relationships with victims (Miller & Cromer, 2015). Although a
gender difference in reposting the status was not found in this study, the
number of participants who reposted was small. Furthermore, results
suggested that people who reposted the status were more likely to know
someone who had done something to make someone else repost. It may
NP4228
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
17

be that participants were thinking of the person who did something to

them that made them repost the status. Given that most people are
victimized by someone they know well (National Institute of Justice,
2003), that could explain this finding. Future studies should attempt to
tease out the overlap between one’s own victimization and knowing a
perpetrator.
The perceptions of men and women of the #MeToo movement
varied in nearly every aspect. Men held significantly more negative
views than women, and women reported significantly more positive
feelings associated with the movement. This finding is in line with the
study by Kunst et al. (2019) who found a similar gender difference in
perceptions of the movement. The negative perceptions held by men
may be indicative of an underlying defensive response. It would appear
then, that although the #MeToo movement seems to have a positive
effect on women, making them feel empowered and heard, the opposite
is true for men. This finding highlights the polarizing nature of the
movement and suggests that men may feel attacked by the movement.
These feelings might make them less likely to engage in a conversation
about sexual violence and to emerge as allies to women rather than as
opponents. Indeed, Casey (2010) posed that defensiveness reduces the
likelihood of people stepping up as allies. It may be the case that polar-
ization, as a result of #MeToo, is leading to more skepticism, resulting
in a less supportive response to a disclosure of sexual violence.
With regard to the responses participants gave to the CSA disclo-
sure, the responses skewed toward positive, with most participants
responding in a non-skeptical, supportive manner. However, several
differences in responses did emerge, and they highlight how perceptions
of a broader movement may shape responses in a specific situation. This
finding is similar to findings from research into the Black Lives Matter
movement, which suggest attitudes toward the movement are related to
how specific situations are perceived (e.g., Reinka & Leach, 2017).
Indeed, participants who reported having more positive views of
#MeToo were also more likely to respond to a disclosure in a support-
ive manner. From the specific vignette questions, it appeared that when
participants held more negative views of the movement, they were more
likely to blame Zoe’s mom and to find the vignette more avoidable.
Further research should investigate the nature of this seeming diffusion
of blame. Furthermore, because we did not ask participants about their
perceptions of sexual violence before the #MeToo movement, we
cannot be certain that it is the movement itself that shaped their per-
ceptions. A future study might ask participants explicitly whether their
de Roos and Jones
18 NP4229
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

views on sexual violence have changed as a result of the #MeToo

movement.
When looking at victimization proximity and perceptions, results
showed that reposting the status was, on one hand, more likely to be
associated with negative perceptions of the movement for female par-
ticipants but, on the other hand, male participants were more likely to
feel positive as well as negative emotions about the movement. These
results may have emerged due to the small number of participants who
reported having reposted the status. However, at least in part, these
results may also suggest a difference in the individual experiences of
the movement and their victimization. Kunst et al. (2019) also found
that people who had a personal history of sexual victimization per-
ceived the movement as less beneficial than those who did not.
Perhaps, #MeToo is viewed as not doing enough to address victim-
ization or as not providing any tangible support for victims. Rape,
Abuse, & Incest National Network’s (RAINN) guidelines on how to
respond to victims of sexual violence emphasize the importance of con-
tinued support. A very public reposting without subsequent ongoing
support may end up being more harmful than helpful to a victim
(Ullman, 2002). Furthermore, participants who reposted the status
may simply have stronger perceptions of the movement in general
due to the personal relevance of the movement for them (e.g., Lang
& Bradley, 2010). A further explanation may be drawn from an article
on hashtag feminism and, specifically, a similar hashtag that trended on
social media in 2014 (Mendes et al., 2018). The hashtag
#BeenRapedNeverReported similarly sought to draw attention to the
prevalence of sexual violence and to highlight the problem of under-
reporting. The researchers interviewed people who had posted the hash-
tag on social media and they found a similar tension between positive
and negative emotions, with participants reporting finding the experi-
ence comforting on one hand, but also triggering on the other hand.
Similarly, the interviews showed that the public nature of a hashtag
leads to support from outside one’s own social circle, but for 72% of
participants, it also led to hostility, threats, and misogynistic online
abuse. The present findings of mixed emotions may be the result of
similar conflicting processes. Finally, having reposted the status pro-
vides no further information of the motivations for doing so. Instead, it
means the person identifies as a victim of some form of sexual violence
and/or harassment. As such, the range of victimization experiences is
likely to vary, and victims of different types of experiences may expe-
rience the #MeToo movement differently. Reposting the status suggests
NP4230
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
19

that the person is an “acknowledged” victim (Koss, 1985), meaning they

identify as a victim.
However, the experience of unacknowledged victims, who do not
view their experience as a victimization, remains hidden although
they experience similar negative consequences as acknowledged victims
(Frazier & Seales, 1997; Kahn & Mathie, 2000; Orlando & Koss, 1983).
In short, the heterogeneous nature of victimization likely plays a role in
the range of emotional responses reported in this study.
Knowing someone who reposted the status was linked with more
positive perceptions of #MeToo, and closeness to someone who did
something to cause someone else to repost the status was linked with
more negative perceptions. It is important to point out that the phrasing
of this question may have led some people to confuse posting something
about #MeToo, with reposting the status, which is synonymous with a
public disclosure of sexual victimization. Interestingly, proximity to
victimization did not have an effect on the vignette variables, whereas
proximity to perpetration did.
This may be due to the nature of #MeToo, and closeness to someone
who reposted may not be strong enough to create differences in
responses. #MeToo is very public by nature, as evidenced by the
public reposting of the status on social media with the intent of
giving visibility to sexual victimization. However, due to the public
nature of reposting the status, it is likely not a great measure of prox-
imity to victimization because no further conversation with the person
who reposted may have occurred. A better indicator of proximity to
victimization would be to ask whether the participant knows anyone
who has been a victim of sexual violence or harassment.
Interestingly, participants who knew someone who had done some-
thing to make someone else repost #MeToo were more likely to believe
the vignette, but closeness to this person was not a factor. This finding
suggests there may be an availability bias at play, with people who
know someone who caused someone else to repost the status being
more likely to recall an incident of sexual violence, which in turn
could increase belief in the vignette. Such a bias may indeed occur fol-
lowing media exposure to a phenomenon (e.g., Iyengar, 1990). On the
contrary, closeness to such a person was linked to viewing the vignette
as less harmful and to allocating more blame to the victim. The disso-
nance between belief that the disclosure is real and simultaneous min-
imization of harm seem indicative of a type of defensiveness, or at least
cognitive dissonance, whereby the participant tries to resolve the
de Roos and Jones
20 NP4231
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

conflict of believing in victimization while also knowing someone who

victimized someone else.
Interestingly, gender differences were found for the #MeToo video in
how it made participants feel, with men reporting more shame and
women reporting being inspired and determined. These differences sug-
gest that, to an extent, the video did have the desired effect of eliciting
different, if not opposite, responses in men and women. Future studies
may wish to further examine the nature of this shame reported by men.
For example, shame is defined as a painful feeling with negative effects
on interpersonal relations. However, shame and guilt are often con-
fused, with guilt having comparatively more adaptive behaviors such
as taking responsibility for one’s actions (Tangney & Dearing, 2003). It
is likely that these emotions would have a different effect on how people
respond to movements such as #MeToo.
This study had some limitations. First, at no point were participants
asked whether they had ever done something that would cause someone
else to repost #MeToo. If so, this would be the closest possible prox-
imity to perpetration and that would likely skew the results. Similarly,
participants who reposted #MeToo were also asked whether they knew
someone who did something that caused someone else to repost the
status, which means they could have thought of the person who
caused them to repost. This is clearly a different kind of proximity to
perpetration than the target of this study, and thus, this should be
considered in future research. Second, we presented participants with
response options regarding their perceptions of the movement and, in
doing so, we may have superimposed bias onto them. A future study
may ask participants to write in their views on the movement instead to
allow for a more objective reflection of their views. Third, the #MeToo
movement is very public in nature. Reposting a status for other people
to see means that proximity to victimization increases for everyone who
uses social media as it takes away the intimate nature of such disclosure
in a more personal manner. As such, knowing someone who reposted
the status may not be the best indication of proximity to victimization.
Furthermore, although use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk may result in
a more diverse sample than an undergraduate student sample, MTurk
samples are also not representative of the U.S. population (Arditte
et al., 2016). Finally, we did not explicitly ask people whether the
#MeToo movement had changed their perceptions of sexual violence
and harassment, and thus we cannot conclude whether the movement
directly influenced participants’ responses to the vignette.
NP4232
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
21

This study confirmed that the #MeToo movement is well-known,

and that most people have heard of it. We studied well-established
gender differences in response to sexual violence in the broader context
of the #MeToo movement. It appears that women are more likely to
have positive perceptions of the movement than men, and these percep-
tions are reflected in responses to a CSA disclosure. Future research
should explore whether men experience greater fear of being accused of
sexual violence in light of increased disclosures as a result of the move-
ment. Self-identified victims of sexual violence may experience the
movement in different ways. Beyond the scope of #MeToo, this article
sheds light on the challenges victims of sexual violence may face when
disclosing. Closeness to a victim increases the likelihood for positive
responses, whereas closeness to a perpetrator has the opposite effect.
This finding makes a case for the importance of social relationships in
creating a safe environment for victims to disclose. Although belief in a
disclosure seemed unaffected, the impact on blame allocation and per-
ceived harmfulness suggests a secondary, defensive response to disclo-
sure that should be further explored.

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
publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Melissa S. de Roos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3469-6870

Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
Alaggia, R. (2010). An ecological analysis of child sexual abuse disclosure:
Considerations for child and adolescent mental health. Journal of the
Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19, 32–39.
Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93–104.
de Roos and Jones
22 NP4233
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

Arditte, K. A., Çek, D., Shaw, A. M., & Timpano, K. R. (2016). The impor-
tance of assessing clinical phenomena in Mechanical Turk research.
Psychological Assessment, 28, 684–691.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale
and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 596–612.
Back, S., & Lips, H. M. (1998). Child sexual abuse: Victim age, victim gender,
and observer gender as factors contributing to attributions of responsibility.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 1239–1252.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1979). Attitude organization and the atti-
tude–behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
913–929.
BBC. (2016, February 25). BBC ‘missed chances to stop attacks’. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35658398
Bilefsky, D. (2016, February 25). Jimmy Savile inquiry accuses BBC of failing to
report sexual abuse. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/world/europe/
jimmy-savile-report-bbc.html
Brown, R. J., & Ross, G. R. (1982). The battle for acceptance: An exploration
into the dynamics of intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity
and intergroup relations (pp. 155–178). Cambridge University Press.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
Casey, E. (2010). Strategies for engaging men as anti-violence allies:
Implications for ally movements. Advances in Social Work, 11, 267–282.
Chowdhury, S. (2018, January 16). Larry Nassar: The doctor involved in gym-
nastics’ abuse scandal. BBC Sport. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/gymnastics/
42710921.
Cromer, L. D., & Freyd, J. J. (2007). What influences believing child sexual abuse
disclosures? The roles of depicted memory persistence, participant gender,
trauma history, and sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 13–22.
Cromer, L. D., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). Child sexual abuse myths: Attitudes,
beliefs, and individual differences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19,
618–647.
Cromwell, M. (2017, December 19). #MeToo movement goes too far. http://
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-op-1220-metoo-toofar-
20171219-story.html
Davies, M., & Rogers, P. (2009). Perceptions of blame and credibility toward
victims of childhood sexual abuse: Differences across victim age, victim-
perpetrator relationship, and respondent gender in a depicted case. Journal
of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 78–92.
Donovan, R. A. (2007). To blame or not to blame: Influences of target race and
observer sex on rape blame attribution. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22,
722–736.
NP4234
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
23

Feather, N. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to

authoritarianism, values, perceived responsibility, perceived seriousness,
and deservingness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
571–587.
Font, S. A. (2013). Perceptions of juvenile sexual abuse victims: A meta-analysis
on vignette based studies on the effects of victims’ age and respondents’
gender. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22, 593–611.
Frazier, P. A., & Seales, L. M. (1997). Acquaintance rape is real rape. In M. D.
Schwartz (Ed.), Researching sexual violence against women: Methodological
and personal perspectives (pp. 54–64). Sage.
Gendreau, P., Andrews, D. A., Goggin, C., & Chanteloupe, F. (1992). The
development of clinical and policy guidelines for the prediction of criminal
behaviour in criminal justice settings [Programs branch user report].
Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Gerson, J. (2017, October 17). Jen Gerson: I mean no disrespect when I say
that I have a problem with #MeToo. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jen-
gerson-the-problemwith-metoo-it-holds-the-wrong-people-responsible-for-
sex-assault
Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting terrain of sex and power: From the
“sexualization of culture” to# MeToo. Sexualities, 21, 1313–1324.
Grant, P. R. (1992). Ethnocentrism between groups of unequal power in
response to perceived threat to social identity and valued resources.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 28–44.
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants
perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants.
Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400–407.
Humphrey, S. E., & Kahn, A. S. (2000). Fraternities athletic teams rape:
Importance of identification with a risky group. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 15, 1313–1322.
Iyengar, S. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public
opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 1–15.
Kahn, A. S., & Mathie, V. A. (2000). Understanding the unacknowledged rape
victim. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White (Eds.), Psychology of women: Volume
4. Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp. 377–403). American Psychological
Association.
Kahn, A. S., Rodgers, K. A., Martin, C., Malick, K., Claytor, J., Gandolfo, M.,
. . . Webne, E. (2011). Gender versus gender role in attributions of blame for
a sexual assault. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 239–251.
Kelly, T. (2009). Judgments and perceptions of blame: The impact of benevolent
sexism and rape type on attributions of responsibility in sexual assault
[Doctoral dissertation]. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/
17781
Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situ-
ational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193–212.
de Roos and Jones
24 NP4235
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

Kunst, J. R., Bailey, A., Prendergast, C., & Gundersen, A. (2019). Sexism, rape
myths and feminist identification explain gender differences in attitudes
toward the #MeToo social media campaign in two countries. Media
Psychology, 22, 818–843.
Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2010). Emotion and the motivational brain.
Biological Psychology, 84, 437–450.
Lavigne, P., & Noren, N. (2018, January 27). OTL: Michigan State secrets
extend far beyond Larry Nassar case. https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/
id/22214566/pattern-denial-inaction-information-suppression-michigan-
state-goes-larry-nassar-case-espn
Lyon, H. M., Kaney, S., & Bentall, R. P. (1994). The defensive function of
persecutory delusions: Evidence from attribution tasks. The British Journal
of Psychiatry, 164, 637–646.
McElvaney, R., Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (2012). Containing the secret of child
sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1155–1175.
Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2018). # MeToo and the promise and
pitfalls of challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism.
European Journal of Women’s Studies, 25, 236–246.
Miller, K. E., & Cromer, L. D. (2015). Beyond gender: Proximity to interper-
sonal trauma in examining differences in believing child abuse disclosures.
Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 16, 211–223.
National Geographic. (2016, September 15). https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v¼o0AOkDpzNBM
National Institute of Justice. (2003). Youth victimization: Prevalence and impli-
cations (DOJ Publication No. NCJ 194972). U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs.
Nuttall, R., & Jackson, H. (1994). Personal history of childhood abuse among
clinicians. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 455–472.
Ohlheiser, A. (2017, October 19). The woman behind “Me Too” knew the power
of the phrase when she created it—10 years ago. https://www.washingtonpost.
com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/10/19/the-woman-behindme-too-knew-the-
power-of-the-phrase-when-she-created-it-10-years-ago/
Orlando, J. A., & Koss, M. P. (1983). The effects of sexual victimization on
sexual satisfaction: A study of the negative-association hypothesis. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 92, 104–106.
Reinka, M. A., & Leach, C. W. (2017). Race and reaction: Divergent views of
police violence and protest against. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 768–788.
Santiago, C., & Criss, D. (2017, October 17). An activist, a little girl, and the
heartbreaking origin of #MeToo. https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/us/me-
too-tarana-burkeorigin-trnd/index.html
Schwark, S., & Bohner, G. (2019). Sexual violence—”Victim” or “survivor”:
News images affect explicit and implicit judgments of blame. Violence
Against Women, 25, 1491–1509.
NP4236
de Roos and Jones Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(7-8)
25

Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on

the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 14, 101–113.
Smartt, N. (2017, December 20). Sexual harassment in the workplace in A
#MeToo world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescoun
cil/2017/12/20/sexualharassment-in-the-workplace-in-a-metoo-world/
#16fc34575a42
Snyder, C., & Lopez, L. (2017, December 13). Tarana Burke on why she created
the #MeToo movement—And where it’s headed. http://www.businessinsider.
com/howthe-metoo-movement-started-where-its-headed-tarana-burke-time-
person-of-yearwomen-2017-12
Stephens, B. (2017, December 20). When #MeToo goes too far. https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/12/20/opinion/metoo-damon-too-far.html
Stiller, A., & Hellmann, D. F. (2017). In the aftermath of disclosing child sexual
abuse: Consequences, needs, and wishes. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23,
251–265.
Stoltenborgh, M., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans-
Kranenburg, M. J. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse:
Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world. Child Maltreatment, 16,
79–101.
Strum, L. (2017, October 26). Twitter chat: What #MeToo says about sexual
abuse in society. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/twitter-chat-what-
metoo-saysabout-sexual-abuse-in-society
Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis
on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010–2035.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.
The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33, 74–88.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2003). Shame and guilt. Guilford Press.
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally
reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242.
Thompson, M. (2000). Life after rape: A chance to speak? Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 15, 325–343.
Time. (2017, December 6). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼MkR8GY2Y
BAU
Ullman, S. E. (2002). Social reactions to child sexual abuse disclosures: A crit-
ical review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12, 89–121.
Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 73–79.
Wilhelm, H. (2017, October 23). Where #MeToo goes off the rails. http://www.
chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-me-too-sexualas
sault-wilhelm-1023-story.html
de Roos and Jones
26 NP4237
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0(0)

Author Biographies
Melissa S. de Roos is a lecturer in the MSc forensic psychology program
at Roehampton University in London, United Kingdom. Her research
focuses on childhood sexual abuse, specifically barriers survivors face in
disclosing the abuse, and how people respond to such disclosures. She
studies grooming behaviors sex offenders use and how these behaviors
complicate the disclosure process for child victims or survivors.

Daniel N. Jones is an assistant professor of management and interdis-

ciplinary social psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno. Prior to
his appointment at UNR, he was an assistant professor of legal psy-
chology at the University of Texas at El Paso. He received his PhD
from the University of British Columbia in personality and social psy-
chology in 2011.