Substance Use-Related Social Reactions to Sexual Assault Disclosures: Results from Survivor – Informal Support Dyadic Qualitative Interviews

Abstract

Purpose.

Ample research exists on social reactions to sexual assault (SA) disclosure from the survivor perspective, yet dyadic data with their informal supports remains scarce, particularly for substance-related social reactions.

Method.

The present study of 15 survivor-informal support dyads using interview data addresses this gap and examines how three relationship types: significant others (i.e., romantic partners), family, and friends differ in social reactions to substance-related SAs.

Results.

Results show that alcohol/drug’s role in assaults entails a mixture of social reactions from informal support providers (SP) towards survivors, including positive reactions where SPs affirmed that the drinking and/or assault were not the survivor’s fault, mixed reactions where SPs changed their perspective from initial blame to later realizing their response was wrong and becoming more supportive, and negative social reactions where SPs blamed victims for drinking/drug use.

Conclusions.

Education and training are needed to improve SPs’ ability to avoid negative reactions to substance-involved assaults and increase their ability to recognize and communicate that such assaults are not the victim’s fault.

Approximately half of SAs involve drinking prior to the assault (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, & McAuslan, 2004; Lorenz & Ullman, 2016a). In alcohol-related assaults (i.e., assaults with survivor and/or perpetrator drinking), compared to non-alcohol-related assaults, survivors are less likely to acknowledge the incidents as rapes, more likely to engage in drinking alcohol as a coping mechanism for assault-related distress, less likely to report to formal authorities, and more likely to receive negative social reactions (e.g., blame, disbelief) when telling others (see Lorenz & Ullman, 2016a). Rape myths related to drinking and gender role stereotypes (Grubb & Turner, 2012) can make these assaults harder for survivors to disclose and for SPs to respond compassionately. For example, blame may be explained by various gender-related drinking stereotypes (van der Bruggen & Grubb, 2014), given that survivors who engage in drinking and/or other substance use prior to assault are often viewed as irresponsible and to blame for their assaults, which makes disclosure and support-seeking more challenging. Having absorbed societal rape myths about drinking, women survivors frequently feel that assault is partially their fault due to the internalized stereotype that women who drink heavily are “asking for it” (Edwards, Turchik, Dardis, Reynolds, & Gidycz, 2011; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010).

Despite these challenges and concerns substance-involved SA survivors have with disclosure, most survivors do disclose their experience(s) to informal SPs, such as family, friends, and partners (Ullman, 2023). Survivors who were impaired after pre-assault drinking are more likely to disclose to informal SPs than those who were not impaired (Littleton, Grills-Taquechel, & Axsom, 2009). Survivors of alcohol-related assaults report receiving more negative responses to disclosure, including more blame, controlling actions or statements, stigma/treating the survivor differently, and/or distraction (e.g., discouraging talking about the assault) responses from formal and informal SPs than survivors of non-alcohol-related assaults (Lorenz & Ullman, 2016b; Ullman, 2023). Qualitative research exploring these general social reactions to pre-assault alcohol use is still lacking (for an exception, see Ullman et al., 2020), with even less on substance-use-specific reactions (e.g., such as positive or negative comments about victim drinking/drug use). However, some recent quantitative research shows that survivors of substance-related assaults have unique negative experiences (Kamke et al., 2023) and receive much more general negative social reactions (e.g., blame, control, disbelief, treat differently) from family members than from friends or intimate partners. However, this research did not examine social reactions related to the survivor’s substance use and only focused on general negative social reactions made to disclosures.

Additionally, there is less research on how SPs appraise their substance-related social reactions towards the survivor’s disclosure of their assault, including dyadic research. Studies have examined correlates of alcohol-specific social reactions quantitatively (Lorenz and Ullman, 2016b) and general social reactions (not substance-specific ones) qualitatively in response to alcohol-involved assault disclosures (Ullman et al., 2020). This study will address the lack of qualitative data on substance-specific social reactions (i.e., alcohol and drugs) from survivor and informal SP perspectives.

Informal support providers’ social reactions to alcohol-involved assaults

Most research to date has focused on alcohol-involved assaults and social reactions related to them. A study with a sample of college student SPs found several correlates of negative alcohol-specific social reactions following assault disclosures (Edwards et al., 2022a, b), including male survivor gender, survivor drinking during disclosure, and SPs approaching the survivor as opposed to the survivor approaching SPs to disclose (Edwards et al., 2022a). In addition, regression analyses showed that controlling for other factors, SPs reporting more victim-blaming attitudes and more SP alcohol use themselves made more negative alcohol-specific social reactions toward survivors. Also, when victims were drinking at the time of disclosure, SPs reported responding with more negative alcohol-specific social reactions (Edwards et al., 2022b).

In another study, college students receiving SA disclosures (not specific to substances) from a friend who endorsed rape myths had their own histories of victimization in which they blamed themselves, those who had friends in common with the perpetrator were less likely to support survivors, more likely to experience their own shame and anger, and more likely to blame their friends (Rich et al., 2021). Survivors of substance-involved SAs also receive more negative than positive social reactions from family than those disclosing to friends and intimate partners (Lorenz et al., 2016b; Kamke et al., 2023). While SP rape myths have not been studied in relationship to alcohol-specific social reactions to our knowledge, other research has explored responses following SA disclosure.

There is some research on self-reported negative alcohol-specific social reactions from survivors’ perspectives. In 2020, Ullman et al.’s qualitative study of 19 survivor-informal SP dyads (mostly women friends) showed positive and negative reactions from SPs. Friends provided no negative reactions directly related to survivor alcohol use. Family and significant others were more upset, angry, and questioning of survivors, although survivors did not specifically disclose their alcohol use. Specific responses related to survivors’ drinking included asking survivors about why they were drinking and SPs articulating the idea that if women take risks such as drinking, they can expect to be assaulted.

Informal SPs’ social reactions and helpfulness towards survivors post-assault appear to depend on their perception of whether the survivor is responsible for the assault and/or is coping poorly (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Grubb & Turner, 2012). In particular, if SPs are upset or angry at a survivor’s drinking and/or substance use before an assault, they may feel that it contributed to the assault. In addition, rape myth acceptance from SP may lead them to be less helpful (Rinehart et al., 2023), judge the victim as coping poorly, and respond with more negative social reactions, particularly regarding substance use by survivors before the assault.

Present Study

Research on social reactions that specifically comment on the survivor’s pre-assault drinking and/or substance use is still limited and most prior studies are on female survivors to date. More studies (including qualitative investigations) are needed to improve our understanding of survivors’ experiences with disclosure and their informal SPs’ responses to them. Past research has examined correlates of alcohol-specific social reactions (Lorenz and Ullman, 2016a) and general social reactions (not substance-specific ones) in response to alcohol-involved assault disclosures (Ullman et al., 2020).

The present study addresses the lack of qualitative data on substance-specific social reactions (i.e., alcohol and/or drugs) from both survivor and their informal SPs’ perspectives. This study examined processes involved in dyadic matched pairs of family, friends, and significant others disclosing and receiving social reactions related to substance-involved SAs. While some past qualitative research identified differences in social reactions from family, friends, and significant others in general (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012; Dworkin, Pittenger, & Allen, 2016), that work did not specifically focus on social reactions to alcohol- or drug-related SAs. In addition, only one study (Ullman et al., 2020), to our knowledge, has been published using dyadic matched pairs of survivors and informal SPs to examine alcohol-related SAs, disclosures, and general social reactions.

This study explored the various experiences of social reactions related to women survivors’ use of alcohol or other substances prior to SAs in a dyadic sample of survivors and their informal SPs. Research questions were: 1) What are the specific types of negative, mixed, and positive substance-use-related social reactions to substance-involved SA disclosures? and 2) What are the differences in perceptions of substance-involved social reactions between survivors and SPs in dyadic relationships?

Method

Participants

A sample of adult women–identified SA survivors were recruited through social media and other advertisements, rape crisis centers, and other mental health agencies, and posted flyers on listservs and local universities in the Chicago metropolitan area regarding their unwanted sexual experience and responses they received from others following disclosure. All were screened by telephone or email to ensure they met study eligibility criteria. Only survivors indicating an interest in being recontacted for interviews who had an alcohol/drug-involved SA and their nominated SPs (e.g., friend, family member, or significant other) were invited for this portion of the study. For interviews, only survivors referring a family, friend, or partner who they told about the adult alcohol/drug SA were eligible, and SPs were also screened for having heard about and responded to the adult alcohol/drug SA disclosure from the survivor. After completing online consent forms, the individuals completed separate virtual Zoom interviews regarding disclosure and response to survivors from informal SPs. Both survivors and their informal SPs were contacted for interviews simultaneously, with interviews occurring over 1.5 years, resulting in a sample of (N =15) matched pairs of survivors and SPs. The University’s Institutional Review Board approved this study.

The present study includes adult (age 18+) women survivors of alcohol-related and/or drug-related assaults occurring since age 18 who disclosed to their SPs (N=15 dyads). Survivors’ average age was 25.60 years old (SD = 1.80). Race/ethnicity of survivors were diverse: 66.7% (n=10) identified as Black or African American, 20% (n=3) identified as Native American or Alaskan Native, 13.3% (n=2) identified as multiracial, and 20% (n=3) identified as White. Twenty percent of survivors identified as Hispanic or Latina/x (n=3) (assessed separately from race). In terms of sexual orientation, 73.3% (n=11) of survivors were straight, 20% (n=3) were bisexual, and 6.7% (n=1) were pansexual. About 13% (n=2) of survivors had children. Their educational and work backgrounds varied with almost 33% (n=5) of survivors had attended or graduated from college, 46.7% (n=7) had completed some college, 20% (n=3) were high school graduates, and 33.3% (n=5) were currently employed. SAs occurred an average of 4.2 years ago (SD = 2.14). Survivors told the SP immediately after (13.3%, n=2), days after (26.7%, n=4), weeks after (46.7%, (n=7), or a year after (13.3%, n=2) and told an average of 3.87 informal SPs (SD = 3.54) and 4.14 formal support sources (SD = 4.38).

The average age of SPs was 28.87 years old (SD = 4.12). About 67% (n=10) of support providers were women, and 33.3% (n=5) had children. About 13% (n=2) of SPs identified as Asian, while 60% (n=9) identified as Black or African American, 13.3% (n=2) identified as Native American or Alaskan Native, 26.7% (n=4) identified as multiracial, and 13.3% (n=2) identified as White. A little over 13% (n=2) of SPs identified as Hispanic or Latinx/a/o (assessed separately from race). For SP sexual orientation, 60% (n=9) were straight, 13.3% (n=2) were bisexual, 20% (n=3) were gay/lesbian, and 6.7% (n=1) were asexual. Forty percent of SPs (n=6) had attended or graduated from college, and over half were currently employed (53.3%, n=8). Most SPs (60%, n=9) were friends, 20% (n=3) were relatives, 13.3% (n=2) were acquaintances, and 6.7% (n=1) were romantic partners of survivors.

Procedures and Interview Protocol

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom by one of two trained interviewers on the research team and ranged from 24 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes. All survivors and SPs interviewed received $30 for participation via Venmo or a gift card. After each interview, interviewers created summaries with noteworthy points, questions, thoughts, and feelings emerging from the interview. Interview protocols for survivors and SPs focused on disclosure of the unwanted sexual experience involving substances (e.g., alcohol/drugs), social support provided/received, social reactions and appraisals of those reactions, appraisals of the relationship, and the impact of disclosure on survivor’s recovery as well as on providers. Survivors were asked to recount their unwanted sexual experiences at a level of detail they felt comfortable with. At that point, pre-assault alcohol use and/or drug use were disclosed to the interviewer. For the current study, we focused on just one aspect of the interviews: substance-related social reactions (positive, negative, mixed) to disclosure and appraisals of these reactions related specifically to the survivor’s alcohol or substance use/abuse.

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy by other research team members. The transcription process included adding summaries and lists of patterns observed in the data. Interviewers reviewed their transcripts and met to discuss emerging themes and patterns later used to develop a coding scheme. Regarding positionality, the researchers included women with experience doing research and advocacy work with SA survivors. All were White; one was Latinx, two were faculty, 2 were graduate students, and 1 was an advanced undergraduate student. All had experience with survey and/or interview research with SA survivors, and we take a critical feminist perspective on SA and alcohol/drug use in women-identified survivors.

Data Analyses

Each interview transcript was summarized to identify patterns and themes and were discussed among the research team. Several interview coding and refinement rounds were used to develop a codebook covering individual interviews and themes reflecting the matched pair relationship. The codes were descriptive and summarized the primary topic of the excerpt (Saldana, 2012). We focused on substance-use-related social reaction codes applicable to survivors and SPs, where they described the social reaction they received or provided and their appraisal of it. We examined the context of codes by reviewing the transcripts and interviewer summaries when identifying relevant quotes. MAXQDA Version 24 software was used to code the data. We identified codes that made the most analytic sense of the data (termed “focused” coding; Charmaz, 2006) and used them to code transcript segments. We coded data separately and compared interpretations to achieve consensus (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010) in several phases.

First, pairs of coders coded each interview matched pair using the codebook. Second, one coder in the pair reviewed both coded transcripts to identify inconsistencies in assigned codes. Third, coders met to discuss interpretations until reaching a joint consensus version (Patton, 2002). In cases where agreement could not be reached or more than one code applied, we used double coding (i.e., simultaneous coding; Saldana, 2012). During the coding process, coders created memos within transcripts to highlight relationships or inconsistencies within interviews or between interview pairs or to capture unanticipated themes (Charmaz, 2006). These memos ensured our ability to attend to the relationships between and among matched pair interviews. Trustworthiness and credibility of the analysis were enhanced by (a) getting feedback from other survivors on the interview protocol and codebook to ensure its appropriateness and (b) independent coding of data and coder discussions to reach a consensus on coding to ensure quality and consistency (O’Brien et al., 2014).

A descriptive and reflexive thematic analysis approach was taken to synthesize the text quotations under various themes (Braun & Clarke, 2022). For the substance use social reactions content reviewed here, we applied a descriptive thematic analysis, as we did not formulate a new interpretive schema but essentially provided a thematic clustering of the findings related to social reactions in their various manifestations and contexts. Analysis took place using an iterative process in several stages at individual and matched pair levels. First, queries were conducted using MAXQDA software to identify the number of times each interviewee endorsed codes. Second, we individually reviewed quotes for each query to search for patterns. Third, we met several times to discuss identified themes and patterns, looking for similarities and contrasts within matched pairs and across the dyads. In addition to looking at the interview transcripts, we also looked at related codes like SA context, as needed, to better understand the context and motivation of the disclosure and the role of the relationship between survivors and SPs in disclosing and responding to substance-related assaults.

Results

Sample Characteristics

This sample of alcohol/drug-related assaults was based on women survivors who drank alcohol and/or used other substances prior to the assault (n = 15 S/SP pairs, n=15 survivors). Survey data showed that over two-thirds of survivors (71.2%, n = 10) were using only alcohol at the time of the assault, 28.6% (n = 4) used both drugs and alcohol at the time of the assault and .2% (n =1) was missing. The effect of alcohol and/or drug use on survivors prior to the assault varied: 42% (n = 8) were not incapacitated, 20% (n = 4) had difficulty speaking, 20% (n = 3) had difficulty moving limbs, 26.7% (n = 4) had difficulty walking, 13.3% (n = 1) was asleep, 20% (n = 3) were in and out of consciousness, and 46.7% (n=7) unconscious or blacked out. In terms of types of substances used during the assault, 11 survivors used alcohol only, and 4 used both alcohol and drugs such as tranquilizers, tobacco, marijuana, or opiates. Survivors, on average, received 2.12 (SD=.63) negative social reactions related to alcohol use, and survivors received an average of 2.63 (SD=.97) positive social reactions related to alcohol use.

Of the survivors who were drinking at the time of the assault, all but one of their SPs were aware of it and discussed it during the interview. Of the 14 survivors with SPs who knew about their pre-assault alcohol use, only 11 survivors disclosed that pre-assault alcohol use to the SP (i.e., three SPs found out about the survivor’s pre-assault alcohol use in another way). Survey data showed that among the 15 survivors, 6% (n = 1) mentioned it in passing or made some vague reference to it, 13.3% (n = 2) mentioned it briefly to the SP, 40% (n = 6) discussed it a little, 13.3% (n = 2) talked in a general way, and 26.7% (n = 4) talked about their pre-assault alcohol use in detail.

According to survey data, of survivors who were also using drugs, 25% (n=2) mentioned it in passing or made some vague reference to it, 25% (n=2) said briefly that they had been using drugs but did not discuss it further, 37.5% (n=3) said that they had been using drugs and talked about it a little, and 12.5 % (n=1) said that they had been using drugs and talked about it in detail. Ten survivors mentioned during their interviews that they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time they disclosed their unwanted sexual experience to their matched pair SP. However, all knew that drinking was involved, even if not told directly. Thirteen survivors (68%) received social reactions specific to their alcohol use from their SPs and discussed these social reactions during the interview. Twelve SPs (63%) discussed their social reactions with the survivor specifically based on pre-assault alcohol use.

The following sections describe the substance-related social reactions (positive, mixed, and negative) that survivor – SP matched pairs reported had occurred for each relationship type (see Table 1). We found three major themes related to the role that alcohol/drugs played in assaults: 1) it played a role but was not the main reason or survivor’s fault, 2) it played a role, but the blame for it varies, and 3) it played a role, and the victim is to blame. We use abbreviations following participant quotes indicating demographics: (survivor[S]/SP, age. relationship, gender, race/ethnicity): SO = significant other; FA = family, FR = friend; M = male, F = female, TG = transgender; AA = African American, WH = White, NA = Native American, PINH = Pacific Island/Native Hawaiian, MR = multiracial, H = Hispanic, NH = non-Hispanic.

Table 1.

Patterns of Social Reactions Across Dyad Relationship Types Used in Sample

Social Reactions	Friends (n=11)		Family (n=3)		Romantic Partners (n=1)
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Negative	3	28	1	33	1	100
Mixed	4	36	0	0	0	0
Positive	4	36	2	67	0	0

Note. n=number of dyads

Alcohol played a role, but it’s not the main reason, or it’s not their fault

Six matched pairs reported on survivor and informal SP experiences receiving and providing positive social reactions to survivors’ substance-related assault disclosures where they felt that alcohol played a role in the assault.

One survivor told her cousin, who she trusted, not to share her disclosure with others based on their long, close relationship. Despite telling him that she was drugged and assaulted by a casual date, he was supportive: “No, telling everything, I told him, and the substances I used didn’t even affect anything. [He] was really supportive.” (S, 27, FA, F, AA, NH). Her SP provided emotional support, as hearing her disclosure made him realize that the survivor’s alcohol intake certainly played a role in the assault, but he felt there was no reason for pointing that out to her and said nothing about her drinking:

I really felt there were some blunders made, but I couldn’t speak openly to her that you are not supposed to do this because the incidents already happened. I could figure out it was because of this. It was because of trust; it was because of the drugs and alcohol which she was influenced. I felt I couldn’t point out to her, this is where you did wrong. I was there to help her recover from what really happened and trying to share with her [about alcohol] was not good.

(SP, 28, FA, M, AA, NH)

In another friend pair, the SP blamed the substances for the assault by a stranger, but showed support to the survivor, perhaps due to the depth of their relationship as best friends:

I think it’s quite true to say the substance she took influenced her and that’s the [reason] we had taken much more than we normally take. I remember talking to her, trying to show her that it didn’t happen because she wanted it to happen, it was because of the substance (alcohol) she was using. She took a little more, which may be disrupted the brain and made her lose her memory. I was trying to make her understand that it was not her fault; it was only because of what she was using.

(SP, 26, FR, F, AA, NH)

This SP’s comment mitigates the self-blaming narrative by explaining how alcohol made the survivor vulnerable, not her act of drinking in and of itself. The survivor affirmed that her best friend was positive and was very glad that she did not judge her and offered to help:

I felt supported because I didn’t feel she came from a place of judging me…so I felt if I had shared this with someone else they may have judged me, but that wasn’t the case. She went to the extent of telling me she would help me.

(S, 25, FR, F, MR, NH)

Notably, this survivor also didn’t mention how much she was drinking out of fear of being blamed, despite being unconscious when a stranger took advantage and assaulted her.

In several pairs, SPs were more emphatic in asserting a non-victim-blaming stance, stating that the assault was not the survivor’s fault, but that either the perpetrator and/or the alcohol/substance itself was to blame for what happened. For example, in one family pair, the SP did not focus blame on alcohol but instead blamed the perpetrator, a non-romantic acquaintance, while responding supportively. Sensing the survivor was blaming herself because she was under the influence, he chose to reassure her that it was okay to go out with friends and have drinks, that she did nothing wrong, and should not blame herself:

From her tone, she made it look like it was her fault that she was drunk. But I wanted to tell her that it wasn’t like these things happen. People go out and have fun all the time. Especially when they know they have friends who will take care of them and be there for them. So it wasn’t her fault at all. It was the other person’s fault, so she will take the fault out of herself, because most times we try to imagine we will have done anything better. But we trusted people who we’ve been trusting before. And no, that isn’t our fault.

(SP, 25, FA, M, NA, H)

The survivor in this pair articulated the same as her cousin SP; namely, that he did not make her feel like she had done anything wrong, the perpetrator was wrong, and her SP was supportive:

He wasn’t indifferent about it and didn’t dwell on that aspect or address it. He just said, regardless of any situation, a person shouldn’t have sex with someone who is not in the same head space as you are. He didn’t make me feel like it was my fault, or I was in the wrong, he just reassured me, told me I did nothing wrong and was really supportive.

(S, 26, FA, F, NA, H)

In another pair, the survivor felt the SP (her aunt) was compassionate and non-judgmental in blaming the perpetrator (a romantic acquaintance) and supporting the survivor:

In her response to me, I didn’t feel anything judgmental because she was so sorry for me. She was even crying, hugging me, telling me everything gonna be all right. She’s going to be there for me and give me her shoulder to lean on.

(S, 24, FA, F, WH, H)

For me, it felt like it was me who [had] done something bad. I felt like I really wanted to fight myself for the victim. The perpetrator is to blame.

(SP, 26, FA, MR, F, NH)

In summary, various dyads had positive social reactions from SPs to survivor disclosures, and these survivors and SPs tended to agree about the positive nature of social reactions to survivors.

Alcohol played a role, but the blame for it varies

Several matched pairs (n = 4) reported mixed reactions regarding alcohol/drugs, which constitute a combination of positive and negative elements and where either the degree of blaming alcohol was more varied or their assessment of its role changed over time. In some cases, these SPs offered drinking-related advice to try to reduce the survivor’s risk (either before/after the assault). Still, in others, they also allocated greater blame to her for drinking before the assault, a view that unfortunately led to or reinforced the survivor’s self-blame.

One survivor did not expect any judgment and felt comfortable sharing sometime after the assault with her friend SP of several years. She said that her SP wasn’t surprised because of her drinking prior to the assault but because of the person who did it (a stranger on a first date):

She’s someone who knows that I take alcohol, so it wasn’t a big deal to her because she knew already. I do take alcohol once in a while, so it wasn’t a surprise. I think she reacted [based] on the way she knew that I’m that person.

(S, 25, FR, F, AA, NH)

The SP initially thought drinking caused the assault but now believes it was a minor factor:

At first I thought that if she was not drinking, something like that would not happen to her. I told her that if alcohol was involved, maybe it would happen to her. So it wasn’t that, it was alcohol that’s made her to be assaulted. To me, alcohol didn’t play a big role, though it played a small part, though not a big one.

(SP, 24, FR, F, AA, NH)

Another pair had been friends since college and felt comfortable sharing, so the survivor did not hesitate to disclose her assault to her SP. The survivor received a negative reaction from her friend after not following her earlier advice to not drink with strangers. The SP’s negative reaction led the survivor to start blaming herself. Later, the survivor also realized that her friend was blaming herself, given how much SP cares about her.

She got upset with me, saying like we have been advising each other not to drink with strangers. I look at it another way: she was telling me the truth because I started blaming myself…if I could have followed the advice we made to each other, I could not have maybe fallen into this trap. Yeah. So, I kept the blame on myself. I came to understand later, as she told me, that she was also blaming herself and that if anything worse could have happened, she could have kept blaming herself.”

(S, 28, FR, F, AA, NH)

Mixed social reactions often involved advising survivors to avoid drinking to excess. Another survivor felt like her SP was blaming her for the assault based on their questions and felt silenced by the SP’s reaction and unable to express her thoughts to her SP.

They were asking me, ‘Why did you go to the place? Where did you take the alcohol?’ It made me feel like I did something so wrong, like it was my fault. I remained silent because I really didn’t know what to say. Silence was the only option that I had.

(S, 28, FR, F, AA, NH)

Her SP recalled the conversation with the survivor negatively due to her reaction but said they (SP) became supportive after realizing the negative impact of their reaction towards the survivor.

The very first thing that I asked was why she took the alcohol, so I think I was quite judgmental. She went back to her house. And then about 3 days later, I actually tried to be supportive and wanted to know her side of the story, like what happened, but she just didn’t want to talk about it. So we just left it at that.

(SP, 34, FR, TG, AA, NH)

In summary, mixed reactions were less common but tended to be more controversial and were sometimes experienced quite differently by survivors and their informal SPs.

Alcohol played a role, and the victim is to blame

Twelve survivors and their SPs spoke of negative reactions to their alcohol/drug-related assault. Selected pairs’ quotes below are ordered according to the type of SP reactions, the first of which blamed the survivors’ substance use for drinking and/or the assault and often not thinking about how their reactions impacted the survivor.

In one pair, the survivor’s alcoholic beverage was spiked with drugs without her knowledge by a casual date. Her friend SP told her it was due to drugs and that she could have prevented the assault, thus blaming her. Although the survivor said she didn’t expect drugs to be in her drink, her SP’s reaction led her to change her mind and accept the assault was her fault:

When she blamed me, I responded that I didn’t think that such a thing would happen when I was drinking alcohol. So, we argued at that moment, but I came to realize I was the one who was on the negative side, so, I had to agree with her that that was not good. It’s like I brought myself in that position.

(S, 23, FR, F, WH, NH)

The SP claimed the survivor was sad and angry, so the SP tried to comfort her, which helped: “Yeah, she was sad, and she got angry, but then I tried to comfort her, and everything came back to normal.” (SP, 27, FR, F, WH, NH). The survivor said she believed that SP’s blame came from a place of genuine concern and not because SP was against her.

Another pair showed blame and regret for their initial response and then improved support towards the survivor subsequently. A close friend, SP, blamed this survivor soon after an assault by a non-romantic acquaintance that occurred after she got drunk at a party. The survivor was upset by her friend’s raising questions about her behavior leading to the assault:

I told my friend, instead of family, because I didn’t want judgment. I was just looking for somebody to hear me out and comfort me, judgment-free, and not have to answer so many questions. I just needed somebody to support me, listen to me, and just be there for me. I told her after a couple of weeks. We were close friends. She was also at that party but didn’t quite comprehend what I went through and how it affected me. I was telling her because I wanted her support. She said because we were dancing together with him, maybe I led him on because I was drunk. I’m not quite sure what happened, and to be honest, at that point, I doubted myself, second-guessing what happened. I just felt like I wanted her support, but was judged a little bit. She told me, “You know you are drinking quite a bit, and maybe you got things confused.”

(S, 25, FR, F, MR, NH)

Her SP expressed regret but also that she felt the survivor was to blame for drinking too much and leading the perpetrator on.

I really regret this because I really felt I was judgmental because I really felt she was like at fault, because she was drunk, and everything happened under the influence of alcohol. So, I really felt that she was the one to be blamed. I told her in her face. I usually feel that is not the best thing to have done at that time because she did need support and some care because she was going through some trauma.

(SP, 29, FR, M, NA, NH)

Informal SPs emotional distress

In a couple of pairs, it was observed that SPs were tired and angry and seemingly felt upset that survivors did not listen to their advice to change their drinking behavior:

It appeared to me that her judgment was based on the fact that I was high on drugs and alcohol at the time. So, in one way or another, I was responsible for what happened. [Interviewer]: Wow. Did she say that? Survivor: No, no, not directly. I mean, just the way she was talking. It just felt like that.

(S,24, FA, F, AA, NH)

The SP responded with sympathy but also by blaming her, recalling the survivor’s negative reaction because they responded poorly initially but then corrected course:

When she told me, I was first sorry for what happened. I told her that she should seek some therapy and report the issue to the police. Also, I told her, I remember my words well; I’m sorry it happened to you, but I think it’s because of the alcohol, which I warned you earlier to stop taking. She didn’t take it so positively. It was like a negative reaction. I was supposed to at least listen and try to help her, be a bit supportive of my cousin, and try to help her get the help she needed. Then, later, I could have talked to her about the alcohol thing, not just told it outright, especially now that she had already told me about the incident.

(SP, 25, FA, F, MR, NH)

Some friend pairs noted that SPs’ victim blame was centered on the survivors’ drinking at the time of the assault. One survivor felt judged and blamed by her friend after an assault by a non-romantic acquaintance. This pair showed just how critical the first disclosure interaction is, as her friend’s initial victim-blaming reaction led the survivor to shut down and no longer be willing to talk about the assault:

I got the opposite of what I was looking for. At the time, I was feeling very devastated and disoriented, and just needed somebody to support me, regardless of what I was sharing with her, but she did not give me the support I needed. Instead, she sort of leaned towards saying that maybe I’m the one who gave him the wrong idea. Because we were drunk and after the party, we went to his house, and like I sort of led him on. She asked a lot of, “maybe you led him on?” Or “maybe because of the alcohol, you don’t remember things clearly-” So, she sort of insinuated that probably it was also my fault. Which just felt a little bit judgey.

(S, 25, FR, F, AA, H)

Her friend described her own anger, frustration, and disappointment in her friend at the time in the context of the friend’s alcohol addiction and having done similar things in the past.

When she told me, the encounter was actually not supportive, not encouraging. I just spoke out of anger, I was so judgmental, and all the anger and disappointment. I just felt like I’m kind of fed up. She needs my support at that time. But from all the things I have said to her previously, she just doesn’t want to change. We never had any conversations about that ever again. Our relationship had just begun sinking, maybe because I told her the truth out of anger and I pushed her away.

(SP, 28, FR, F, AA, NH)

Conflicted loyalties

Finally, one pair was quite contradictory regarding the survivor’s account, indicating a negative reaction to the assault. However, the SP did not mention reacting negatively. Both the survivor and her SP knew the perpetrator, who was the SP’s friend. This pair also clearly presented conflicting loyalties in that the SP’s negative betrayal response to the survivor reflected their apparent desire to protect their friend, the assailant, over the survivor’s needs. The survivor also said the SP (her romantic partner) actually called the perpetrator (his friend) after the assault, who was apologetic and blamed the assault on alcohol. The survivor said she felt trapped, the same as [she felt] her SP did. She noted that her SP would feel guilty if she were to report his friend to the police, which she wanted to do. The survivor said the SP believed his friend [the perpetrator] was more important than her about the assault:

“You just want to save your friendship with him!” (S, 23, RP, F, PINH, NH) and noted that the SP was caught in the middle. “I feel like after he talked to his friend, he came up with this idea his friend was under the influence. He kind of believed his friend more than me, or maybe he just wanted everything to slide because I was insisting on reporting to the police.”

(S, 23, RP, F, PINH, NH)

The SP blamed the survivor, drawing on alcohol-related victim-blaming stereotypes and rape myths, trying to understand why else it would have happened if not for the alcohol and the survivor’s failure to control her drinking:

It’s something which didn’t go so well because I really felt that she didn’t deserve this, and probably I [said] she was a little bit careless because I wouldn’t wish to go through this, so probably I felt that it’s because she was drunk. That’s why she caught herself in this. I felt it was something that she could have controlled. Why, if she was in such a state? So, it was annoying; I really felt so bad about it because I felt she could have controlled it; why if she wasn’t so drunk?

(SP, 34, RP, F, AA, NH)

He felt the survivor could control the situation, noting that she was so drunk. The SP went on saying he believes in consent in sexual relationships and that it [SA] causes mental illness/symptoms. The SP let the survivor know it was a “mistake” the survivor made, also noting that therapy has helped her. Overall, this SP blamed the survivor but did not acknowledge this or seem to care. He even claimed he was supportive and that the relationship with his partner (the survivor) improved post-disclosure, all of which was inconsistent with the survivor’s account that she broke up with the SP over his negative reaction to her disclosure:

Okay, I’ll say I didn’t judge her a lot. It happened because of the influence of alcohol. So, I was a little bit lenient, I didn’t judge all of it. I really felt, Yeah, If she had avoided alcohol, probably it would have been, It would have been like, avoided. But it happened. So, we had to get our way out for now.

(SP, 34, RP, F, AA, NH)

In summary, negative social reactions were more common and involved blaming alcohol and survivors in particular for the assaults, much of which involved invoking rape myths and sometimes very different content and appraisals from survivors and their SPs.

Discussion

Victim blame is inherently gendered and many rape myths involve the belief that survivors are somehow responsible for their assaults due to their pre-assault behaviors (e.g., alcohol/drug use). In the current study, the use of rape myths surrounding alcohol and drug use supports the idea that women, who drink or use drugs, are at fault for their SA. The present study is only the second to examine dyads of ethnically diverse women survivors and informal SPs (friends, family, significant others) discussing alcohol/drug-related assaults and subsequent social reactions specifically. Dyadic data provides insights into social reactions from survivors and SP perspectives which is a growing area of qualitative interview research (see Eisikovits & Koren, 2010; Ullman et al., 2022 for reviews). This qualitative study builds on prior work by examining substance-related assaults (Lorenz & Ullman, 2016a; Ullman et al., 2020) and substance-related social reactions to those assaults. Results showed both positive, mixed, and negative reactions to these assaults, with specific responses related to survivors drinking in many cases.

Positive reactions were not wholly positive regarding the role of substances in SA since they did not necessarily mean SPs did not think alcohol played any role in the assault. However, they felt that it was best to avoid focusing on alcohol and instead on helping the survivor. They did so by reassuring her that it was not her fault, actively countering the survivor’s self-blame for drinking, and/or emphasizing the perpetrator was to blame for the assault. In some dyads, the depth and closeness of the relationship built on trust and sharing appeared to underly the positive reaction to her disclosure. In addition, SPs were often aware of the expectation that they should respond positively and/or avoid negative reactions, both of which may have also contributed to their positive reactions to the survivor’s disclosure.

SPs also tried to reassure survivors the assault did not just happen because of their substance use; it was not their fault because of using substances (i.e., active non-blaming), and it was, in fact, the perpetrators’ fault. In the context of the SA, alcohol was only one factor, and SPs did not think it justified blaming the survivor. Positive reactions to alcohol/substance use were found in relationships demonstrating open communication, vulnerability, and trust not to disclose the information to others. Survivors in these relationships were relieved at receiving positive reactions from their SPs, who were actively negating any blame they felt for their substance use before the assault. Importantly, non-judgmental reactions also frequently entailed emotional and/or tangible support to survivors.

Mixed social reactions were less common and somewhat nuanced. Specifically, SPs noted that alcohol played a role but that the blame for it varied. SPs mentioned their feelings about the substance-related assault and sometimes attributed fault to the survivor of the assault. Sometimes, the SP’s blaming response led survivors to blame themselves. In another instance, the survivor perceived SP’s blame came from a place of genuine concern with some SPs suggesting survivors lower their substance use post-assault to prevent a similar incident from occurring. This behavior also occurred before the assault had taken place, where SPs had already told the survivor to lower their substance use which led them to then react negatively to the survivor’s later assault disclosure. However, not all these reactions reflected what the SP was feeling. Sometimes, the SP felt the need to hide their actual feelings and avoid blaming the survivor for drinking to avoid conflict. Yet, in some instances, the survivor picked up on how the SP was feeling whether they explicitly revealed it or not (i.e., asking many questions). Mixed social reactions also varied with SPs changing their mind about how to interpret the disclosure content, especially in regard to alcohol. Specifically, the SP reacted negatively at first, but then, on further reflection, they chose to reconcile with the survivor and offer their support. Overall, mixed SP social reactions towards the survivor’s alcohol use, whether implicit or explicit, affected the survivor’s view of their assault and their relationship.

Negative social reactions to the substance use in these assaults were most common and reflected SPs’ belief that alcohol played a role in the assault and that the victim was to blame. This theme was reflected in some SPs asking survivors about why they were drinking in what the SPs believed to be risky situations, with some expressing anger at survivors for not heeding their advice to avoid these risks, without which they felt the assaults would not have happened. Ultimately, these narratives fit with societal rape stereotypes that if women engage in behavior ascribed as “risky,” they can expect to be assaulted and blamed for it. Such societal rape myths shift attention and blame from the perpetrator to the survivor (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010), positing that women who drink behave in ways that lead to SA (see Edwards et al., 2011 for a review).

Dyadic data were particularly illuminating in instances where survivor and SP accounts differed. For example, an SP friend claimed he was supportive of the survivor and that his relationship with her improved post-disclosure, but the survivor said that she actually broke up with the SP over his blaming her for the assault. Our findings show that more research is needed on survivors and SPs who have lost relationships or whose relationships have worsened following negative disclosure experiences to understand the long-term impacts better.

Some SPs felt upset or distressed by survivor disclosures, a finding also observed in other research (Branch & Richards, 2013). In this study, this appeared to be related to anger at survivors whom SPs felt had not listened to their advice to avoid drinking too much, especially in what they deemed to be risky situations with people they did not know. Possibly, such SPs felt overwhelmed that they could not protect survivors from such risks, so they vented their frustration to survivors post-assault.

Given the preponderance of friend-dyadic relationships, it is not possible to determine whether friends were more supportive in their responses to alcohol-related assaults. Past research shows that female friends are typically most supportive of survivors in general (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012), especially for those who have experienced SA themselves. However, it is not clear if this also holds for alcohol-involved assaults. Unlike one prior study of dyads looking at alcohol-related assaults (Ullman et al., 2020), where female SP friends provided no negative reactions directly related to the survivor’s pre-assault alcohol use. This study showed negative reactions to alcohol/drug use, perhaps because this was the primary focus of the current study’s interviews, but only a single question in the prior study. In that earlier study, overt blame was uncommon but implied blame and mixed messages about blame (mixed social reactions) occurred. In the present study, over one-fourth of dyads expressed negative social reactions, many of which were blaming survivors for their substance use, reflecting gendered rape myths that women are to blame for both drinking and SA perpetrated against them in substance use contexts (Lorenz & Ullman, 2016a).

While we had some family and partner SPs in this study, survivors mostly told friends in this sample. Some may not have disclosed these assaults at all or their substance use specifically to significant others and family members as frequently as to friends, perhaps over concerns of receiving hurtful responses. Alternatively, maybe those pairs were less likely to participate given that partner relationships may have been more likely to have ended, and family member SPs may have been less willing to participate, so they were referred less often by survivors for the study. There appeared to be more positive social reactions among the friend pairs than family and romantic partners, but further research is needed to ascertain whether this is the case.

As in another past dyadic study (Ullman et al., 2020), for friends and significant others, the relationship history of the survivor and perpetrator appeared to outweigh the survivor’s substance use in judgments that were made, although SPs did not explicitly mention this. Also, in the past study, negative reactions resulted in one case where the survivor and/or SP were friends with the perpetrator. Conflicting loyalties, where the SP chooses their friend (the perpetrator) over the survivor, is a form of betrayal and leads the survivor to break up with the SP. This experience needs further study in studies of friend groups, including college students.

When drinking was normative for the survivor and/or their social milieu, it was less likely to be used to blame the survivor in our data, as women friend SPs were more accepting of drinking that both engaged in often together in social settings. While contextual factors clearly play a role in disclosure and social reactions to them, rape myths also influence whether survivors are seen as blameworthy, even when SPs and survivors themselves may not always be conscious of this occurring (Edwards et al., 2011). Unfortunately, some survivors internalized SPs’ blame of them and came to agree that the assault was their fault due to their substance use. While this may preserve the relationship, it is likely harmful to the survivors’ long-term recovery, given how detrimental self-blame has been shown to be for survivor’s recovery in past research (Kline et al., 2021; Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2018).

Survivors also sometimes gave the benefit of the doubt to their close relationship partners, choosing to positively appraise negative reactions due to their awareness that the person cares about them. However, negative reactions may still harm the survivor, regardless of SPs’ intentionality, mainly if they are completely negative without any other positive reactions. In some cases, SPs framed their reaction as positive and/or did not acknowledge the harm to the survivor in relationships that had clearly gotten worse since the disclosure. In such cases, SPs justified their reactions. Still, in other cases, SPs recognized that their initial reactions were harmful after the survivor’s negative response to them, so they attempted to respond more positively in future conversations. SPs may have social desirability concerns toward the interviewer, who are likely supportive of survivors. The fact that these dyadic pairs were still in relationships and participated in this study shows that relationship history was often more important to both people than the response to SA disclosure (Dunkel-Schetter & Skokan, 1990).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study was limited by being a small, volunteer, convenience sample of women, mostly friend dyadic matched pairs willing to do interviews on this topic. SPs were contacted through survivor-provided contact information to interview about the survivor’s substance-involved SA experience and the disclosure and reactions she received from the SP. Thus, the interview was primarily about their relationship with the survivor and her experience and not as centered on their own experiences beyond helping survivors. The study also lacked a focus on the role of sexual orientation and/or gender identities, which may also impact social reactions like victim blame, based on stereotypes and myths about sexual minority women (see Van der Bruggen & Grubb, 2014). While we cannot emphasize enough that sexual assault impacts all genders, because the focus of the current study is on female survivors, the research mentioned is focused on that demographic. More research is needed on survivors of various sexual and gender identities to understand their experiences of disclosure and experiences of their informal SPs. Research also needs to focus on how the degree of impairment of survivors during and after substance-involved assaults (O’Callaghan, 2024) impacts the process of disclosure and social reactions to assaults, including recovery of survivors, impact on SPs, and their relationships. Future research is needed on dyadic matched pairs of survivors and SPs recruited simultaneously with more balance, such as asking SPs about their own SA experiences. Additionally, only one SP was interviewed, but survivors often told multiple sources and may have received different reactions specific to their pre-assault alcohol/drug use from multiple sources. However, focusing interviews on one SP allowed for greater depth regarding survivor and SPs on their relationships and the disclosure experience from both perspectives.

This study is also limited by the retrospective design. Lapses in memory/recall could have influenced accounts of substance-related social reactions received and provided by matched pairs. Time elapsed since the assault (4 years on average) and participation in this research may have influenced how women interpreted these reactions and how SPs recalled reacting to the disclosure. While survivors and SPs were willing to talk about social reactions related to drinking/drug use prior to SA and/or survivors’ problem drinking, this is a highly sensitive topic, and some interviewees, typically SPs, were likely highly sensitized to the appearance of having blamed the survivor or perpetuating rape myths. Despite likely social desirability bias for some SPs, others did not seem to have any hesitation in articulating their belief the assault was the survivor’s fault and/or her drinking, in general, was problematic. Given that participants were aware that these interviews focused, they had likely thought about this and/or may have even talked to each other prior to or after the interviews.

Some research shows that hostile sexism toward women supports rape myth adherence, whereas feelings of benevolence toward men support the rape myth that the perpetrator did not intend to assault the victim (Rollero & Tartaglia, 2019). In the present study, this pattern was observed with one SP trying to discourage the survivor/friend from reporting to law enforcement, as this SP was also friends with the perpetrator. To absolve the perpetrator of blame, the SP cited often used rape myths concerning alcohol use – specifically that if the survivor hadn’t used substances, the assault would not have occurred. While the alcohol and the survivor were primarily blamed in this study, there may be some gendered aspects (e.g., alcohol rape myths) that need further examination. As previous research shows that endorsing hostile sexism beliefs and rape myths may be related to higher levels of victim blaming and lower levels of culpability toward the perpetrators, it is important to further examine SPs sexism (Angelone, Mitchell, & Smith, 2018). Another study found that gender role attitudes play a major role in victim-blaming (Angelone, Mitchell, & Lucente, 2012) and Suarez and Gadalla’s (2010) review found that men endorse rape myths at a higher level than women. Further qualitative research is needed to further examine the complexity of perpetrator gender, sexism, and SP relationship to perpetrator.

While some SPs initially had negative responses but later supported the survivor, the initial negative response was harmful. For example, in some cases, the survivor blamed herself following the initial negative responses, so while the subsequent positive response may have been helpful, it did not necessarily mitigate the negative reaction and its effects. While it is certainly a step in the right direction for SPs to correct their initial negative reaction, the initial negative response still caused the survivor harm. SA preventionists must incorporate helpful responses to SA disclosure so individuals receiving disclosures may be educated in helpful versus harmful responses (see also Edwards et al.’s, 2022b Supporting Survivors and the Self program). Research is also needed to examine how these mixed reactions may impact survivors’ long-term healing. While previous quantitative studies have found an association between negative social reactions and negative recovery outcomes for survivors (Relyea & Ullman, 2015), there is little information concerning the impact of mixed responses on survivors’ mental health and relationships. Practitioners working with survivors can utilize this information to help them heal from the potentially negative impact of mixed and negative reactions to SA disclosure.

While survivors were drinking and/or using drugs, it is not clear in all cases how impaired survivors were when assaulted, so the level of impairment should be assessed to understand how that affects survivors’ memories of their assaults and how this impacts disclosures and social reactions. This is vital as research shows that some may not recall what happened, including who they told and how they reacted, due to poor memory (Littleton et al., 2009), even if they no longer drink and/or because it was long ago and/or they were passed out. However, just because memory is fuzzy or absent does not mean survivors are not traumatized by their SA, and some research suggests more self-blame and PTSD over time for those who drink prior to assault (O’Callaghan, 2024; Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2018). This is understandable, as the trauma of knowing one has been assaulted but cannot remember all that happened may be more upsetting to some survivors than recalling it (McConnell et al., 2017). Appraisals of social reactions may also have changed over time, as some pairs alluded to. This may be part of the recovery process and/or reflect her relationship with the SP during the interview. This is why dyadic data is important for revealing a fuller picture of how disclosure and social reactions unfold in the context of relationships (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010).

Availability of supporting data

Data are available upon request from the first author.