Psychology of Violence

Sexual Violence Is #NotOkay: Social Reactions to

Disclosures of Sexual Victimization on Twitter
Katherine W. Bogen, Kaitlyn Bleiweiss, and Lindsay M. Orchowski
Online First Publication, April 26, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000192

CITATION
Bogen, K. W., Bleiweiss, K., & Orchowski, L. M. (2018, April 26). Sexual Violence Is #NotOkay:
Social Reactions to Disclosures of Sexual Victimization on Twitter. Psychology of Violence.
Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000192
 Psychology of Violence
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000
2152-0828/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000192

Sexual Violence Is #NotOkay: Social Reactions to Disclosures of Sexual

Victimization on Twitter

Katherine W. Bogen and Kaitlyn Bleiweiss Lindsay M. Orchowski

Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Rhode Island
Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island

Objective: The present study sought to characterize social reactions to disclosures of sexual violence that
occurred online through the Twitter hashtag #NotOkay. Method: A sample of 306 original content,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

English-language tweets containing the hashtag #NotOkay were collected via the NVivo software
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

addition NCapture over a period of 5 nonconsecutive weekdays. Qualitative content analysis was
conducted by a 3-person team. Results: Ullman’s (2000) Social Reactions Questionnaire served as a
preliminary coding guide. Resulting themes included egocentric and distracting social reactions (which
are commonly classified as negative responses), as well as a range of positive social reactions (providing
emotional support, providing tangible or informational aid, and expressing validation and belief).
Advocacy and taking responsibility for social change also emerged as positive responses within the
online forum. It unclear whether tweets that distracted from survivors’ experience by commenting
broadly on the prevalence of violence, or by placing responsibility on perpetrators, would be considered
as helpful or hurtful by survivors. Conclusion: The resulting classification of online social reactions to
disclosure of sexual victimization differs from existing classification systems of in-person social
reactions to disclosure, suggesting that online forums may offer a unique context for disclosing violence
and receiving support. Online forums may also provide an opportunity for support providers to engage
in advocacy and voice a desire for social change, forms of social support that may not be provided in the
context of an in-person disclosure. Future research may examine whether survivors who disclose on
social media receive the support they desire.

Keywords: sexual assault, victimization, #notokay, social reactions, disclosure

Rates of sexual violence in the United States are alarmingly
high, with 22.2% of young adults experiencing an unwanted sexual
experience before college, and 18.7% experiencing an unwanted
sexual experience during their college years (Conley et al., 2017).
According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey, during their lifetime, 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men
experience rape, and 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experi-
ence other forms of sexual violence (Breiding, 2015). The conse-
quences of sexual violence are wide-ranging, and vary as a func-
tion of the type and extent of violence experienced, the survivor’s
relationship to the perpetrator, and the coping strategies used by
the survivor (Littleton, Buck, Rosman, & Grills-Taquechel, 2012;
Walsh, Fortier, & Delillo, 2010). Although the decision to disclose
experience of sexual violence is complex (Ahrens, Campbell,
Ternier-Thames, Wasco, & Sefl, 2007; Easton, Saltzman, & Wil-
Katherine W. Bogen and Kaitlyn Bleiweiss, Department of Psychiatry,
Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; Lindsay M. Orchowski,
Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School of
Brown University, and Department of Psychiatry, Rhode Island Hospital.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lindsay
M. Orchowski, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert
Medical School of Brown University, 146 West River Street, Suite 11B,
Providence, RI 02904. E-mail: Lindsay_Orchowski@brown.edu
lis, 2014; Kogan, 2004), many survivors discuss the experience at
some point following an assault (Ahrens, Cabral, & Abeling,
2009). Disclosing to an informal support provider, such as a friend,
is more common than disclosing to formal support providers, such
as the police or a medical provider (Catalano, 2006; Orchowski &
Gidycz, 2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Recently, the prolifer-
ation of technology, including social media sites, online platforms,
and blogs, has opened up new avenues for survivors to share their
experience (Cravens, Whiting, & Aamar, 2015; Fawcett & Shres-
tha, 2016; Moors & Webber, 2013; Weathers, Sanderson, Neal, &
Gramlich, 2016; Webber & Wilmot, 2012; Yeager, 2012). Accord-
ingly, the present study sought to examine the context of disclosing
sexual violence on social media.
Numerous studies suggest that the process of discussing one’s
experience with others helps to process trauma (Pennebaker, 1999;
Pennebaker, Kiecolt-Glaser, & Glaser, 1988; Pennebaker & Sea-
gal, 1999). Disclosing a problematic experience is believed to
facilitate a reorganization of the traumatic memory, transforming a
fragmented narrative into a more integrated and sequential story
(Omer & Alon, 1997; Peri, 2004; Smyth, True, & Souto, 2001).
Despite the potential benefits of disclosing trauma, the utility of
social sharing is often contingent upon how others respond to the
information (Borja, Callahan, & Long, 2006; Brown & Testa,
2008; Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, & Barnes, 2001; Orchowski
& Gidycz, 2015; Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013). Responses
from support providers that express support, validation, or offer

1
 2 BOGEN, BLEIWEISS, AND ORCHOWSKI
tangible aid are commonly framed as “positive social reactions”
(see Ullman, 2010, for a review), and are associated with enhanced
self-worth and lower levels of psychological distress (Littleton &
Radecki-Breitkopf, 2006; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2015; Orchowski
et al., 2013). Responses from support providers that express blame,
minimize the experience, show disbelief or disinterest, attempt to
control a survivor’s decisions, shift attention to the support pro-
vider’s needs, or distract the survivor from his or her own needs
are commonly framed as “negative social reactions” (Ahrens,
2006; Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Pruitt & Zoellner, 2008; Ullman,
2010). Problematically, negative reactions to disclosure are re-
ceived by upward of 75% of survivors (Ahrens, 2006), and are
associated with an array of psychological consequences, including
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
symptoms of posttraumatic stress and self-blame (Ullman, Filipas,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Townsend, & Starzynski, 2007). Receiving a negative response to
disclosure also decreases the likelihood of seeking help in the
future (Miller, Canales, Amacker, Backstrom, & Gidycz, 2011;
Sudderth, 1998; Tillman, Bryant-Davis, Smith, & Marks, 2010).
In light of growing access to the Internet and popularity of social
media (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010), it is increas-
ingly important to understand how survivors receive support when
discussing their experiences online. Individuals often turn to social
media as a way to share their personal experiences, seek informa-
tion or advice, or to connect with others who have similar expe-
riences (Cravens et al., 2015; Lal, Nguyen, & Theriault, 2016;
Naslund, Grande, Aschbrenner, & Elwyn, 2014; Weathers et al.,
2016; Yang, 2016). In fact, there are ⬎2 billion users of social
media worldwide (Kemp, 2016), and adolescents spend upward of
1.1 hr per day interacting on social media platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram (Common Sense Media, 2016).
Twitter alone includes ⬎313 million monthly users who view,
post, and/or respond to messages from other users (Twitter, 2017).
Commentary on Twitter is shared with others in the form of
140-character “tweets,” which can include self-generated text, or
links to externally generated content (Twitter, 2017). Tweets can
be directed to specific users, or associated with a larger discourse
within the online community by incorporating a “hashtag” in the
tweet. Hashtags include the symbol “#” followed by a word or
phrase that describes the tweet, and allow users to easily search for
tweets with a common theme, thereby facilitating the dissemina-
tion of information (Yang, 2016). Given the popularity of Twitter,
researchers have recently sought to use hashtags as a way to
understand public discourse, health-related activism, and commu-
nity narrative formation (Scanfeld, Scanfeld, & Larson, 2010;
Tomeny, Vargo, & El-Toukhy, 2017; Weathers et al., 2016).
A limited number of studies have examined the process of
disclosing sexual victimization online (Fawcett & Shrestha, 2016;
Moors & Webber, 2013; Webber & Wilmot, 2012). Fawcett and
Shrestha (2016) conducted a thematic analysis of the blog posts of
30 sexual assault survivors, documenting how survivors in this
forum commonly delineated the consequences of victimization, the
importance of social support, and a desire to help others. Moors
and Webber (2013) conducted a descriptive analysis of 32 sexual
assault survivors who sought help on a Yahoo! Answers thread,
documenting how survivors of sexual assault and support provid-
ers interacted online. Whereas most responses on the forum of-
fered sympathy and validation, commented on the bravery of
the survivor, placed responsibility on the perpetrator, and urged the
survivor to take action (i.e., go to counseling, reporting to the
police), other responses expressed disbelief and minimized the
experience. Although Moors and Webber’s (2013) study docu-
ments how survivors experienced negative social reactions in
person, as well as online, additional research is warranted to
extend their analysis. Specifically, although Moors and Webber’s
(2013) analysis applied Ahrens and colleagues’ (2007) classifica-
tion scheme to differentiate between formal and informal disclo-
sures, the analyses did not delineate a classification scheme to
differentiate between various social reactions to disclosure. Fur-
ther, because not all survivors of sexual violence disclose for the
purpose of help seeking (Ahrens et al., 2007), additional research
is therefore needed to document how individuals respond to online
disclosure of sexual victimization outside of a help seeking con-
text.
The most systematic classification of social reactions to online
disclosure of sexual victimization is documented by Webber and
Wilmot (2012), who examined sexual assault disclosure via Soma-
zone, an Australian website where youth can ask questions, share
personal experiences, and obtain help. The site screens comments
for inappropriate content, and responses to user questions are
provided from counselors. Users can also comment on other users’
posts. Data suggested that in response to 63 postings pertaining to
sexual assault, counselors commonly offered affirmation, assisted
in interpreting the experience, gave personal advice, medical ad-
vice, and legal advice, and also offered resources. Other youth who
commented on the posts offered similar forms of positive support,
expressing condemnation of the perpetrator, offering their own
self-disclosure of victimization, or using humor to support the
survivor. This study offers the first documentation of common
online social reactions to disclosure of sexual victimization, but no
negative social reactions to disclosure were documented. Given
that posts with negative content were removed from the site,
research is needed to examine how individuals might display
negative social reactions to disclosure online.
There is reason to hypothesize that online social reactions to
disclosure may differ from in-person social reactions to disclosure.
Users of social medial forums such as Twitter can act with ano-
nymity, and can choose to mask their identity (Fox, Cruz, & Lee,
2015). Suler (2004) used the term online disinhibition effect to
describe how online anonymity increases the likelihood that an
individual behaves in ways that would otherwise be considered
inappropriate (see also Zimmerman & Ybarra, 2016). Antagonistic
online behavior is prevalent (Cheng, Bernstein, Danescu-
Niculescu-Mizil, & Leskovec, 2017), and ⬃40% of Internet users
experience online harassment (Duggan, 2014). Cruel online com-
mentary is also referred to as “trolling,” defined in the Merriam-
Webster dictionary as deliberate attempts to harm others by post-
ing offensive or disruptive commentary online. It is therefore
feasible that online anonymity increases the prevalence of online
negative social reactions to disclosure.
Online spaces may also offer the opportunity to engage in forms
of support provision that would not otherwise be possible during
face-to-face interactions with sexual assault survivors. For exam-
ple, in online communities such as Twitter, users have the option
to confront other users who engage in inappropriate commentary,
and provide corrective information and feedback. Greeson and
Campbell (2015) highlighted the importance of community advo-
cacy in responding to sexual violence. The White House Task
Force to Protect Students from Assault (2014) also recommended
 SOCIAL REACTIONS
that colleges provide on-campus advocates and victim advocacy
offices to support survivors of sexual violence. As a result of
increasing efforts to strengthen community advocacy surrounding
sexual assault, it is possible that Twitter users are now more
attuned to the importance of advocating on behalf of sexual assault
survivors within the online community.
The Present Study
With the aforementioned research in mind, the present study
sought to classify online social reactions to disclosure of sexual
victimization, and explore how these responses might vary from
established classification systems used to describe in-person social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
reactions to disclosure. Data were gathered from Twitter in Octo-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ber of 2016, in response to Kelly Oxford’s call for tweets describ-
ing personal experiences of sexual victimization. On October 7th
2016, Oxford first tweeted: “Women: tweet me your first assaults.
They aren’t just stats. I’ll go first: Old man on city bus grabs my
‘p—y’ and smiles at me, I’m 12.” Oxford later tweeted: “Women:
keep tweeting me assaults with #NotOkay. Here was my second
assault: Boy in drama class grabbed my ‘pussy’ during class, I was
13,” thereby calling other Twitter users to include #NotOkay when
describing their own victimization experiences. Oxford’s call for
disclosure of sexual victimization on Twitter occurred in the days
after a 2005 audiotape recording from Access Hollywood was
released, in which Donald Trump describes engaging in behavior
that could be classified as sexually aggressive (“Grab them by the
pussy . . . you can do anything”), including using his status to make
sexual advances toward women (e.g., “when you’re a star, they let
you do it”; Fahrenthold, 2016). Responses to #NotOkay exceeded
over one million tweets in 14 hours (Bush, 2016; O’Brien, 2016).
Given that the previous research addressing the context of disclo-
sure within online spaces has been limited by small sample sizes
(Fawcett & Shrestha, 2016; Moors & Webber, 2013; Webber &
Wilmot, 2012), the large number of tweets associated with #No-
tOkay offers an ideal opportunity for characterizing the context of
sexual assault disclosure in this online forum. Two specific re-
search questions were proposed:
Research Question 1: In what ways did Twitter users use the
hashtag #NotOkay to respond to online disclosures of sexual
victimization?
Research Question 2: Did the behavior of Twitter users com-
menting with #NotOkay mirror the patterns of responses as-
sessed in existing classification systems used to describe
responses to sexual assault disclosure that occur during face-
to-face interactions?
Method
Researchers used the NVivo addition NCapture to download
tweets including the hashtag “notokay” from the popular social
media site Twitter. The hashtag “notokay” trended on Twitter
(received high user traffic) on October 10, 2016. Tweets were
collected at 4:15 p.m. on five nonconsecutive weekdays between
October 11 and October 20. This data collection timeline allowed
data to be captured and downloaded during hours of similar online
traffic, and avoided potential data skew of collecting on higher
traffic weekends or on a national holiday.
3
The research team followed Eysenbach and Till (2001) and
Whitehead’s (2007) guidelines for the ethical Internet-based re-
search. NCapture collects data directly from Twitter’s public ap-
plication programming interface stream. As a result, only publicly
accessible tweets were garnered. Accordingly, the study was con-
sidered exempt from institutional review board approval. NCap-
ture collected the following Twitter data: Tweet ID, username,
tweet text, time tweeted, tweet type (retweet or original tweet),
which user the tweet was retweeted by, the number of retweets on
that particular message, all hashtags used, online mentions, name,
location, web URL, user bio, number of user tweets, number of
followers, and number of users following. Profile details, including
username, and profile description, as well as any potentially iden-
tifying information collected by NCapture (i.e., geographic loca-
tion, age, and IP address), were removed.
The initial data set contained 2,072 tweets. Researchers elimi-
nated non-English and irrelevant tweets, tag or link only tweets,
retweets, unclear tweets, and personal disclosures of violence
experiences. Any tweets that focused exclusively on the 2016
presidential election—for example, by solely endorsing a specific
candidate—were excluded. As this study focused specifically on
online reactions to disclosure, only tweets that could be considered
a “social reaction” were included in this analysis. “Social reaction”
was defined as any tweet that replied directly to another Twitter
user engaging with #NotOkay, used #NotOkay to comment on
sexual violence, reached out to other survivors via the tag, or
reacted to what was perceived to be inappropriate behavior of
other Twitter users. It was not necessary for the tweet to have an
@reply to be considered a social reaction to disclosure, as many
tweets were directed to the online community at large rather than
a specific individual. The final data set contained 306 original
content tweets.
All researchers had experience working in sexual violence preven-
tion and were aware of common positive and negative responses to
victim disclosures. Researchers had experience in qualitative coding
and social media analysis. Three researchers participated in coding,
including a primary coder, secondary coder, and consensus coder.
Mayring’s (2000) content analysis procedure for iterative coding was
applied. To consider existing theory and measures of common social
reactions to disclosure as well as potential new patterns in disclosure
responses that might be revealed in an online environment, a mixed
inductive and preconstructed codebook was established. This method
has been applied in previous social media content analyses (i.e.,
Cravens et al., 2015; Yang, 2016).
Sarah Ullman’s (2000) Social Reactions Questionnaire (SRQ)—a
commonly used classification system for describing in-person social
reactions to disclosure—provided the initial basis for understanding
responses to disclosure. Specifically, researchers used the SRQ to
develop a partial deductive code list a priori, which included common
social reactions to disclosures such as emotional support, expressing
validation or belief, providing tangible/informational aid, expressing
disbelief or denial, distracting responses, egocentric responses, taking
control of the survivor’s experience, treating the survivor differently,
and blaming the victim. Open iterative coding using Nvivo software
also allowed three coders to establish other emergent themes. Themes
and subthemes were assessed for frequency, and considered “salient”
if they appeared seven or more times (⬃2% of the sample). The final
coding frame included two mutually exclusive major themes (positive
and negative), as well as seven subthemes within both categories
 4 BOGEN, BLEIWEISS, AND ORCHOWSKI
(Table 1). To ensure high agreement, the coding team met to code
each individual tweet as a group. Any codes where disagreement was
found were debated among the coding team to reach consensus. As a
result, interrater reliability was high. Nvivo coding files were merged
and assessed for final agreement. Coders established perfect (100%)
agreement for all coding decisions and a Cohen’s ␬ of 0.98 to ⫹1 for
all themes.
Results
Social Reactions to Disclosures of Sexual Victimization
Using #NotOkay
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Social reactions made up 15% (N ⫽ 306) of the original data set
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(N ⫽ 2,072). Tweets that were excluded from the analysis included
personal disclosures of sexual victimization, political endorse-
ments, and unrelated content. Major themes, along with subthemes
resulting from an iterative coding process, are discussed in the
following text.
Positive Social Reactions to Online Disclosures
More than half (61%, N ⫽ 186) of all tweets were coded as
positive social reactions. Subthemes included the following: (a)
advocacy on behalf of survivors of sexual violence, (b) providing
emotional support to survivors, (c) expressing validation or belief
of survivors’ stories and feelings, (d) providing tangible informa-
tional aid, or (e) taking responsibility for making changes in
society. Advocacy on behalf of survivors of sexual violence as
well as taking responsibility for addressing violence in society
were emergent themes not classified in Ullman’s (2000) SRQ. In
this unique online setting, both themes were salient in the data set
and reflected a novel way in which support providers might
express support for survivors within an online forum.
Advocacy. Approximately 40% (N ⫽ 121) of the total tweets
in this data set displayed instances of advocacy on behalf of
survivors of sexual violence. Of these, 40% (N ⫽ 47) were
directed at an individual or a series of individuals. To be classified
as advocacy, tweets needed to include “@reply,” indicating that
the message had a targeted recipient or group of recipients. Prob-
lematic users were directly informed that their commentary was
perceived to be inappropriate or harmful. Specifically, tweets
confronted other Twitter users who engaged in victim blame,
posted malicious content regarding sexual assault survivors, or
endorsed rape myths. Other tweets condemned other users’ poor or
potentially harmful responses to disclosures:
[@UserID] you’re #victimshaming! #NotOkay
[@UserID] you’re appropriating the hashtag #NotOkay to defend a
serial sexual predator. you are a sick person.
[@UserID] If you think SEXUAL ASSAULT is about looks please go
back to your cave. #NotOkay
Some tweets displaying survivor advocacy provided corrective
information and counteracted harmful myths. Tweets not only
challenged problematic views about sexual assault survivors, but
also emphasized how sexual assault is about power, not sexual
attraction (see Donat & D’Emilio, 1992). In some cases, the
corrective information was directed at a single individual. How-
ever, some tweets were directed at the entire Twitter community
with the goal of providing corrective information in the form of
#SexualAssaultFacts. For example,
“You should report it or others will get attacked.” #SexualAssault-
Fact: Not reporting doesn’t cause rape. Rapists cause rape.
“Women whine, but I’d love it if Beyoncé attacked me.” #SexualAs-
saultFact: You don’t get to pick who attacks you.
These tweets were provided by several different users in the data
set, and sought to counter rape myths and challenge other prob-
lematic opinions expressed on the forum. Some tweets also chal-
lenged the idea that there is a singular way for survivors to respond
to sexual assault, and highlighted the complexity of choosing
whether or not to report the crime.
A small sample of tweets (7%, N ⫽ 9) coded as advocacy
expressed appreciation for another Twitter user who was witnessed
providing survivor support or corrective information on the forum.
For example,
Thank you [name] and all other men who support #NotOkay [link]
[@UserID] Seems like you have become the voice for women that are
survivors of sexual assault. Thank you [heart emoji] you! #NotOkay
These tweets expressed support and validation for other Twitter
users engaging in advocacy on the forum, communicating to the
Twitter community at large respect and admiration for individuals
who speak up to support sexual assault survivors. It is possible that
these tweets may have encouraged individuals who were not
confronting other problematic users on the site to be more active in
doing so.
Engaging in advocacy as a form of positive social reactions to
disclosure of sexual victimization is not included in Ullman’s
(2000) SRQ, and therefore may represent a way in which online
social reactions vary from in-person social reactions. It is possible
that this form of response to disclosures is presently unique to
online communities—where numerous people are engaging in
conversation simultaneously, and bearing witness to the actions of
other community members. Interestingly, Twitter users who en-
gaged in survivor advocacy did so in a variety of ways, including
correcting rape myths, critiquing cultural acceptance of violence,
and directly confronting other users who were perceived as de-
fending perpetrators.
Emotional support. Responding to survivors with emotional
support is categorized as a positive social reaction in Ullman’s
(2000) SRQ. A small number of tweets (13% of the overall data
set, 21% of tweets classified as positive reactions; N ⫽ 39) were
classified as expressions of emotional support to a survivor. To be
considered emotional support, an @reply was not necessary. For
example, some users expressed support to the entire community of
survivors disclosing on the site, rather than a single survivor:
You are not alone. I am with you. #NotOkay
Whereas telling a survivor that they are not alone may be common
in in-person social reactions, expressing such support to survivors
at-large represents a type of social reaction that may only be
expressed within an online community setting. Social media sites
allow content to be accessed by large numbers of individuals, and
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1
Social Reactions Provided Using #NotOkay (N ⫽ 306)

Theme Subtheme % (N) Description Example

Negative social reactions 39% (118)

Distracting 24% (73) Tweets that directed attention away from the survivors’ “Curious about #rapeculture? A bound ⫹ gagged
disclosure, including but not limited to the context Kardashian #Halloween costume w/robe. @USER, at
of U.S. politics, U.S. legislation, politicians, and least condemn it by omitting photo! #NotOkay”
political protest.
Egocentric 14% (42) Responses that highlight the support provider’s “#NotOkay i never thought that women can suffer of
emotions rather than the needs or feelings of a this. . . . sorry, i am ashamed to be a men @USER.”
survivor.
Positive social reactions 61% (186)
Bystander intervention 40% (121) Responses that stepped in on behalf of survivors by “@DonlinGroup See, this is why you’re deplorable, because
calling out problematic responses to disclosures, I don’t think sexual assault is something that should be
harmful rape myths, or the normalization of rape ‘moved on’ from. #NotOkay”
culture.
Emotional support 13% (39) Reassurance that the assault was not the survivor’s “So proud of my friend @USERs for sharing her
fault, validation of psychological and emotional #sexualassault story and being willing to talk about this
SOCIAL REACTIONS

reactions by the survivor. Expressions of gratitude important topic”

Advocacy/Taking responsibility
Informational aid
Validation and belief
Note. When tweets reflected several subthemes, one primary subtheme classification was agreed upon by the research team.
and compliments directed toward survivors.
3% (9) Expressing an intent, either as part of a group or an
individual, to be an agent of social change to reduce
sexual violence.
2% (7) Providing assistance or resources to the survivor (e.g.,
providing information on how to access a medical
examiner, books on rape and its effects, connections
to a support group).
4% (11) Expressing that the survivor is believed, that their
assault did take place as they expressed it, and that
they have the right to cope as they choose.
“A few words for my fellow men who are sure they already
know that sexual assault is #NotOkay. We need to do
more.”
“As we take in the media this week, tools to care for
yourself or support someone else: [link] #NotOkay
#SupportSurvivors”
“We heard him boast about using his position to molest
women. Why would we doubt that it actually happened?
#NotOkay [link].”
5
 6 BOGEN, BLEIWEISS, AND ORCHOWSKI
some users took the opportunity to express their support for all
survivors who were interacting in the forum.
Other users responded with emotional support to specific indi-
viduals who disclosed using #NotOkay, commending the bravery
of survivors who shared their story:
So proud of my friend [@UserID] for sharing her #sexualassault
story and being willing to talk about this important topic #NotOkay
Moors and Webber (2013) also found that users of a Yahoo!
Answers forum also commented on the bravery of survivors who
share their story. Many users responded directly to Kelly Oxford,
the founder of the #NotOkay movement, with expressions of
gratitude and admiration for her bravery in disclosing and sparking
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
this international awareness movement:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
@kellyoxford you are changing people’s lives by opening up this
door. Thank you!!! #NotOkay
Although expressing gratitude to survivors for disclosing their
experience is not included on Ullman’s (2000) SRQ as a form of
emotional support, tweets in this subtheme were unanimously
positive in sentiment. It is possible that these tweets empowered
other survivors accessing the tag to come forward and share their
story. Seeing other survivors receive emotional support and vali-
dation online may also offer survivors a vicarious sense of support.
Validation and belief. Ullman’s (2000) SRQ classifies re-
sponding to a disclosure with validation and/or belief as a positive
social response that may help survivors to experience healing and
catharsis. Approximately 4% (N ⫽ 11) of tweets in the data set
were classified as validation and/or belief of survivors’ disclo-
sures. Some users expressed validation of survivors’ disclosures by
publicly announcing that they believed the survivor. Other users
commented more broadly about believing survivors. For example,
one user tweeted to Kelly Oxford, and other survivors, that they
believe their stories and their experiences with the following tweet:
Thank you @kellyoxford, for the conversation around #NotOkay
[link] To those sharing their stories, #webelieveyou
Tweets classified as expressions of validation and belief were
similar to tweets that commended other survivors for coming
forward, and distinguished from tweets that expressed more gen-
eral emotional support (discussed earlier) by the inclusion of
phrases such as “we believe you.”
Taking responsibility for change. Taking ownership or re-
sponsibility for changing the culture surrounding sexual violence
also emerged as a theme. Specifically, 3% (N ⫽ 9) of tweets
consisted of a declaration of either group or individual responsi-
bility for changing the culture around sexual violence. Eight of
these tweets urged society as a whole to take responsibility for
changing sexual violence. For example, these users referred to
problems that “we” have to tackle:
We are all complicit. Even us who are fighting not to turn in on
ourselves while this conversation plays out. This is what’s #NotOkay.
We must address the normalization of sexual harm in our language
and rhetoric. #NotOkay #CenterEachOther
By announcing a personal responsibility for ending violence, and
challenging others to also take action, these tweets can be seen as
creating a positive climate to support disclosure, and may have
facilitated community building with the tag.
Informational aid. In Ullman’s (2000) SRQ, responding with
tangible or informational aid is considered a positive social reac-
tion to a survivor’s disclosure. Providing tangible aid includes
assisting the survivor in the recovery process (i.e., going with the
survivor to the police), whereas informational aid includes direct-
ing survivors to resources. Similar to others studies examining the
expression of online support (Ko, Wang, & Xu, 2013), the online
nature of the forum precluded demonstration of tangible aid.
However, numerous tweets provided informational aid by direct-
ing survivors to resources. For example,
“It’s just words?” Assault can change your brain—words can, too.
#NotOkay Your Brain on Sexual Assault [link]
Resources provided to survivors were broad ranging, and fre-
quently included links to websites. At times, resources were di-
rected to specific users, and at other times, resources were directed
to the online community at large. For example, one user tweeted a
link to facts about sexual assault and the prevalence of sexual
assault in our communities:
#SexualAssault is #NotOkay! For more statistics and information,
visit [link]
It is possible that informational aid was particularly feasible to
provide in an online forum, as users could easily include links to
resources within their tweets, such as phone numbers, facts, schol-
arly journal articles, and other media sources. When responding to
in-person disclosure of sexual victimization, these resources may
not be readily at hand.
Online Negative Social Reactions: Egocentric Tweets
Ullman (2000) defined negative egocentric responses as those
that focus entirely on the responder’s feelings and needs instead of
the survivors’. These responses are seen as harmful to the survivor
because they may deny or ignore the survivor’s immediate needs,
direct attention toward the support provider, or compel the survi-
vor himself or herself to soothe or distract the support provider. An
example of this during in-person interactions may be the support
provider responding with extreme anger toward the perpetrator, or
disgust over the violent incident, such that the survivor needs to
comfort the support provider. Approximately 14% (N ⫽ 42) of the
tweets in this data set were coded as egocentric, as they focused
more on the responders’ emotional reactions to hearing disclo-
sures. Some other egocentric responses involved Twitter users
coopting survivors’ stories or the #NotOkay tag as a means of
self-promotion.
Specifically, many users reported having negative emotional
reactions to hearing a survivor’s disclosure; for example, one user
tweeted,
@[UserID] [@UserID] Didn’t watch, I am a bit overwhelmed by
#NotOkay right now, shocked!
These tweets took the attention away from survivors and their
disclosures, and centered the attention on the emotional needs of
respondents. Other tweets were coded as egocentric because they
were self-promoting. Some individuals used #NotOkay to publi-
 SOCIAL REACTIONS
cize their news articles and blog posts, or used the hashtag to
generate support and rally up contributors for their blog/
newspaper. For example, some tweets asked survivors to partici-
pate in an interview:
[@UserID] [name or survivor], I’m a @[Newspaper] reporter, hop-
ing to hear why #NotOkay discussion matters to you. Can we chat?
[email address]
Although these tweets may have been written with good intentions,
they were classified as egocentric because they did not focus on or
support survivors who were disclosing within the tag—rather, they
expressed a personal need on the part of the respondent.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Helpful or Hurtful? Tweets Representing Distracting
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Social Reactions
Tweets were coded as “distracting” when they directed attention
away from the survivor and their experience. Distracting tweets
made up 24% of the coded responses (N ⫽ 73). Ullman’s (2000)
SRQ classifies responses that distract from survivors’ needs as a
type of negative social reaction. Accordingly, tweets in this sub-
theme were classified under the larger theme of “negative social
reactions.” However, it was notable that the content of the tweets
in this subtheme could be interpreted as positive in sentiment,
highlighting users’ sense of satisfaction that the tag was raising
awareness about sexual violence or commenting on the problem-
atic intersection between the 2016 presidential election and sexual
violence. It was therefore unclear whether these tweets were in-
terpreted by survivors as helpful or hurtful. Whereas distracting
social reactions may be perceived as negatively pulling attention
away from survivors’ experience, several researchers have com-
mented on how these responses may also be perceived as helpful,
depending on the context (Campbell et al., 2001; Dworkin, New-
ton, & Allen, 2018).
A small portion of tweets classified as directing attention away
from survivors, 19% (N ⫽ 14) directly commented specifically on
the hashtag, rather than responding directly to a survivor, or the
survivor community as a whole. In addition, many users tweeted
promotions of the hashtag to build awareness of the prevalence of
sexual violence. For example,
#NotOkay is a wonderful hashtag to get trending
5 days, over 30 million tweets. [T]hat speaks volumes about how
#NotOkay we all are.
Tweets like these, though highlighting the importance or interest of
the tag itself, could be perceived as directing attention away from
the survivors using the forum to disclose sensitive experiences.
Ullman (2000) reported that, in the context of in-person respond-
ing, distracting responses can be seen as harmful because they
discourage the victim from talking about the assault, or indicate
that the support provider is not interested in learning more about
the survivors’ experience. In addition, such responses provide no
information pertaining to available resources. However, such mes-
sages, though potentially distracting from one’s personal experi-
ence, may not be labeled by survivors as harmful. The aforemen-
tioned tweets were generally positive in sentiment, and may have
provided indirect support to survivors expressing overall support
for the #NotOkay community. In fact, it was evident that these
7
tweets were potentially well-intended, as they referred to the
#NotOkay tag as “important” or encouraged others to view the tag.
Approximately 66% of distracting tweets were considered dis-
tracting because they provided political or social commentary, and
did not expressly comment on survivors’ disclosure. For example,
users tweeted the following:
[Donald Trump’s] counterattack on his victims is ridiculous and
#NotOkay . . .
The words we use matter! #NotOkay #Election2016
Judge gives this man less than two months in jail for repeatedly
raping his 12 year old daughter. #NotOkay
Whereas these politically oriented tweets did not directly express
support to survivors, the tweets nonetheless condemned perpetra-
tors. Webber and Wilmot (2012) also observed that users of the
Somazone online community often engaged with other users to
express their disdain toward perpetrators of violence. Thus, users
of Somazone—as well as those using the hashtag #NotOkay—
both commented on how perpetrators should be held responsible
for their actions. It is therefore possible that the impact of social
reactions that are not specific to a survivor’s experience— but
nonetheless comment indirectly on the problem of sexual violence,
and the importance of holding perpetrators accountable—should
be further examined as potentially helpful ways that individuals
express support for survivors online.
Discussion
This analysis of a sample of 306 tweets using the hashtag
#NotOkay revealed that Twitter users reacted to this forum estab-
lished for disclosing sexual victimization in ways that both mir-
rored and varied from common in-person social reactions to dis-
closure. Qualitative analyses revealed that positive social reactions
were more common than negative social reactions. Further, the
most frequent social reaction provided—advocacy—is not re-
flected in current classification systems of in-personal social reac-
tions (Ullman, 2000).
It was surprising that positive social reactions were more com-
mon than negative social reactions in this forum, given numerous
studies documenting the frequency of online sexual harassment
(Fox & Tang, 2017; Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2007), and the
potential for individuals to respond with greater disinhibition when
interacting with anonymity online (Lowry, Zhang, Wang, & Sipo-
nen, 2016; Udris, 2014). Instead, the number of tweets that ac-
tively confronted behavior that was seen as problematic in the
community far outweighed the number of tweets classified as
negative social reactions. Greater than one third of all responses on
the forum were classified as advocacy (40%). As advocacy is not
included in current classification systems used to describe com-
mon in-person social reactions to disclosure (Ullman, 2000), it is
possible that the social nature of online forums provides a unique
context for this form of social support to occur. Notably, whereas
recipients of a sexual assault disclosure may serve as proactive
advocates after they receive an in-person disclosure—for example,
by confronting others who expressed support for a perpetrator or
victim blame attitudes—survivors are unlikely to be privy to these
in-person conversations. Uniquely, when individuals challenged
other Twitter users via #NotOkay to provide corrective informa-
 8 BOGEN, BLEIWEISS, AND ORCHOWSKI
tion, countered rape myths, or condemned expressions of victim
blame, these positive interactions were visible to all members of
the online community, including survivors. It is therefore possible
that the actions of proactive online advocates were cathartic for
survivors who viewed the #NotOkay forum. In the future, it would
be interesting to examine whether survivors who viewed these
interactions online felt comforted, experienced a reduction in
trauma-related distress, or otherwise benefitted from these advo-
cate behaviors. Moreover, researchers should explore whether
corrective online feedback promotes attitude or behavior change
among individuals who are the target of advocacy efforts. It is also
possible that Twitters users were more likely to confront other
users who were engaging in rape-supportive behavior as a result of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the anonymous nature of the forum.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Users also expressed emotional support on the forum (13%).
Emotional support was operationalized to include compliments
paid to the survivors who chose to disclose their experience, as
well as expressions of gratitude toward those disclosing. Though
these tweets were coded as emotionally supportive, it would be
worthwhile to measure whether these forms of emotional support
had a positive impact on the survivors who viewed the forum, but
had yet to tell anyone about their experience. Not all survivors
disclose experiences of trauma (Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012), and
it is possible that expressions of gratitude for those who came
forward to share their stories were perceived as invalidating for
survivors who choose to stay silent.
Some tweets expressed desire to take responsibility for ending
violence (3%). Users asserted that communities must change their
reactions to survivors, as well as the normative culture of sexual
violence (i.e., “rape culture”), to better protect vulnerable popula-
tions and ensure a more helpful response to survivors who choose
to tell their story. Tweets categorized as “taking responsibility”
may have served to create a community consciousness within the
online forum, which promoted collective change. This type of
commentary may not occur in the context of in-person disclosure
of sexual victimization, and is not included in current classification
systems of in-person social reactions to disclosure. Thus, it is
likely that the social nature of this forum made it feasible for users
of the site to engage in such calls for collective action. Future
research should examine whether these collective calls for action
to end sexual violence were seen as helpful by survivors who
disclose their experience online via Twitter.
Of Ullman’s (2000) forms of negative social reactions, only
distracting (24%) and egocentric (14%) were documented in the
present sample of online social reactions to disclosure. It should be
noted that many of these reactions were perceived by the coding
team to be well-intended, with specific examples encouraging
survivors to share their stories on other platforms or “boosting” the
reach of the hashtag itself by calling the topic important, linking to
related articles, and discussing the tag itself. Many egocentric
respondents cited feeling distressed or upset at the popularity of
the tag, implying that users were disturbed at the widespread
nature of sexual violence victimization. It is therefore likely that
individuals responding to disclosures in distracting or egocentric
ways were unaware of the potential negative impacts these re-
sponses may have on survivors, or unsure of more effective or
prosocial mechanisms of survivor support. It is also feasible that
some types of distracting or egocentric responses are not viewed
by survivors as particularly problematic when offered in an online
forum. As the present research offers an initial step toward estab-
lishing a classification system for online social reactions to dis-
closure, future research is warranted to examine whether these
responses are viewed by survivors as harmful or helpful.
Limitations
Analysis of Twitter data allows researchers to examine public
sentiment toward survivors and sexual violence as a social prob-
lem. However, the brevity of tweets (as a result of the 140-
character limit) does not allow for the sort of in-depth analysis
characteristic of qualitative research. Moreover, as researchers
downloaded and coded a sample of tweets mentioning the tag
#NotOkay, it was not possible for research staff to follow contin-
uous twitter conversations between multiple users. As a result of a
lack of available conversational context, some discussions between
users may have reflected a discloser/provider dynamic that was
unclear to the coding team. In addition, to follow existing guide-
lines of Twitter analysis, the research staff did not code the content
or sentiment of links attached to or mentioned within Tweets.
Many of these links were broken, and existing practice for Twitter
analysis codes only text within the 140-character limit. As such,
these tweets were often classified as “unclear” and excluded from
the final data set.
It should also be noted that in general, Twitter users are
younger, more highly educated, and more affluent (having access
to the sort of electronic devices on which Twitter would be
regularly used) than individuals who do not use Twitter (Giglietto,
Rossi, & Bennato, 2012). Findings are therefore not generalizable.
Further, data were collected at the same time point on several
nonconsecutive weekdays. It is therefore feasible that users who
tweet within alternate time slots (weekends, holidays, evenings, or
early morning) were not included in this data set. It is also possible
that researchers may have allowed their backgrounds and values to
impact their interpretation of the data, despite efforts to be cogni-
zant of personal biases and to work as a cohesive coding team.
Research Implications
There are several aspects of online forums that may influence
how people respond to disclosure of sexual victimization. Individ-
uals may have interacted online— either negatively or positive-
ly—in a different manner than they typically would in-person due
to online disinhibition or due to the opportunity to respond to all
survivors within the community (rather than one individual). Wit-
nessing how other users were interacting on the site may also have
influenced how people interacted in the forum. As research exam-
ining the context of online sexual assault disclosure is in its
infancy, the present analysis advances future examinations of
Twitter data and online discourse surrounding sexual violence
victimization, online responses to survivors, and what reactions are
deemed “acceptable” or desirable in online settings. In future
studies, it would be helpful to examine how the popularity of
#NotOkay impacted both survivors’ willingness to disclose and
respondents’ likelihood to respond with positive reactions. To
widen the scope and deepen the impact of social media analysis,
researchers may also seek to develop ethical ways of reaching out
to Twitter users to ask how participating in these large, tag-based
online movements influences them. It would also be helpful to
 SOCIAL REACTIONS
develop a mixed-methods approach that incorporates semistruc-
tured interviews with individuals who participate in in social
media campaigns via Twitter. Such a methodology would allow
researchers to discover whether survivors felt that participating in
the online forum was helpful, whether people who act as advocates
online are potentially more willing to intervene online versus
in-person, and form a more nuanced understanding as to how
online disinhibition and web mentalities influence conversations
about sexual violence on social media.
Given the prevalence of advocacy on this forum, it would also
be useful to explore whether advocacy is seen by survivors as a
positive online social reaction to disclosure. For example, did
survivors feel more supported after witnessing other users engage
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
in online advocacy on behalf of survivor communities? Analyses
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
are also warranted to understand the influence of each type of
social reaction provided on social media, and also to confirm that
this pattern of responding occurs within other Twitter forums, or
online spaces that provide a space for sexual assault disclosure. It
is possible that context of sexual assault disclosure and response
varies within specific types of online forums. Therefore, the pres-
ent classification scheme may not be generalizable outside of a
Twitter.
Clinical and Policy Implications
It is worth noting that NCapture allows the collection of geo-
graphic data—specifically, the latitude/longitude of the IP address
from which users tweet. If geomapping can be used to identify
locations where #NotOkay was widely tweeted, it may be possible
to use this information to implement targeted violence prevention
initiatives to capitalize upon the momentum created within an
online community. Geomapping may also be used to identify
locations where #NotOkay was largely responded to in a negative
manner so that high-risk communities can be appropriately tar-
geted to receive corrective information. It may also be useful to
develop public health education campaigns directed toward Twit-
ter users to enhance the ways in which online communities re-
spond to and support survivors of sexual violence. In fact, recent
evidence suggests that Twitter can provide a burgeoning space for
the creation of convenient communication between mental health
providers, health-oriented agencies, health education campaigns,
and patients (Shepherd, Sanders, Doyle, & Shaw, 2015).
It is also possible that Twitter and other online communities
may be leveraged to reach survivors of sexual violence who lack
a supportive social network. Twitter is a useful avenue for public
health interventions that are designed to reach marginalized or
disenfranchised groups, who may not otherwise have access to
support, informational aid, or validation (Lovejoy, Waters, &
Saxton, 2012). Finally, it would be helpful to examine the extent
to which online forums for sexual assault survivors such as #No-
tOkay are helpful or harmful to survivors and support providers,
who may experience vicarious traumatization as a result of re-
peated exposure to content relating to sexual violence.
Conclusion
The online discussion following the #NotOkay tag highlighted
several critical findings that expand our current understanding of
social reactions to disclosure of sexual violence within an online
9
forum. Specifically, two novel online social reactions to disclosure
(i.e., advocacy and taking responsibility for social change) were
revealed that may represent unique opportunities for providing
support to sexual assault survivors who disclose in online com-
munities. Future research is needed to understand whether these
patterns of responding occur within other online forums estab-
lished for the disclosure of sexual violence. Given evidence that
social reactions commonly framed as “negative” can be seen as
helpful or harmful by survivors (Campbell et al., 2001; Dworkin et
al., 2018), it is important to understand the ultimate influence of
these comments on survivors. Further, technological advances
continue to grow, and afford new spaces for the disclosure of
trauma. As such, it is vital that researchers seek to understand the
context of sexual assault disclosure and response on social media
so that this information can be used to support survivors.
References
Ahrens, C. E. (2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social
reactions on the disclosure of rape. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 38, 31–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9069-9
Ahrens, C. E., Cabral, G., & Abeling, S. (2009). Healing or hurtful: Sexual
assault survivors’ interpretations of social reactions from support pro-
viders. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 81–94. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01476.x
Ahrens, C. A., & Campbell, R. M. (2000). Assisting rape victims as they
recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 15, 959 –986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626000015009004
Ahrens, C. E., Campbell, R., Ternier-Thames, N. K., Wasco, S. M., & Sefl,
T. (2007). Deciding whom to tell: Expectations and outcomes of rape
survivors first disclosures. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 38 – 49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00329.x
Borja, S. E., Callahan, J. L., & Long, P. J. (2006). Positive and negative
adjustment and social support of sexual assault survivors. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 19, 905–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.20169
Breiding, M. J. (2015). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence,
stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate
Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. American
Journal of Public Health, 105, e11– e12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH
.2015.302634
Brown, A. L., & Testa, M. (2008). Social influences on judgments of rape
victims: The role of the negative and positive social reactions of others.
Sex Roles, 58, 490 –500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9353-7
Bush, D. (2016). The hidden sexism that could sway the election. Retrieved
from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/
Campbell, R., Wasco, S. M., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., & Barnes, H. E.
(2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with
community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16,
1239 –1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626001016012002
Catalano, S. M. (2006). Criminal victimization, 2005 (NCJ 214644). U.S.
Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Cheng, J., Bernstein, M., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Leskovec, J.
(2017). Anyone can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online
discussions. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer
supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 1217–1230).
New York, NY: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998213
Common Sense Media. (2016). The common sense census: Media use by
tweens and teens. Retrieved November 9, 2017, from https://www
.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/cen
sus_executivesummary.pdf
Conley, A. H., Overstreet, C. M., Hawn, S. E., Kendler, K. S., Dick, D. M.,
& Amstadter, A. B. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of sexual assault
 10 BOGEN, BLEIWEISS, AND ORCHOWSKI
among a college sample. Journal of American College Health, 65,
41– 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2016.1235578
Cravens, J. D., Whiting, J. B., & Aamar, R. O. (2015). Why I stayed/left:
An analysis of voices of intimate partner violence on social media.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 37, 372–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10591-015-9360-8
Donat, P. L., & D’Emilio, J. (1992). A feminist redefinition of rape and
sexual assault: Historical foundations and change. Journal of Social
Issues, 48, 9 –22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01154.x
Duggan, M. (2014). Online harassment. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center.
Dworkin, E. R., Newton, E., & Allen, N. E. (2018). Seeing roses in the
thorn bush: Sexual assault survivors’ perceptions of social reactions.
Psychology of Violence, 8, 100 –109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
0000082
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Easton, S. D., Saltzman, L. Y., & Willis, D. G. (2014). ‘Would you tell
under circumstances like that?’ Barriers to disclosure of child sexual
abuse for men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15, 460 – 469.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034223
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on
internet communities. British Medical Journal, 323, 1103–1105. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103
Fahrenthold, D. A. (2016, October 8). Trump recorded having extremely
lewd conversations about women in 2005. The Washington Post. Re-
trieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com
Fawcett, H., & Shrestha, L. (2016). Blogging about sexual assault: A
thematic analysis. Journal of Forensic Practice, 18, 39 –51. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1108/JFP-05-2015-0032
Fox, J., Cruz, C., & Lee, J. Y. (2015). Perpetuating online sexism offline:
Anonymity, interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social
media. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 436 – 442. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.024
Fox, J., & Tang, W. Y. (2017). Women’s experiences with general and
sexual harassment in online video games: Rumination, organizational
responsiveness, withdrawal, and coping strategies. New Media and So-
ciety, 19, 1290 –1307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444816635778
Giglietto, F., Rossi, L., & Bennato, D. (2012). The open laboratory: Limits
and possibilities of using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a research
data source. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30, 145–159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2012.743797
Greeson, M. R., & Campbell, R. (2015). Coordinated community efforts to
respond to sexual assault: A national study of sexual assault response
team implementation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2470 –
2487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553119
Kemp, S. (2016). Digital in 2016. London, United Kingdom: We Are
Social.
Ko, H.-C., Wang, L.-L., & Xu, Y.-T. (2013). Understanding the different
types of social support offered by audience to A-list diary-like and
informative bloggers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Network-
ing, 16, 194 –199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0297
Kogan, S. M. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results
from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse and Neglect:
The International Journal, 28, 147–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.chiabu.2003.09.014
Lal, S., Nguyen, V., & Theriault, J. (2016). Seeking mental health infor-
mation and support online: Experiences and perspectives of young
people receiving treatment for first-episode psychosis. Early Interven-
tion in Psychiatry. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/eip.12317
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social Media &
Mobile Internet Use among Teens and Young Adults. Millennials.
Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/
Littleton, H., Buck, K., Rosman, L., & Grills-Taquechel, A. (2012). From
survivor to thriver: A pilot study of an online program for rape victims.
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19, 315–327. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.cbpra.2011.04.002
Littleton, H., & Radecki-Breitkopf, C. (2006). Coping with the experience
of rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 106 –116. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00267.x
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders
through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of
140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38, 313–318. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005
Lowry, P. B., Zhang, J., Wang, C., & Siponen, M. (2016). Why do adults
engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online
disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and
social learning model. Information Systems Research, 27, 962–986.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0671
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1, 20.
Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204
Miller, A. K., Canales, E. J., Amacker, A. M., Backstrom, T. L., & Gidycz,
C. A. (2011). Stigma-threat motivated nondisclosure of sexual assault
and sexual revictimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 119 –
128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684310384104
Moors, R., & Webber, R. (2013). The dance of disclosure: Online self-
disclosure of sexual assault. Qualitative Social Work: Research and
Practice, 12, 799 – 815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473325012464383
Naslund, J. A., Grande, S. W., Aschbrenner, K. A., & Elwyn, G. (2014).
Naturally occurring peer support through social media: The experiences
of individuals with severe mental illness using YouTube. PLoS ONE, 9,
e110171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110171
O’Brien, S. H. (2016). Sexual assault and the Trump tape: 1 million women
say it’s #NotOkay. New York, NY: CNNMoney. Retrieved from Money
.cnn.com
Omer, H., & Alon, N. (1997). Constructing therapeutic narratives. New
York, NY: Jason Aronson.
Orchowski, L. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2012). To whom do college women
confide following sexual assault? A prospective study of predictors of
sexual assault disclosure and social reactions. Violence Against Women,
18, 264 –288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801212442917
Orchowski, L. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2015). Psychological consequences
associated with positive and negative responses to disclosure of sexual
assault among college women: A prospective study. Violence Against
Women, 21, 803– 823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801215584068
Orchowski, L. M., Untied, A. S., & Gidycz, C. A. (2013). Social reactions
to disclosure of sexual victimization and adjustment among survivors of
sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2005–2023. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260512471085
Pennebaker, J. W. (1999). The effects of traumatic disclosure on physical
and mental health: The values of writing and talking about upsetting
events. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 1, 9 –18.
Pennebaker, J. W., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, R. (1988). Disclosure
of traumas and immune function: Health implications for psychotherapy.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 239 –245. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.2.239
Pennebaker, J. W., & Seagal, J. D. (1999). Forming a story: The health
benefits of narrative. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1243–1254.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199910)55:10⬍1243::AID-
JCLP6⬎3.0.CO;2-N
Peri, T. (2004). It was like in the cartoons: From memory to traumatic
memory and back. Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy: The Journal of
the Postgraduate Center for Mental Health, 21, 63–79.
Pruitt, L. D., & Zoellner, L. A. (2008). The impact of social support: An
analogue investigation of the aftermath of trauma exposure. Journal of
 SOCIAL REACTIONS
Anxiety Disorders, 22, 253–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis
.2007.02.005
Scanfeld, D., Scanfeld, V., & Larson, E. L. (2010). Dissemination of health
information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics. American
Journal of Infection Control, 38, 182–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.ajic.2009.11.004
Shepherd, A., Sanders, C., Doyle, M., & Shaw, J. (2015). Using social
media for support and feedback by mental health service users: Thematic
analysis of a twitter conversation. BMC Psychiatry, 15, 29. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0408-y
Smyth, J., True, N., & Souto, J. (2001). Effects of writing about traumatic
experiences: The necessity for narrative structuring. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 20, 161–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.20
.2.161.22266
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Sudderth, L. K. (1998). ‘It’ll come right back at me’ the interactional
context of discussing rape with others. Violence Against Women, 4,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
572–594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004005004
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Be-
havior, 7, 321–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
Tillman, S., Bryant-Davis, T., Smith, K., & Marks, A. (2010). Shattering
silence: Exploring barriers to disclosure for African American sexual
assault survivors. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 11, 59 –70. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/1524838010363717
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of
male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as mea-
sured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence
Against Women, 6, 142–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107780100
22181769
Tomeny, T. S., Vargo, C. J., & El-Toukhy, S. (2017). Geographic and
demographic correlates of autism-related anti-vaccine beliefs on Twitter,
2009 –15. Social Science and Medicine, 191, 168 –175. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.041
Twitter. 2017. Retrieved from https://about.twitter.com/
Udris, R. (2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan:
Development and validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale. Comput-
ers in Human Behavior, 41, 253–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb
.2014.09.036
Ullman, S. E. (2000). Psychometric characteristics of the Social Reactions
Questionnaire: A measure of reactions to sexual assault victims. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 24, 257–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1471-6402.2000.tb00208.x
Ullman, S. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to
survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/12083-000
11
Ullman, S. E., Filipas, H. H., Townsend, S. M., & Starzynski, L. L. (2007).
Psychosocial correlates of PTSD symptom severity in sexual assault
survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 821– 831. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/jts.20290
Walsh, K., Fortier, M. A., & Dilillo, D. (2010). Adult coping with child-
hood sexual abuse: A theoretical and empirical review. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 15, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.009
Weathers, M. R., Sanderson, J., Neal, A., & Gramlich, K. (2016). From
silence to# WhyIStayed: Locating our stories and finding our voices.
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 17, 60 – 67. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2016.1143385
Webber, R., & Wilmot, J. (2012). Somazone report: Social media and help
seeking by young people on sexual assault. Retrieved from http://www
.secasa.com.au/assets/Documents/Social-Media-and-Help-Seeking-by-
Young-People-on-Sexual-AssaultSomazone-Report2012.pdf
Whitehead, L. C. (2007). Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-
mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the
literature. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 782–791. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.005
White House Task Force. (2014). Not alone: The first report of the white
house task force to protect students from sexual assault. Retrieved from
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report_0.pdf
Yang, G. (2016). Narrative agency in hashtag activism: The case of#
BlackLivesMatter. Media and Communication, 4, 13–17. http://dx.doi
.org/10.17645/mac.v4i4.692
Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). The co-
occurrence of Internet harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation
victimization and perpetration: Associations with psychosocial indica-
tors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S31–S41. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.010
Yeager, J. (2012). Survivors online: A netnographic analysis of the emerg-
ing role played by the internet as a source of support for survivors of
sexual violence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of East
London, London, England.
Zimmerman, A. G., & Ybarra, G. J. (2016). Online aggression: The
influences of anonymity and social modeling. Psychology of Popular
Media Culture, 5, 181–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000038
Received January 20, 2017
Revision received February 8, 2018
Accepted February 20, 2018 䡲