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