Skip to main content
ABCT 2025 59th Annual Convention Main banner
Psychology Tools Ad
Final Program


Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Recorded Session
Recorded Session
Ticketed Session
Ticketed Session

Trauma and Stressor Related Disorders and Disasters

Associations between Rape Myth Acceptance and Social Reactions to Disclosures of Campus Sexual Assault among College Faculty and Staff

(PS10-5) Associations Between Rape Myth Acceptance and Social Reactions to Disclosures of Campus Sexual Assault Among College Faculty and Staff

Sunday, November 23, 2025
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM CST
Location: Elite Hall A, Level 1
Abstract Text: In college, student disclosure to faculty and staff is often the first step towards receiving support following sexual assault (SA). However, these support systems may respond with negative social reactions (NSRs), particularly "turning against" (TA) reactions that stigmatize and blame victims. Acceptance of rape myths, or false and harmful beliefs about SA, may explain why faculty and staff respond in this way. However, no previous studies have examined faculty and staff perceptions of their own responses to disclosure, nor have they examined whether faculty and staff's acceptance of rape myths predicts TA reactions. The current study took place at a liberal arts college in the Northeast U.S, and investigated whether rape myth acceptance (RMA) among faculty and staff was associated with more TA reactions. All members of faculty and staff were emailed a link to participate in an anonymous survey assessing perceptions of how they responded to SA disclosure. Our sample was diverse in age (e.g., 28.4% ages 45-54), gender (72.4% female, 26.9% male), and employee role (25.7% faculty, 36.7% staff), such that faculty and staff from various departments were able to provide a unique perspective. Using a mixed-methods approach, faculty and staff had the opportunity to provide qualitative responses to elaborate further on their survey answers, including ways in which they could have responded differently (e.g., “I wished I had been more present earlier in the conversation with this student”). Quantitative analyses revealed that higher levels of RMA predicted TA reactions (b = 0.26, ꞵ = .49, p = < .01). In line with this finding, qualitative data also demonstrated the need for training on responding to disclosure of SA. Notably, 71.4% of staff and 80% of faculty reported having no Title IX training prior to the student disclosing. This lack of training and knowledge about campus sexual assault may suggest a possible explanation for why higher levels of RMA and TA reactions were present within our sample. Considering the study took place at a predominantly white institution (PWI), racial and ethnic diversity was limited (84.3% white). Future studies should evaluate RMA and social reactions within a more diverse population. Additionally, while many studies assess the effectiveness of faculty and staff responses, few have considered the underlying attitudes that shape these reactions. By identifying deficits in training and institutional support, our findings will be critical to both scientific knowledge and clinical practice through cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). This approach may inform efforts to restructure maladaptive thoughts and beliefs regarding victimization and rape culture, reducing RMA among university employees.