Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Aggression and Violent Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh A metasynthesis of qualitative studies on girls' and women's labeling of sexual violence Catherine Rousseaua,⁎, Manon Bergerona, Sandrine Riccib a Sexology Department, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada b Sociology Department, Université de Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Sexual violence Labeling Victims Metasynthesis Qualitative A B S T R A C T Many women do not label their unwanted sexual experiences as rape or sexual violence, but rather use various labels that suggest a different understanding of the events. This metasynthesis provides new insights and em- pirical evidence of how girls and women discuss their unwanted sexual experiences, and identifies factors that impede or promote such labeling. Qualitative data of 9 studies were synthetized using Noblit and Hare's (1988) framework. Results show that victims can frame sexual violence within rape scripts that may lead to mini- mization, normalization, self-blame or rationalization of the event. Some participants hold an ambivalent dis- course, which suggests that labeling is a fluctuating process. Finally, seeking social support, or receiving edu- cational information seem to facilitate the labeling of sexual violence. The implications for intervention and sexual violence prevention programs are discussed. 1. Introduction Sexual violence is a social problem, mainly affecting girls and women, that can lead to significant psychosocial consequences (Rhew, Stappenbeck, Bedard-Gilligan, Hughes, & Kaysen, 2017). In the United States, more than one-quarter of women experienced unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime, while one-third experienced some form of non- contact unwanted sexual experience in their lifetime (Basile, Smith, Breiding, Black, & Mahendra, 2014). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines sexual violence as “a sexual act that is com- mitted or attempted by another person without freely given consent of the victim or against someone who is unable to consent or refuse” (Basile et al., 2014, p. 11). Sexual violence includes rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual coercion without phy- sical force and unwanted sexual contact (Basile et al., 2014). This term is inclusive of the various forms of sexual victimization that are not necessarily criminalized, especially since legal frameworks vary from one country to another. This definition allows for the conception of sexual violence on a continuum, as many feminist researchers have suggested, since the pioneering work of Kelly (1987) and Hanmer (1977). While research confirms the high prevalence of sexual violence, few events of sexual violence are reported to the authorities. According to the Truman and Langton (2015), 34% of rape and sexual assault crimes are reported to authorities in the Un.

1. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Aggression and Violent Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh
A metasynthesis of qualitative studies on girls' and women's
labeling of
sexual violence
Catherine Rousseaua,⁎, Manon Bergerona, Sandrine Riccib
a Sexology Department, Université du Québec à Montréal,
Montréal, Québec, Canada
b Sociology Department, Université de Québec à Montréal,
Montréal, Québec, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Sexual violence
Labeling
Victims
Metasynthesis
Qualitative
A B S T R A C T
Many women do not label their unwanted sexual experiences as
rape or sexual violence, but rather use various
labels that suggest a different understanding of the events. This
metasynthesis provides new insights and em-

2. pirical evidence of how girls and women discuss their unwanted
sexual experiences, and identifies factors that
impede or promote such labeling. Qualitative data of 9 studies
were synthetized using Noblit and Hare's (1988)
framework. Results show that victims can frame sexual violence
within rape scripts that may lead to mini-
mization, normalization, self-blame or rationalization of the
event. Some participants hold an ambivalent dis-
course, which suggests that labeling is a fluctuating process.
Finally, seeking social support, or receiving edu-
cational information seem to facilitate the labeling of sexual
violence. The implications for intervention and
sexual violence prevention programs are discussed.
1. Introduction
Sexual violence is a social problem, mainly affecting girls and
women, that can lead to significant psychosocial consequences
(Rhew,
Stappenbeck, Bedard-Gilligan, Hughes, & Kaysen, 2017). In the
United
States, more than one-quarter of women experienced unwanted
sexual
contact in their lifetime, while one-third experienced some form
of non-
contact unwanted sexual experience in their lifetime (Basile,
Smith,
Breiding, Black, & Mahendra, 2014). The Centers for Disease
Control
and Prevention defines sexual violence as “a sexual act that is
com-
mitted or attempted by another person without freely given
consent of
the victim or against someone who is unable to consent or
refuse”
(Basile et al., 2014, p. 11). Sexual violence includes rape,

3. attempted
rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual coercion without
phy-
sical force and unwanted sexual contact (Basile et al., 2014).
This term
is inclusive of the various forms of sexual victimization that are
not
necessarily criminalized, especially since legal frameworks vary
from
one country to another. This definition allows for the
conception of
sexual violence on a continuum, as many feminist researchers
have
suggested, since the pioneering work of Kelly (1987) and
Hanmer
(1977).
While research confirms the high prevalence of sexual violence,
few
events of sexual violence are reported to the authorities.
According to
the Truman and Langton (2015), 34% of rape and sexual assault
crimes
are reported to authorities in the United States. One possible
explana-
tion for this under-reporting is that victims may not identify or
label the
event as a form of sexual violence. For several decades,
researchers
have been interested in victims' unacknowledged sexual
violence. Mary
Koss was one of the first to identify this phenomenon, which
she termed
“hidden rape,” and developed the Sexual Experiences Survey,
which is

4. an instrument capable of reflecting hidden cases of rape (Koss,
1985,
2011). Her study, based on the Sexual Experiences Survey,
shows that
43% of women who reported oral, anal, or vaginal non-
consensual in-
tercourse did not label their experience as rape (Koss, 1985).
More
recently, Wilson and Miller (2016) published a meta-analysis
sum-
marizing the results of their empirical work and presenting
estimates of
the prevalence of people who experienced rape, but did not
label their
experiences as such. Based on 28 studies, regrouping 5917
female rape
victims, the results show that an overall weighted mean
percentage of
60.4% of all victims do not understand their experience as rape.
In this metasynthesis, we analyze the social vocabulary present
in
victims' narratives (Hlavka, 2014; Kavanaugh, 2013). We
distinguish
between elements that justify or excuse sexual violence by
allowing
victims to interpret what happened to them (Scott & Lyman,
1968).
Because the labeling of sexual violence is embedded in culture,
it can
reflect rape myths or gendered stereotypes that make victims
feel guilty
and can take the blame off the perpetrator. For example, victims
can
minimize the severity of the experienced sexual violence. In
fact, a

5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101395
Received 12 August 2019; Received in revised form 1 March
2020; Accepted 8 March 2020
⁎ Corresponding author at: Université du Québec à Montréal,
Département de sexologie, CP 8888, succ. Centre-ville,
Montréal, Québec H3C 3P8, Canada.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Rousseau),
[email protected] (M. Bergeron), [email protected] (S. Ricci).
Aggression and Violent Behavior 52 (2020) 101395
Available online 12 March 2020
1359-1789/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13591789
https://www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101395
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101395
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101395
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.avb.2020.10
1395&domain=pdf
study reveals that women who have experienced rape are
usually
considered responsible for the event in the current social
context
(Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2004). Different factors can
influence the

6. labeling of sexual violence. Some factors, as named above,
appear to
prevent the identification of sexual violence, while others may
en-
courage it, such as verbally expressing non-consent (Cleere &
Lynn,
2013; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007).
Many factors contribute to a social context that would denigrate
and
blame women for experiences of sexual violence, such as rape
myths.
These social discourses are understood as culturally situated
and so-
cially learned ideologies that excuse rape. Various rape myths
have
been documented, for example: the belief that a husband cannot
rape
his wife, that women enjoy rape, that women have asked to be
raped
and that women are lying about having been raped (Edwards,
Turchik,
Dardis, Reynolds, & Gidycz, 2011). It is possible to believe that
these
rape myths are more closely interwoven with a narrow
conception of
what sexual violence is and that this conception is reiterated in
domi-
nant social discourses. Also, rape scripts may influence victims'
labeling
of unwanted sexual experiences (LeMaire, Oswald, & Russell,
2016).
They are defined as a social stereotype of what a “real” rape is
and how
victims and perpetrators of rape are viewed (Ryan, 2011). For
example,

7. a rape script usually implies a highly violent assault by a
stranger, in a
public space, with forced intercourse (Kahn, Mathie, & Torgler,
1994;
Littleton, Tabernik, Canales, & Backstrom, 2009). However,
most sexual
assaults are perpetrated by a known man, in a private place,
sometimes
with no physical force used (Cantor et al., 2015). In such
situations,
there would be an inconsistency between the sexual
victimization and
the rape script, which can lead to the non-labeling of the event
as sexual
violence.
This metasynthesis is informed by feminist theory. We postulate
that rape myths or rape scripts come from a patriarchal system
dis-
crediting women and girls' experience of sexual violence
(Brownmiller,
1975; Burt, 1980; Edwards et al., 2011; Gavey, 2005). By
adopting this
framework, we do not assume that girls and women should im-
mediately identify sexual violence after being victimized, but
we be-
lieve that greater recognition of what is sexual violence would
allow
many girls and women to avoid self-blame, minimization or
justifica-
tion of the violence that they experience. It would also foster
ac-
countability for perpetrators of sexual violence regarding their
beha-
viors. The way in which sexual violence is labeled is critical for
the

8. survivor's experience because it guides the perception of the
event and
its prevention. The social context, coming from patriarchal
tradition,
leads many women to take responsibility for the experienced
sexual
violence, which only accentuates the invisibility of this form of
gender-
based violence and, at the same time, dilutes the perpetrator's
respon-
sibility (Romito, 2006). This framework enables a more detailed
and
thorough understanding of the imbrication of labeling and
subscribing
to rape myths or scripts.
Studies on unacknowledged sexual violence mainly adopt
quanti-
tative methods because of the ethical and methodological
challenges
involved in interviewing people who have difficulties
identifying their
non-consensual sexual experiences as sexual violence
(Johnstone,
2016). Although these quantitative results can estimate the
prevalence
of the phenomenon, they do not give us much information on
how girls
and women qualify the unwanted sexual experience. They also
do not
reflect the complex reality of this phenomenon and its possible
varia-
tions over time (Johnstone, 2016). Recently however, there has
been an
increase in qualitative research on unacknowledged sexual
violence

9. that suggests new insights and useful in-depth information
about how
women label their experiences. Nevertheless, a synthesis of
qualitative
studies on the subject has not been published. This article aims
to offer
a more complete understanding of labeling in victims'
narratives. We
understand labeling both as women's acknowledgement of
unwanted
sexual experiences, and as the process whereby victims decide
whether
they label these experiences as sexual violence. Our
contribution is
based on a metasynthesis, which is a review of all qualitative
studies
published on the subject that fit certain inclusion criteria.
Qualitative
metasyntheses entail a systematic approach to the collection and
ana-
lysis of qualitative studies to allow the “enlarging of the
interpretive
possibilities of findings and constructing larger narratives of
general
theories” (Sandelowski, Docherty, & Emden, 1997, p. 369).
For this research, the objectives are: 1) to examine how girls
and
women perceive their unwanted sexual experience and 2) to
identify a
variety of factors that seem to impede the labeling of sexual
violence
and factors that seem to encourage it.
2. Method

10. This metasynthesis aims to provide a comprehensive and
qualitative
overview of girls' and women's labeling of their experienced
sexual
violence.
2.1. Procedure and sample
A review of qualitative studies on victims' labeling of sexual
vio-
lence was done using SAGE journals online, PsycINFO, Taylor
and
Francis Online, Google Scholar and a review of found articles'
refer-
ences. We searched qualitative papers in April and May 2018,
using
keywords including: labeling, accounts, normalizing, sexual
violence,
unacknowledged rape, self-blame, qualitative, and mixed
methods.
The inclusion criteria for studies were (a) to have a qualitative
component as structured, semi- or unstructured interviews or
focus
groups, (b) to relate to the narrative of girls and women who
experi-
enced sexual violence, (c) to address the issue of
unacknowledged
sexual violence, (e) to have been carried out in Western
countries where
rape myths and rape script are similarly integrated and shared,
and (f)
to be written in English. Thus, studies published before 2000 or
that
only addressed the point of view of non-victims were excluded.

11. Nine studies were retained for this metasynthesis and 11 were
ex-
cluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The
design of
all the selected studies was exclusively or partially qualitative
and
subscribed to different approaches to data analysis. One is a
phenom-
enological study, five are based on an inductive approach, two
have a
descriptive approach and one is outlined by the Listening Guide
methodology. Demographic and methodological characteristics
of se-
lected articles are shown in Table 1. All studies were conducted
in
United States, except for one in Canada and one in Australia.
Partici-
pants' ages ranged from 11 to 47 years old. Five studies focused
on
undergraduate students. All the studies exclusively involved
women
who were victimized by male perpetrators, most often someone
they
knew.
2.2. Analysis
All studies were transferred to NVivo 11 (QSR International Pty
Ltd.) for synthesis and management of the emerging themes.
The ap-
proach used for this metasynthesis was based on Noblit and
Hare's
framework (Noblit & Hare, 1988), which is divided into seven
phases.
First, researchers choose a phenomenon and must define it. In

12. our case,
we selected unacknowledged sexual violence and labeling in
girls and
women narratives. Second, researchers determine which
qualitative
studies are relevant to their initial interest. Nine studies met our
in-
clusion criteria. Third, researchers read the qualitative studies
several
times to identify keywords, themes or concepts. Fourth, they
evaluate
how these studies are related to each other by synthetizing
previous
keywords, themes or concepts. Fifth, researchers transpose the
studies
into one another. This phase enables comparison and maintains
the
central concepts of each label in their relation to other concepts.
An
open coding then leads to codes that are grouped to form
conceptual
categories. In line with Glaser and Strauss' (2009) axial coding,
we
compared conceptual categories to explore interactions between
studies
and to build conceptual categories that are mutually exclusive.
These
C. Rousseau, et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 52 (2020)
101395
2
T

13. ab
le
1
St
u
d
ie
s
in
cl
u
d
ed
in
m
et
as
yn
th
es
is
.
#
A
u
th
or
s
Y
ea

14. r
R
es
ea
rc
h
d
es
ig
n
Sa
m
p
li
n
g
st
ra
te
gy
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e
sa
m
p
le
A

15. p
p
ro
ac
h
to
d
at
a
an
al
ys
is
1
H
ar
n
ed
2
0
0
5
M
ix
ed
m
et
h
od

16. s:
O
p
en
-e
n
d
ed
qu
al
it
at
iv
e
it
em
s
St
ra
ti
fi
ed
ra
n
d
om
sa
m
p
li
n

17. g:
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
w
as
n
ar
ro
w
ed
to
in
cl
u
d
e
on
ly
w
om
en
w
h
o
re

18. p
or
te
d
an
u
n
w
an
te
d
se
xu
al
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
w
it
h
a
d
at
in
g
p
ar
tn
er

19. on
th
e
Se
xu
al
E
xp
er
ie
n
ce
s
Su
rv
ey
(S
E
S)
an
d
co
m
p
le
te
d
th

20. e
op
en
-e
n
d
ed
qu
al
it
at
iv
e
it
em
s
n
=
2
5
1
;
w
om
en
u
n
d
er
gr

21. ad
u
at
e
st
u
d
en
ts
in
U
n
it
ed
St
at
es
;
1
8
to
2
2
ye
ar
s
ol
d
;
9

22. 7
%
u
n
m
ar
ri
ed
;
8
0
%
se
lf
-i
d
en
ti
fi
ed
as
W
h
it
e,
et
h
n
ic
al

23. ly
d
iv
er
se
;
9
6
%
h
et
er
os
ex
u
al
;
T
yp
e:
R
ap
e,
at
te
m
p
te
d
ra
p
e,

24. se
xu
al
co
er
ci
on
,
se
xu
al
co
n
ta
ct
P
h
en
om
en
ol
og
y
Fe
m

25. in
is
t
st
an
d
p
oi
n
t
ep
is
te
m
ol
og
ie
s
In
te
rp
re
ta
ti
ve
-d
es
cr
ip
ti
ve

26. ap
p
ro
ac
h
2
H
la
vk
a
2
0
1
4
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e:
N
on
su
gg
es
ti
ve

27. ,
la
rg
el
y
op
en
-e
n
d
ed
,
qu
es
ti
on
s
C
ri
te
ri
on
sa
m
p
li
n
g:
A
p

28. p
ra
is
ed
th
ei
r
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
s
of
vi
ct
im
iz
at
io
n
as
a
cr
im
e
or
ab
u

29. si
ve
,
to
h
av
e
li
n
gu
is
ti
c,
co
gn
it
iv
e
an
d
so
ci
al
ab
il
it
y
to

30. co
n
ve
y
th
ei
r
m
ea
n
in
gs
of
vi
ol
en
ce
n
=
2
3
;
w
om
en
li
vi
n

31. g
in
an
u
rb
an
M
id
w
es
t
co
m
m
u
n
it
y,
in
U
n
it
ed
St
at
es
;
R
ac
ia
ll

32. y
d
iv
er
se
;
1
1
to
1
6
ye
ar
s
ol
d
;
T
yp
e:
Se
xu
al
as
sa
u
lt
/
ra
p

33. e
A
n
al
yt
ic
-i
n
d
u
ct
iv
e
m
et
h
od
an
d
an
al
yt
ic
br
ac
ke
ti
n
g
3

34. Jo
h
n
st
on
e
2
0
1
6
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e:
Se
m
i-
st
ru
ct
u
re
d
in
te
rv
ie
w

35. s
C
ri
te
ri
on
sa
m
p
li
n
g:
P
ar
ti
ci
p
an
ts
w
er
e
re
qu
ir
ed
to
h
av

36. e
an
sw
er
ed
“n
o”
to
tw
o
qu
es
ti
on
s
(“
h
av
e
yo
u
ev
er
be
en
se

37. xu
al
ly
as
sa
u
lt
ed
/r
ap
e?
”)
an
d
“y
es
”
to
on
e
of
tw
o
ot
h
er
qu

38. es
ti
on
s
th
at
as
se
ss
ed
u
n
w
an
te
d
se
xu
al
in
te
rc
ou
rs
e
in
th
e
m

39. od
ifi
ed
ve
rs
io
n
of
SE
S.
n
=
1
0
;
w
om
en
u
n
d
er
gr
ad
u
at
e
st
u

40. d
en
ts
;
1
8
to
4
7
ye
ar
s
ol
d
;
H
et
er
os
ex
u
al
;
8
0
%
E
u
ro
p
ea

41. n
-C
an
ad
ia
n
,
et
h
n
ic
al
ly
d
iv
er
se
T
yp
e:
Se
xu
al
as
sa
u
lt
/r
ap

42. e
Fe
m
in
is
t
th
eo
ry
So
ci
al
co
n
st
ru
ct
io
n
is
t
th
eo
ry
Li
st
en
in
g
G

43. u
id
e
4
M
ad
is
on
&
M
in
ic
h
ie
ll
o
2
0
0
0
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e:
In
te
rv

44. ie
w
s
of
ap
p
ro
xi
m
at
el
y
1
h
ea
ch
C
on
ve
n
ie
n
ce
sa
m
p
li
n
g:
St

45. u
d
en
t
re
gi
st
er
ed
n
u
rs
es
w
h
o
w
er
e
vo
lu
n
te
er
s
co
m
p
le
te
d

46. a
su
rv
ey
on
se
xu
al
h
ar
as
sm
en
t
n
=
1
6
;
re
gi
st
er
ed
n
u
rs
es
in

47. A
u
st
ra
li
a;
2
9
to
4
6
ye
ar
s
of
ag
e
T
yp
e:
se
xu
al
h
ar
as
sm
en

48. t
In
d
u
ct
iv
e
an
al
ys
is
5
P
et
er
so
n
&
M
u
eh
le
n
h
ar
d
2
0
1
1

49. M
ix
ed
m
et
h
od
s:
Se
m
i-
st
ru
ct
u
re
d
in
te
rv
ie
w
s
an
d
op
en
-e
n
d

50. ed
qu
al
it
at
iv
e
it
em
s
C
ri
te
ri
on
sa
m
p
li
n
g:
P
ar
ti
ci
p
an
ts
w
er

51. e
re
qu
ir
ed
to
h
av
e
h
ad
an
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
th
at
qu
al
ifi
ed
as
ra
p
e
ac

52. co
rd
in
g
to
th
e
le
ga
l
d
efi
n
it
io
n
s
in
m
os
t
st
at
es
P
ro
ba
bi
li

53. ty
sa
m
p
li
n
g:
R
an
d
om
ly
se
le
ct
ed
an
d
in
vi
te
d
w
om
en
w
h
o
h
ad

54. an
sw
er
ed
“n
o”
to
bo
th
sc
re
en
in
g
qu
es
ti
on
s
n
=
7
7
;
co

55. ll
eg
e
w
om
en
fr
om
a
la
rg
e
M
id
w
es
te
rn
st
at
e
u
n
iv
er
si
ty
,
U
n
it

56. ed
St
at
es
;
1
8
to
3
0
ye
ar
s
ol
d
9
0
%
w
h
it
e,
et
h
n
ic
al
ly
d

57. iv
er
se
9
2
%
h
et
er
os
ex
u
al
;T
yp
e:
Se
xu
al
as
sa
u
lt
/r
ap
e
in
cl
u
d

58. in
g
on
ly
va
gi
n
al
p
en
et
ra
ti
on
In
d
u
ct
iv
e
an
al
ys
is
M
at
ch
-a

59. n
d
-m
ot
iv
at
io
n
m
od
el
6
W
ei
ss
2
0
0
9
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e:
O
p
en

60. -e
n
d
ed
qu
al
it
at
iv
e
it
em
s
P
ro
ba
bi
li
ty
sa
m
p
li
n
g:
T
h
e
su
rv
ey

61. ,
w
it
h
a
ra
n
d
om
se
le
ct
io
n
m
et
h
od
,
is
se
n
t
to
th
e
p
op
u

62. la
ti
on
n
=
9
4
4
;
fe
m
al
e
vi
ct
im
s;
1
2
ye
ar
s
ol
d
an
d
ol
d
er
(m

63. ed
ia
n
ag
e:
2
4
)
8
3
%
W
h
it
e,
1
4
%
B
la
ck
,
3
%
ot
h
er
ra

64. ce
s;
5
6
%
h
av
e
in
co
m
e
be
lo
w
2
5
,0
0
0
$
;
U
n
it
ed
St
at
es

65. ;
T
yp
e:
ra
p
e,
at
te
m
p
te
d
ra
p
e,
u
n
w
an
te
d
se
xu
al
co
n
ta
ct

66. ,
se
xu
al
co
er
ci
on
D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve
an
al
ys
is
7
W
ei
ss
2
0
1
0
Q
u
al

67. it
at
iv
e:
O
p
en
-e
n
d
ed
qu
al
it
at
iv
e
it
em
s
P
ro
ba
bi
li
ty
sa
m
p
li

68. n
g:
T
h
e
su
rv
ey
,
w
it
h
a
ra
n
d
om
se
le
ct
io
n
m
et
h
od
,
is
se
n
t

69. to
d
iff
er
en
t
u
n
it
s
of
th
e
p
op
u
la
ti
on
n
=
1
3
6
;
8
5
%
fe

70. m
al
e
vi
ct
im
s;
5
5
%
u
n
d
er
2
5
ye
ar
s
of
ag
e;
8
5
%
w
h
it
e,

71. 1
4
%
bl
ac
k,
1
%
ot
h
er
ra
ce
s;
1
5
%
m
al
e
vi
ct
im
s;
U
n
it
ed

72. St
at
es
;
T
yp
e:
ra
p
e,
at
te
m
p
te
d
ra
p
e,
u
n
w
an
te
d
se
xu
al
co

73. n
ta
ct
,
se
xu
al
co
er
ci
on
In
d
u
ct
iv
e
or
gr
ou
n
d
ed
th
eo
ry
ap
p

74. ro
ac
h
8
W
ei
ss
2
0
1
1
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e:
O
p
en
-e
n
d
ed
qu
al
it
at
iv

75. e
it
em
s
P
ro
ba
bi
li
ty
sa
m
p
li
n
g:
T
h
e
su
rv
ey
,
w
it
h
a
ra
n
d
om

76. se
le
ct
io
n
m
et
h
od
,
is
se
n
t
to
d
iff
er
en
t
u
n
it
s
of
th
e
p
op

77. u
la
ti
on
n
=
2
7
6
;
8
9
%
fe
m
al
e
vi
ct
im
s
1
1
%
m
al
e
vi
ct
im

78. s;
U
n
it
ed
St
at
es
;
T
yp
e:
ra
p
e,
at
te
m
p
te
d
ra
p
e,
u
n
w
an
te
d
se

79. xu
al
co
n
ta
ct
,
se
xu
al
co
er
ci
on
In
d
u
ct
iv
e
ap
p
ro
ac
h
9
D
ar
d

80. is
,
K
ra
ft
&
G
id
yc
z
2
0
1
7
M
ix
ed
m
et
h
od
s:
O
p
en
-e
n
d
ed

81. qu
al
it
at
iv
e
it
em
s
St
ra
ti
fi
ed
ra
n
d
om
sa
m
p
li
n
g:
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le

82. w
as
n
ar
ro
w
ed
to
in
cl
u
d
e
on
ly
w
om
en
w
h
o
re
p
or
te
d
an
u
n
w
an

83. te
d
se
xu
al
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
w
it
h
a
d
at
in
g
p
ar
tn
er
on
th
e
Se
xu
al
E

84. xp
er
ie
n
ce
s
Su
rv
ey
(S
E
S)
an
d
co
m
p
le
te
d
th
e
op
en
-e
n
d
ed
qu

85. al
it
at
iv
e
it
em
s
n
=
1
2
3
;u
n
d
er
gr
ad
u
at
e
w
om
en
in
U
n
it

86. ed
St
at
es
;m
ea
n
ag
e:
1
9
.6
2
;
8
7
.8
%
C
au
ca
si
an
,
4
.9
%
B

87. la
ck
/A
fr
ic
an
A
m
er
ic
an
,
3
.3
%
A
si
an
,
4
.0
%
M
u
lt
ir
ac
ia
l/
O

88. th
er
,
3
.3
%
La
ti
n
o;
7
4
.0
%
h
et
er
os
ex
u
al
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
s
on
ly
,

89. 2
1
.1
%
m
os
tl
y
h
et
er
os
ex
u
al
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
s,
3
.3
%
m
or
e
h
et
er

90. os
ex
u
al
th
an
h
om
os
ex
u
al
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
s,
1
.6
%
eq
u
al
h
et
er
os

91. ex
u
al
an
d
h
om
os
ex
u
al
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
s.
T
yp
e:
C
om
p
le
te
d
ra
p
e

92. D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve
an
al
ys
is
C. Rousseau, et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 52 (2020)
101395
3
categories must allow for a better understanding of the
phenomenon,
each of them taking into account the key concepts identified in
the
source studies (Paillé, 1994). Each category took into account
the key
concepts identified in the source studies. However, the
saturation of
each category might not be achieved because of the diverse
topics
covered in the corpus. Generally, researchers would then
synthesize
transpositions by producing an overview rather than simply
analyzing
them individually and extracting separate conceptual categories
(Coffey, 2006). Sixth, translations are compared to find

93. similarities and
differences. In this phase, conceptual categories are linked
together to
develop a storyline or theory, according to Glaser and Strauss'
(2009)
grounded theory. Nonetheless, this was not the goal of this
present
metasynthesis. Seventh, researchers adapt the synthesis to their
audi-
ence. Thus, this metasynthesis takes a written form and adopts a
lan-
guage that is adapted to academics and practitioners so that they
can
benefit from its results.
3. Results
The analysis of our corpus resulted in the creation of seven con-
ceptual categories, each containing several sub-categories (see
Table 2).
3.1. Self-blame occurring because of something done or not
done
In this first category, sexual violence is not identified as such
be-
cause participants feel they have failed to have their non-
consent re-
spected or to stop unwanted sexual behaviors. Some believe that
being
intoxicated has put them in a position deemed to be at risk,
which leads
them to consider that they are responsible for unwanted sexual
acts.
3.1.1. Feeling that sexual violence could have been stopped

94. Some participants felt like they failed to say they did not want
to
engage in sexual activity. Two women in Harned's (2005) study
said:
“[B]ecause [I] never told the person not to, even though [I]
didn't want them
to”; “I should have been more vocal” (p. 397). Another woman
stated that
she did not resist enough to prevent the event: “…a young man
who
respondent had met that night forced her into having sexual
inter-
course. She said ‘no’ many times, but he physically forced
himself on
her. He was much bigger than her. She was ashamed and felt she
was
partly to blame because she couldn't stop him” (Weiss, 2009, p.
827).
Weiss (2011) discussed that women can feel more self-blame
for the
event and be more reluctant to label it as rape when they
consider
themselves to have surrendered to sexual activity.
3.1.2. Holding oneself at least partially responsible for the
event
Another reason evoked is the victim's intoxication: “I was drunk
and
didn't put up a fight and gave in. Therefore, I feel I am partially
responsible
for what happened” (Participant in Harned, 2005, p. 396); “I
don't want to
label it rape because I feel it was my fault to be that

95. intoxicated” (ques-
tionnaire response from non-labeling participant in Peterson &
Muehlenhard, 2011, p. 563). For some participants, they
consider that
they did not communicate clearly enough: “I didn't really
communicate
that I didn't want it to happen. I just kind of tensed up and
didn't move.”
(Dardis, Kraft, & Gidycz, 2017, p. 13). Johnstone (2016) states
that the
impact of self-blame is weighed in the larger context of rape
culture
which holds the victim responsible for what happened, instead
of pla-
cing responsibility and accountability on the perpetrator.
3.2. Normalization of sexual violence
The minimization of sexual violence is frequent among the
partici-
pants of the various studies. The frequency of these acts of
violence –
such as sexual harassment, is sometimes reported as being daily,
to the
point that participants and even some friends see sexual
violence as
nothing serious or as not even worth disclosing.
3.2.1. “The event was no big deal”: reduction of severity
Some participants consider the event as something that is not
very
serious. For a participant in Hlavka's (2014) study, the event
deserved
to be forgotten since “not much happened”:

96. “I was going to the bathroom and he wouldn't let me go in. He
put his foot
in front of [the door], and he's a really strong person, so I didn't
really,
like, I couldn't open the door. And he said, ‘I'll let you in if you
give me a
kiss,’ and I said, ‘No.’ And I was going back to the classroom
and he
pinned me against the wall and tried to, like, lift up my shirt.
And, like,
touched me, and then I… I got up… I started to scream, and I
guess
someone heard, 'cause then, um, someone started coming. So he
got away
from me, I just went back in the classroom and forgot about it. I
just
didn't think it was really anything”.
(Hlavka, 2014, p. 346)
3.2.2. “It happens all the time”: everyday behaviors
3.2.2.1. Peer reactions can alter the inclination to recognize the
experience
Table 2
Categories, subcategories and data from studies that refer to
these categories.
Categories, subcategories and data from studies that refer to
these categories
Categories Subcategories Studies related
1. Self-blame occurring because of something done or not done
1.1 Feeling that sexual violence could have been stopped
1.2 Holding oneself at least partially responsible for the

97. event
1, 6, 7, 8, 9
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
2. Normalization of sexual violence 2.1 “The event was no big
deal”: reduction of severity
2.2 “It happens all the time”: everyday behaviors
2.3 “He didn't mean it”: perpetrators held unaccountable
1, 2, 4, 7
1, 2, 3, 6
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
3. Rejection of the term “sexual violence” 3.1 Recognizing
oneself as a victim goes against a strong
self-image
3, 5, 8
4. Understanding sexual violence according to rape scripts 4.1
Lack of behaviors deemed problematic blurs the
labeling of sexual violence
4.2 Perpetrators do not fit the victim's image of a
perpetrator
4.3 Believing that consent may not be withdrawn
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8
1, 3, 5, 9
1, 5, 8, 9
5. Ambivalence: avoiding labels or using alternative terms 5.1
Evading a label that refers to sexual violence
5.2 The use of alternative terms to describe their
experience

98. 1, 3, 4
1, 3, 4, 5
6. Labeling of sexual violence through the perpetrator's violent
behavior, the consequences
suffered or the failure to comply with the consent
6.1 Physical violence and its repetition
6.2 Negative psychological impacts
6.3 Not having consented and not being able to say no
1, 3, 4, 9
1, 2, 3
1, 3, 4, 9
7. Seeking social support or having educational information 1,
4, 5
C. Rousseau, et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 52 (2020)
101395
4
as rape. A participant in Johnstone's (2016) study states that her
friend's reaction lead her to reconsider the event as something
normal
because her feelings were delegitimized: “So yeah, I told my
friend what
happened and then, I don't know, at first she started laughing
and I was, I
was like ‘this isn't funny,’ and she's like, ‘it's happened to me
so many times’”
(SchoolGirl [pseudonym], 20-year-old European-Canadian, p.
280).

99. 3.2.2.2. Unwanted sexual experiences are commonplace and
expected
behaviors because they happen all the time. Sexual harassment
and
violence appear to be a part of women's daily lives. Thereby,
unwanted sexual experiences are normalized because of their
frequency. Patricia (age 13), in Hlavka's (2014) study, said:
“They
grab you, touch your butt and try to, like, touch you in the
front, and run
away, but it's okay, I mean… I never think it's a big thing
because they do it
to everyone” (p. 344). In addition, men are seen as natural
perpetrators
because they appear unable to control their sexual drive and
desires
(Phillips, 2000).
3.2.2.3. Sexual violence is seen as normal dating behavior
within
heterosexual relationships. Violence against women is a part of
a
continuum where the most extreme form is rape (Kelly, 1987).
Some
manifestations of violence tend to be normalized because they
are a
part of what is expected in a heterosexual relationship (Gavey,
2005).
Such social representation is largely informed by the
naturalization of
male desire, seen as uncontrollable: “He'd just rub his hand
across my
butt, and then one time I was sitting there and he—I was, like,
laying on the
couch watching TV—and he came home. He was kinda drunk,

100. then he, like,
literally just, like, laid on me. That's what he… well, guys
always try to get
up on you, like just normal” (participant in Hlavka, 2014, p.
347).
Although coercive experiences are unpleasant, some
participants …