Criminal Justice

iResearchNet




Criminal Justice > Criminology > Psychology and Criminology > Psychology of Victimization

Psychology of Victimization




The psychology of victimization examines crime’s impact on individuals — the psychological consequences of being victimized, the factors that shape those consequences, and the processes through which victims recover, adapt, or fail to recover from the harm that criminal victimization produces. While the sociology of victimization addresses who becomes a victim and why — the structural and situational conditions that distribute victimization risk across populations and places — the psychology of victimization addresses what happens after victimization occurs: the subjective experience of being harmed, the psychological sequelae that follow, the social responses that help or hinder recovery, and the clinical and policy interventions that reduce the duration and severity of harm. Psychology and Criminology treats victimization psychology as a complement to structural victimology, addressing the dimension of crime’s social costs that aggregate statistics cannot capture — the individual psychological suffering that constitutes much of crime’s most consequential harm.

The field has developed through the convergence of clinical trauma psychology — with its detailed accounts of post-traumatic stress, its evidence-based treatments, and its theoretical frameworks for understanding how overwhelming experiences disrupt psychological functioning — with victim services research, which has documented the specific types of support that reduce psychological harm, and with criminal justice research, which has examined how the legal system’s handling of victimization can either facilitate or impede psychological recovery. The result is a field that spans clinical, social, and criminological psychology and that has produced both theoretical insight and substantial practical guidance for the criminal justice and health systems that serve crime victims.

Introduction

Research on the psychological consequences of criminal victimization has established several foundational findings that organize the field. First, victimization produces a wide range of psychological consequences whose severity depends on crime type, victim characteristics, social support availability, and the quality of post-victimization institutional responses — with the consequences of sexual violence and violent crime generally more severe than those of property crime, but with substantial individual variation within crime type categories. Second, most individuals show substantial psychological recovery over time, with the majority of victimization-related symptoms resolving within weeks to months, but a significant minority of victims — particularly those with prior trauma histories, those who experienced the most severe and personal victimization, and those with the least social support — develop chronic psychological conditions that require clinical intervention. Third, the criminal justice system’s handling of victimization substantially shapes psychological outcomes: procedurally just and victim-responsive handling can facilitate recovery, while adversarial, disbelieving, or dismissive responses can compound the original harm through secondary victimization.




The psychology of victimization also addresses the subjective experience of crime that official statistics cannot capture. Research using victim surveys consistently finds that crime reporting to police represents a minority of victimization — approximately 40–50% for violent crime and substantially lower for sexual violence and intimate partner violence — and that the decision not to report reflects a complex calculus involving victim beliefs about the seriousness of the offense, expectations of police response, and fear of the secondary victimization that formal reporting can trigger. Understanding these reporting decisions — and the psychological factors that shape them — is essential for both the victims’ services research that aims to improve victim utilization of available services and the criminal justice policy research that aims to improve the institutional responses that determine whether victims engage with the formal system at all.

Acute Psychological Responses to Victimization

Immediate Trauma Responses

Research on the acute psychological responses to victimization has documented a range of initial reactions whose intensity and character depend substantially on the type and severity of the victimizing event, the individual’s prior history of trauma and psychological functioning, and the immediate social environment in which the victimization occurs. Immediate responses commonly include shock and disbelief — the subjective experience of disconnection from the event’s reality that dissociative processes produce — alongside acute fear, anxiety, cognitive disruption, and the intrusive re-experiencing that marks the beginning of the post-traumatic stress response.

Research by Brewin and colleagues on cognitive processing of traumatic events has documented that initial peritraumatic responses — particularly the degree of peritraumatic dissociation (the sense of unreality, depersonalization, and time distortion during the traumatic event itself) — are among the strongest predictors of subsequent PTSD development. The theoretical account of this relationship is that peritraumatic dissociation impairs the encoding and integration of traumatic memories in ways that prevent the normal emotional processing through which anxiety habituates, leaving traumatic memories incompletely processed and subject to the involuntary re-experiencing that characterizes PTSD.

Research on the specific immediate responses to sexual assault has documented the particular patterns of response — including tonic immobility (the parasympathetic freeze response that produces the inability to physically resist that many sexual assault survivors experience), acute shame, and self-blame — that have important implications for both clinical response and legal proceedings. Research documenting that tonic immobility occurs in approximately 48–70% of rape survivors has direct implications for the “why didn’t you fight back” question that criminal justice actors and jury members often apply to sexual assault victims, establishing that the freeze response is a normal neurobiological trauma response rather than evidence of consent.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — the most extensively studied psychological consequence of criminal victimization — is characterized by intrusive re-experiencing of the traumatic event (flashbacks, nightmares, intrusive memories), avoidance of trauma reminders, negative alterations in cognition and mood (including persistent shame, self-blame, estrangement from others, and persistent negative emotional states), and hyperarousal (including hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response, and sleep disturbance). Research using nationally representative samples has documented that sexual assault produces the highest PTSD rates of any crime type — approximately 45–65% of rape victims develop PTSD — while other violent crimes produce rates in the 20–35% range and property crimes produce substantially lower rates.

Table 1. Psychological Consequences of Victimization by Crime Type

Crime Type PTSD Prevalence Depression Prevalence Primary Psychological Mechanism Average Recovery Time Complicating Factors
Rape/sexual assault 45–65% 30–50% Shame; self-blame; violation of bodily autonomy; peritraumatic dissociation 12–18+ months without treatment Prior trauma; victim-blaming responses; acquaintance perpetrator
Physical assault 20–35% 20–35% Threat to life; injury; loss of safety assumption 6–12 months for many victims Severity of injury; perpetrator relationship
Domestic violence 45–60% (cumulative exposure) 40–60% Coercive control; entrapment; betrayal trauma; repeated exposure Variable; coercive control extends recovery Ongoing danger; economic dependence; children
Robbery 20–30% 15–25% Threat to life; loss of control 3–6 months for many victims Weapon presence; injury; prior victimization
Burglary 5–15% 10–20% Violation of home as safe space; sense of contamination 1–3 months for most victims Prior victimization; perceived vulnerability
Hate crime 25–40% (elevated vs. non-hate 30–45% Identity targeting; community impact; expressive harm Extended — community-level threat persists Group membership salience; frequency in community

Vulnerable Populations and Differential Impact

Children and Adolescent Victims

Research on victimization’s psychological impact on children and adolescents has documented that younger victims face specific developmental vulnerabilities that shape both the immediate consequences of victimization and its long-term trajectory. Children’s cognitive-developmental stage — particularly their limited capacity for abstract reasoning, their egocentric perspective-taking, and their limited understanding of complex social dynamics — shapes how they interpret victimization, with younger children more likely to attribute victimization to magical or idiosyncratic causes and more likely to experience confusion about their own role in the victimizing event.

Research on child sexual abuse has documented specific psychological consequences including sexualized behavior, emotional and behavioral dysregulation, post-traumatic stress, and attachment disruption that reflect the specific nature of sexual victimization in childhood — where the boundary violations of adult sexual intrusion compound with the developmental disruptions of early sexualization and the betrayal of trusted adult relationships. Research by Finkelhor and colleagues on the trajectories of sexually abused children found substantial heterogeneity in outcomes — ranging from minimal apparent disturbance to severe PTSD and behavioral disruption — with the severity of outcomes predicted by the relationship between perpetrator and victim (abuse by fathers and stepfathers producing more severe effects than abuse by more distant individuals), the duration and severity of the abuse, and the availability of supportive non-offending parental response following disclosure.

Research on child witnesses to domestic violence has documented that witnessing parental violence produces psychological consequences comparable in severity to direct victimization, including PTSD, anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems, and that the combination of direct victimization and domestic violence witnessing produces compounded effects that significantly exceed either experience alone. The concept of polyvictimization — reviewed in the trauma article — is particularly relevant for child victimization, as the types of adverse childhood experience that produce the most severe psychological consequences are precisely those that tend to co-occur in the same families and the same children.

Elder Victimization and Financial Exploitation

Elder victimization — the physical, psychological, financial, and sexual abuse and neglect of older adults, primarily by family caregivers and professional care providers — presents a specific psychological profile whose understanding requires attention to the vulnerabilities, power dynamics, and social isolation that advanced age and dependence produce. Research documents that the most psychologically harmful forms of elder victimization are financial exploitation and psychological abuse — not the physical violence that public concern emphasizes — because these forms most directly undermine the autonomy, dignity, and fundamental sense of safety that sustain psychological well-being in advanced age.

Research on the psychological consequences of elder financial exploitation — the theft, fraud, and manipulation of older adults’ financial resources by trusted individuals — has documented severe psychological consequences including depression, anxiety, PTSD, and reduced trust that impair the social engagement and community participation that protect against cognitive decline and mortality. Research on disclosure barriers for elder victimization — finding that older adults are substantially less likely to report victimization than younger adults, and that the primary barrier is shame, fear of family disruption, and anticipatory disbelief rather than lack of awareness that victimization occurred — establishes that the dark figure of elder victimization is particularly large and that elder-specific outreach and detection are necessary to address it.

Cognitive and Emotional Processing of Victimization

Shattered Assumptions Theory

Ronnie Janoff-Bulman’s shattered assumptions theory — one of the most influential theoretical frameworks in victimization psychology — proposes that traumatic victimization is devastating partly because it shatters the fundamental cognitive assumptions through which individuals organize their understanding of the world: the assumption that the world is benevolent, the assumption that the world is meaningful, and the assumption of one’s own value and invulnerability. These assumptions, which Janoff-Bulman calls the “assumptive world,” are not consciously articulated beliefs but implicit cognitive frameworks that structure basic predictions about how the world works and how one fits within it.

The shattered assumptions framework explains both the depth of post-victimization distress and the content of the cognitive work that recovery requires. Recovery from victimization, on this account, is not merely the reduction of anxiety and intrusive symptoms but the reconstruction of a coherent and livable assumptive world that acknowledges the reality of victimization without collapsing into a worldview that is either naively optimistic (denying the real possibility of harm) or paralyzingly cynical (treating harm as omnipresent and unavoidable). Research applying the shattered assumptions framework has found that the degree of assumption disruption following victimization predicts PTSD severity and recovery trajectory, and that interventions that specifically address world-assumption reconstruction — including components of cognitive processing therapy — produce better recovery outcomes than those focused only on symptom reduction.

Attributions, Blame, and Recovery

Research on the role of attributions in victimization recovery has examined how victims’ explanations of why they were victimized — and their conclusions about their own role in causing or preventing the victimization — shape psychological adjustment. The distinction between behavioral self-blame (blaming one’s specific behavior for the victimization — “I shouldn’t have walked home alone”) and characterological self-blame (blaming one’s fundamental character or identity — “I deserved this because of who I am”) has been identified as a critical predictor of adjustment: behavioral self-blame is sometimes associated with a sense of future control (if I change my behavior, I can prevent future victimization) while characterological self-blame predicts poorer psychological adjustment and more severe depression.

Research on victim-blaming by external observers — police, prosecutors, juries, mental health providers, and social network members — has documented the substantial prevalence of victim-blaming attributions toward sexual assault victims in particular, and has connected those attributions to the secondary victimization that impedes recovery and deters future victims from seeking help. Research by Campbell and colleagues on sexual assault nurse examiner programs — which provide medical forensic examination in supportive, non-judgmental environments — found better psychological outcomes and higher prosecutorial cooperation rates than conventional emergency department responses, establishing that the quality of the institutional response to victimization is a significant determinant of psychological recovery trajectory.

Hate Crime Victimization and Identity Threat

Research on the psychological consequences of hate crime victimization — criminal offenses motivated by bias against a victim’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected characteristic — has consistently found that hate crime victims experience more severe and more prolonged psychological harm than victims of comparable non-hate crimes, attributing this differential harm to the specific expressive harm of bias-motivated targeting. Research by Herek and colleagues on anti-gay hate crime found that victims experienced substantially higher rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD than victims of comparable non-bias-motivated crimes, and that the harm extended beyond the individual victim to produce elevated fear and psychological distress among community members who share the targeted identity even without direct victimization.

Research by McDevitt, Balboni, Garcia, and Gu on hate crime victims’ psychological responses documented that the identity-targeted nature of hate crime produced specific cognitive consequences beyond those of general crime: intensified salience of the victimized identity, reduced sense of safety in public spaces associated with that identity, and the specific psychological burden of representing one’s community as a target — being victimized not as an individual but as a member of a group defined as unworthy of full citizenship. These community-level consequences of hate crime establish it as qualitatively different from otherwise comparable crimes in ways that affect not only individual victims but entire communities defined by the targeted identity.

Secondary Victimization

Secondary victimization — the additional harm that victims experience through insensitive, disbelieving, or blaming responses from individuals and institutions in the aftermath of crime — is a well-documented phenomenon that substantially affects both psychological recovery and willingness to engage with the criminal justice process. Research has documented secondary victimization in interactions with police (disbelief, minimization, victim-blaming questions), medical providers (insensitive procedures, inadequate explanation, failure to screen for trauma), prosecutors (case decisions made without victim input, inadequate preparation for trial testimony), and informal social networks (disbelief, gossip, victim-blaming).

Research on the specific secondary victimization experiences of sexual assault victims navigating the criminal justice system — what researchers have called the “second rape” — has documented the cumulative psychological harm of police interview practices that communicate disbelief, forensic medical procedures that feel physically intrusive and psychologically violating, and defense attorney cross-examination strategies that challenge credibility and reconstruct the victim as complicit. Research by Campbell documenting high rates of re-traumatization in conventionally processed sexual assault cases has informed the development of specialized sexual assault response teams (SARTs) and sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs that specifically train responders in trauma-informed, victim-centered practice.

Intimate Partner Violence and Psychological Consequences

Research on the psychological consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV) — the ongoing pattern of physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse by current or former intimate partners — has documented that IPV produces more severe and more chronic psychological harm than comparable violence by strangers, because the perpetrator’s intimate relationship with the victim compounds the direct violence with the betrayal trauma of harm by someone who was trusted, the entrapment of ongoing coercive control that limits escape options, and the repeated exposure to violence that prevents psychological recovery between incidents.

Evan Stark’s coercive control framework — which reconceptualizes IPV as a pattern of domination that extends beyond physical violence to include surveillance, isolation, economic control, and psychological manipulation — has important implications for understanding IPV’s psychological consequences: the pervasive psychological harm of coercive control extends beyond the specific incidents of physical violence that conventional IPV measurement emphasizes, producing the chronic PTSD, learned helplessness, and identity erosion that research documents as characteristic of severe IPV. Research using the coercive control framework rather than incident-based violence measures finds substantially stronger associations with psychological harm, consistent with the clinical reality that victims often report the psychological dimensions of coercive control as more harmful than the physical violence itself.

The Criminal Justice Process and Psychological Recovery

Research on the relationship between criminal justice processing of victimization cases and victim psychological outcomes has documented complex and sometimes counterintuitive patterns. Prosecutorial decisions — whether charges are filed, plea bargains are accepted, and cases proceed to trial — substantially affect victims’ experiences of the justice process, but the relationship between legal outcomes and psychological recovery is weaker than many victims expect and practitioners assume. Research by Herman on the relationship between legal proceedings and trauma recovery documented that trial participation is often psychologically harmful rather than restorative for sexual assault victims — requiring re-exposure to traumatic material, public disclosure of intimate harm, and the hostile questioning of defense attorneys — while producing legal outcomes that frequently disappoint through acquittals, light sentences, or plea bargains that feel dismissive of the harm.

Research on restorative justice conferencing for crime victims — particularly for property crime and lower-level violent crime — has found consistently better victim satisfaction outcomes than conventional prosecution, and some evidence for better psychological outcomes, through the specific mechanisms of providing victims with voice, giving them the opportunity to ask questions of the person who harmed them, and receiving direct acknowledgment and apology that conventional adversarial processing rarely produces. Research by Sherman and Strang synthesizing the restorative justice victim outcome literature found that restorative justice consistently outperformed conventional prosecution on victim satisfaction dimensions, with some evidence for PTSD symptom reduction and reduced fear of revictimization that translates the satisfaction improvements into psychological outcomes.

Victim Services and Psychological Recovery

Research on victim services — the formal programs and informal supports that provide assistance to crime victims — has documented that access to appropriate services substantially moderates the psychological consequences of victimization. Research by Davis and Brickman on rape victims found that social support — both emotional support that communicates care and concern and practical support that reduces the burden of managing victimization consequences — substantially improved psychological outcomes relative to comparable victims without adequate support. Research on crisis hotlines, victim advocates, counseling services, and compensation programs has found that utilization of these services predicts better psychological adjustment, though causal inference is complicated by the selection of more severely affected victims into formal service use.

The Office for Victims of Crime — the primary federal agency for victim services funding and policy — supports a national network of victim services programs that provide crisis intervention, emergency shelter, legal advocacy, counseling, and compensation for crime victims. Research on the specific service types most effective for different victimization experiences has found that trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), cognitive processing therapy (CPT), and prolonged exposure therapy (PE) are the most evidence-supported treatments for crime victim PTSD, with all three demonstrating efficacy in randomized controlled trials with diverse victimization populations. The National Center for Victims of Crime’s VictimConnect Resource Center connects victims to local services through a national helpline and online database.

Resilience and Post-Traumatic Growth

Research on victimization outcomes has increasingly attended to the range of outcomes beyond PTSD and depression to include resilience (the maintenance of psychological functioning without significant disruption following victimization) and post-traumatic growth (positive psychological change that individuals report experiencing as a result of their struggle with traumatic victimization). Research by Bonanno and colleagues using longitudinal data has documented that resilience — defined as maintaining relatively stable psychological functioning following adversity — is more common than clinical models of trauma response assume, with a substantial proportion of crime victims showing minimal disruption of psychological functioning even following severe victimization.

Research on post-traumatic growth — developed primarily by Tedeschi and Calhoun — has documented that a significant minority of trauma survivors report positive changes in specific domains following their recovery from traumatic victimization: changed sense of personal strength (discovering capacities they did not know they had), new possibilities (changed life priorities and directions), relating to others (deeper relationships and greater compassion), appreciation for life (enhanced appreciation of aspects of living previously taken for granted), and spiritual change. Research on post-traumatic growth in crime victims has found that growth is more commonly reported by individuals whose victimization was more severe, who had higher prior psychological functioning, and who had stronger social support — consistent with the theoretical account that growth requires the destruction of prior assumptions that serious victimization produces and the supportive conditions for reconstruction that social connection enables.

Technological Victimization and Online Harm

Research on digital victimization — the range of harms produced through online and technology-mediated means including cyberstalking, online harassment, intimate image abuse, and identity theft — has documented psychological consequences that in some respects parallel and in others exceed those of comparable offline victimization. Research on intimate image abuse (“revenge pornography”) — the non-consensual sharing of intimate images to cause harm — has documented severe psychological consequences including depression, anxiety, shame, social withdrawal, and in some cases suicidal ideation that reflect the specific harm of intimate violation combined with potentially permanent public exposure that offline sexual humiliation does not produce.

Research on cyberstalking and online harassment has found that the 24/7 availability of digital communication, the potential global reach of online content, and the permanent record that digital platforms create produce specific psychological harms beyond those of comparable offline stalking: the sense of having no safe space that pervasive digital availability produces, the fear of global public humiliation that viral content enables, and the helplessness of dealing with content that cannot be reliably removed from online circulation. Research by Baum and colleagues using national survey data documented that cyberstalking victims experienced substantially elevated fear and psychological distress compared to comparable offline stalking victims, even when offline co-occurring victimization was controlled, establishing the specific psychological harm of digital victimization beyond what the offline comparison would predict.

The emerging legal framework for digital victimization — including state and federal intimate image abuse laws, cyberstalking statutes, and platform accountability mechanisms — is developing in response to these documented psychological harms, with the specific legislative design challenges of addressing harms that cross jurisdictional boundaries, involve anonymous perpetrators, and occur on platforms whose legal liability remains contested under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Conclusion

The psychology of victimization has established the scientific foundation for understanding crime’s full human cost — the psychological harm that victimization produces, the factors that shape recovery, and the interventions that reduce harm and facilitate healing. By documenting the specific mechanisms through which victimization disrupts psychological functioning, the specific social and institutional responses that facilitate or impede recovery, and the evidence-based treatments that produce the most effective restoration of psychological health, victimization psychology has both advanced theoretical understanding and substantially informed the victim services, criminal justice, and public health systems that serve crime victims.

The practical agenda that this research motivates — expanding access to trauma-focused treatment for crime victims, training criminal justice personnel in trauma-informed and victim-centered practices, reforming adversarial legal processes that compound victimization harm, and investing in the primary prevention that reduces both victimization and the psychological harm it produces — represents criminology’s most direct engagement with crime’s human cost rather than its institutional or sociological dimensions. A criminal justice system designed around victim psychology alongside offender management would look meaningfully different from what currently exists, and the psychology of victimization provides the evidence base for understanding how it should differ.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2020). Trauma and PTSD. https://www.apa.org/topics/ptsd
  2. Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20
  3. Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Valentine, J. D. (2000). Meta-analysis of risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 748–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.5.748
  4. Brickman, E., & Campbell, R. (2011). Whose fault is it anyway? A review of the literature on victim blame and sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12(4), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838011426016
  5. Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Psychologist, 63(8), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.702
  6. Campbell, R., Dworkin, E., & Cabral, G. (2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334456
  7. Davis, R. C., & Brickman, E. (1996). Supportive and unsupportive aspects of the behavior of others toward victims of sexual and nonsexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(2), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626096011002007
  8. Dworkin, E. R. (2020). Risk for mental disorders associated with sexual assault: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 1011–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018813198
  9. Foa, E. B., Hembree, E. A., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2007). Prolonged exposure therapy for PTSD: Emotional processing of traumatic experiences — Therapist guide. Oxford University Press.
  10. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. Free Press.
  11. Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., Milanak, M. E., Miller, M. W., Keyes, K. M., & Friedman, M. J. (2013). National estimates of exposure to traumatic events and PTSD prevalence using DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(5), 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21848
  12. Koss, M. P. (1993). Rape: Scope, impact, interventions, and public policy responses. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1062
  13. Lonsway, K. A., & Archambault, J. (2012). The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions for research and reform. Violence Against Women, 18(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212440017
  14. Marhofer, P., & Gruber, M. (2020). Peritraumatic dissociation and PTSD: A meta-analysis. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(8), 823–831. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000571
  15. Norris, F. H., & Kaniasty, K. (1994). Psychological distress following criminal victimization in the general population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.1.111
  16. Office for Victims of Crime. (2023). Vision 21: Transforming victim services. https://ovc.ojp.gov/vision21
  17. Resick, P. A., & Schnicke, M. K. (1993). Cognitive processing therapy for rape victims: A treatment manual. SAGE.
  18. Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. Free Press.
  19. Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.
  20. Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(12). https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2013.12
  21. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01
  22. Teplin, L. A., McClelland, G. M., Abram, K. M., & Weiner, D. A. (2005). Crime victimization in adults with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(8), 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.8.911
  23. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women (NCJ 183781). National Institute of Justice.
  24. Ullman, S. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. American Psychological Association.
  25. Zinzow, H. M., Resnick, H. S., McCauley, J. L., Amstadter, A. B., Ruggiero, K. J., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2012). Prevalence and risk of psychiatric disorders as a function of variant rape histories: Results from a national survey of women. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(6), 893–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0397-1