If heterosexual male victims had been more active in the #MeToo movement, how might they have been judged? Although the #MeToo movement has been regarded as an historic milestone for women who were victimized by men in positions of power, participation in the movement by male victims has been noticeably absent. Research indicates that victims may avoid disclosure if they anticipate negative social reactions, and male victims may attract greater levels of victim blaming than female victims, particularly if their perpetrator was female. The current study investigated attributions of victim blame against a fictional heterosexual male in a between-subjects vignette design. Perpetrator gender and their social influence were manipulated in a sample of 208 college students. Results did not support the hypothesized main effects of perpetrator gender or social influence. Greater blame attributions were made against victims of a male perpetrator compared to one of an unspecified gender. Male participants attributed greater blame than females, and the relationship between shame proneness and blame was moderated by participant gender, males experiencing higher levels of shame engaged in less victim blame. Blame increased when participants believed the court case to be more distressing than the victimizing act. Results support the male rape myth framework, which posits that beliefs about a male victim’s experience of his own violation, particularly whether he experienced distress or pleasure, are related to gendered norms of masculinity, which include normative traits of toughness, dominance, and high sexual performance. Implications on the role of gender as a barrier to disclosure by male victims are discussed.

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.