University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reporting differences among sexually assaulted college women: a cultural exploration

(USC Thesis Other)

Reporting differences among sexually assaulted college women: a cultural exploration

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

REPORTING DIFFERENCES AMONG SEXUALLY ASSAULTED COLLEGE
WOMEN: A CULTURAL EXPLORATION

by

Malia J. Smith

______________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Malia J. Smith

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this paper to my treasure and most precious gift, my daughter,
Gabrielle. When I first started this journey I thought that I would be teaching her
valuable lessons about overcoming obstacles and achieving greatness through
dedication and hard work. However, upon reflection, I have come to realize that I
have learned so much from her instead. During this project she often reminded me
to take a moment to replenish by offering me hugs and kisses; she reminded me to
embrace the process by asking me innocent questions about my work that inspired
me to explore untapped avenues; and she reminded me to enjoy the ride by so
graciously holding my hand through it all. She is my rock and my light. Thus, this
accomplishment is a triumph for the both of us. I also dedicate this paper to my
parents, Manuel & Beryl Smith, for their undying support and constant faith in me.
Thanks Mum for all the time you invested in my study and the countless hours you
spent reading and editing my work; and thanks Daddy for being my #1 FOREVER
fan. And finally, I dedicate this paper to my best and truest friend, Bill Smith, who
believed in me and kept me grounded and centered throughout the entire process.
Your unconditional love empowered me and gave me the strength to persevere, excel
and succeed. I love you all!

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was a result of a lot of long grueling hours and hard work.
However, it could not have been possible without the keen guidance and display of
support from my committee chair, Dr. Melora Sundt. She often challenged me to
surpass my own expectations, but always gave me the encouragement I needed to
succeed. Her words of wisdom and intellectual brilliance always inspired me to
improve and do my best. To my committee members, Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr.
Tatiana Melguizo, who provided their valuable insight, suggestions and encouraging
words throughout the research process. To Dr. Dennis Hocevar, my statistical
savior, who helped me with the analyses and illuminated the importance of this study
by explaining it so eloquently. And finally, to Dr. Monique Datta, who was my
editing partner and best friend in the program. Her grounded perspective, positive
energy and strong connection to Mother Earth saved me many times and gave me the
strength I needed to see this through. This journey wouldn’t have been as fun and
exhilarating without you!
With all my love and respect, I thank you!

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
Chapter 3: Methodology 54
Chapter 4: Analysis of the Data 68
Chapter 5: Conclusions 104
References 122
Appendix: Survey Instrument 133

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Ethnicity and Gender of Student Population at Pacific Ocean 58
University

Table 2. Ethnicity and Gender of Student Population at ‘Ōpiopio University 58
Table 3. Cronbach’s Alpha Calculation Results 62
Table 4. Summary of Analysis 66
Table 5. Respondents by Reporting Rates 70
Table 6. Respondents by Race 71
Table 7. Respondents by Cultural Affiliation 71
Table 8. Respondents by National Origin 72
Table 9. Respondents by Religion 72
Table 10. Respondents’ Reporting Rates Based On Race 74
Table 11. Respondents’ Reporting Rates Based On Cultural Affiliation 75
Table 12. Respondents’ Reporting Rates Based On National Origin 76
Table 13. Respondents’ Reporting Rates Based On Religion 76
Table 14. Cross Tabulation: Race and Religion 78
Table 15. Distribution of Perceived Barriers Among Minority Women 79
(N = 77)

Table 16. Hofstede’s Cultural Framework by Culture 81
Table 17. Hofstede’s Cultural Framework by National Origin 81
Table 18. Mean Differences of Perceived Barriers by Culture 83
Table 19a. Perceived Barriers by Overall Reporting Behavior 85
Table 19b. Mean Order of Perceived Barriers by Overall Reporting Behavior 86

vi
Table 20a. Rated Importance by Overall Reporting Behavior 87
Table 20b. Mean Order of Rated Importance by Overall Reporting Behavior 88
Table 21a. Perceived Barriers by Culture 89
Table 21b. Rated Importance by Culture 91
Table 22a. Perceived Barriers by National Origin 92
Table 22b. Rated Importance by National Origin 94
Table 23a. Perceived Barriers by Religion 95
Table 23b. Rated Importance by Religion 96
Table 24. Overall Results Related to RQ1 98
Table 25. Overall Results Related to RQ2 (Most Frequent Reported Barriers) 99
Table 26a. Overall Results Related to RQ3 (Hofstede’s Dimensions) 100
Table 26b. Overall Results Related to RQ3 (Mean Differences) 101
Table 27a. Overall Results Related to RQ3 (Perceived Barriers) 102
Table 27b. Overall Results Related to RQ3 (Rated Importance of Perceived 103
Barriers)

vii
ABSTRACT
Sexual assault (SA) is a critical public health problem, and there are many
barriers that impede college women from reporting. Although there are many studies
that explore these barriers, there is a lack of understanding regarding the cultural
implications to reporting. The existing literature often uses race as a proxy for
culture when exploring sexual assault crime reporting behaviors, and has not yet
explored the probable differences between them. Hence, this study investigated the
reporting rate differences among sexually assaulted college females using a cultural
lens. A quantitative methods approach was used for this study and a survey was
designed to address seven perceived barriers and its importance to crime reporting
among underrepresented minority college women. The findings indicated that
culture matters and race and culture are not synonymous and should not be used
interchangeably, as race appears to be one-dimensional, while culture is multi-
dimensional and comprised of different variables. The results of this research project,
with reference to existing studies and implications for future research, are discussed.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Sexual assault is a critical public health problem (Masho & Ahmed, 2007).
In 2007, there were approximately 248,300 reported victims of rape, attempted rape
or sexual assault (over the age of twelve) in the United States (U.S. Department of
Justice, 2007). This equates to one sexual assault per every 127 seconds or about 1
every 2 minutes (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). According to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (2000), 28.2% of the sexual assault crimes were reported to the
police, while 56.3% of robberies, 56.7% of aggravated assaults, 74.4% of house
burglaries, and 80.4% of motor vehicle thefts were formally reported. Consequently,
sexual assault is the most underreported crime in the United States (U.S. Department
of Justice, 2007; Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, 2009), and researchers are
demonstrating that far more U.S. women are being raped or sexually assaulted than
is reflected in the national and federal statistics (Koss, 1992; Tjaden & Thoennes,
2000; Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000).
The U.S. Department of Justice (2000) indicates that women are more likely
to be the victims of sexual assault, while men are usually the offenders. In a
Violence Against Women Bureau of Justice study, 91% of the rape and sexual
assault victims were female and 99% of the offenders were male (U.S. Department
of Justice, 1994). Feminist theorists suggest that the prevalence of sexual assault
crimes against women in the United States is primarily due to the patriarchal rape-
supportive culture established in America, and advocate that underreporting be

2
viewed through the lens of a gendered power imbalance (DeKeseredy & Kelly, 1993;
Sanday, 1990; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997). They see the hesitancy to disclose
sexual assault crimes as being influenced by historical mores, which have denigrated
rape victims by questioning their role and responsibility in the crime (Koss, 1992).
Notwithstanding, some women do report the offenses despite the many
physical, psychological, mental and emotional barriers that impede sexual assault
reporting (Thompson Sitterle, Clay & Kingree, 2007). However, most college
women do not report sexual assault crimes (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003).
College students have become inundated with sexual assault statistics on
campus (Bennett-Johnson, 1997), as nearly half of all college newspapers have
reported cases of on-going sexual assault crimes (Bogal-Allbritten & Allbritten,
1992). According to a National College Women Sexual Victimization Survey
(NCWSVS), less than 5% of college women who experienced a rape or attempted
rape reported the crime to the police (Fisher, et al., 2000). In an empirical study
conducted by Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski (1987), over 25% of the 7,000 college
female students they surveyed revealed that they had experienced a rape, attempted
rape or sexual assault. However, these sexual crimes are rarely reported to the
authorities (Pagelow, 1984; Herzberger, 1996), especially among college women
(Sable, Danis, Mauzy & Gallagher, 2006; Thompson et al., 2007).
Reporting sexual assault crimes can be intimidating and daunting, as
humiliation, re-victimization and post-traumatic stress disorders pose as probable
repercussions (Thompson et al., 2007; Masho & Ahmed, 2007). These and many

3
other barriers often hinder crime reporting. However, the victim’s culture may also
influence her proclivity to report sexual assault crimes. Thus, this study explores the
perceived barriers to reporting sexual assault crimes among college women through
the lens of culture.

Background of the Problem
There are many barriers that encumber college women in deciding whether or
not to report sexual assault crimes, such as fear of retribution or the worry of facing
authority figures (Sable et al., 2006). A Roeher Institute (1994) study suggested that
the barriers to victim disclosure included feelings of shame and blame, isolation, fear
of retaliation by the abuser, and anticipated repercussions and consequences for
reporting. According to Thompson et al., (2007), most sexually victimized women
do not report (compared to physically abused victims) because they believe the
offense was partly their fault. Yet in another study, Pagelow (1984) suggests that
women are reluctant to report sexual assault crimes because they lack confidence in
the criminal justice system (as they experience it to assign blame to the victims
rather than the offenders). Specifically, they anticipate the police not taking their
charges seriously, meaning that they think that the authorities will not believe them
or give them adequate and fair assistance (Sable, et al., 2006; Pagelow, 1984).
Moreover, Sable, et al. (2006) reported that some of the significant reasons why
women did not report sexual assault crimes were because of financial dependence on
the perpetrator, lack of funds to acquire transportation and childcare and money

4
barriers. Furthermore, as Danis (2006) indicates, “college campuses are not always
safe places for women” (p. 29), and the violence policies and prevention programs
on university campuses are often fragmented. According to Berkowitz (2005),
campus safety efforts are regularly isolated from other prevention program activities
and executed without adequate awareness regarding best practices. Thus, ineffective
policies and programs can act as deterrents in reporting propensities among college
females (Berkowitz, 2005).
Consequently, many sexually assaulted victims deal with the pains of sexual
assault in silence (Koss, 1985) as they struggle to search for meaning that will
mollify their external and internal conflicts (Koss & Burkhart, 1989). The internal
conflict may be particularly acute for ethnic minority women due to the
inconsistencies between the dominant cultural norms and their practiced sub-cultural
traditions (Yoshika, Gilbert, El-Bassel & Baig-Amin, 2003). Hence, these cultural
conflicts compound the difficulty of reporting and may make it more challenging for
some groups to disclose the crimes (Yoshika et al., 2003). According to Koss &
Burkhart (1989), “victims frequently report that the conflict between their subjective
experience and the response of their external and internal social environment leads to
a sort of cognitive-emotional paralysis wherein their only recourse is to simply deny
that the experience really happened” (p. 32). For example, according to Koss &
Harvey (1991), sexually assaulted victims will interpret the crimes based on their
family and cultural values and belief systems; thus, if their ethnic community or
family members are not in support of their disclosure, the victim will refrain from

5
reporting. Fittingly, Sorenson & Siegel (1992) suggest that Latinas have a
significantly lower rape disclosure rate compared to non-Hispanic Whites, and
female Asian and South East Asian victims rarely make formal reports and tend to
solicit support from family members and/or friends (Yoshioka et al., 2003).
Consequently, cultural affiliations may be a key factor in explaining some of the
variation in reporting rates of women (Waliski & Barthel, 2004; Yoshioka et al.,
2003; Perilla, Bakeman & Norris, 1994).

Statement of the Problem
There are many studies that explore the psychological reasons and barriers
for the underreporting of sexual assault crimes (Koss, 1985; Koss & Burkhart, 1989;
Sable et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2007). In addition, there is a plethora of studies
that address the characteristics and long-term effects of assault (Koss, 1985; Koss &
Burkhart, 1989; Krakow, Germain, Warner, Shrader, Koss, Hollifield, Tandberg,
Melendrez & Johnston, 2001). However, there is a lack of understanding regarding
the cultural implications of reporting behaviors.
According to Hall (1981), every aspect of human life is touched by culture,
which includes “…personality, how people express themselves (including shows of
emotion), the way they think, how they move, and how problems are solved…”
(p.16-17). Each culture has a different perspective as to what is normal and right,
which is the cultural relativism utilized by its members; this directs their
communication style, thoughts, actions, belief/value systems and behaviors (Wood,

6
2006). Thus, whether one knows it or not, an individual brings her own cultural
frame of understanding to all circumstances and conditions (Hofstede, Pedersen &
Hofstede, 2002).
Interestingly, “little is known about how adult sexual victimization
experiences vary by ethnicity” (Kaloff, 2000, p. 76) and it has only been within the
last two decades that studies have attempted to examine ethnic factors related to
sexual assault reporting (Koss et al., 1987; Neville & Pugh, 1997; Sapp, Farrell,
Johnson & Hitchcock, 1999; Kalof, 2000). Nonetheless, in current literature (Koss,
1985; Koss et al., 1987; Koss & Burkhart, 1989) race is commonly used as a proxy
for ethnicity and culture and the terms are used interchangeably. However, there is a
stark difference between them, as race does not encompass the accepted socio-
cultural norms (ethnicity) nor the belief systems and traditions (culture) that often
influence a person’s behavior. According to the Riverside Webster’s II Dictionary
(1996) race is the division of groups based on physical characteristics and the sharing
of a common history. Comparatively, ethnicity describes a person’s relation to a
racial, national or cultural group where he/she adheres to the accepted socio-cultural
norms of that particular group (Riverside Webster’s II Dictionary, 1996). Moreover,
culture is defined as the collective thinking, feeling and acting of the members of a
group that include traditions, symbols, heroes, rituals and belief/value systems
(Hofstede, 1997). Thus, race only defines the historical and physical attributes of a
person, but does not encompass his/her active association and known behavioral
patterns with the identified group. Therefore, the exploration of a victim’s cultural

7
affiliation is important. Consequently, some researchers are realizing that in order to
understand the reporting behavior of female sexual assault victims it is imperative to
include an analysis on the influences of her cultural background (Low & Organista,
2000; Sorenson & Siegel, 1992; Niaz, 2003).
Albeit, current research regarding sexual assault reporting behavior rarely
examines subset populations and cultures found within minority groups, such as
Asian/South East Asians (Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Pakistani, Thai, Korean)
and Polynesian (Hawaiian, Samoan, Micronesian, Maori, Tahitian), perhaps because
most research draws from regions in the United States where these groups appear in
numbers too small to be analyzed. These groups are growing, however, within the
U.S. college population (U.S. Department of Education, 2008) and without this
knowledge, intervention and resource programs may be inadequately equipped to
assist victims of different cultures.
Holzman (1996) found that most sexual assault treatment centers and crisis
counseling standards have been embedded with western values that conflict with the
cultural ideals of ethnic women, including: 1) individualistic independence versus
family and community interdependence; 2) self-determination versus respect for
authority; 3) open and direct communication versus prudence, tact and indirect
communication; and 4) emotional expressiveness versus self-control, particularly
with regard to anger (p. 54). Hence, Low & Organista (2000) suggest “it is essential
to regard a rape survivor within her socio-cultural context, in order to understand her
unique experience and to provide her with appropriate interventions that facilitate

8
recovery and to build a sense of empowerment and self-worth” (p. 133). For
example, when dealing with a victim it may be important to consider her family
needs and relationships, the salience of which may vary depending on her cultural
affiliation rather than just seeing her as a hurt individual (Low & Organista, 2000).
Exploring barriers to reporting from the perspectives of sexually assaulted
women of color from a variety of underrepresented communities may help
institutions create more responsive, counseling models and reporting systems.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in reporting rates
among sexually assaulted college females based on cultural affiliation. Although the
literature is replete with definite barriers to reporting (Thompson et al., 2007; Sable
et al., 2006; Koss & Burkhart, 1989) the existing research related to the relationship
between cultural influences and the victims’ reporting behavior is nominal.
Therefore, in an attempt to gain a new perspective on why college female victims of
sexual assault infrequently take action in reporting the crimes (Koss et al., 1987) this
study investigated the cultural aspects and affiliations of these victims and their link
to decisions related to reporting sexual assault crimes.
There is a deficiency of studies on sexual assault reporting among subsets
within minority groups, which is often represented by their national origin. Although
some studies mention the importance of culture upon sexual assault crime reporting
(Sable et al., 2006; Yoshioka et al., 2003; Waliski & Barthel, 2004), they fail to look

9
for a relationship between the victims’ cultural affiliation and the social corollaries
coupled with reporting. Therefore, this study aimed at including members of
underrepresented subgroups (including African-American, Latina, Asian/South East
Asian and Pacific Islander/Polynesian women).
Hofstede’s (2001) Cultural Values framework, which includes cultural
characteristics such as collectivism, individualism, power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, femininity and masculinity and long-term and short-term orientations,
was utilized to guide this study.
The rationale behind this approach was to determine if Hofstede’s Cultural
Values framework provided indicators for why college female victims (including
members of subgroups within minority groups) report or don’t report sexual assault
crimes. Hofstede’s Cultural Values framework was selected as the model for this
research project because his cross-cultural work has been well documented.
According to Kirkman, Lowe & Gibson (2006), many studies have used Hofstede’s
Cultural Values framework to examine the main effects of culture upon attitudes and
its association with value systems and outcomes. For example, in the Social Science
Citations index Hofstede’s work was cited over 1,800 times in 1999 and used to
guide subject matters related to: change management, conflict management,
decision-making, leadership, behavior related to group processes and personalities,
motivation, innovation, and societal outcomes (Kirkman, et al., 2006). Many studies
in applied psychology, which include clinical and school psychology, have also

10
relied on Hofstede’s Cultural Values framework to guide their empirical research
(Kirkman, et al., 2006).

Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. Are there differences in the reporting rates of sexual assault among
college women based on their race, national origin, religion, and cultural
affiliation?
2. What are the perceived barriers to reporting among minority women from
underrepresented communities?
3. To what extent do perceptions about these barriers vary by one’s cultural
affiliation, national origin and religion?

Significance of the Study
This study is particularly important for the program development constituents
of sexual assault prevention and treatment centers. The underreporting behavior of
sexually assaulted victims has been a topic of interest for many researchers (Fisher,
Daigle, Cullen & Turner, 2003; Koss, 1992; Ahrens, 2006; Thompson, et al., 2007).
One of the primary objectives for determining the barriers and influences that
impede women from reporting sexual assault crimes is to assist and improve
prevention and intervention program designs. According to Ahrens (2006) negative
social reactions from support providers can exacerbate feelings of shame and self-

11
blame among sexual assault survivors. Thus, the most useful (to the victim)
approach for working with sexually assaulted victims, particularly for minority
women whose cultural belief systems may interfere with their wanting to report the
crimes, will be informed and purposeful.
Correspondingly, this study explicated the perceived barriers, experiences
and concerns of sexually assaulted college women, with a particular emphasis on
underrepresented minority communities. Due to the lack of research in this area, the
findings of this study contribute to the common practices and procedures
incorporated in sexual assault intervention and prevention programs. Ultimately,
cultural-sensitive practices may increase female minority victim reporting rates.

Methodology
This study utilized data procured from a survey. The survey was given to
college female students at two universities with a high population of ethnic minority
women. The 5-page survey addressed four main issues: 1) demographic information
including citizenship, student status, religion and age; 2) race identification and
cultural identity including languages spoken at home and two of Hofstede’s Cultural
Values framework items (Collectivistic/Individualistic and Masculinity/Femininity);
3) factual knowledge about sexual assault experiences, including whether victimized
or not and if the crime was reported or not, and if so, to whom; and 4) the perceived
barriers of reporting related to: a) shame and embarrassment; b) guilt and self-blame;
c) fear of retaliation; d) law enforcement insensitivity; e) poor programs; f) economic

12
challenges; and g) cultural influences. Most of the content in the survey emulated
questions from existing surveys found in the literature. The researcher obtained 139
utilizable surveys.

Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for this study:
1. The participants were honest when answering and filling out the
questionnaire;
2. The participants were capable and able to answer the questionnaire
adequately;
3. The participants responded to the questions to the best of their ability;
4. The participants had sufficient proficiency in reading and understanding
English when filling out the questionnaire;
5. The measures were reliable and valid indicators of the research questions
that were studied;
6. The measures and results were accurately recorded and analyzed with the
proper statistical methods.

Limitations
It was anticipated that the design of this study posed a few limitations. First,
the study was limited by the respondents’ willingness to voluntarily complete the
survey; second, the survey is limited in gaining in-depth responses from the

13
participants due to its quantitative approach; third, the study was limited by the
number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time allowed for the study; fourth,
the interpretation of the data collected was subject to the bias of the researcher; and
finally, the sample population included females with various racial and cultural
backgrounds.

Delimitations
The responses from the participants were carefully extracted and the
interpretation of the data reflected the respondents’ answers to the questions. The
study outcome was confined to the survey results and primarily focused on the key
variables related to the victims’ race and culture. The data collected came from the
two selected universities and reflected a blend of women from various ethnic
backgrounds. Hence, the universities chosen were reasonably populated with
minority women who often fell within the race category deemed “Other”.

Definition of Terms
Throughout the literature, the terminology utilized to define and address race,
ethnicity, culture, sexual assault and sexual violence has varied. The subsequent
definitions of the terms relevant to this study are as follows:
Sexual assault involves unwanted sexual acts that include threats,
penetration, physical force and intimidation and range from compulsory kissing and
sexual fondling to attempted and/or completed rape (Abbey & Parkhill, 2005).

14
Race is the division of human groups based on their physical characteristics
transmitted by genes; and the body of peoples that share a common history or
nationality (Riverside Webster’s II Dictionary, 1996).
Ethnicity/Ethnic background is related to a racial, national or cultural group;
includes a member within a cultural community that adheres to the accepted socio-
cultural norms of that group (Riverside Webster’s II Dictionary, 1996).
Culture refers to the mental programming (collective thinking, feeling and
acting) of the members of a group or category that distinguishes them from others.
This includes their traditions, symbols, heroes, rituals and belief/value systems
(Hofstede, 1997).
Non-Hispanic White refers to a person having origins in Europe, the Middle
East, or North Africa. It includes: Irish, German, British, and Italian, Near Easterner
or Polish (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Black/African American refers to a person having origins in any of the Black
racial groups in Africa, Kenya, Nigeria or Haiti (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Asian/South East Asian refers to a person having origins in any of the Far
East, Southeast Asian or Indian subcontinent. This includes: Cambodia, China,
India, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippine Islands, and
Vietnam (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Pacific Islander/Polynesian refers to a Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan,
New Zealand/Maori, and Tahitian person and others having origins in Guam

15
(Guamanian/Chamorro), Micronesia, Melanesia, and Indigenous Australia (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000).

Organization of the Study
This dissertation explored the cultural implications and influences upon
sexual assault crime reporting among college females from minority communities.
This chapter provided an introduction to the prevailing problem of sexual assault
crimes and reporting, a background of the problem, statement of the problem,
purpose of this study, research questions, the significance of the study, a brief
description of the methodology, assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the
definition of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of the literature that is relevant to this study. It
specifically addresses the characteristics of victims who report and do not report sex
crimes, the reporting internal and external barriers for college women victims, the
reporting behavior of underrepresented women of various cultures, the understanding
of cultural differences through Hofstede’s cultural values framework, and the
probable relationships between culture and reporting behavior.
Chapter 3 provides the methodology that was used in this study, which
includes the research design, the population and sampling measures, a discussion on
the instrument selection and development process, a review of the validity and
reliability aspects of the methods and the data collection and data analysis
procedures.

16
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a review of the literature addressing sexual assault
reporting among college females, the common barriers shared among the victims, a
discussion of Hofstede’s Cultural Values and Dimensions framework and the
probable link between these factors. The following literature review is divided into
five sections to broadly explore the problem of sexual assault underreporting: 1)
characteristics of victims who report and do not report sex crimes, 2) reporting
barriers for college women victims, 3) understanding cultural differences through
Hofstede’s cultural values framework, 4) reporting behavior of underrepresented
groups and 5) probable relationships between culture and reporting behavior.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2000) study, approximately half
of all the victims of violent crimes report the offenses to the police, but a miniscule
2% of victimized college women will report their incidences to the authorities and
only 5% of those that report will seek professional services or assistance (Koss,
1985). In addition, and more profoundly, the sexual assault experiences among
women of color and minority communities are even more underreported than the
norm (Yoshioka et al., 2003; Diller, 1999; Lewis, 1996; Perilla et al., 1994).

Characteristics of Victims Who Report and Do Not Report Sex Crimes
Based on a Roeher Institute study conducted in 1994, victims who disclosed
sexual assault crimes exemplified strong communication skills, confidence, had a

17
dependable support system, knew someone who would be receptive to the reporting
and felt that they would be believed. In addition, the consideration of the safety and
well-being of the victim and others (including the abuser) compelled them to take
action (Roeher Institute, 1994). In another empirical study, Selkin (1978) reported
that rape resistors (as compared to rape victims) scored significantly higher on
psychological scales (California Psychological Inventory – CPI) that examined
authority/power, social presence, amiability and communality. This study had a
strong slant in its demographic make-up, as it primarily surveyed and interviewed
Caucasian women. Nevertheless, the results suggested that some of the common
characteristics of rape victims included passivity and an inferior composure in social
situations (Selkin, 1978).
In contrast, according to Koss, (1985), there are no significant personality
differences between victimized and non-victimized women, however, victims of rape
appeared to be more liberal in their sexual standards, had more sexual partners and
engaged in sexual intercourse at a younger age. As a result, many of these female
victims disqualified their experiences of rape and/or sexual assault and did not report
the crimes due to their own misconceptions about sex, which were based upon the
idealistic values and expectations that society maintained about “accepted” sexual
practices for women (Koss, 1985). Although the findings in this study are intriguing,
similar to the demographic composition explored in Selkin’s review (1978), 91.7%
of the female population sampled were White/Caucasian, while 7.9% were African-
American and only 4% were classified as Other; thus failing to address the different

18
personality and cultural aspects of minority group members, which might have
impacted the final results of this study if they were included.

Reporting Barriers for College Women Victims
There are many barriers that impede college women from reporting sexual
assault crimes such as fear and humiliation (Sable et al., 2007). The Roeher Institute
study noted above suggests, “barriers to victim disclosure include feelings of shame
and blame, dependence, isolation, difficulty in challenging authority, fears of
retaliation by the abuser, and negative consequences…for reporting” (p. 218).
Among these barriers, the two overarching influential impediments are
external/situational and internal/dispositional obstacles (Merriam, Caffarella &
Baumgartner, 2007). According to Johnstone & Rivera (1965),”external barriers are
influences more or less external to the individual or at least beyond the individual’s
control,” while internal barriers “reflect personal attitudes” (p. 214).

Internal Dispositional/Personal Barriers & Consequences
Shame/Embarrassment/Guilt. According to Draucker (2001), “Multiple
negative effects, including anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, poor
self-esteem, social adjustment problems, somatic reactions, and sexual dysfunctions,
are associated with the sexual assault of adult women” (p.68); and these negative
factors perpetuate feelings of isolation and shame, which pose as major barriers to
sexual assault crime reporting (McCormack, Kavanagh, Caffrey, & Power, 2005). In

19
Felson & Pare’s (2005) study, 1,787 sexually assaulted victims claimed that one of
the major reasons why they did not report the crimes was embarrassment.
Accordingly, Sable et al. (2006) suggested that the predominant barriers that impede
college women from reporting sexual assault crimes are shame, guilt, and
embarrassment. Thompson et al. (2007) suggests that many college female victims
do not report sexual assault crimes because they relegate its severity and question the
fact that the act was actually a crime. As they struggle through feelings of shame
and embarrassment most victims want to put the assault behind them, as “sexual
violence has significant consequences for the health, well-being, and quality of life
of many women” (Draucker, 2001, p. 67).
Fear of Retaliation/Reprisal. The fear of retaliation is a chief barrier in the
reporting behavior among sexually assaulted victims (Thompson et al., 2007; Sable
et al., 2006; Bachman, 1998; Rudman, Borgida & Robertson, 1995; Towson &
Zanna, 1983). Research indicates that approximately 74% of all rapes and sexual
assaults are committed by non-strangers (Fisher et al., 2003), thus Bachman (1998)
suggests that victims who know their offenders are hypersensitive to the probability
that if they report the crimes they will receive additional victimization/abuse from
the known offender.
Moreover, according to Sable et al. (2006) one of the main barriers that
impede college students from reporting sexual assault crimes is fear of retaliation by
the perpetrator, as 9 out of 10 college female rape victims reported that they knew
the offender and believed they would see him again on campus or in social settings.

20
Similar to most research on sexual assault reporting, the population for this study
consisted of 83.6% Caucasian/White college students, while 10.3% were African-
American and the remaining 6.1% represented the “Other” category. Thus, the
minority cultures are once again underrepresented in understanding the barriers (such
as fear of retaliation) to reporting sexual assault crimes.
Bachman (1993) conducted a study where a group of survivors of sexual
assault crimes affirmed that the reasons they didn’t report the crimes was because
they were afraid of retaliation from the offender and/or others and felt it was a
private matter so they handled it informally. Many survivors in this study also
explained that they did not report because they considered the assault a minor
incident; some were even unsure if it was a crime and they didn’t want the offender
to get into trouble with the police (Bachman, 1993).
In explaining this perspective, Gilligan (1982) purports that women are more
likely than men to make moral decisions based on the probable consequences for all
individuals involved; also, their sense of obligation to care for others and their
relationships commonly influence their actions. Gilligan (1982) suggests that
through historical social conditioning and distinct life experiences, women have a
predilection for a caring rather than justice perspective, and is more likely to avoid
confrontation when striving for conflict resolutions. On the other hand, men are
more likely to approach moral conflicts with a logical, abstract perspective
concerning rights and rules (Gilligan, 1982). Hence, the fear of reprisal pooled with

21
the inherent moral propensity to take responsibility and care for relationships and
others may impede sexually assaulted women from reporting.
Economic. Monetary barriers and financial dependence are also reasons why
sexually assaulted females do not report the crimes (Sable, et al., 2006). According
to Sable et al. financial dependence upon the perpetrator, the lack of resources to
obtain help and the lack of monetary support for childcare, transportation and
insurance create reporting barriers for sexually assaulted victims. Frequently, the
economic costs, which include monetary and non-monetary components such as the
loss of financial support, the rescission of current living/lifestyle conditions and the
surrendering of a sense of security, cripple the victims’ capacity to consider the
benefits of reporting (Rudman et al., 1995). For example, according to Cochran’s,
Frazier’s & Olson’s (1995) study, 50% of the 1,300 college women surveyed at the
University of Minnesota reported that they were sexually harassed at school, but only
2% of them reported the crime. The primary reasons given for the underreporting
was because of their financial dependence upon their meager student work-study
income and/or the probable long-term costs of missed educational opportunities;
some women stated that they feared retaliation by way of a poor or failing grade by
the perpetrator/instructor, which would have ultimately affected their graduation
success and future job opportunities and earning potential (Cochran et al., 1997).
Thus, the monetary and non-monetary costs (probable loss of income, educational
success and future earnings) swayed their reporting behaviors. Although this is a
sexual harassment case, similar to sexual assault crimes the form of unwanted sexual

22
attention that is explicitly or implicitly used as coercive vices ultimately threatens the
well-being of the victim and leads to her feelings of disempowerment (Levy, 2008).
According to Renzetti, Edleson & Bergen (2001), “Sexual harassment is more like
than different from other forms of violence against women…sexual harassment is a
form of woman control. As with rape, incest and battery, the locus of control is sex”
(p. 211-212). Furthermore, according to the National Council for Research on
Women (1992), 90% of victims of sexual harassment are unwilling to report sexual
harassment crimes, which parallels with sexual assault underreporting behaviors.
Alcohol Consumption/Participation. Fisher, Sloan, Cullen & Lu (1998)
conducted a study and found that students who engaged in alcohol and/or drug use
were at a higher risk of being criminally victimized than those who did not drink or
use drugs. Other researchers have identified a connection between alcohol usage and
sexual assault (Fisher et al., 2003; Fisher et al., 1998; Russell, 1984). According to
Steele & Josephs (1990), alcohol impedes one’s cognitive ability to process
information, which allows the intoxicated individual to attend only to immediate
environmental cues. This causes dis-inhibiting social behaviors and slower reactions
to sexual coercion, pressure and intercourse (Steele & Josephs, 1990).
Fisher et al. (2003) surveyed 4,446 college-female students and found that
only 2.8% of the sexual assault crimes and 3.2% of all the rapes experienced were
reported to the authorities largely due to the presence of drugs and/or alcohol (41.7%
said both the offender and victim drank alcohol or took drugs; 26.9% said the
offender drank alcohol and/or took drugs but the victim did not). The victims

23
assumed their credibility would be hampered due to their alcohol and/or drug usage
(Fisher et al., 2003). Although the results of this study are compelling, the racial
composition consisted of 84.6% from the White/non-Hispanic category, 6.8% from
the Latina or Hispanic group, 5.0% from the African-American population and 3.6%
from the Other/non-Hispanic sect (Fisher et al., 2003).
In another study Benson, Gohm & Gross (2007) found that 78.7% of the 350
undergraduate women surveyed reported using alcohol at the time of the sexual
assault. However, similar to Fischer et al.’s (2003) study, the majority of the
participants were Caucasian (84%), while the rest were of color - African-American
(11.7%), Asian (0.6%), Hispanic (2%) and Other (1.1%).

Environmental External/Situational Barriers
Social Sexual Assault Myths. Burt (1991) suggests that there are four major
socially accepted sexual assault myths that denigrate the credibility of sexual assault
survivors; they are: 1) nothing happened, 2) no harm was done, 3) she wanted it, and
4) she deserved it (as in the case when women are drinking/drunk at a party). These
myths perpetuate the negative stereotypes and increase survivor culpability and
feelings of shame (Vopni, 2006). Consequently, Cowen (2007) purports that,
“stressed people tend to conform more to social opinion” (p. 5) and “ how people
assess their choices usually depends on social context, such as what motivations we
perceive in those around us and how we think our peers will perceive us” (p. 29).
According to Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl & Barnes (2001), 25-75% of the

24
survivors of sexual assault will endure negative social reactions from a person within
their support network. Therefore, if a sexually assaulted victim remains concerned
about his/her peers’ reactions, which often reflect the socially accepted myths about
sexual assault, the benefits of reporting pale in comparison to the cost of being
humiliated, blamed and shamed for the crime.
Law Enforcement Insensitivity. The reporting of sexual offenders is often
called “the second rape,” as many victims have to endure two traumatic incidences –
one by the perpetrator and another by the authorities (Vopni, 2006, p. 108; Ahrens,
2006). Numerous studies have suggested that sexually assaulted victims do not
report the crimes because they don’t trust or believe in the criminal justice system
and they don’t believe that the police can do anything about it (Thompson, et al.,
2007; Sable, et al. 2006; Felson & Pare, 2005; Vopni, 2006).
In a qualitative study Vopni (2006) stated that the sexually assaulted victims
who reported the crimes stated that they initially thought the police would be caring,
cooperative and involved in the investigation. However, the women reported that in
truth the police were “rude,” “cold,” “insensitive,” and “condescending” (Vopni,
2006, p. 111). Some women reported that the police accused them of actually “going
along” with the assault, implying that the act was consensual and not a crime (Vopni,
2006, p. 111). In one instance, an attractive victim was told by a male police officer
that she was sexually assaulted because of the way she looked, and was told that she
should expect to be treated like that because she was pretty (Vopni, 2006).
Moreover, most of the women reported that they felt the police minimized their

25
sexual assault and its impact upon them and they also felt that the police didn’t
believe them, as most of the questions asked by the authorities had a blaming,
intrusive and/or insensitive overtone (Vopni, 2006). Overwhelmingly, “the young
women felt that the methods of questioning used by the police insinuated that they
were lying” (Vopni, 2006, p. 111). For example, one sexually assaulted female who
reported the crime to the authorities (and endured the negative reactions from the
police) said: “To make someone re-live something over and over again is not always
the best thing. That is when you get confused because you start getting scared that
they are not going to believe you and then you start doubting yourself. You are like,
‘Well, maybe I did do something wrong’” (Vopni, 2006, p. 110).
These studies suggest that negative reactions from authorities have the
potential to dissuade women from reporting sexual assault crimes. According to
Ahrens (2006), “When ‘experts’ doubt survivors, hold them responsible for the
assault, or refuse to provide assistance, survivors may question both the effectiveness
of such services and the usefulness of reaching out for help to anyone at all” (p. 264).
Consequently, the police act as the gatekeepers to the criminal justice system and
through their interviewing and charging practices they influence which cases proceed
to prosecution (Vopni, 2006). Unfortunately, most police officers evaluate sexual
assaults based on the four sexual assault myths perfunctorily accepted by society
(Vopni, 2006). Thus, the apathetic responses from the police, social networks and
the overall criminal justice system have curbed the incentives for reporting sexual
assault crimes.

26
Poor Policies/Programs. Another environmental/external and situational
barrier for sexual assault victims is the derisory policies and programs for sexual
assault victims in university settings (Ward, Chapman, Cohn, White & Williams,
1991). Most sexual assaults that happen on university campuses occur in “normal
social settings,” such as at parties or on dates (Ward et al., 1991). According to
Ward et al.:
A common response by universities to publicized incidents of sexual assault
is to beef up campus lighting and to establish and support campus escort
services. While these are necessary and effective policies, they will address
only the incidents that involve true strangers. Party, acquaintance, and date
rape will not respond to more lighting on campus (p. 70).

Aside from the ineffective policies implemented on college campuses, many
university sexual assault centers are overlooked and underfunded (Carmody,
Ekhomu & Payne, 2009). According to Carmody et al. (2009), there is a lack of
understanding regarding the needs of the advocates that serve college students in
campus prevention and intervention programs. Based on Carmody’s et al. (2009)
study, seventeen campus sexual assault center representatives (from state universities
in Virginia) identified four main things that college campus sexual assault centers
lack. They are: 1) sufficient policies and programs that serve international students;
2) sufficient funding; 3) adequate education and awareness programs; and 4)
statewide coordination of sexual assault services. In addition, Briskin & Gary (1986)
suggest that training efforts and educational and awareness programs for college
students, faculty and campus security officers is necessary, however, most campuses
provide mundane forms of educational material such as handbooks and statistics.

27
Thus, Konradi (2003) purports that a social marketing approach would be a better
way of disseminating sexual assault messages, which includes posters and
informational media components. For example, on various campuses in the United
States the “Clothesline Project” provides students with t-shirts and paints to allow
them to create and display messages about sexual assault prevention and services on
campus (Payne & Fogerty, 2007). In addition, some universities are implementing
target specific programs such as “Men against Violence” (Fabiano, Perkins,
Berkowitz, Linkenbach & Stark, 2003) and “Man-to-Man” (Francis-Smith, 2006) to
raise awareness among college men, while taking into consideration the male culture.
Nevertheless, most colleges and universities do not encourage active participation in
sexual assault prevention activities.
Hence, the inadequate policies and programs provided by our social systems,
including many universities, derail crime reporting among sexually assaulted college
females. With the limited programs and negative response support systems available
for these victims, their lack of motivation to report the crimes is understandable.
Residential Settings. According to Ward et al. (1991), many unwanted sexual
experiences occur in university dorms, off-campus apartments and fraternities.
Among the 518 women surveyed in their study, 28% of them reported un-welcomed
sexual contact, 10% experienced an attempted rape, and 8% experienced a completed
rape in a fraternity. In addition, 100% of the unwanted sexual intercourse
experiences with a stranger were party-related and 83% of them were committed on
campus (Ward et al., 1991). The sample size for this research consisted of 518

28
women and 337 men with an overrepresentation of freshman liberal arts students, but
race and culture were not even considered in this study.

Understanding Cultural Differences through Hofstede’s Cultural Values Framework
It is apparent that the psychological, emotional and physiological
implications of sexual assault on its victims are regularly explored. Understanding
the characteristics of sexually assaulted victims and the major barriers that the
victims contend with help to uncover the various reasons why sexual assault crimes
are underreported. Nonetheless, exploring the cultural influences of sexually
assaulted victims may be equally important in explaining their low crime-reporting
propensities. Race is often used as a proxy for culture and the terms are casually
used interchangeably in existing literature (Koss, 1985; Koss et al., 1987; Koss &
Burkhart, 1989). However, there is a vast difference between them, as race
represents the division of groups based on their physical characteristics and common
history, while culture includes accepted norms and belief systems and traditions
which often influence a person’s behavior.
According to Hofstede (1997), people develop learned patterns of thinking,
feeling and acting, which are established in their mental programs that are directed
by their experiences. These programs are highly influenced by family,
neighborhoods, schools, groups, workplaces and communities, which ultimately
define one’s culture (Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede, 2001; Bohannan, 1995). Thus,
culture is “…the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the

29
members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede, 1997, p.5).
Hofstede (1997) suggests that cultural differences are expressed in four significant
ways: 1) through symbols (language, words, and objects), 2) heroes (model figures),
3) rituals (ways of greeting, playing, communicating, ceremonies) and 4) values
(tendencies or preferences of one thing over another such as good versus bad,
abnormal versus normal and irrational versus rational).
In 1954, sociologist, Alex Inkeles & psychologist, Daniel Levinson published
a large survey concerning national culture to determine if there were common
problems shared among all societies. The results suggested that there were three
common dilemmas that engendered consequences for each society, which in turn
caused problems for the groups and the individuals within those groups (Inkeles &
Levinson, 1969). They are: 1) authority relations, 2) the concept of self that is
related to society and gender, and 3) the ability to deal with conflict, aggression and
expressions of feelings (Inkeles & Levinson, 1969). These results confirmed the
convictions of Ruth Benedict (1934) and Margaret Mead (1928) in that all societies
shared basic common problems. This paved the way for the development of
Hofstede’s Cultural Values framework. Hofstede (1997) gathered a large body of
survey data from over 50 countries and found that although the statistical analysis
revealed common dilemmas, it was apparent that each country differed in solving
these problems; hence his pursuit in measuring varying aspects or dimensions of
cultures.

30
Hofstede’s (2001) five cultural values & dimensions, which correspond to the
basic problems shared among cultures are: 1) collectivism versus individualism –
“related to the integration of individuals into primary groups”, 2) power distance
(small to large) – “related to the different solutions to the basic problem of human
inequality”, 3) masculinity versus femininity – “related to the division of emotional
roles between men and women”, 4) uncertainty avoidance (weak to strong) – “related
to the level of stress in a society in the face of an unknown future”, and 5) long-term
versus short-term orientation – “related to the choice of focus for people’s efforts:
the future or the present” (p. 29). These dimensions are differentiation factors that
are found among national, ethnic, regional and religious cultures (that often form
minorities within a dominant culture) and can be used to help explain the
assimilation, problem-solving and behavioral actions and strategies used by a group
and its members (Hofstede, 1997).

Collectivism versus Individualism
Each society and ethnic culture maintains a sovereign perspective on the
foundation of their group dynamics and the importance of their relationships within
the group. Hofstede (1997) purports that these structures are designed on the basis of
interests for the self/individual or the overall group, which he has defined
respectively as individualism and collectivism. Thus, Hofstede (1997) states:
Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are
loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her
immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which

31
people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups,
which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty. (p. 51).

Based on Hofstede’s (1997) longitudinal study, several of the individualistic
national cultures included USA, Australia, Great Britian and New Zealand, while a
few of the collectivistic national cultures included Pakistan, Taiwan, Korea, Africa,
Mexico and the Philippines.

Large Power Distance versus Small Power Distance
Every society faces inequality, as some people are stronger, bigger, richer
and more intelligent than others. Yet, despite these inequities each group or culture
manages these power disparities differently (Hofstede, 2001). According to
Hofstede (1997), power distance is defined as the expectations and acceptance level
of unequal power distribution found within a society (family, school, community)
among the less powerful members of the group. Thus, the power distance within a
group is “…explained from the value systems of the less powerful members, but “the
way power is distributed is usually explained from the behavior of the more powerful
members…” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 28). In small power distance ethnic cultures,
emotional dependence between its members is low, which encourages the less
powerful members to challenge authority (Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede, 2001).
Conversely, in a large power distance ethnic culture, there is substantial dependence
upon authority, which is either preferred by the less powerful member or despised
(Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede, 2001).

32
Based on Hofstede’s (1997) research, some of the national cultures with large
power distance values included Malaysia, Philippines, Mexico, Arab countries,
Africa and Hong Kong, while some of the cultures with small power distance values
included Austria, New Zealand, USA and Korea.

Masculinity versus Femininity
All societies consist of male and female counterparts with varying degrees of
differences in their biological makeup and social roles. Each ethnic culture has
adapted their societal group to a feminine or masculine archetype, which is often
driven by gender (Hofstede, 1997). These masculinity-femininity cultural
differences affect the individuals’ behavior toward family, school, work, power,
governance, problem solving and decision-making processes (Hofstede, 1997;
Hofstede, 2001). According to Hofstede’s Cultural Values framework, there are key
differences between the femininity and masculinity components. In a feminine
ethnic culture, the dominant value is to perpetuate and preserve the act of caring for
others, the men/boys and women/girls are equally allowed to cry, have sympathy for
the weak, and are taught to revere equality and solidarity (Hofstede, 1997). In
comparison, in a masculine ethnic culture, the dominant value is to strive for material
success and development; the males are expected to be competitive, assertive,
ambitious and strong, while the females’ primary responsibility is to care for others
and their relationships (Hofstede, 1997).

33
Based on Hofstede’s (1997) findings, national cultures with masculinity
indexes included Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Africa, Phillippines, USA, and Arab
countries, while those national cultures with feminine values included Sweden,
Korea and Thailand.

Strong Uncertainty Avoidance versus Weak Uncertainty Avoidance
According to Hofstede (1997), “feelings of uncertainty are not only personal,
but may also be partly shared with other members of one’s society” (p. 111) and
these feelings are learned and realized through social interactions. Thus, uncertainty
avoidance is defined as the feelings of threat or uncertainty in unknown situations
that is shared among members of a culture (Hofstede, 1997). Those ethnic cultures
with strong uncertainty avoidance values typically have high levels of stress, fears
unfamiliar risks, lives a strict life with rules and taboos and has a high emotional
need for rules (Hofstede, 1997). These feelings of stress and anxiety about the
unknown drive the culture toward predictability through rules and regulations
(Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede, 2001). On the other hand, ethnic cultures with weak
uncertainty avoidance values believe that uncertainty is a normal product of life,
tends to have lower stress and deem that aggression and emotions should not be
shown (Hofstede, 1997).
Based on Hofstede’s (1997) analysis, national cultures with strong
uncertainty avoidance values included Greece, Japan, Mexico and Pakistan, while

34
those national cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance values included USA,
Philippines, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Africa.

Long-Term and Short-Term Orientations
This cultural dimension was added to Hofstede’s framework in 1985 after a
Chinese Value Survey was disseminated to students from 23 countries with results
indicating that people valued past or present-orientations, which revealed a key
characteristic of eastern philosophy (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). According to
Hofstede (2001), “Long-Term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented
towards future rewards, in particular, perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole,
Short-Term orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and
present, in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘face’ and fulfilling social
obligations” (p. 359). This particular orientation epitomizes the polarity between
western and eastern philosophies (Hofstede, 2001). Ethnic cultures with long-term
orientations believe that humility is a virtue, persistence is a valuable personality
trait, good and evil depends on the circumstances, it is commonplace to defer
gratification, old age is revered, leisure time is not that important, and thriftiness and
income saving is extremely important (Hofstede, 2001). In contrast, ethnic cultures
that have a strong affiliation to short-term orientations believe in absolutes for good
and evil, are less satisfied with daily human relations, value quick results and leisure
time, consider humility as a feminine virtue, and take pleasure in social consumption
(Hofstede, 2001).

35
Based on Hofstede’s (2001) comparative study, the cultures with the highest
Long-Term orientation values are China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea
and India, while those ethnic cultures that are more closely inclined with the Short-
Term orientation values are Pakistan, Philippines, Canada, Great Britain and the
United States.

Reporting Behavior of Underrepresented Races/Cultures
According to Holzman (1996), most of the theories and intervention services
within the rape crisis field have typically addressed the White/Caucasian victims so
the Western middle-class values have been rooted in most of the existing research,
policies and sexual assault programs. Although Koss et al. (1987) were among the
first researchers to disaggregate rape statistics based on race, it has only been within
the last two decades that researchers have been developing specific bodies of work
related to the sexual assault experiences of minority victims (McNair & Neville,
1996; Lefley, Scott, Llabre & Hicks, 1993; Sorenson & Siegel, 1992).

African-American Women
Ogbu (1992) suggests that racial stratification continues between the
dominant culture and involuntary minority group members (such as African-
Americans) because of the continuous derogatory treatment that minorities endure.
Their adaptive responses or patterns of behavior, which are reactions to societal
discrimination causes them to either try and assimilate into the dominant culture

36
through physical posturing and language or rebel against the dominant group (Ogbu,
1992). Nevertheless, whether the minority group chooses to conform or resist, they
often contend with personal and collective self-worth and integrity issues (Spradlin,
Welsh & Hinson, 2000; Ogbu, 1992). This only perpetuates the disempowerment of
minority groups, and solidifies their distrust in the law enforcement, government and
dominant group agencies (Ogbu, 1992).
Neville & Pugh (1997) documented that African-American victims are less
likely to report sexual assault crimes. Racial inequality in the United States has been
historically traceable especially among the African-American population who
endured the injustices of slavery. The remnants of these discriminate historical race
interactions have made it difficult for women of color today to feel safe in reporting
crimes, as many of them fear being exposed to negative cultural stereotypes from the
community, being abused by law enforcement officers and/or not taken seriously
because of their race (Root, 1996). In addition, based on a number of American
sexual myths, African-American men are more likely to be viewed as rapists
(compared to Caucasian/White men), while African-American women are believed
to be more promiscuous, and therefore less likely to experience rape (Foley, 1995).
According to White (1995), 1 in every 4 African-American women will
experience a rape in her lifetime; however, harsher sentences are imposed when the
women victims are White/Caucasian. In addition, European-American men
infrequently receive punishment for alleged and actual rapes against African-
American women, so most women of color refrain from reporting these sexual

37
assault crimes and are less likely to obtain support services (White, 1995).
Consequently, Comas-Diaz (1994) suggests that many women of color refuse to
report members of their own race due to the legacy of prejudiced behavior against
them and the unequal treatment for men of their communities. For example,
compared to their White/Caucasian counterparts, men of color are more likely to be
convicted of rape and will receive longer sentences (Sorenson & Siegel, 1992).
The Sap et al. (1999) study found that African-American women often fall
victim to cultural conditioning, which is deeply entrenched in the American society
where sexist myths perpetuate sexual violence within the African-American
communities; making African-American women more vulnerable to rape and less
likely to receive support services or report the crimes (Sap, et al., 1999). Moreover,
Kalof and Wade (1995) explored the influences of race and gender on sexual
attitudes and experiences and found that African-American college women were less
likely to report their experiences of sexual assaults (ranging from un-welcomed
contact to complete rapes) to the authorities compared to Caucasian/White college
female victims; instead, they seek support from their families and church
organizations rather than from outside services and sexual assault programs (Waliski
& Barthel, 2004).
Researchers are continuing to explore sexual assault issues regarding
African-American women, but very few are considering their cultural influences on
reporting.

38
Latina Women
There are substantial differences among Latinos living in the United States,
as some of them have been acculturated by our dominant society, while others hold
steadfast to their traditional Hispanic culture (Perilla et al., 1994). Nevertheless,
according to Perilla et al. all Latino groups share three basic cultural values and
beliefs: 1) the family is the main focus, 2) it is imperative to remain loyal to the
family (which includes extended families) to maintain solidarity and a strong support
system, and 3) the gender roles are rigidly defined where the men are dominant and
authoritarian figures (expressions of Machismo, which refer to the positive and
negative cultural expectations for the men), while the women are nurturing and must
care for others before caring for herself (expressions of Marianismo, which refer to
the submissive, self-sacrificing and stoic expectations for the women).
Sorenson & Siegel (1992) suggest that the Latino culture combined with their
minority status and high rates of poverty in the United States make Latinas more
susceptible to sexual assault. They found that U.S. born Mexicans are three times
more likely to be sexually assaulted compared to Mexican immigrants that were
originally born in Mexico.
According to Low & Organista (2000), Latina women are very reluctant to
talk about sex and sexuality, including sexual assaults, as they believe it is a private
matter and will often subscribe to rape myths more than Caucasian/White and
African-American women. This increases their feelings of responsibility and self-
blame for the offenses, which inhibits them from seeking help or disclosing the

39
crimes (Low & Organista, 2000). In the work of Lefley et al. (1993), among the 101
rape victims they surveyed (37 African-American, 35 Latina and 28 non-Hispanic
White women) the Latina women were more likely to accept the rape myths
suggesting that the clothing and behavior of a woman is the primary cause of rape
and that the woman is responsible for controlling the man and her own sexuality and
sexual encounters. Similarly, Williams & Holmes’ (1981) purport that Latina
women are more victim-blaming, less apt to prosecute the offender and maintain a
more anti-feministic viewpoint.
The role of the Latina within the family is central, as she is responsible for
sustaining family relationships, reconciling conflicts and preventing disagreements
(Low & Organista, 2000). The woman’s role is centered around Marianismo, which
is based on the worship and reverence for the Virgin Mary; connoting that women
possess moral authority due to their ability to endure suffering caused by men
(Comas-Diaz & Duncan, 1985). This concept also includes the belief that women
should practice sexual purity and suppression and once married should not enjoy sex,
as there is a fine line between being a dona (lady) and a puta (whore - who deserves
to be abused) (Comas-Diaz & Duncan, 1985). Latina women who display strength,
independence and the ability to survive are referred to as a Hembrismo, which is a
pejorative for those who are too controlling and male-like (Morales & Reyes, 1998).
Therefore, some Latinas may be hesitant to report sexual assault crimes for fear of
deviating from their central gendered roles in their families and communities (Low
& Organista, 2000; Williams & Holmes, 1981).

40
Asian/South East Asian Women
Religious traditions such as Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Christianity,
and Hinduism have played a major role in the establishment of the social status and
personalities of women in South East Asian countries (Niaz, 2003). The patriarchal
value systems in Asian countries have supported and perpetuated female inferiority
for many years (Suh, 2007). During a 1980 Women Lawyers Association meeting
held in the Philippines, reports from 13 South Asian countries addressed the absence
of laws that protect women and the traditions and customs of the Asian culture,
which prohibit a woman from seeking justice even when she has legal rights (Niaz,
2003). According to Kozu (1999), Japanese traditions are used to justify violent
means of discipline and punishment against women for supposed infractions of the
males’ fixed expectations of them. In addition, rape and sexual abuse are considered
sexual acts; therefore, the victims rarely prosecute their offenders because of deep
embarrassment and their allegiance to their traditional hierarchical family edifice
(Kozu, 1999).
Based on Mills’ and Granoff’s (1992) study, Japanese women experience
more sexual victimizations in their lifetime than Chinese, Filipino, mixed Asian
heritage, African-American and Hawaiian women. Benedict (1946) marked Japan as
the “shame culture” (p.222), because of its strong concern for negative exposures to
public evaluations and their commitment to avoiding these displays. Therefore,
Japanese women are less likely to report sexual assault crimes or encourage female
victims to seek police help for fear of public judgment and bringing shame to the

41
family (Mills & Granoff, 1992; Yamawaki, 2007). Correspondingly, Mori, Bernat,
Glenn, Selle, & Zarate (1995) examined the attitudes of rape between
Caucasian/White and Asian college women and found that the Asians were more
likely to believe the rape myths and held a stronger negative disdainful outlook
toward rape victims. Thus, shame avoidance behavior is more important and
respected than showing empathy for the victims.
According to a 1999 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report, a
high rate of sexual assault occurs in the South Asian countries. For instance, from
1980 to 1993 sexual assault reports increased by 15.67% every year causing it to be
the second most common crime in that country (Niaz, 2003). Correspondingly, in a
2000 annual report, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HCRP) stated that
rape crimes were on an upward swing and estimated that a woman was being raped
every two hours in that country (Niaz, 2003). According to Niaz (2203) the high
incidences of sexual assaults in South Asian countries is due to:
…the societal subordination of women to men and by the custom of avenging
oneself up on one’s enemies by raping their women, who are seen as
repositories of family honour. These rapes take place not only in public
places but also in homes, in front of male family members (p. 178).

Hence, the sexual maltreatment toward South Asian women has been grossly
ignored (Niaz, 2003; Segala, 1999). If a traditional custom is violated, the social
attitude of these cultures will dispassionately direct their violent acts of honor
killings and punishment toward women even if she was not at fault (Niaz, 2003).
For example, in 2002 an eleven-year-old boy from a lower class was caught walking

42
a girl of a higher caste to her village; for punishment it was ordered that his eighteen-
year-old sister be gang-raped by four community men (Niaz, 2003). These accepted
societal traditions undoubtedly create ironclad barriers for sexual assault reporting
among women of these cultures.

Pacific-Islander/Polynesian Women
Data regarding sexual assault crimes against minority Pacific-
Islander/Polynesian women, which include groups such as Native Hawaiian [NH],
Samoan, Tongan, Maori and Tahitian populations are sparse. There are a few
empirical studies that explore dating violence, violence among multiethnic settings
and violent behavior among Native Hawaiians (Ramisetty-Mikler, Goebert,
Nishimura & Caetano, 2006; Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., Goebert, D., &
Nishimura, S. (2004); Goebert, Caetano, Nishimura & Ramisetty-Mikler, 2004;
Austin, 2004), but none specific to sexual assault crimes related to the Pacific-
Islander/Polynesian population.
Nevertheless, sexual assault crimes against Pacific-Islander/Polynesian
women are prevalent, and similar to the national statistics, as many cases go
unreported (Department of Attorney General-State of Hawaii, n.d.). Ruggiero &
Kilpatrick (2003) suggested that based on national predictors, 14.5% of all women in
Hawaii will experience a completed rape in her lifetime. According to the 2004
Sexual Assault Victims in Honolulu report, the largest category of sexual assault
victims who sought help at a treatment center between 1990-2001 was

43
Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian (28.8%) women (Department of Attorney General-State of
Hawaii, n.d.). Also, based on this same descriptive analysis study of 5,095 sexual
assault victims, there was a steady increase in the incidence rates of Hawaiian/Part-
Hawaiian sexual assault victims over the 10-year period, while concurrently there
was a drastic decline in Caucasian victim percentages (Department of Attorney
General-State of Hawaii, n.d.).
During 1994-1998 the Hawaii Household Survey Reports suggested that
anywhere from 0% to 33% of all rape victims in Hawaii reported the crimes to the
police (Department of Attorney General-State of Hawaii, n.d.). One of the most
common barriers that impeded Pacific-Islander/Polynesian women from reporting
was their relationship to the offender (Department of Attorney General-State of
Hawaii, n.d.). For example, 57.7% of all the female sexually assaulted victims in
Hawaii between the ages of 18-22 years reported that the assailant was a friend or
acquaintance (Department of Attorney General-State of Hawaii, n.d.). Nevertheless,
according to the 2000 Reporting Sexual Assault to Police in Hawaii report conducted
by the Social Science Research Institute at the University of Hawaii at Manoa,
approximately 74.7% of all Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian sexually assaulted victims who
sought immediate treatment services eventually made a formal report to the police
(Department of Attorney General-State of Hawaii, n.d.). Perhaps this is due to the
fact that Hawaii is a small island and many people are related to police officers and
law enforcement agents. However, social service providers contend that the trick is

44
getting them to the sexual assault treatment centers, as many of them do not seek
professional help (Department of Attorney General-State of Hawaii, n.d.).
The practice of Ho’oponopono, which is the method of mediation and
intervention, utilized by the Hawaiian ‘ohana (family, which includes immediate
blood or marital family members, hanai or adopted family members and ‘aumakua
or spiritual ancestors) may be a contributing factor to the underreporting behavior of
Native Hawaiian women. Typically, ho’oponopono is facilitated by a kupuna
(grandparent) or kahuna (a healer that knows the family) who addresses the hala (the
conflict that binds the offender and the victim) through a discussion and resolution
phase (Napeahi, 1996; Pukui, Haertig & Lee, 1972). The purpose of the
ho’oponopono is to make things right with the parties involved (including the
Almighty) and ensure that forgiveness is completely granted and the release of the
hala is permanent (Napeahi, 1996). Since there is a high percentage of acquaintance
rapes and sexual assaults reported by Hawaii females (Department of Attorney
General-State of Hawaii, n.d.), the practice of ho’oponopono may eliminate the
Native Hawaiian woman’s need to make a formal report against her family member,
friend or acquaintance.
Research studies rarely focus upon sexual violent crime reporting among the
“Other” category, which consists of Asian Pacific-Islander and Polynesian women.
Thus, the development and prevention/intervention efforts regarding sexual assault
reporting for these ethnic minorities are inept; hence contributing to their
underreporting behavior of sexual assault crimes (Mills & Granoff, 1992).

45
Probable Relationships Between Culture and Reporting Behavior
It is apparent that sexual assault victims face many barriers to reporting such
as shame, fear of retaliation, economic challenges, alcohol-related usage, sexual
assault myths, police insensitivity, poor policies/programs and the influence of the
socially accepted practices of fraternity and sorority life (Sable et al., 2007;
Thompson et al., 2007; Rudman et al., 1995; Fisher et al., 1998; Vopni, 2006; Felson
& Pare 2005; Ward, et al., 1991; Foubert, Garner & Thaxter, 2006). However, some
of these barriers are more influential upon certain minority groups. For example, the
barriers of shame, guilt and embarrassment have more of an impact on the reporting
behavior of Asian/South East Asian victims (LaClaire, 1996), while sexual assault
myths and police insensitivity are the common barriers that inhibit African-American
victims from reporting (Comas-Diaz, 1994). Economic challenges and language
impediments are major barriers that prohibit Hispanic victims from reporting sexual
assault crimes (Sable et al., 2007), while the practice of ho’oponopono potentially
avert the reporting behaviors of Native Hawaiian women (Miura, 2000). All these
minority communities have different influences upon their reporting behavior, but
paradoxically many of them share similar cultural values.

Cultural Commonalities Among Minority Groups Based on Hofstede’s Framework
Sexual assault reporting is minimal in all countries, but it is significantly
lower among Asian, African-American, Latina and Pacific-Islander/Polynesian
victims (Yoshioka et al., 2003; Diller, 1999; Lewis, 1996; Perilla et al., 1994).

46
Interestingly, these groups share many similar cultural values based on Hofstede’s
framework with comparable principles regarding the importance of family, the
acceptance of authority/power and the recognition of disparate gendered roles.

Collectivistic
African-American, Hispanic, Polynesian and Asian/South East Asian cultures
are all collectivistic in nature where family and relationships take precedence over
individual needs (Waliski & Barthel, 2004). Diller (1999) suggests that African-
Americans believe that family is most important and it is inappropriate to share
personal problems with people outside the family or with those outside their own
ethnic group. Moore (1970) suggests that the most important value to Latinos is
familism, which describes their strong attachment and identification to the family.
According to Herring (1997), Asian-American families are so closely knit that they
are forbidden to talk about any of their problems (including sexual assaults) to
people outside the family. Disclosure of any sexual related issues is taboo in the
Asian community (LaClaire, 1996); and if sharing the problem with people outside
the family shames the individual, then humiliation is brought upon the whole family.
Likewise, the traditional Hawaiian culture is collectivistic, where the family always
takes precedence over one’s individual needs (Miura, 2000). In fact, in the native
Hawaiian language, when one greets another they often say “Pe hea kou piko?” –
which means, “how is the center of your life (your ‘ohana - family)?” (Miura, 2000,
p.19). According to Miura (2000) the ‘ohana is the most important element of the

47
Hawaiian culture and their need to maintain balance and keep relationships free of
conflicts is key.
Correspondingly, Koss & Harvey (1991) purport that families are an
important influence upon the reporting behavior of sexually assaulted victims, as the
interpretation of the crime will be evaluated and addressed according to the families’
belief and value systems. Based on a National Crime Survey (NCS) study conducted
by Koss (1992), 84% of the sexually assaulted survivors reported that they knew
their offender. This is precisely the reason why many minority victims are reluctant
to report the crimes because they don’t want to incriminate family members,
relatives or acquaintances (Koss, 1992). Moreover, Koss (1992) suggests that sexual
assault programs and reporting procedures are sorely inadequate as they do not allow
for anonymity and provide poorly trained interviewers for these types of sensitive
issues. For example, some of the victims in the NCS study stated that during their
treatment interviews the perpetrator was actually present in the room (Koss, 1992).
This would be abhorrent and devastating to any individual from a collectivistic
culture.

Masculine
Another value that is shared amongst many minority groups is their cultural
acceptance of masculine dominance. Based on Hofstede’s (1997) study, Japanese,
Mexican, African, South East Asian and some Polynesian cultures are highly
masculine societies. According to Suh (2007) there is an evident hierarchical

48
arrangement between Asian men and women. For example, young brides and
daughters-in-law hold the lowest status in a family - that is until she bears at least
one son (Suh, 2007). Not until a woman becomes a grandmother will she gain
respect as a matriarch in the extended family and it is only then that she will be
gradually released from the male domination she endured in her early years (Suh,
2007). Similarly, Latina women abide by clear gendered guidelines and remain
submissive to their male counterparts (Low & Organista, 2000). To maintain the
family needs, protect their stability and contribute to the family’s sense of security
the Latina will hold steadfast to her defined roles in the family, which is being
subservient to the men (Comas-Diaz, 1994). Correspondingly, Yoshioka et al. (2003)
purports that South East Asian women value their traditional obedient gendered roles
and work hard to bring honor to the family by remaining committed to their
responsibilities as a wife and mother. In fact, Niaz (2003) reported that South East
Asian women “considered themselves insecure, incomplete, ineffective and
inefficient without males” (p. 180). Hence, the men dominate in that society. In
addition, the men are also given the socially accepted right to exploit the women’s
weaknesses (Niaz, 2003). For example, if a South East Asian woman is perceived by
a male member to be gaining strength through her economic independence or
educational qualifications he is allowed to regain his control by battering and/or
sexually abusing her until she surrenders her personal pursuits (Niaz, 2003). Hence,
for the victims, the fear of retaliation after reporting any type of sexual assault crime
is paramount.

49
These gender inequities seem to play a major role in the reporting behaviors
of ethnic minority sexually assaulted female victims. And, with the culmination of
her obligations to her collectivistic culture, she will struggle to reveal the crimes that
would essentially be asking her to forego the importance of the family and her role
within it.

Large Power Distance
Based on Hofstede’s (1997) study, another value that is shared amongst some
of the minority groups is their traditional views regarding power. Hofstede (1997)
posits that Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Africa and South East Asian countries
are among those that value large power distance notions; where inequalities among
people are expected, the less powerful should be dependent upon the more powerful,
subordinates should be told what to do and the powerful people should be granted
privileges. These beliefs regarding the values of power subjugate victims of sexual
assault, as they remain even more dependent and inferior to those in control
(offenders, authorities and communities) who are often granted privileges or social
protection (Niaz, 2003). For instance, in Dawood’s study (1999), men in South
Asian countries will perform socially accepted honor killings against their wives,
daughters or sisters because they believe she has damaged their honor by violating an
established norm for a woman. Moreover, based on National Crime records from the
Government of India, South Asian policemen are commonly known to rape women
(Niaz, 2003). For example, within an 11-month period, twenty-one women reported

50
being gang-raped by law enforcers and fourteen women reported being physically
abused by policemen (Niaz, 2003). Hence, the cultural values of power may be an
indicative factor in the reporting behavior among sexually assaulted minority
victims.
Latinas are also subject to the subordinate status of power where these
inequalities are accepted and expected (Low & Organista, 2000). Such as, in
Perilla’s et al. (1994) study they found that abused Latinas often gave up hope of
changing or stopping their violent relationships because of their lack of control and
power. They knew that a power structure difference was intact, so, they endured the
abuse without dispute (Perilla et al., 1994).
Consequently, research indicates that minority women are less likely to report
sexual assault crimes to the police because of their apprehension about the power
structure, distrust in the legal system and fear that they will be treated boorishly due
to their race (Comas-Diaz, 1994; Sorenson & Siegel, 1992; Feldman-Summers &
Ashworth, 1981).

Strong Uncertainty Avoidance
Finally, an additional value shared between minority groups from Mexico,
Japan and South East Asia is their association to strong uncertainty avoidance, which
suggests that conservative behavior is required, the establishments of taboos are
necessary, and rules need to be followed and if they are broken then the sinners need
to repent (Hofstede, 1997). Accordingly, Contreras & Mendez (1978) found that

51
Latina sexual assault victims often become disconnected to the universe following
the crime because they believe it was a punishment from God; thus, they feel the
need to atone for their sins.
In South Asian countries women are viewed as property and are placed under
strict rules and guidelines (Niaz, 2003). In the year 2000, 201 women were killed by
stove-burnings caused by husbands and in-laws because they perceived the woman
as a malefactor, believed she broke established rules and/or were dissatisfied with
her dowry (Niaz, 2003).
These fundamental rules established within a culture are deeply rooted and
apparent even if a minority woman is acculturated. Thus, sexual assault reporting
and help-seeking behavior will probably be affected by all the cultural values and
belief systems of the victims.

Conclusion
This study explored the many barriers, characteristics and reporting behaviors
of sexual assaulted victims with an emphasis on minority communities. The existing
research provided a glut of data related to the victims’ within the White/Caucasian
dominant culture; however, very few studies addressed the reporting behavior of
minority groups including African-American, Hispanic, Asian/South East Asian and
Pacific-Islander/Polynesian women. Also, in exploring the existing literature there
was no clear distinction between race and culture, as these terms were often muddled
and used interchangeably, which made it difficult to differentiate them. In

52
understanding that there is a stark difference between these two terms, it is important
to analyze them independently. Hence, if researchers are truly interested in
understanding the reasons for the serious underreporting behavior among sexually
assaulted victims, then it is imperative that these grossly underrepresented groups are
addressed. Likewise, it is important that their cultural affiliations are considered (not
just their race), as it may lend to the reasons why these minority women often refrain
from making formal reports.
This study adds to the literature by specifically exploring multiple
methodologies and measures that illuminate the national sexual assault
underreporting problems. In addition, it also offers a fresh perspective by
incorporating Hofstede’s Cultural Values study as a framework to analyze and
elucidate the probable cultural influences upon reporting behavior among minority
females. By using a cultural lens to examine the perceived barriers to reporting
among minority women, a new dimension to underreporting propensities may be
unearthed. Hofstede (1997) suggests that cultural differences manifest in many
ways, and “understanding the differences in the way people think, feel and act is a
condition for bringing about worldwide solutions that work” (p. 4). Hence, the
exploration of the perceived barriers among sexually assaulted minority women can
lead to better programs and reporting behavioral solutions.
Chapter Two offered extensive reviewed literature for this study. It included
five areas of focus, which largely investigated the extensive problem of sexual
assault underreporting related to the: 1) Characteristics of Victims Who Report and

53
Do Not Report Sex Crimes, 2) Reporting Barriers for College Women Victims, 3)
Understanding Cultural Differences through Hofstede’s Cultural Values framework,
4) Reporting Behavior of Underrepresented Ethnic Races/Cultures and 5) Probable
Relationships Between Culture and Reporting Behavior. The literature review in this
chapter provides for further research in understanding cultural affiliations and
implications of sexual assault reporting behavior among minority women. Chapter
Three will delve into the proposed methodology that completed this investigation.

54
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
There are many reasons why college female victims do not report sexual
assault crimes. Research indicates that some of the common barriers that impede
victims from reporting are: shame, self-blame, fear of reprisal, lack of financial
support, distrust in the legal and law enforcement systems, (Sable, et al., 2006;
Thompson et al., 2007), the effects of socially accepted sexual assault myths (Vopni,
2006) and poor policies and intervention and prevention programs (Ward et al.,
1991).
Although it is necessary to study the various barriers that encumber sexually
assaulted victims from reporting, some researchers are now suggesting that it is
equally important to analyze the cultural influences upon reporting behaviors
(especially among minority women); as the victims’ perception of the barriers may
be fundamentally impacted by cultural traditions, values and belief systems (Low &
Organista, 2000; Sorenson & Siegel, 1992). Thus, the purpose of this study was to
explore the differences in reporting rates among sexually assaulted college females
based on cultural affiliation. Although other studies have recorded and made
distinctions between races and/or used race as a proxy for culture, they have not
specifically captured the cultural views of the victims. In this study, an emphasis
was placed on the cultural affiliations of the victims and particular attention was
given to minority women from underrepresented communities such as: African-
American, Hispanic, Asian/South East Asian, and Pacific Islander/Polynesian.

55
This chapter includes the research questions for the study and a description of
the research methodology, including the sampling procedures and population,
instrumentation, the data collection process and a detailed analysis plan.

Research Questions
The following three research questions will guide this study:
1. Are there differences in the reporting rates of sexually assaulted college
women based on their race, national origin, religion and cultural
affiliation?
2. What are the perceived barriers to reporting among minority women from
underrepresented communities?
3. To what extent do perceptions about these barriers vary by one’s cultural
affiliation, national origin and religion?

Research Design
This study used a quantitative approach – the fielding of a survey to collect
data. According to Patton (2002) there is no standard recipe or formula for designing
a research study. However, the advantage to a quantitative approach is that it allows
the researcher to measure the reactions from a large sample of people to a focused set
of questions (Patton, 2002). Another rationale for using a quantitative approach in
this study is that this method allowed the researcher to look at “the statistical
properties of each item” (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006, p. 112), while comparing the

56
differences between various groups, as it elucidates the relationship between the
select variables (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
In addition, this study used a descriptive research non-experimental approach,
as it was driven solely by the selection decisions of the participants and measures the
relationship between the dependent and independent variables through statistical
analyses including frequency distributions, a chi-square analysis, and analysis of
variances (ANOVA) (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
The dependent variables for this study are: 1) the reporting rates of the
sexually assaulted college women, and 2) their perceived barriers to reporting. The
independent variables for this study are: 1) the race, cultural affiliation, national
origin, religion, and reporting behaviors of the women.
This study analyzed the dependent variables, which showed the patterns of
reporting among college women, while also examining the independent variables,
which defined these patterns by the women’s race, culture, national origin, religion
and reporting behavior.

Population and Sample
The data from this study was drawn from two private universities in Hawaii -
Pacific Ocean University and ‘Ōpiopio University (the names of the universities are
pseudonyms and have been changed to protect the privacy of the data). Both
universities have a large population of minority women and an ethnically diverse
student body (see Table 1 & 2). The study utilized a convenience sampling process,

57
which allowed the researcher to choose individuals that were easiest to reach
(Pruchno, Brill, Shands, Gordon, Genderson, Rose & Cartwright, 2008).
The rationale for using the convenience sampling process was that the two
universities were supportive of the study and provided access to the minority groups
that are often underrepresented in research pertaining to sexual assault reporting
behaviors. An IRB approval from Pacific Ocean University, ‘Ōpiopio University
and University of Southern California was granted, which allowed the researcher to
disseminate the surveys, field the study and obtain the data that was necessary in
addressing the proposed research questions.
According to the World Report on Violence and Health: Summary (2002),
one in four women (25%) will experience a sexual assault by an intimate partner in
her lifetime; and by age 18 one in four girls (25%) will be sexually assaulted.
Using this data to guide the sampling process, the researcher disseminated 281
surveys at Pacific Ocean University and 114 surveys at ‘Ōpiopio University, with a
total of 395 surveys circulated. The goal was to gather 100 working surveys from
women stating they were sexually assaulted, however, in actuality, a total of 139
working surveys were collected (105 from Pacific Ocean University and 34 from
‘Ōpiopio University).
Each school has a female population average of 57-59% (see Table 1 & 2),
thus, with an estimated 20 students in each classroom, the researcher administered
the surveys to an average of 9-11 females in each class. Based on the World Report
on Violence and Health Summary statistics a 25% affirmative response rate (2-3

58
women confirming to be a victim of sexual assault) was anticipated. However, the
researcher actually received a 35% (139/395) affirmative response rate.

Table 1. Ethnicity and Gender of Student Population at Pacific Ocean University

Male
40.8%
Female
59.2%
Ethnicity
%
Total
Non-Resident Alien 571 702 15.8% 1,273
Black Non-Hispanic 198 280 5.9% 478
Hispanic 219 265 6% 484
Asian/Pacific Islander 812 1,863 33.1% 2,675
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
35 61 1.2% 96
White Non-Hispanic 1,398 1,534 36.2% 2,932
Race Unknown 66 76 1.8% 142
Total 3,299 4,781 100% 8,080
(http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities)

Table 2. Ethnicity and Gender of Student Population at ‘Ōpiopio University

Male
42.8%
Female
57.2%
Ethnicity
%
Total
Non-Resident Alien 500 685 48% 1,185
Black Non-Hispanic 7 5 .5% 12
Hispanic 25 27 2.1% 52
Asian/Pacific Islander 210 305 20.8% 515
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
8 10 .7% 18
White Non-Hispanic 299 367 26.9% 666
Race Unknown 7 18 1% 25
Total 1,056 1,417 100% 2,473
(http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities)

59
Instrumentation
The data was collected through a survey questionnaire (see Appendix). The
5-page survey addresses 52 chief components covering four main issues: 1)
demographic information including citizenship, student status, religion and age; 2)
race identification including languages spoken at home and culture most identified
with; 3) factual knowledge about sexual assault experiences, including whether
victimized or not and if the crime was reported or not, and if so, to whom; and 4) the
perceived barriers of reporting related to 7 categories: a) shame and embarrassment;
b) guilt and self-blame; c) fear of retaliation; d) law enforcement insensitivity; e)
poor programs; f) economic challenges; and g) cultural influences. Some of the
items that aimed at examining the influential factors upon sexual assault crime
reporting were, “I worried about what people thought of me,” “I was afraid the
person/offender would hurt me again” and “I didn’t think the police would believe
me.”
The general questions related to the demographics and race/culture
identification (Questions 1-9) and the sexual assault experiences of the participants
(Questions 18-20) were simply stated in a closed question format. The participants
easily answered these questions by simply checking a box or providing a few words.
For questions 10 through 17, the survey used a 5-point Likert-scale to encourage a
higher response rate. These 8-items (four in each category) addressed two of
Hofstede’s Cultural Values framework, including: 1) individualism versus
collectivism and 2) masculinity versus femininity. The questions on the survey

60
emulated some of the queries in the Values Survey Module 1994 (VSM94)
questionnaire developed by Dr. Hofstede. Also, the researcher was able to contact
Dr. Hofstede via email and received sound direction and advice regarding the
questions that would best assist in defining the cultural values of the participants
among a particular national origin related to individualism/collectivism and
masculinity/femininity. For questions 21a through 52b (related to the perceived
barriers of reporting) a simple true/false selection process (all the “a” questions) and
the same 5-point Likert-scale (all the “b” questions) was utilized to maintain
consistency throughout the study. According to Kurpius & Stafford (2006), “Likert-
type scales allow for a continuum of responses” (p. 8). Hence, this ordinal level of
measurement (which ranks the responses) is likely to produce a highly reliable scale
and is easy to read and complete (Duma, 1999).
The participants were asked to define how true or false each statement was
and how important the defined factors were (from utmost importance to very little or
no importance) in their reporting behavior. The following responses was given a
rating related to their degree of influence upon their reporting behavior (0=very little
or no importance; 1=of little importance; 2=moderately important; 3=very important;
4=utmost importance). In rating these items a mean average of the participants’
response to the perceived barriers was calculated.
The development of the survey questions was guided by existing literature, as
the designated perceived barriers for reporting were supported in empirical research
(Sable et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2007). Although all the questions on this

61
survey do not reflect exact questions posed in existing studies, it does provide valid
and reliable categories of perceived barriers to reporting based on former research.
In Questions 21a through 52b, the categories of responses of the perceived barriers
were as followed: a) shame and embarrassment – item 21a-25b; b) guilt and self-
blame – item 26a-29b; c) fear of retaliation – item 30a-34b; d) law enforcement
insensitivity – item 35a-39b; e) poor programs – item 40a-43b; f) economic
challenges – item 44a-46b; and g) cultural influences – item 47a-52b.
A pilot test with 25 participants was conducted prior to the execution of the
full study to test for an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .7 or higher for
each category (shame/embarrassment, guilt/self-blame, fear of retaliation, law
enforcement insensitivity, poor programs, economic challenges, and cultural
influences). The researcher used a Cronbach’s Alpha calculation to determine if
there was a reliable relationship between the groups of questions in each category
(see the Table 4 - Summary of Analysis). The rationale for aiming for a .7 is that
according to Salkind (2008), the higher the reliability coefficient the more the items
being measured reflect the same content. The internal consistency reliability
coefficients for each category was as followed: 1) shame/embarrassment .850; 2)
guilt/self-blame .775; 3) fear of retaliation .881; 4) law enforcement insensitivity
.842; 5) poor programs .741; 6) economic challenges .851; and 7) cultural
importance .841. The results of the Cronbach’s Alpha calculation are presented in
Table 3.

62
Table 3. Cronbach’s Alpha Calculation Results

Shame/Embarrassment

Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 25 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Cases
Total 25 100.0
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.850 10

Guilt/Self-Blame

Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 25 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Cases
Total 25 100.0
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.775 8

Fear of Retaliation

Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 25 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Cases
Total 25 100.0
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.881 10

Law Enforcement Insensitivity

Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 25 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Cases
Total 25 100.0
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.842 10

Poor Programs

Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 25 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Cases
Total 25 100.0
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.741 8

Economic Challenges

Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 25 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Cases
Total 25 100.0
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.851 6

Cultural Importance

Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 25 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Cases
Total 25 100.0
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.841 12

63
Data Collection
The surveys were disseminated at both Pacific Ocean University and
‘Ōpiopio University. Based on a National Violence Against Women Survey, among
the women who reported sexual assault crimes, 29% said they were victimized
between the ages of 18 to 24 and 16.6% said they were 25 and older (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000). This reflects the typical ages of undergraduate and graduate
college students. Thus, in concert with the convenience sampling process, and
through colleague relationships, the researcher accessed both undergraduate and
graduate level Communication, Business, Sociology, Psychology, and Nursing
classes at Pacific Ocean University. The researcher gained access to each classroom
by obtaining verbal consent from the professors/instructors. At ‘Ōpiopio University,
the researcher worked with a campus sponsor who helped coordinate the
dissemination of the surveys in various classrooms and at the school counseling
center.
While the classroom and/or at the counseling center, the researcher read the
official script that was accepted by the USC IRB board, which explained to the
female participants what the study was about, how their responses would be kept
anonymous and how to proceed with the survey. In addition, participants were
advised to put their completed survey in the 8½ x 11 envelope provided and drop it
into a box marked “survey” at the front of the class. It is also assumed that not all
participants would have experienced a sexual assault crime. Thus, to avoid having
only the victimized participants working on the entire survey, those that stated that

64
they were not victims of sexual assault crimes were asked to continue filling out the
survey based on how they would have most likely responded if were a victim. This
ensured that all of the participants would be completing the entire survey so that one
group (victimized) would not be identified from the other group (not victimized)
based on the amount of questions that could have been answered.
It did not take the participants longer than 15 minutes to complete the survey
thus; the researcher remained present in the classroom until all the surveys were
collected, which increased the data collection return rate.

Data Analysis
In the data analysis phase, the researcher used the SPSS 17.0 software
program to run statistical analyses to answer the research questions. The analysis
was divided into eight parts: Part 1) the researcher ran a frequency distribution
analysis of the overall reporting rates of all the participants, as well as a frequency
analysis of each racial group, identified culture, religion and national origin; Part 2)
the researcher ran a chi-square with survey question #4 (What is your race?) and
question #19 (Did you report the sexual assault crime to anyone? – Yes/No); Part 3)
the researcher ran a chi-square with the survey question #5 (What single culture do
you identify with most?) and question #19 (Did you report the sexual assault crime
to anyone? – Yes/No); Part 4) the researcher ran a chi-square with survey question
#7 (What is your national origin?) and question #19 (Did you report the sexual
assault crime to anyone? – Yes/No); Part 5) the researcher ran a chi-square with

65
survey question #9 (What is your religion?) and question #19 (Did you report the
sexual assault crime to anyone? – Yes/No); Part 6) the researcher did a cross
tabulation between race and religion and ran a chi-square to determine if there was
significance between them; Part 7) the researcher ran a simple one-way ANOVA
test to determine if there were any mean differences between culturally affiliated
groups related to Hofstede’s two Cultural Values framework items
(individualistic/collectivistic and masculinity/femininity) and national origins related
to Hofstede’s two Cultural Values framework items (individualistic/collectivistic and
masculinity/femininity); and Part 8) a simple one-way ANOVA test was performed
to determine if there were any mean differences between culturally affiliated groups
related to each perceived barrier/category; religious groups related to each perceived
barrier/category; and national origins related to each perceived barrier/category.
The purpose of running a frequency distribution analysis was to allow the
researcher to make sense of the data by providing a depiction of how each participant
scored or responded to a particular question (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). The
frequency of distribution illuminated patterns of reporting and/or frequent
representations of the perceived barriers to reporting. The purpose of running a chi-
square analysis was to allow the researcher to determine if the observed distribution
of frequencies is what would be expected to occur by chance (Salkind, 2008).
Hence, this involved a comparison between what was actually reported and what was
expected by chance thus, exemplifying if the sample was equally distributed or not
(Salkind, 2008). The rationale for conducting simple one-way ANOVA tests was

66
that it helped in determining if there are mean differences between more than two
groups (Salkind, 2008). (In this study, the researcher explored four specific
underrepresented minority groups: African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latina,
Asian/S.E. Asian and Pacific Islander/Polynesian; as well as the dominant Non-
Hispanic White group). In gathering this information, the simple ANOVA helped to
test the proposed research questions, as the means of each group was compared on
their reporting rates and perceived barriers.
The findings of this study are presented in Chapter 4.

Table 4. Summary of Analysis

Dependent
Variables
Independent
Variables
Tests Items
Reporting Rates –
Overall women
participants
Frequency Distribution 19
Race Frequency Distribution 19
Cultural affiliation Frequency Distribution 19
National origin Frequency Distribution 19
Religion Frequency Distribution 19
Overall women
participants
Chi-square 19
Race Chi-square 4 & 19
Cultural affiliation Chi-square 5 & 19
National origin Chi-square 7 & 19
Religion Chi-square 9 & 19

67
Table 4, Continued

Perceived Barriers – Categorical Items
• Individualistic/Collectivistic Cultural affiliation ANOVA 5, 21a – 25b
• Masculinity/Femininity National origin ANOVA 5, 26a – 29b
• Shame/Embarrassment Reporting behavior ANOVA 5, 30a – 34b
• Guilt/Self-blame Reporting behavior ANOVA 5, 35a – 39b
• Fear of Retaliation Reporting behavior ANOVA 5, 30a – 34b
• Law enforcement insensitivity Reporting behavior ANOVA 5, 35a – 39b
• Poor programs Reporting behavior ANOVA 5, 40a – 43b
• Economic challenges Reporting behavior ANOVA 5, 44a – 46b
• Cultural influences Reporting behavior ANOVA 5, 47a – 52b
• Shame/Embarrassment Cultural affiliation ANOVA 5, 21a – 25b
• Guilt/Self-blame Cultural affiliation ANOVA 5, 26a – 29b
• Fear of retaliation Cultural affiliation ANOVA 5, 30a – 34b
• Law enforcement insensitivity Cultural affiliation ANOVA 5, 35a – 39b
• Poor programs Cultural affiliation ANOVA 5, 40a – 43b
• Economic challenges Cultural affiliation ANOVA 5, 44a – 46b
• Cultural influences Cultural affiliation ANOVA 5, 47a – 52b
• Shame/Embarrassment National origin ANOVA 5, 21a – 25b
• Guilt/Self-blame National origin ANOVA 5, 26a – 29b
• Fear of retaliation National origin ANOVA 5, 30a – 34b
• Law enforcement insensitivity National origin ANOVA 5, 35a – 39b
• Poor programs National origin ANOVA 5, 40a – 43b
• Economic challenges National origin ANOVA 5, 44a – 46b
• Cultural influences National origin ANOVA 5, 47a – 52b
• Shame/Embarrassment Religion ANOVA 5, 21a – 25b
• Guilt/Self-blame Religion ANOVA 5, 26a – 29b
• Fear of retaliation Religion ANOVA 5, 30a – 34b
• Law enforcement insensitivity Religion ANOVA 5, 35a – 39b
• Poor programs Religion ANOVA 5, 40a – 43b
• Economic challenges Religion ANOVA 5, 44a – 46b
• Cultural influences Religion ANOVA 5, 47a – 52b

68
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
In order to explore the reasons why college female victims of sexual assault
infrequently report the crimes, the cultural affiliation of minority women and its
relationship to their reporting behaviors was investigated.
In this chapter, the findings of the study will be presented to address the three
research questions posed. Through frequency distribution analyses, the researcher
determined the reporting rates of: a) all the participants; 2) each designated race; 3)
cultural affiliation; 4) national origins; and 4) each defined religious group. In
addition, the researcher also aimed at identifying any relationships between reporting
behaviors and race, cultural affiliation, national origin, and religion. Finally, the
participants’ reporting behavior and their race, cultural affiliation, national origin and
religion related to the seven common perceived barriers (shame/embarrassment,
guilt/self-blame, fear of retaliation, law enforcement insensitivity, poor programs,
economic challenges, and cultural influences) were examined.
The data were analyzed using the SPSS 17.0 software program. The
researcher utilized descriptive statistics to describe the sample populations
investigated. The first section of this chapter reports on the response rates and the
process utilized to present the findings. In the second section of this chapter, the
actual findings related to the research questions are presented.

69
Description of the sample
The participants in this study were undergraduate and graduate college
female students. The convenience sampling process employed in this study allowed
the researcher to procure the data from two universities (Pacific Ocean University
and ‘Ōpiopio University), as they provided access to the college female minority
groups within their institutions. At the completion of the 6-week survey period, a
total of 395 surveys were circulated and returned (281 from Pacific Ocean University
and 114 from ‘Ōpiopio University), of which 139 were usable (N=139) and
collected from college female participants who indicated they were victims of a
sexual assault. The victimization rate (35%) in this study was higher than the
national victimization average rate of 25% (World Report on Violence & Health:
Summary, 2002). Thus, according to these results, over one third of the participants
stated they experienced a sexual assault, which reflects a higher fraction than the
national average (.25) and those reflected in other research studies (Koss, 1985; Koss
& Harvey, 1991; National Council for Research on Women, 1992; World Report on
Violence & Health: Summary, 2002).
To answer the three posed research questions, the respondents were first
categorized by reporting rates, then segmented by race, cultural affiliation, national
origin and religion. It is important to note that although race was often used as a
proxy for culture in the existing literature, in this study both race and culture were
analyzed independently to determine if they were tantamount or not. Table 5 shows
the distribution of survey respondents based on reporting rates. Accordingly, of the

70
139 respondents (N=139) who said they experienced a sexual assault, 64 respondents
(46.0%) said they reported the crime to someone, while 75 (54.0%) respondents said
they did not report the crime to anyone. Table 6 shows the distribution of survey
respondents based on race. This table provides a breakdown of the number of
participants who chose a specific race category, where the largest group was Non-
Hispanic White women (37%) followed by Asian women (33%). Table 3 shows the
distribution of survey respondents based on culture. This table provides a
breakdown of the number of participants that chose a specific cultural affiliation,
which presented little variation between cultural and racial identification. Table 8
shows the distribution of survey respondents based on national origin, which was
collapsed into two categories because the cells were too small. Finally, Table 9
shows the distribution of survey respondents based on religion. The largest religion
group was Mormon/LDS (25%), which was probably due to the fact that one of the
two universities where the study was conducted was at a Mormon school, thus this
presented a very atypical population.

Table 5. Respondents by Reporting Rates

Reported Frequency Percentage
No 75 54%
Yes 64 46%
Total 139 100%

71

Table 6. Respondents by Race

Race Frequency Percentage
African American/Black 6 4.3%
Hispanic 7 5.0%
Asian 46 33.1%
Pacific Islander/Polynesian 18 12.9%
S.E. Asian 6 4.3%
Non-Hispanic White 52 37.4%
Missing 4 2.9%
Total 139 100.0%

Table 7. Respondents by Cultural Affiliation

Cultural Affiliation Frequency Percentage
African American/Black 6 4.3%
Hispanic 7 5.0%
Asian 42 30.2%
Pacific Islander/Polynesian 17 12.2%
S.E. Asian 5 3.6%
Non-Hispanic White 59 42.4%
Missing 3 2.2%
Total 139 100.0%

72
Table 8. Respondents by National Origin

National Origin Frequency Percentage
North America 99 71.2%
Asia/S.E. Asia 26 18.7%
Missing 14 10.1%
Total 139 100.0%

Table 9. Respondents by Religion

Religion Frequency Percentage
Catholic 30 21.6%
Atheist 26 18.7%
Christian 32 23.0%
Buddhist 9 6.5%
Hindu 5 3.6%
Mormon/LDS 35 25.2%
Missing 2 1.4%
Total 139 100.0%

The frequency distribution analysis allowed the researcher to provide a clear
depiction of the data and an accurate breakdown of the sample population.
According to Kurpius & Stafford (2006), in providing a representation of how
participants respond to survey questions through frequency distributions, patterns of
reporting and frequent representations can be revealed. Hence, Tables 5-9 were
created to explicitly illustrate the data. According to the distribution frequency
findings, a higher percentage of participants did not report their sexual assault crime

73
(N=75 54.0%); the two highest percentages of participants were of the Non-Hispanic
White (N=52 37.4%) and Asian (N=46 33.1%) races; the two highest culturally
affiliated populations were of the Non-Hispanic White (N=59 42.4%) and Asian
(N=42 30.2%) groups; most of the participants said their national origin was North
America (N=99 71.2%) as compared to Asia/S.E. Asia (N=26 18.7%); and the two
highest religions among the participants were Mormon/LDS (N=35 25.2%) and
Christian (N=32 23.0%).
Findings Related to Research Question One: Are there differences in the
reporting rates of sexual assault among college women based on their race, cultural
affiliation, national origin, and religion?
The participants’ reporting rates were collected through a binary-response
item on the survey. Respondents had the option of choosing yes or no to whether
they reported the sexual assault crime or not. A chi-square statistic was calculated
for the reporting responses for each race. In the reported rates comparison, X²(5,
N=135) = 11.803, p = .04, the test results suggested there was an effect on the
reporting rates based on race, as there was a significant difference between the sets
of scores which denoted an occurrence other than by chance. Table 10 compares the
reporting rates of the race samples/populations.
Although there is a discrepancy in the number of participants in each
category, the results suggest that there is a significant difference in reporting rates, as
the majority of African American/Black (66.7%) and Non-Hispanic White (55.8%)
women did report the crimes, while the majority of S.E. Asian (100%), Hispanics

74
(71.4%), Asian (56.5%) and Pacific Islander/Polynesian (61.1%) women did not
report the crimes.

Table 10. Respondents’ Reporting Rates Based On Race

Race N =Reported Yes (%) N=Reported No (%)
African American/Black 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%)
Hispanic 2 (28.6%) 5 (71.4%)
Asian 20 (43.5%) 26 (56.5%)
Pacific Islander/Polynesian 7 (38.9%) 11 (61.1%)
S.E. Asian 0 (00.0%) 6 (100%)
Non-Hispanic White 29 (55.8%) 23 (44.2%)

A chi-square statistic was calculated for the reporting responses for each
cultural affiliation. In the reported rates comparison, X²(5, N=136) = 10.369, p = .07,
the test results suggested there was no effect on reporting rates based on cultural
affiliation, so there was no major significant difference between the sets of scores,
which means there was no occurrence other than by chance. Table 11 compares the
reporting rates of the cultural affiliation samples/populations.
It is important to note that the reporting rates appear very similar between the
cultural affiliation and race comparisons. (However, this does not mean that race
and culture are synonymous). The results were different (there was a significant
difference in the race calculation but not in the cultural affiliation calculation)
because four of the participants of the Asian race (among which 3 reported and 1 did

75
not report) and one participant of the Pacific Islander/Polynesian race (who did not
report) claimed they were culturally affiliated with the Non-Hispanic White group
and not their own racial group. Thus, this affected the overall results of the cultural
affiliation categorical calculation.

Table 11. Respondents’ Reporting Rates Based On Cultural Affiliation

Cultural Affiliation N= Reported Yes (%) N= Reported No (%)
African American/Black 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%)
Hispanic 2 (28.6%) 5 (71.4%)
Asian 17 (40.5%) 25 (59.5%)
Pacific Islander/Polynesian 7 (41.2%) 10 (58.8%)
S.E. Asian 0 (00.0%) 5 (100%)
Non-Hispanic White 32 (54.2%) 27 (45.8%)

A chi-square statistic was calculated for the reporting rates between each
national origin, which was collapsed into two categories because the cells were too
small. In the reported rates comparison, X²(1, N=125) = .840, p = .36, thus the test
results suggested there was no effect on reporting rates based on national origin and
there was no significant difference between the sets of scores, as there was a 36 out
of 100 probable chance that the results were a Type I error. The reporting rates of
the national origin samples/populations are shown in Table 12.

76

Table 12. Respondents’ Reporting Rates Based On National Origin

National Origin N=Reported Yes (%) N=Reported N (%)
North America 48 (48.5%) 51 (51.5%)
Asia/S.E. Asia 10 (38.5%) 16 (61.5%)

A chi-square statistic was calculated for the reporting rate by religion. In the
reported rates comparison, X²(5, N=137) = 12.755, p = .03, the test results suggested
there was an effect on reporting rates based on religion. Thus, there was a significant
difference between the sets of scores. The reporting rates for religion are shown in
Table 13.

Table 13. Respondents’ Reporting Rates Based On Religion

Religion N =Reported Yes (%) N=Reported No (%)
Catholic 11 (36.7%) 19 (63.3%)
Atheist 14 (53.8%) 12 (46.2%)
Christian 19 (59.4%) 13 (40.6%)
Buddhist 2 (22.2%) 7 (77.8%)
Hindu 0 (00.0%) 5 (100%)
Mormon/LDS 18 (51.4%) 17 (48.6%)

77
The results indicated that there was a significant difference in reporting rates
where the majority of Hindus (100%), Buddhists (78%) and Catholics (63%) did not
report the crimes, while the majority of Christians (59%) and Atheists (53%) did
report the crime.
Based on these results, there appears to be a correlation between race and
religion related to reporting behaviors. (A cross tabulation between race and religion
is shown in Table 14). For example, the predominant religious practice in S.E. Asia
is Hinduism, and the results of this study show that both the S.E. Asian women and
the Hindu participants did not report the sexual assault crimes 100% of the time;
likewise, 56% of the Asian women (who often are Buddhists) and 77% of the
Buddhist participants did not report the crimes. Moreover, a chi-square statistic was
calculated for race and religion and in this comparison, X²(25, N=133) = 60.963, p =
.00, so the test results suggested that there was a significant difference between the
scores, as the p value was .00 (p < .05). Thus, this suggested that an effect for
religion was determined so, race is actually one-dimensional and needs to be
correlated with a variable (like religion) in order to capture the overall essence of a
person’s belief and value system.

78
Table 14. Cross Tabulation: Race and Religion

Religion
Race Catholic Atheist Christian Buddhist Hindu
Mormon/
LDS
Total
African
American/Black
0 0 4 0 0 2 6
Hispanic 4 1 0 0 0 2 7
Asian 15 11 9 5 0 6 46
Pacific Islander/
Polynesian
2 1 5 1 0 8 17
S.E. Asian 1 0 1 0 4 0 6
Non-Hispanic
White
7 11 13 2 1 17 51
Total 29 24 32 8 5 35 133

Findings Related to Research Question Two: What are the perceived barriers to
reporting among minority women from underrepresented communities?
Research question 2 attempted to verify if minority women shared the same
perceived barriers to reporting.
According to the distribution frequency findings (see Table 15), the majority
of women from underrepresented communities indicated that shame and
embarrassment (N=77 68%) and fear of retaliation (N=77 61%) were strong
perceived barriers. In addition, just about half of the minority women claimed that
cultural influences (N=77 51%) were barriers to reporting. The least perceived
barrier among the seven barriers analyzed was economic challenges (N=77 28%).

79
Table 15. Distribution of Perceived Barriers Among Minority Women (N = 77)

Perceived Barriers in Percentage Order Mean Std. Deviation
Shame/Embarrassment .68 .33
Fear of Retaliation .61 .33
Cultural Influences .51 .31
Poor Program .46 .30
Law Enf. Insensitivity .45 .36
Guilt/Self-Blame .43 .29
Economic Challenges .28 .32
Tabled values are in percentages.

These results align with the existing literature that also suggests that
shame/embarrassment and fear of retribution are recognized perceived barriers that
hinder reporting (Sable et al., 2006, Thompson et al., 2007). Also, these findings
support the contentions of various researchers (Low & Organista, 2000; Sorenson &
Siegel, 1992; Niaz, 2003) who imply that it is imperative to include an analysis on
cultural influences when trying to understand the reporting behavior of minority
women.
Findings Related to Research Question Three: To what extent do
perceptions about these barriers vary by one’s cultural affiliation, national origin
and religion?
Research question 3 attempted to determine how the perceived barriers varied
among the groups related to their cultural affiliation, national origin and/or religion.
The researcher ran a one-way ANOVA to confirm if there were any significant mean

80
differences between the seven perceived barriers related to culturally affiliated,
national origin and religious groups.
However, before defining how the barriers were perceived, the researcher ran
a one-way ANOVA to confirm if there were any significant mean differences
between the culturally affiliated and national origin groups related to Hofstede’s
Individualistic v. Collectivistic and Masculinity v. Femininity Cultural Framework
(See Table 16 & Table 17). Survey items 10, 12, 14, 16 were used to determine if
there were any mean differences between the culturally affiliated groups and national
origins related to Hofstede’s Individualistic (“I”-oriented) versus Collectivistic
(“we”-oriented) framework. Survey items 11, 13, 15, 17 aimed to discover if there
were any mean differences between the culturally affiliated groups and national
origins related to Hofstede’s Masculinity versus Femininity framework.
According to the responses in the Individualistic versus Collectivistic
framework to cultural affiliation, F (5, 130) = .356, p > .05, which suggested that there
was no significant difference between the groups related to Hofstede’s
Individualistic and Collectivistic cultural aspects. Based on the responses related to
the Masculinity versus Femininity framework to cultural affiliation comparison, F (5,
130) = .918, p > .05, which suggested that there was no significant difference between
the groups related to Hofstede’s Masculinity versus Femininity cultural aspects.
According to the responses in the Individualistic versus Collectivistic framework to
national origin evaluation, F (1, 123) = .033, p > .05, which indicated that there was a
significant difference between groups related to Hofstede’s Individualistic and

81
Collectivistic cultural aspects. And finally, based on the responses related to the
Masculinity versus Femininity framework to national origin comparison, F (1, 123) =
.705, p > .05, which suggested that there was no significant difference between the
groups related to Hofstede’s Masculinity versus Femininity cultural aspects.

Table 16. Hofstede’s Cultural Framework by Culture

Hofstede’s
Cultural
Framework
Black
(6)
Hispanic
(7)
Asian
(42)
Pacific
Islander
(17)
S.E.
Asian
(5)
White
(59)
F-
ratio
Observed
probability/
Sig.
Individualistic/
Collectivistic
3.50 3.25 3.31 3.49 3.45 3.34 .36 .88
Masculinity/
Femininity
3.33 3.11 3.10 2.85 3.15 2.94 .92 .47
Note. Cell sizes are in parentheses.

Table 17. Hofstede’s Cultural Framework by National Origin

Hofstede’s Cultural
Framework
North
American
(99)
Asian/
S.E.Asian
(26)
F-ratio
Observed
probability/
Sig.
Individualistic/
Collectivistic
3.35 3.33 .03 .86
Masculinity/
Femininity
2.97 3.09 .71 .40
Note. Cell sizes are in parentheses.

These results indicated that there is a significant variability in the way the
two national origins (North America N=99 and Asian/S.E. Asian N=26) relate to
individualistic and collectivistic contexts; thus, suggesting that the source of the

82
difference between these two national origins is their individualistic or collectivistic
perspectives. This is consistent with Hofstede’s research that suggests that
Americans are more individualistic in their approach, while Asians are more
collectivistic. Hofstede also purports that historically nations develop whole
societies despite the fact that it consists of different groups with varying degrees of
integrated minorities (Hofstede, 1997) so, based on his dimensions only national
societies can be measured rather than sole individuals (Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede,
2001).
After determining the results based on Hofstede’s two dimensions, the mean
differences between the minority women from underrepresented communities related
to the perceived barriers to reporting were analyzed. The results indicated that there
were notable mean differences between the culturally affiliated groups related to
perceived barriers (See Table 18). For example, 80% of the S.E. Asian and 78% of
the Pacific Islander/Polynesian women perceived shame and embarrassment as a
barrier to reporting, as compared to 55% among the Non-Hispanic White women. In
addition, 77% of the Hispanic and 66% of the Pacific Islander/Polynesian women
found fear of retaliation to be a perceived barrier to reporting, as compared to 48%
among the Non-Hispanic White women; 60% of the Hispanic women defined law
enforcement insensitivity to be a perceived barrier compared to 30% among the Non-
Hispanic White group; 60% of the Pacific Islander/Polynesian and 47% of African
American/Black women stated that poor programs were perceived barriers to
reporting, compared to 38% among the Non-Hispanic White women; and 83% of the

83
S.E. Asian and 60% of the Hispanic women found cultural influences to be a
perceived barrier to reporting as compared to 19% among the Non-Hispanic White
women.

Table 18. Mean Differences of Perceived Barriers by Culture

Perceived Barriers
Black
(6)
Hispanic
(7)
Asian
(42)
Pacific Islander
(17)
S.E. Asian
(5)
White
(59)
Shame/Embarrassment .60 .71 .64 .78 .80 .55
Guilt/Self-Blame .46 .50 .40 .47 .40 .41
Fear of Retaliation .53 .77 .58 .66 .64 .48
Law Enf Insensitivity .47 .60 .42 .47 .44 .30
Poor Programs .46 .29 .45 .56 .40 .38
Economic Challenges .22 .24 .32 .28 .13 .21
Cultural Influences .33 .60 .48 .52 .83 .19
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. Tabled values are percentages.

Among the perceived barriers used in this study, Non-Hispanic White women
scored the lowest percentage in four of the seven categories (shame/embarrassment,
fear of retaliation, law enforcement insensitivity, and cultural influences). This
suggests that Non-Hispanic White women see these barriers as less of an influence
upon their reporting behavior. In contrast, the Hispanic women scored the highest
percentage in perceived barriers to reporting in three categories (guilt/self-blame,
fear of retaliation, and law enforcement insensitivity), while S.E. Asian women
scored the highest percentage in two categories (shame/embarrassment and cultural
influences categories). Furthermore, Pacific Islander/Polynesian women scored the

84
highest percentage in the poor programs category, while Asian women scored the
highest percentage in the economic challenges category. Correspondingly, these
results indicated that the minority groups always scored the highest percentage in
one (or more) of the perceived barriers to reporting categories.
In an attempt to answer research question 3 and determine how the perceived
barriers varied among the groups, the researcher asked two types of questions on the
survey. Survey items 21a-52a (all the “a” questions) were dichotomous variables
(true/false) used to determine the defined perceived barriers among the participants.
Survey items 21b-52b (all the “b” questions) used a 5-point Likert scale and
addressed the question, “How important was this factor in your reporting behavior”.
Hence, the “a” questions were used to determine each barrier, while the “b”
questions were used to determine the importance of each barrier related to their
reporting behavior. The responses were given a rating (0=very little or no
importance; 1=of little importance; 2=moderately important; 3=very important;
4=utmost importance) related to the degree of influence upon their propensity to
report the sexual assault crime.
The first analysis in this section examined the perceived barriers between the
women that reported and did not report the crimes. Among the responses of the
seven perceived barriers related to the overall reporting behavior of the participants
(See Table 19a) the two categories that posed a significant difference between the
groups was the poor programs evaluation, F (1, 137) = 5.113, p = .03; and the cultural
influences evaluation, F (1, 137) = 5.121, p = .03, which suggested that there was a

85
significant difference between the dichotomous groups related to poor programs and
cultural influences. This means that the difference in the reporting behavior among
the participants was related to poor programs and cultural influences.

Table 19a. Perceived Barriers by Overall Reporting Behavior

Perceived Barriers
Reported:
No (75)
Reported:
Yes (64)
F-ratio
Observed probability/
Sig.
Shame/
Embarrassment
.66 .58 2.15 .15
Guilt/Self-Blame .41 .43 .16 .69
Fear of Retaliation .57 .52 .73 .40
Law Enf Insensitivity .40 .36 .50 .48
Poor Programs .47 .36 5.11 .03*
Economic Challenges .28 .20 2.68 .10
Cultural Influences .422 .30 5.12 .03*
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. Tabled values are percentages. *p< .05. **p< .01.

However, when analyzing the mean differences between the groups and
organizing them by order (highest percentage to lowest percentage) to see how they
differed in regards to perceived barriers (see Table 19b), it appeared that both groups
indicated that shame/embarrassment and fear of retaliation was strong perceived
barriers. Yet, the women that did not report the crimes indicated that poor programs
and cultural influences were more of perceived barriers, while those that did report
said that guilt/self-blame and law enforcement insensitivity were stronger perceived
barriers.

86
Table 19b. Mean Order of Perceived Barriers by Overall Reporting Behavior

Perceived Barriers
by Order
Reported No:
(N =75)
Rating by Mean
Perceived Barriers
by Order
Reported Yes:
(N=64)
Rating by Mean
Shame/
Embarrassment
.66
Shame/
Embarrassment
.58
Fear of Retaliation .57 Fear of Retaliation .52
Poor Programs .47 Guilt/Self-Blame .43
Cultural Influences .42 Law Enf Insensitivity .36
Guilt/Self-Blame .41 Poor Programs .36
Law Enf Insensitivity .40 Cultural Influences .30
Economic Challenges .28 Economic Challenges .20
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. Tabled values are percentages.

The second analysis in this section examined how important these perceived
barriers were in their reporting behavior. Based on the responses related to the rated
importance of the perceived barriers to the overall reporting behavior comparison
(See Table 20a), two categories posed significant differences where poor program
evaluation, F (1, 137) = 4.038, p = .04; and economic challenges evaluation F (1, 137) =
8.390, p = .00, suggested that there was a significant difference between the
dichotomous groups related to the importance of these perceived barriers. In other
words, the perceived importance of poor programs and economic challenges were
related to the participants reporting behavior. These findings suggest that
respectively there is a 4 out of 100 probable chance and 0 out of 100 probable
chance that the results are a Type I error.

87
Table 20a. Rated Importance by Overall Reporting Behavior

Perceived Barriers
Reported No:
(N=75)
Reported Yes:
(N=64)
F-ratio
Observed
probability/
Sig.
Shame/
Embarrassment
2.21 1.93 2.26 .14
Guilt/Self-Blame 1.56 1.57 .01 .92
Fear of Retaliation 1.97 1.77 1.16 .28
Law Enf
Insensitivity
1.44 1.40 .04 .84
Poor Programs 1.63 1.33 4.04 .04*
Economic
Challenges
1.23 .73 8.39 .00**
Cultural Influences 1.34 1.19 .68 .41
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. *p< .05. **p< .01.

A factor to note in this analysis is that based on the mean averages, those that
reported the crime indicated that the perceived economic challenges barrier had very
little or no importance (coded 0) in their reporting behavior. Moreover, those that
did not report the crime indicated that the perceived shame/embarrassment barrier
was moderately important (coded 2) in their reporting behavior.
When examining the mean order of rated importance by overall reporting
behavior (see Table 20b), the results indicated that both groups found
shame/embarrassment and fear of retaliation to be important influences on their
reporting behaviors. However, the women that did not report also suggested that
poor programs and guilt/self-blame barriers had more of an impact on their proclivity

88
to report, while the women that did report indicated that guilt/self-blame and law
enforcement insensitivity were of greater importance.

Table 20b. Mean Order of Rated Importance by Overall Reporting Behavior

Perceived Barriers
of Importance by
Order
Reported No:
(N=75)
Rating by
Mean
Perceived Barriers
of Importance by
Order
Reported Yes:
(N=64)
Rating by
Mean
Shame/
Embarrassment
2.21
Shame/
Embarrassment
1.93
Fear of Retaliation 1.97 Fear of Retaliation 1.77
Poor Programs 1.63 Guilt/Self-Blame 1.57
Guilt/Self-Blame 1.56 Law Enf Insensitivity 1.40
Law Enf Insensitivity 1.44 Poor Programs 1.33
Cultural Influences 1.34 Cultural Influences 1.19
Economic Challenges 1.23 Economic Challenges .73
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis.

The next set of analyses investigated how the perceived barriers varied
among the groups related to their cultural affiliation, national origin and/or religion.
Two independent one-way ANOVAs were run for each component (cultural
affiliation, national origin, and religion); Analysis A is related to the determination
of the seven perceived barriers using the dichotomous “a” questions on the survey
(21a-52a); and Analysis B is related to how important the perceived barriers were to
their reporting behavior using the 5-point Likert type “b” questions on the survey
(21b-52b).

89
Cultural Affiliation Analysis A. Among the responses of the seven perceived
barriers related to cultural affiliation (See Table 21a) the only category that posed a
significant difference between the groups was the cultural influences evaluation, F (5,
130) = 11.279, p = .00, which suggests that there was a significant difference between
the groups related to cultural influences. (The mean percentage differences between
the groups are as followed: S.E. Asian 83%; Hispanic 60%; Pacific
Islander/Polynesian 52%; Asian 48%; African American/Black 33%; and Non-
Hispanic White 19%). These results suggested that the perceived barriers regarding
cultural influences were related to the participants’ defined cultural affiliation.

Table 21a. Perceived Barriers by Culture

Perceived
Barriers
Black
(6)
Hispanic
(7)
Asian
(42)
Pacific
Islander
(17)
S.E.
Asian
(5)
White
(59)
F-
ratio
Observed
probability
Sig.
Shame/
Embarrassment
.60 .71 .64 .78 .80 .55 1.68 .15
Guilt/Self-
Blame
.46 .50 .40 .47 .40 .41 .29 .92
Fear of
Retaliation
.53 .77 .58 .66 .64 .48 1.66 .15
Law Enf.
Insensitivity
.47 .60 .42 .47 .44 .30 1.79 .12
Poor Programs .46 .29 .45 .56 .40 .38 1.59 .17
Economic
Challenges
.22 .24 .32 .28 .13 .21 .75 .59
Cultural
Influences
.33 .60 .48 .52 .83 .19 11.28 .00**
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. Tabled values are percentages. *p< .05. **p< .01.

90
It is important to note that the most significant finding in this analysis is that
the perceived barrier related to cultural influences statistically confirm an observed
significant difference between culturally affiliated groups (Sig. .00); particularly
among S.E. Asian (.83) and Non-Hispanic White (.19) women. Simply stated, this
suggests that there is a significant difference in the way these two culturally affiliated
groups perceive cultural influences as a barrier to reporting sexual assault crimes.
Cultural Affiliation Analysis B. Based on the responses related to the rated
importance of the perceived barriers to cultural affiliation comparison (See Table
21b), two categories posed significant differences where the importance of poor
programs evaluation, F (5, 130) = 3.152, p = .01 and cultural influences evaluation F (5,
130) = 9.844, p = .00, suggested that there was a significant difference between the
culturally affiliated groups related to the importance of these perceived barriers.
Thus, the participants’ cultural affiliation was related to their perceived importance
about poor programs and cultural influences barriers.
An aspect to consider in this analysis is that based on the mean averages, the
Non-Hispanic White women defined these seven perceived barriers to be of very
little or no importance (coded 0) and/or of little importance (coded 1) in their
reporting behavior, while each minority group defined at least one of these seven
perceived barriers as moderately important (coded 2 or slightly above) in their
reporting behavior. Interestingly, in the two categories that posed differences (poor
programs and cultural influences) the Non-Hispanic White women were those who
rated the importance of these perceived barriers to reporting the lowest, while the

91
S.E. Asian and Pacific Islander/Polynesian women rated the importance of law
enforcement insensitivity, cultural influences and poor program barriers to reporting
the highest.

Table 21b. Rated Importance by Culture

Importance in
Reporting
Black
(6)
Hispanic
(7)
Asian
(42)
Pacific
Islander
(17)
S.E.
Asian
(5)
White
(59)
F-
ratio
Observed
probability
Sig.
Shame/
Embarrassment
2.10 2.34 2.27 2.42 2.52 1.80 1.66 .15
Guilt/Self-
Blame
1.25 1.36 1.64 1.59 1.75 1.58 .25 .94
Fear of
Retaliation
1.57 2.26 2.04 2.19 2.52 1.67 1.65 .15
Law Enf
Insensitivity
1.47 1.66 1.68 1.73 1.84 1.14 2.22 .06
Poor Programs 1.297 1.61 1.74 2.00 1.35 1.23 3.15 .01*
Economic
Challenges
.837 1.19 1.35 1.12 .87 .77 1.72 .14
Cultural
Influences
1.22 1.91 1.67 1.87 2.43 .68 9.84 .00**
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. *p< .05. **p< .01.

National Origin Analysis A. Survey item 7 asked each participant to define
their national origin. The answers were categorized into two main groups (North
American N=99; and Asian/S.E. Asian N=26) based on the similarity of responses.
In analyzing the seven perceived barriers related to the participants’ national
origin (See Table 22a) the only category that posed a significant difference between
the groups was the cultural influences evaluation, F (1, 123) = 27.912, p = .00, which

92
suggested that there was a significant difference between the groups related to
cultural influences. The mean differences suggest that 62% of the Asian/S.E. Asian
national origin participants perceive cultural influences as a barrier, while 29% of the
North American national origin participants perceive cultural influences as a barrier.

Table 22a. Perceived Barriers by National Origin

Perceived Barriers
North
American
(99)
Asian/
S.E. Asian
(26)
F-ratio
Observed probability/
Sig.
Shame/Embarrassment .60 .65 .46 .50
Guilt/Self-Blame .43 .38 .65 .42
Fear of Retaliation .54 .59 .37 .54
Law Enf Insensitivity .35 .49 3.26 .07
Poor Programs .41 .45 .54 .46
Economic Challenges .24 .32 1.36 .25
Cultural Influences .29 .62 27.91 .00**
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. Tabled values are percentages. *p< .05. **p< .01.

An interesting factor in this analysis is that based on the mean averages, the
two national origins investigated shared similar perceptions related to
shame/embarrassment (60% North American; 65% Asian/S.E. Asian), guilt/self-
blame (43% North American; 38% Asian/S.E. Asian), fear of retaliation (54% North
American; 59% Asian/S.E. Asian), and poor programs (41% North American; 45%
Asian/S.E. Asian). This suggests that national origin does not significantly affect the
way barriers are perceived, as most of the perceived barriers are shared amongst

93
participants of different national origins (excluding the cultural influences
comparison).
National Origin Analysis B. Based on the responses related to the rated
importance of the perceived barriers to national origin comparison (See Table 22b),
two categories posed significant differences where law enforcement insensitivity
evaluation, F (1, 123) = 7.442, p = .01 (where the mean differences were Asian/S.E.
Asian 1.86 and North American 1.28) and cultural influences evaluation F (1, 123) =
29.010, p = .00 (where the mean differences were Asian/S.E. Asian 2.14 and North
American 1.02). This implied that there was a difference between the participants’
national origin and how important they perceived law enforcement insensitivity and
cultural influences barriers to reporting.
The differences to observe in this analysis is that the North American
national origin group indicated that six of the seven perceived barriers had little
importance (coded 1) upon their reporting behavior, while one of the perceived
barriers had very little or no importance (coded 0) upon their reporting behavior. In
comparison, the Asian/S.E. Asian national origin group perceived three of the seven
barriers to be moderately important (coded 2) upon their reporting behavior, while
four perceived barriers had little importance (coded 1) upon their reporting behavior.

94
Table 22b. Rated Importance by National Origin

Perceived Barriers
North
American
(99)
Asian/
S.E. Asian
(26)
F-ratio
Observed
probability/
Sig.
Shame/
Embarrassment
1.95 2.35 2.93 .09
Guilt/Self-Blame 1.51 1.81 1.81 .18
Fear of Retaliation 1.82 2.13 1.88 .17
Law Enf Insensitivity 1.28 1.86 7.44 .01*
Poor Programs 1.41 1.77 3.36 .07
Economic Challenges .94 1.37 3.60 .06
Cultural Influences 1.017 2.14 29.01 .00**
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. *p< .05. **p< .01.

Religion Analysis A. Among the responses of the seven perceived barriers
related to religion (See Table 23a) the three categories that posed a significant
difference between the groups were the law enforcement insensitivity evaluation, F
(5, 131) = 3.674, p = .00 (where the mean differences were Buddhist .64; Hindu .60;
Atheist .51; Mormon/LDS .35; Catholic .31; and Christian .28), the economic
challenges evaluation, F (5, 131) = 3.59, p = .00 (where the mean differences were
Catholic .42; Atheist .30; Buddhist .19; Mormon/LDS .16; Christian .16; Hindu .13),
and the cultural influences evaluation, F (5, 131) = 3.50, p = .01 (where the mean
differences were Hindu .80; Buddhist .48; Mormon/LDS .41; Atheist .37; Catholic
.34; and Christian .24). These results suggested that the perceived barriers regarding
law enforcement insensitivity, economic challenges and cultural influences were
related to the participants’ religion.

95
It is noteworthy to point out that the Eastern religions presented the highest
percentages related to two of the perceived barriers with significant differences
between the groups. The results indicated that 64% of the Buddhists and 60% of the
Hindus (Eastern religions) perceived law enforcement insensitivity as a barrier, as
compared to 28% of the Christians and 31% of the Catholics (Western religions).
Moreover, 80% of the Hindus and 48% of the Buddhists (Eastern religions)
perceived cultural influences as a barrier, as compared to 24% of the Christians and
34% of the Catholics (Western religions).

Table 23a. Perceived Barriers by Religion

Perceived
Barriers
Catholic
(30)
Atheist
(26)
Christian
(32)
Buddhist
(9)
Hindu
(5)
Mormon/
LDS
(35)
F-
ratio
Observed
probability/
Sig
Shame/
Embarrassment
.67 .58 .53 .58 .80 .69 1.37 .24
Guilt/Self-Blame .40 .43 .44 .33 .35 .45 .34 .89
Fear of
Retaliation
.647 .50 .438 .51 .60 .59 1.52 .19
Law Enf
Insensitivity
.31 .51 .28 .64 .60 .35 3.67 .00**
Poor Programs .38 .47 .44 .39 .35 .41 .39 .86
Economic
Challenges
.42 .30 .16 .19 .13 .16 3.59 .00**
Cultural
Influences
.34 .37 .24 .48 .80 .41 3.50 .01*
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. Tabled values are percentages. *p< .05. **p< .01.

Religion Analysis B. Based on the responses related to the rated importance
of the perceived barriers to religion comparison (See Table 23b), the only category
that posed a significant difference was the economic challenges evaluation F (1, 131) =

96
4.012, p = .00, which suggested that there was a significant difference between the
religious groups related to the importance of these perceived barriers. This indicated
that the participants’ religion was related to how important they perceived the
economic challenges barrier to reporting.

Table 23b. Rated Importance by Religion

Perceived
Barriers
Catholic
(30)
Atheist
(26)
Christian
(32)
Buddhist
(9)
Hindu
(5)
Mormon
LDS
(35)
F-
ratio
Observed
probability/
Sig.
Shame/
Embarrassment
2.30 1.92 1.78 2.27 2.44 2.22 1.17 .33
Guilt/Self-
Blame
1.70 1.67 1.50 1.36 1.65 1.51 .28 .93
Fear of
Retaliation
2.19 1.78 1.49 1.76 2.40 2.01 1.91 .10
Law Enf
Insensitivity
1.37 1.78 1.09 1.69 2.16 1.33 2.28 .05
Poor Programs 1.57 1.61 1.27 1.61 1.15 1.56 .74 .59
Economic
Challenges
1.66 .98 .75 1.07 .67 .68 4.01 .00**
Cultural
Influences
1.24 1.30 .95 1.37 2.10 3.38 1.31 .26
Note. Cell sizes are in parenthesis. *p< .05. **p< .01.

Based on the mean averages among the various religions analyzed, the
Hindus indicated that four of the seven perceived barriers (shame/embarrassment,
fear of retaliation, law enforcement insensitivity, and cultural influences) were
moderately important (coded 2) regarding their reporting behavior, while the
Christians perceived the seven barriers to be of little importance (coded 1) or of very
little or no importance (coded 0) regarding their reporting behavior. Interestingly,

97
the Mormons/LDS perceived cultural influences to be a very important (coded 3)
barrier to their reporting behavior, while Christians perceived cultural influences to
be of very little or no importance (coded 0) to their reporting behavior.

Summary of Findings
This study investigated the relationship between the differences in reporting
rates among sexually assaulted college females, while using a cultural lens. The
analysis included an exploration of the participants’ reporting behavior, race, cultural
affiliation, national origin and religion. Hofstede’s Cultural Values Framework was
also incorporated in the analysis to determine if there were any significant mean
differences between the culturally affiliated and national origin groups related to the
Individualistic/Collectivistic and Masculinity/Femininity dimensions. A total of one
hundred thirty-nine participants were utilized in the study, as they indicated being
victims of a sexual assault on the survey. The respondent’s cultural affiliation
information was similar to the race demographic breakdown except four of the Asian
women and one Pacific Islander/Polynesian woman marked their cultural affiliation
as Non-Hispanic White. Nevertheless, the overall results of this study indicated that
race and culture are not synonymous and should not be used interchangeably. The
respondents’ national origin information indicated that ninety-nine were of the North
American group, twenty-six were of the Asian/S.E. Asian group and fourteen were
missing or undetermined. Finally, the respondents’ religion information indicated
that thirty were Catholics, twenty-six were Atheists, thirty-two were Christians, nine

98
were Buddhists, five were Hindus, thirty-five were Mormon/LDS, and two were
missing or undetermined.
The independent variables were reporting behaviors, race, cultural affiliation,
national origin and religion. The dependent variables were the seven perceived
barriers (shame/embarrassment, guilt/self-blame, fear of retaliation, law enforcement
insensitivity, poor programs, economic challenges, and cultural influences) and the
importance of these barriers upon the respondents’ reporting behavior.
The data was analyzed to answer three research questions. The first was
whether there were any differences in the reporting rates of sexual assault among
college women based on their race, cultural affiliation, national origin and religion.
(See Table 24 for overall results related to research question 1). For this sample,
there appeared to be a significant difference in reporting rates based on race and
religion and there also appeared to be a correlation between them. However, there
did not appear to be a significant difference in reporting rates based on cultural
affiliation and national origin.

Table 24. Overall Results Related to RQ1

Race
Cultural
Affiliation
National
Origin
Religion
Reporting Rates ● ●
Note. The categories that were significantly different are bulleted.

99
The second question attempted to determine if minority women shared the
same perceived barriers to reporting (See Table 25). According to the findings most
of the minority women said shame and embarrassment and fear of retaliation were
their top two perceived barriers, while half of them said cultural influences were
barriers to reporting. In comparison, the perceived barrier that was least shared
among the minority women was economic challenges.

Table 25. Overall Results Related to RQ2 (Most Frequent Reported Barriers)

Frequent Perceived Barriers of Minority Women Mean Percentages
Shame/Embarrassment 68%
Fear of Retaliation 61%
Cultural Influences 51%
Poor Program 46%
Law Enf. Insensitivity 45%
Guilt/Self-Blame 43%
Economic Challenges 28%

Prior to answering research question 3, the culturally affiliated and national
origin groups were first evaluated using Hofstede’s Individualistic/Collectivistic and
Masculinity/Femininity dimensions to elucidate the cultural aspects of this study.
The results indicated that there did not appear to be a significant difference between
the culturally affiliated groups and Hofstede’s two dimensions. Also, there did not
appear to be any significant difference between the national origin groups and

100
Hofstede’s Masculinity/Femininity dimension. However, there did appear to be a
significant difference between the national origin groups and Hofstede’s
Individualistic/Collectivistic dimension (See Table 26a). This suggested that the
difference between these two national origins was their individualistic or
collectivistic standpoints, which supported Hofstede’s research purporting that
Americans are more individualistic, while Asians are more collectivistic. In
answering question 3, the results indicated that there appeared to be interesting mean
differences between the minority women who always scored highest in percentage in
one (or more) of the perceived barrier categories, as compared to the Non-Hispanic
White women who often scored the lowest in percentage (See Table 26b).

Table 26a. Overall Results Related to RQ3 (Hofstede’s Dimensions)

Hofstede’s Cultural Values
Framework Dimensions
Cultural Affiliation National Origin
Individualistic/Collectivistic ●
Masculinity/Femininity
Note. The category that was significantly different is bulleted.

101
Table 26b. Overall Results Related to RQ3 (Mean Differences)

Mean Differences Related to
Perceived Barriers
Black Hispanic Asian
Pacific
Islander
S.E.
Asian
White
Shame/Embarrassment HP LP
Guilt/Self-Blame HP LP
Fear of Retaliation HP LP
Law Enf. Insensitivity HP LP
Poor Programs LP HP
Economic Challenges HP LP
Cultural Influences HP LP
Note. HP represents highest percentage and LP represents lowest percentage.

The third question attempted to determine the extent of perceived barrier
variations based on one’s overall reporting behavior, cultural affiliation, national
origin and religion. (See Table 27a & 27b for overall results related to research
question 3). For the sample pertaining to overall reporting behaviors, there appeared
to be significant differences related to poor programs and cultural influences where
these barriers were related to the woman’s propensity to report; and there were
significant differences linked to the importance of the poor programs and economic
challenges barriers related to reporting behaviors. However, the mean differences
appeared to suggest that both the reporting and non-reporting groups found
shame/embarrassment and fear of retaliation to be the top two perceived barriers.
For the sample pertaining to cultural affiliation groups, there appeared to be
significant differences related to the cultural influences barrier; and there were

102
significant differences linked to the importance of poor programs and cultural
influences barriers related to reporting behaviors.
The results regarding national origins appeared to indicate significant
differences related to the cultural influences barrier; and there were significant
differences linked to the importance of the law enforcement insensitivity and cultural
influences barriers related to reporting behaviors.
Finally, in the sample pertaining to religion, there appeared to be significant
differences related to law enforcement insensitivity, economic challenges and
cultural influences; and there were significant differences linked to the importance of
the law enforcement insensitivity and economic challenges barriers related to
reporting behaviors.

Table 27a. Overall Results Related to RQ3 (Perceived Barriers)

Perceived Barriers
Overall
Reporting
Behavior
Cultural
Affiliation
National
Origin
Religion
Shame/Embarrassment
Guilt/Self-Blame
Fear of Retaliation
Law Enf. Insensitivity ●
Poor Programs ●
Economic Challenges ●
Cultural Influences ● ● ● ●
Note. The categories that were significantly different are bulleted.

103
Table 27b. Overall Results Related to RQ3 (Rated Importance of Perceived
Barriers)

Rated Importance of
Perceived Barriers
Overall
Reporting
Behavior
Cultural
Affiliation
National
Origin
Religion
Shame/Embarrassment
Guilt/Self-Blame
Fear of Retaliation
Law Enf. Insensitivity ●
Poor Programs ● ●
Economic Challenges ● ●
Cultural Influences ● ●
Note. The categories that were significantly different are bulleted.

The next section, Chapter 5, consists of a discussion of the results, limitations
and implications of this study. The researcher will also make recommendations for
how to more effectively address the cultural aspects related to the underreporting
behaviors among minority women, and suggest directions for future research.

104
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
College women have refrained from reporting sexual assault crimes for many
reasons including shame, embarrassment, guilt and lack of support (Sable et al.,
2006). A plethora of studies have confirmed that there are many barriers that impede
women from making formal reports and most sexually victimized women carry the
burden of self-blame (Thompson et al., 2007; Pagelow, 1984; Koss, 1985). Sable, et
al. (2006) suggests that sexually assaulted women often do not report because of
financial, emotional and retribution barriers. In addition, according to Berkowitz
(2005), university prevention programs provide inadequate awareness policies.
Hence, victims will often struggle with the conflict between their personal sexual
assault experience and the responses they receive from their external social
environment (Koss & Burkhart, 1989). This often disrupts their cognitive logic,
which derails them from any attempt to report the crime (Koss & Burkhart, 1989).
The purpose of this study was to explore the reporting rate differences among
sexually assaulted college females using a cultural lens. The existing literature
provides many studies that define the barriers to reporting (Thompson et al., 2007;
Sable et al., 2006; Koss & Burkhart, 1989), however, there is little research related to
the relationship between cultural influences and the reporting behavior of sexual
assault victims. In addition, race is often interchangeably used with culture in
existing studies (Koss, 1985; Koss et al., 1987; Koss & Burkhart, 1989). However,
there is a difference between them, as race is more one-dimensional, while culture is

105
multi-dimensional and includes multiple variables such as belief systems and
traditions that influence a person’s behavior. Thus, in an attempt to delve deeper in
understanding why college female victims of sexual assaults rarely report the crimes
(Koss et al., 1987) this study examined the cultural facets and its link to sexual
assault crime reporting among college minority women.
To navigate through the defined purpose, three research questions were used
to guide this study: 1) Are there differences in the reporting rates of sexual assault
among college women based on their race, national origin, religion, and cultural
affiliation; 2) What are the perceived barriers to reporting among minority women
from underrepresented communities; 3) To what extent do perceptions about these
barriers vary by one’s cultural affiliation, overall reporting rates, national origin and
religion?

Discussion of Results
Reporting rates. Existing literature regarding the number of self-identified
victims of sexual assault is fairly consistent with this research review (Koss et al.,
1987; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Koss & Harvey, 1991). For instance,
according to an empirical study conducted by Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski (1987),
over 25% of the college women surveyed indicated that they were victims of a
sexual assault. In comparison, based on this study among the total 395 surveys
collected, 35% (N=139) of the participants said they were victims of a sexual assault.

106
Nevertheless, prior research has yielded mixed results regarding reporting
rates among college females (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Koss & Harvey,
1991; Sable et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2007). For example, according to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2000), 28.2% of the sexual assault crimes are reported to
the police, but in contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice (2000) states that only 2%
of college female victims will report violent crimes to the authorities.
Comparatively, among the one hundred and thirty-nine surveys used in this study,
46% or 64 respondents said they did report the sexual assault crime, while the other
54% or 75 respondents did not report the crime. Hence, the reporting behavior of the
participants in this study appeared to be much higher (nearly by 18%) than the
reporting behavior of respondents in other national studies. The disparity between
the results of this study and the national averages may be due to the fact the
respondents in this study may not have necessarily reported their crimes to the
formal authorities/police, but rather may have indicated that they reported their
experiences to other individuals such as family members, friends, counselors,
teachers and/or religious leaders.
Race/Cultural affiliation. The frequency distribution results showed that six
participants chose African American/Black as their race, while seven chose
Hispanic, forty-six chose Asian, eighteen chose Pacific Islander/Polynesian, six
chose S.E. Asian, fifty-two chose Non-Hispanic White and four were undetermined.
There is a lack of studies related to the relationship between cultural
influences and sexual assault reporting behaviors. It has only been within the last

107
twenty years that studies have attempted to investigate the ethnic factors related to
sexual assault reporting (Koss et al., 1987; Neville & Pugh, 1997; Sapp, Farrell,
Johnson & Hitchcock, 1999; Kalof, 2000). And, within the current literature (Koss,
1985; Koss et al., 1987; Koss & Burkhart, 1989) race is often used as a substitute for
culture and the terms are used interchangeably. Correspondingly, in this study the
respondent’s cultural affiliation information was identical to the race demographic
analysis, except four of the Asian women and one Pacific Islander/Polynesian
woman chose their cultural affiliation to be that of Non-Hispanic White. However,
based on the overall results of this research, race and culture are not synonymous and
should not be used interchangeably. Race appears to be one-dimensional, while
culture is multi-dimensional and comprised of different variables. For example,
when doing a correlation between race and religion an effect for religion was
determined, which suggested that race needed to be correlated with religion in order
to capture the full quintessence of it. Conversely, unlike race, culture is not
comprised of a single item but rather consists of bundled variables (at the least
religion and race based on this study) that capture different things depending on what
combination of variables are analyzed (i.e. Asian Christians from North America
versus Asian Christians from Asia or Hispanic Mormons from North America versus
Hispanic Catholics from North America). Therefore, culture is the enactment of
grouped variables which can include one’s religion, race and national origin. Hence,
the analysis of race alone would not be able to illuminate the effects of religion the
way culture would, and in a more comprehensive way the idea of bundling variables

108
reflect the real meaning of culture. Thus, contradictory to prior research that use
race as a proxy for culture, the results of this study suggests that race and cultural
affiliation should not be used interchangeably.
National origin/Religion. According to Hofstede (1997), differentiation
factors that are found within national, ethnic, regional and religious cultures can be
utilized to explain the assimilation, problem-solving and behavioral actions used by a
group. Hence, this study analyzed and compared the national origin and religion of
the participants, which is rarely covered in the literature. According to the
distribution frequency findings in this study, ninety-nine respondents indicated that
North America was their national origin, while twenty-six claimed Asian/S.E. Asia
to be their national origin (fourteen were missing or undetermined). Additionally,
the religion results of this study reported that thirty respondents were Catholics,
twenty-six were Atheists, thirty-two were Christians, nine were Buddhists, five were
Hindus, thirty-five were Mormon/LDS, and two were missing or undetermined.
Although religion is seldom analyzed in the current literature, in this study it appears
to be important as it lends to the understanding of culture, which is the bundled
variables that capture the crux of a person’s ethos.
Reporting rates: race, cultural affiliation, national origin, and religion.
Current research regarding sexual assault reporting offers limited results related to
minority groups, including Asians/South East Asians and Pacific
Islanders/Polynesians. This is perhaps due to the fact that most research draws from
provinces in the United States where these groups are smaller in number. In

109
consequence, the purpose of conducting this study in Hawaii was to gain access to
the large number of underrepresented minority populations who reside in the islands,
including Asians and Pacific Islander/Polynesian women. The results suggested that
there are in fact significant differences between reporting rates and races, particularly
between S.E. Asain women (100% did not report) and Non-Hispanic women (44.2%
did not report). In addition, there were significant differences between reporting
rates and the Eastern and Western religions, particularly that of Eastern faiths like
Hindus (100% did not report) and Buddhists (77.8% did not report) and the Western
faith of Christianity (40.6%). Based on these results it appears that there is a
correlation between race and religion related to reporting behaviors, as analogous
results were evident when the religions (Hinduism/Buddhism) were juxtaposed with
the races that commonly practice those creeds (Asian/S.E. Asian).
Perceived barriers to reporting among minority women. In an attempt to
investigate cultural indicators related to the participants reporting behavior, the
survey was designed to determine if there were significant mean differences between
the culturally affiliated and national origin groups related to Hofstede’s
Individualistic/Collectivistic and Masculinity/Femininity Cultural Values
Framework. Based on the survey responses for this study, the national origin was
separated into two categories: North America and Asia/S.E. Asia. The results
indicated that there were no significant mean differences between cultural affiliation
and Hofstede’s Individualistic/Collectivistic and Masculinity/Femininity dimensions
and national origin and Hofstede’s Masculinity/Femininity frame.

110
However, there was a significant mean difference between national origin
and Hofstede’s Individualistic/Collectivistic element. These results were consistent
with Hofstede’s (1997, 2001) research findings that suggest that individuals from
individualistic national origins (who perceive their self-interests to be more
important than that of the group or community; such as in the United States which
ranked number one among 50 countries in Hofstede’s individualism index (IDV)
values study) will respond differently in situations and circumstances as compared to
individuals from collectivistic national origins such as Asia, and S.E. Asia (where the
interest of the group or community prevails over the interest of an individual).
Based on prior literature, seven perceived barriers (shame/embarrassment,
guilt/self-blame, fear of retaliation, law enforcement insensitivity, poor programs,
economic challenges, and cultural influences) were investigated in this study. The
mean differences of these perceived barriers by culture were first analyzed to
determine if there were any significant disparities between the groups. The results
appeared to suggest that the Non-Hispanic White women found
shame/embarrassment, fear of retaliation, law enforcement insensitivity and cultural
influences to be less of a perceived barrier than the minority females (Non-Hispanic
White women scored the lowest percentage among the other groups in these four
categories). In comparison, the Hispanic women found guilt/self-blame, fear of
retaliation and law enforcement insensitivity to be strong perceived barriers
(Hispanic women scored the highest percentage among the other groups in these
three categories); S.E. Asian women found shame/embarrassment and cultural

111
influences to be strong perceived barriers (S.E. Asian women scored the highest
percentage among the other groups in these two categories); Pacific
Islander/Polynesian women indicated that poor programs was a strong perceived
barrier (Pacific Islander/Polynesian women scored the highest percentage among the
other groups in this category); and the Asian women found economic challenges to
be a strong perceived barrier (Asian women scored the highest percentage among the
other groups in this category). Hence, these results suggested that the minority
groups found these seven perceived barriers to reporting more influential, as
compared to their Non-Hispanic White counterparts. Although there are minimal
studies that have investigated the differences between various perceived barriers and
culturally affiliated and racial groups (LaClaire, 1996, Comas-Diaz, 1994 Sable et
al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2007; Rudman et al., 1995) these results appear
consistent with the literature, which also suggests that minority women perceive
these barriers to be more influential to reporting than Non-Hispanic White women.
The responses to these seven perceived barriers were then related to the
overall reporting behaviors (N=64 participants reported the crime; N=75 participants
did not report the crime), which appeared to show significant differences between the
groups regarding poor programs and cultural influences; consequently, the
participants who did not report the crimes perceived poor programs and cultural
influences to be the two most significant barriers to their reporting behavior. These
results align with prior research (Ward et al., 1991; Carmody et al., 2009), which is
similar to Sable’s et al. (2006) study which indicated that one of the chief barriers to

112
reporting included poor policies and programs. However, the importance of cultural
influences has often been excluded from these types of analyses, which is why this
study utilized a cultural lens in the research process.
The rated importance of the perceived barriers to the overall reporting
behaviors was also analyzed. The results indicated that poor programs and economic
challenges posed significant differences between the groups. Hence, this suggests
that there is a relationship between the reporting behavior of the participants and
these two perceived barriers.
However, when the researcher categorized these perceived barriers by mean
order related to the overall reporting behavior among the women, there were little
differences between the reported and non-reported groups; thus, whether the women
reported the crimes or not, they generally ranked the same types of barriers in the
same order. Subsequently, it appeared that there were universal views about what
the problems and barriers were, but this knowledge did not influence their reporting
behavior. Although this study did not investigate the reasons why women report the
crimes, it would be interesting to determine what caused some of the women to step
forward and report. In addition, this study only investigated seven perceived barriers
that were commonly defined in the literature (excluding the cultural influences
barriers), thus, redefining the perceived barriers to reporting should be considered in
future studies.
Perceived barriers: cultural affiliation, national origin and religion. In this
study, the perceived barriers related to cultural affiliation, national origin and

113
religion posed interesting results. Among the responses to the seven perceived
barriers related to cultural affiliation, the category that appeared to exemplify
significant differences between the groups was the cultural influences evaluation,
particularly between the S.E. Asian (83%), Pacific Islander/Polynesian (52%) and
Non-Hispanic White (19%) women. Hence, this indicates that culture is a definite
perceived barrier to reporting especially for a number of minority groups.
Significant mean differences between the groups related to national origin
and cultural influences barriers were evident in this study. The results appeared to
suggest that 62% of the women of Asian/S.E. Asian national origins perceived
cultural influences as a barrier to reporting, while 29% of the women from North
America found cultural influences to be a barrier. This supports Hofstede’s (1997)
contention that it is imperative for researchers to focus on the cultural factors
integrated within national origins, as it is foundational in the mental programs that
are accepted and utilized by its citizens. These explorations of culture and national
origin often identify common or different problems and present information that can
either separate or unite nations (Hofstede, 1997).
The responses to the seven perceived barriers related to religion suggested
that law enforcement insensitivity and cultural influences had significant differences
between the groups. In addition, there appeared to be a difference between Eastern
and Western religions, as the Buddhists and Hindus found law enforcement
insensitivity and cultural influences to be a strong perceived barrier, while Christians

114
and Catholics perceived these barriers to be less significant in their reporting
behavior.
The abridgment of these overall results related to the perceived barriers to
reporting suggested that there is a common relationship between the perceived
cultural influences barrier and cultural affiliation, overall reporting behaviors,
national origin and religion. All four category comparisons indicated that there were
significant mean differences pertaining to cultural influences, which implies that
culture matters concerning the perceived barriers to reporting.
Rated importance of perceived barriers: cultural affiliation, national origin
and religion. Prior research has explored the characteristics and perceived barriers to
reporting (Thompson, et al., 2007; Sable, et al. 2006), but not the importance of each
component to reporting behaviors. Hence, this study analyzed the importance of
each perceived barrier to the reporting behavior of the participants. Mixed results
were presented. Based on the responses related to the rated importance of the
perceived barriers to cultural affiliation, poor programs and cultural influences
presented significant differences between the groups. In these three categories, the
Non-Hispanic White women rated the importance of these perceived barriers the
lowest, which means they found these barriers to be of little or no importance to their
reporting behavior. On the contrary, the minority groups (S.E. Asian and Pacific
Islander/Polynesian women) rated the importance of these barriers the highest, which
means they found these barriers to be of importance regarding their reporting
behavior.

115
The responses related to the rated importance of the perceived barriers to
national origin suggested that there is a significant difference between the groups
related to law enforcement insensitivity and cultural influences. Interestingly, the
results also indicated that the two national origins (North America and Asian/S.E.
Asian groups) shared similar perceptions related to shame/embarrassment, guilt/self-
blame, fear of retaliation, economic challenges and poor programs, which suggests
that national origin does not necessarily affect the way some of the barriers are
perceived. This supports Hofstede’s notion that “one should think twice before
applying the norms of one person, group or society to another, as information about
the nature of the cultural differences between societies, their roots, and their
consequences should precede judgment and action” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 7).
Hofstede (1997) suggests that religious groups often transcend the dominant
culture of a nation, as it has often been the result of past cultural value patterns and
the cause of cultural differences (p. 16). In this study, the participants’ religion was
analyzed to gain a broader understanding of victim reporting behaviors. In the
existing literature religion is rarely investigated, however, the results of this study
intimate that religion is important and can be an influential factor in the reporting
behavior of sexual assault victims. The responses related to the rated importance of
the perceived barriers to religion suggested that there were significant differences
between the groups associated with economic challenges. Furthermore, participants
of Eastern religions found the perceived barriers to be of importance in their
reporting behavior, as compared to participants of Western religions. Also, the

116
Mormon/LDS participants were the only group to define the cultural influences
barrier as a “very important” (coded 3) factor in their reporting behavior. This may
be due to the fact that a large portion of the Mormon/LDS participants were among
the minority populations, who indicated that culture matters.
In summary, this study found a significant relationship between some of the
perceived barriers such as, law enforcement insensitivity, poor programs, economic
challenges and cultural influences and the four comparison groups (overall reporting
behaviors, cultural affiliation, national origin and religion). Although the results of
this study indicated that cultural influences was a shared perceived barrier among all
four comparison groups, there was only a significant difference between the
importance of cultural influences upon reporting behaviors and the cultural
affiliation and national origin groups.

Implications for Practice
Based on the results of this study, it appears that culture matters and cultural
influences is a strong perceived barrier in the reporting behavior among college
females from underrepresented minority groups. In knowing this, colleges and
universities might consider providing sexual assault training classes on campus. It
would be a good idea to offer incentives (like course credits) for the students who
attended these trainings, as it is always better to provide incentives than mandate
requirements. Also, student life and college clubs could incorporate these trainings

117
into their programs, as many of them already hold mandatory annual meetings on
ethics and diversity.

Limitations
This study had a few limitations. First, this study was limited to participants
whose professors allowed the researcher access to their classroom. The participants
were college undergraduate and graduate students in various classes/programs at two
selected universities. Most of the classes accessed were from the nursing,
communication, sociology, psychology, business and social work departments.
Thus, it is possible that the participants from these predominantly humanity and
social science groups were different from those of other programs such as the
department of mathematics and computer science and natural and computational
sciences. However, the inclusion of students from the business program was likely
representative of the student body. Also, this study was limited to the participants
who agreed to contribute voluntarily, as students were given the option to participate.
Yet, among the students that were asked to complete the survey, only one student
refused. The second limitation was that this study was limited to the number of
participants surveyed. The goal was to obtain a fair number of students from five
underrepresented minority groups, which included Asian, S.E. Asian, Polynesian,
Hispanic and the Black population. However, due to limited access to the overall
student population as well as the diverse random number of minority college females
in each class, the total count of participants in each minority group varied. The third

118
limitation was the amount of time available to conduct the study. Data for this study
was obtained only during the fall 2009 school semester at each university so there
may be differences between the student minority populations from this semester as
opposed to those in other semesters. The fourth limitation was that one of the
universities where the data was collected was a Mormon/LDS school, which
provided an atypical population as it is not characteristic of most U.S. colleges. The
final limitation was the limited number of non-acculturated female college student
participants. Although many of the participants claimed they were culturally
affiliated with one of the five underrepresented minority groups analyzed, they also
indicated that they lived in the United States for many years (and/or all their lives),
which indicated they were not foreign to the American culture and way of life.

Delimitations
A few delimitations were related to the methodology selected. The first was
the use of a self-reporting survey, which relied solely on pre-selected questions. The
participants were restricted to only answering the questions posed on the survey.
Therefore, no causal relationships could be determined. Although studies that utilize
quantitative methods with self-reporting surveys are highly revered because they aim
to show relationships between variables, a more qualitative bent would be necessary
to understand the “thick descriptions” regarding the intricacies of causal explanations
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003, p. 8). Accordingly, the incorporation of mixed
methods is preferable to a single method, as well as those utilizing longitudinal data

119
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). However, due to the limited time (and cost) for this
study, only one method was used and a limited amount of participants were
surveyed. The second delimitation was the pre-defined perceived barriers (Sable et
al., 2006; Thompson, 2007), which were extrapolated from existing literature and
incorporated in the survey. The participants were not allowed to venture past the
defined seven perceived barriers and were required to refrain from offering other
barriers that may have influenced their reporting behavior. In addition, this study
only incorporated the results from the college females that indicated they were
victims of a sexual assault, and eliminated the results from non-victims. Hence, the
perceived barriers for each group may have been vastly different.

Future Research
This study provided insight into the relationship between the reporting
behavior of underrepresented minority college women and cultural influences.
Future research using a longitudinal model with more access to many different
colleges across the world, would be an ideal way in determining if a woman’s
cultural affiliation impacts her propensity to report sexual assault crimes. Access to
underrepresented minority college women who have strong cultural affiliations and
are not acculturated would be superlative. In addition, future research should
incorporate a mixed method to yield more information that would provide a better
understanding about the causal relationships between sexual assault reporting and
cultural affiliation.

120
Moreover, due to the unique relaxed culture established in Hawaii, surveying
students from two Hawaii universities may have influenced their response rates.
Students that attend Hawaii universities are typically from the islands and/or come
from various places in the world expecting to experience a laid-back lifestyle.
Hence, the Hawaiian culture may have influenced the outcomes, thus future
researchers should conduct their study in the country where the students originate.

Conclusion
The results of this study strongly suggested that cultural influence is a
perceived barrier and important factor to sexual assault crime reporting among
minority women, and there are significant differences between reporting rates and
perceived barriers and overall reporting behavior, cultural affiliation, national origin
and religious groups.
This study had certain limitations and future research could address some of
these issues. The participants were from select programs of two Hawaii universities
and were only surveyed once. Future studies should focus on a more diverse student
population where the women are either less acculturated and/or surveyed in their
original country. Additionally, a longitudinal study could lend more credibility to
the findings.
Overall, this study has the potential to help college students in understanding
the importance of culture and its probable influence on a sexually assaulted victim’s
propensity to report. This study has illuminated ideas related to cultural influences

121
and the importance of perceived barriers related to sexual assault crime reporting.
The results indicated that the minority women of varying groups do in fact perceive
barriers differently from Non-Hispanic White women, and perceive these barriers as
important factors in their proclivity to report. In utilizing the information in this
study, training and/or diversity courses for students could be created and
incorporated in the school curriculum; or student life and college club programs
could integrate these trainings into their programs.
Nevertheless, more research needs to be done to clearly define the specific
barriers for each minority group so that the appropriate assistance can be rendered;
ultimately giving more college women the tools and support they need to report
sexual assault crimes.

122
REFERENCES
Abbey, A. & Parkhill, M.R. (2005). The effects of frame or reference on responses
to questions about sexual assault victimization and perpetration. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 29, 364-373.

Ahrens, C. E. (2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reactions on the
disclosure of rape. Am J Community Psychology, 38, 263-274.

Austin, A. A. (2004). Alcohol, tobacco, other drug use, and violent behavior among
Native Hawaiians: Ethnic pride and resilience. Substance Use & Misuse,
39(5), 721-746.

Bachman, R. (1993). Predicting the reporting of rape victimizations: Have reforms
made a difference? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 254-270.

Bachman, R. (1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New
evidence from the national crime survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25,
8-29.

Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin
Company.

Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese
culture. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.

Bennett-Johnson, E. (1997). The emergence of American crime and violence on the
college and university campus. College Student Journal, 31, 129-136.

Benson, B. J., Gohm, C. L., & Gross, A. M. (2007). College women and sexual
assault: The role of sex-related alcohol expectancies. Journal of Family
Violence, 22, 341-351.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). “Critical Elements of Effective Sexual Assault Prevention
and Risk Reduction Programs.” Chapter 4 in Chris Kilmartin and Alan
Berkowitz, Sexual Assault in Context: Teaching College Men about Gender.
Mahwah, NJ. Laurence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Bogal-Allbritten, R. & Allbritten, W.L. (1992). An examination of institutional
responses to rape and acquaintance rape on college campuses. Family
Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 8, 20-23.

Bohannan, P. (1995). How culture works. New York, NY: The Free Press.

123
Briskin, K., & Gary, J. M. (1986). Sexual assault programming for college students.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 64(4), 207-208.

Bureau of Justice Statisitics, 2000. Criminal Victimization 1999: Changes 1998-
1999 with Trends 1993-99. National Crime Victimization Survey.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Burt, M. (1991). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. Acquaintance Rape: The
Hidden Crime. Ed. Andrea parrott and Laurie Bechofer. New York, New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cambell, R., Wasco, S., Ahrens, C., Sefl, T., & Barnes, H. (2001). Preventing the
“second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service
providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1239-1259.

Carmody, D., Ekhomu, J., & Payne, B. (2009). Needs of sexual assault advocates in
campus-based sexual assault centers. College Student Journal, 43(2), 507-
513.

Cochran, C.C., Frazier, P.A., & Olson, A.M. (1995). Predictors of responses to
unwanted sexual attention. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 207-226.

Comas-Diaz, L. (1994). An integrative approach. In L. Comas-Diaz and B. Greene
(Eds.), Women of color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in
psychotherapy (pp. 287-318). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Comas-Diaz, L., & Duncan, J.W. (1985). The cultural context: A factor in
assertiveness training with mainland Puerto Rican women. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 9, 463-476.

Contreras, T. & Mendez, I. D. (1978). Counseling for Latina rape survivors. In S.
Davidson (Ed.), Contemporary approaches in counseling young women (p.
33-44). Arizona: New Directions for Young Women.

Danis, F.S. (2006). In search of safe campus communities. Journal of Community
Practice, 14, 29-46.

Dawood, A. (1999). Karo-kari: A question of honour, but whose honour?
Feminista, 2, 3-4.

DeKeseredy, W., & Kelly, K. (1993). Woman abuse in university and college dating
relationships: The contribution of the ideology of familial patriarchy.
Journal of Human Justice, 4, 25-52.

124
Department of Attorney General – State of Hawaii (n.d.). 2007 sexual assault
victims in Honolulu: A statistical profile. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from
http://hawaii.gov/ag/search?SearchableText=sexual+assault+report

Diller, J. V. (1999). Cultural diversity: A primer for the human services.
Scarborough Ontario, Canada: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Draucker, C. B. (2001). Learning the harsh realities of life: Sexual violence,
disillusionment, and meaning. Health Care for Women International, 22, 67-
84.

Duma, J (1999) Usability Testing Methods: Subjective Measures, Part II -
Measuring Attitudes and Opinions. American Institutes for Research.
Retrieved April 25, 2009, from
http:/www.upassoc.org/html/1999_archive/usability_testing_methods.html.

Fabiano, P., Perkins, W., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003).
Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women:
Evidence for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health,
52(3), 105-112.

Feldman-Summers, S., & Ashworth, C. D. (1981). Factors related to intentions to
report a rape. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 53-70.

Felson, R. B., & Pare, P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual
assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,
597-610.

Fisher, B., Cullen, C., & Turner M. (2000). The sexual victimization of college
women. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice & Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice (2000).

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual
victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of
college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30 (1), 6-38.

Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J., Cullen, F. T., & Lu, C. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower:
The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671-710.

Foley, L. A. (1995). Effects of race of assailant and victim and gender of subjects on
perceptions. Journal of Black Psychology, 21(1), 6-18.

125
Foubert, J., Garner, D., & Thaxter, P. (2006). An exploration of fraternity culture:
Implications for programs to address alcohol-related sexual assault. College
Student Journal, 40(2), 361-373.

Francis-Smith, J. (2006, November). OK health official advocates rape prevention
education for business. The Journal Record (Oklahoma City, OK).

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a difference voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goebert, D. A., Caetano, R., Nishimura, S. T., & Ramisetty-Mikler, S. (2004).
Alcohol use and violence among adolescents in the multiethnic setting.
Journal of School Violence, 3(4), 77-91.

Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

Herring, R. D. (1997). Counseling diverse ethnic youth: Synergetic, strategies and
interventions for school counselors. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.

Herzberger, S.D. (1996). Violence within the family: Social psychological
perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
London: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An
independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433.

Hofstede, G. J., Pedersen, P. B., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Exploring culture. Boston,
MA: Intercultural Press.

Holzman, C. (1996). Counseling adult women rape survivors: Issues of race,
ethnicity and class. Women & Therapy, 19, 47-62.

Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. (1969). ‘National character: The study of modal
personality and sociocultural systems’, in The Handbook of Social
Psychology, 2
nd
ed., vol. 4, Lindsey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds), Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley [1954].

126
Johnstone, J. W. C., & Rivers, R. J. (1965). Volunteers for learning: A study of the
educational pursuits of adults. In Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S. &
Baumgartner, Learning in adulthood (p. 66). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley
& Sons.

Kalof, L. (2000). Ethnic differences in female sexual victimization. Sexuality &
Culture, 4(4), 75-98.

Kalof, L. & Wade, B.H. (1995). Sexual attitudes and experiences with sexual
coercion: Exploring the influence of race and gender. Journal of Black
Psychology, 21, 224-238.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s
consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s
cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37,
285-320.

Konradi, A. (2003). A strategy for increasing postrape medical care and forensic
examination: Marketing sexual assault nurse examiners to the college
population. Violence Against Women, 9, 955-988.

Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal and situational
characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 193-212.

Koss, M. P. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence
incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48(1), 61-75.

Koss, M. P., & Burkhart, B. R. (1989). A conceptual analysis of rape victimization:
Long-term effects and implications for treatment. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 13, 27-40.

Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence
and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of
higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
55, 162-170.

Koss, M., & Harvey, M. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community
intervention (2
nd
ed.). Newbury park, CA: Sage Publication.

Kozu, J. (1999). Domestic violence in Japan. American Psychologist, 54(1), 50-54.

127
Krakow, B., Germain, A., Warner, T. D., Shrader, R., Koss, M., Hollifield, M.,
Tandberg, D., Melendrez, D., & Johnston, L. (2001). The relationship of
sleep quality and post traumatic stress to potential sleep disorders in sexual
assault survivors with nightmares, insomnia, and PTSD. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 14(4), 647-665.

Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly
guide. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.

LaClair, P. (1996). Asian-Ameican cultural concerns in sexual abuse treatment,” in
A.D. Lewis (Ed.), Cultural Diversity in Sexual Abuse Treatment: Issues and
Approaches (pp. 45-67), Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

Lefley, H., Scott, C., Llabre, M., & Hicks, D. (1993). Cultural beliefs about rape and
victims’ response in three ethnic groups. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 63, 623-631.

Levy, B. (2008). Women and violence. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

Lewis, A. D. (1996). Cultural diversity in sexual abuse treatment: Issues and
approaches. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

Low, G., & Organista, K. C. (2000). Latinas and sexual assault: Towards culturally
sensitive assessment and intervention. Journal of Multicultural Social Work,
8, 131-157.

Masho, S.W. & Ahmed, G. (2007). Age at sexual assault and posttraumatic stress
disorder among women: Prevalence, correlates, and implications for
prevention. Journal of Women’s Health, 16, 262-271.

McCormick, B., Kavanagh, D., Caffrey, S., & Power, A. (2005). Investigating
sexual abuse: Findings of a 15-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 18, 217-227.

McEwan, E.K., & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good,
what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.

McNair, L. D., & Neville, H.A. (1996). African-American women survivors of
sexual assault: the intersection of race and class. Women & Therapy, 19(3/4),
107-118.

128
Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa. New York, NY: Harper Collins
Publishers, Inc.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in
adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Mills, C. S., & Granoff, B. J. (1992). Date and acquaintance rape among a sample of
college students. Social Work, 37, 504-509.

Miura, S.Y. (2000). The mediation of conflict in the traditional Hawaiian family: A
collectivistic approach. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication,
1(2), 19-25.

Moore, J. W. (1970). Mexican American. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Morales, J., & Reyes, M. (1998). Cultural and political realities for community
social work practice with Puerto Ricans in the United States. In F.G. Rivera
& J. L. Elrich (Eds.) Community organizing in a diverse society (3
rd
ed.) (pp.
75-96). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Mori, L., Bernat, J. A., Glenn, P. A., Selle, L. L., & Zarate, M. G. (1995). Attitudes
toward rape: Gender and ethnic differences across Asian and Caucasian
college students. Sex Roles, 32, 457-467.

Napeahi, A. (1996). Hawaiian values of living. Hilo, HI: Hui Ho’ola.

National Council for Research on Women. (1992). Sexual harassment: Research and
resources. New York: Siegel, D. L.

Neville, H., & Pugh, A. (1997). General and culture-specific factors influencing
African American women’s reporting patterns. Violence Against Women,
3(4), 361-365.

Niaz, U. (2003). Violence against women in south Asian countries. Archives of
Women’s Mental Health, 6, 173-184.

Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational
Researcher, 21, 5-24.

Pagelow, M. D. (1984). Family violence. New York, NY: Praeger.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3
rd
ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

129
Payne, B., & Fogerty, R. (2007). Narratives about violence: The words of college
students. Social Science Journal, 44(2), 367-373.

Perilla, J. L., Bakeman, R., & Norris, F. H. (1994). Culture and domestic violence:
The ecology of abused Latinas. Violence and Victims, 9, 325-339.

Pruchno, R. A., Brill, J. E., Shands, Y., Gordon, J. R., Genderson, M. W., Rose, M.,
& Cartwright, F. (2008). Convenience samples and caregiving research:
How generalizable are the findings? Gerontologist, 48(6), 820-827.

Pukui, M. K., Haertig, E. W., & Lee, C. A. (1972). Nana I Ke Kumu (Vol. 1).
Honolulu, HI: Hui Hanai.

Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., Goebert, D., & Nishimura, S. (2004). Ethnic
variation in drinking, drug use, and sexual behavior among adolescents in
Hawaii. Journal of School Health, 74(1), 16-22.

Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Goebert, D., Nishimura, S., & Caetano, R. (2006). Dating
violence victimization: Associated drinking and sexual risk behaviors of
Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Caucasian high school students in Hawaii.
Journal of School Health, 76(8), 423-429.

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (2009, May 12). How often does sexual
assault occur? Retrieved May 12, 2009, from http://www.rainn.org.

Renzetti, C. M., Edleson, J. L., & Bergen, R. K. (2001). Sourcebook on violence
against women. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.

Riverside Webster’s II Dictionary. (1996). New York, NY: Berkley Books.

Roeher Institute (1994). Violence and People with Disabilities: A Review of the
Literature. Family Violence Prevention Division, Health, Canada.

Root, M. P. (1996). Women of Color and Traumatic Stress in "Domestic Captivity":
Gender and Race as Disempowering Statuses. In A. J. Marsella, M. J.
Friedman, E. T. Gerrity, and R. M. Scurfield (Eds.), Ethnocultural Aspects of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Issues, Research, and Clinical Applications
(pp. 363-388). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Rudman, L. A., Borgida, E., & Robertson, B. A. (1995). Suffering in silence:
Procedural justice versus gender socialization issues in university sexual
harassment grievance procedures. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
17(4), 519-541.

130
Ruggiero, K. J., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2003). Rape in Hawaii: A report to the state.
Charleston, SC: National Violence Against Women Prevention Center,
Medical University of South Carolina.

Russell, E. (1984). Sexual exploitation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sable, M. R., Danis, F., Mauzy, D. L., & Gallagher, S. K. (2006). Barriers to
reporting sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college
students. Journal of American College Health, 55(3), 157-162.

Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics, 3
rd
ed. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on
campus. New York: New York, University Press.

Sapp, M., Farrell, W. C., Johnson, J. H., & Hitchcock, K. (1999). Attitudes toward
rape among African American male and female college students. Journal of
Counseling & Devlopment, 77, 204-208.

Schwartz, M. D., & DeKeseredy, W. (1997). Sexual assault on the college campus:
The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Segala, U. (1999). Family violence: A focus on India. Aggression and Violent
Behaviour, 4:2.

Selkin, J. (1978). Protecting personal space: Victim and resister reactions to
assaultive rape. Journal of Community Psychology, 6, 263-268.

Sorenson, S., & Siegel, J. (1992). Gender, ethnicity and sexual assault: Findings
from a Los Angeles study. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 93-104.

Spradlin, L. K., Welsh, L. A., & Hinson, S. L. (2000). Exploring African American
academic achievement: Ogbu and Brookover perspectives. Journal of
African American Men, 5(1), 17-32.

Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous
effects. American Psychologist, 45(8), 921-933.

Suh, S. H. (2007, Fall). Asian women past and present: A closer look at the meaning
of tradition. Encounter, Vol. 20(3), 31-33.

131
Thompson, M., Sitterle, G. C., & Kingree, J. (2007). Reasons for not reporting
victimizations to the police: Do they vary for physical and sexual incidents?
Journal of American College Health, 55(5), 277-282.

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full Report of Prevalence, Incidence, and
Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National
Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice; 2000. Report NCJ183781.

Towson, S. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1983). Retaliation against sexual assault: Self-
defense or public duty? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8(1), 89-99.

U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Retrieved October 18, 2009, from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System. Retrieved May 12, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2008/section 3.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1994). Violence Against Women Bureau of Justice.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Criminal victimization in the United States,
1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

U.S. Department of Justice (2003). Criminal victimization in the United States,
2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

U.S. Department of Justice (2007). Criminal victimization in the United States,
2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Vopni, V. (2006). Young women’s experience with reporting sexual assault to
police. Canadian Woman Studies, 25, 107-114.

Waliski, A., & Barthel, A.K. (2004). Cultural differences in reporting of sexual
assault to sexual assault agencies in the United States. In J. Zorza (Ed.),
Violence against women: Victims and abusers, legal issues, interventions and
treatment Volume III (pp. 7-28-7-31). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research
Institute, Inc.

Ward, S. K., Chapman, K., Cohn, E., White, S., & Williams, K. (1991).
Acquaintance rape and the college social scene. Family Relations, 40, 65-71.

132
White, A. (1995). Social-psychology factors related to the prevention of male sexual
violence: An anti-sexist African-American profile. St. Louis, MO: Missouri
Institute of Mental Health.

Williams, J. E., & Holmes, K. A. (1981). The second assault: Rape and public
attitudes. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Wood, J. T. (2006). Communication in Our Lives (4
th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson
Learning, Inc.

World report on violence and health: Summary . Geneva, World Health
Organization, (2002).

Yamawaki, N. (2007). Differences between Japanese and American college students
in giving advice about help seeking to rape victims. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 147(5), 511-530.

Yoshioka, M. R., Gilbert, L., El-Bassel, N., & Baig-Amin, M. (2003). Social
support and disclosure of abuse: Comparing South Asian, African-American,
and Hispanic battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 18 (3), 171-180.

133
APPENDIX
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Welcome!
Research suggests that sexual assault crimes are often under-reported. This study is
interested in learning about the reasons why people do or do not report sexual assault
crimes.

This survey should take you no longer than 10-minutes. Please understand that your
responses are completely anonymous and the researcher has no way of linking your
identity to this review.

When you are finished, please put the survey in the envelope provided and place it in
the box marked “survey” at the front of the classroom.

By completing this survey, you agree to be a participant. You may quit at any time
or skip questions you do not wish to answer and your participation is entirely
voluntary.

Thank you very much for your time and contribution to this important study!
1. What is your gender: male female other
2. I am a: undergraduate student graduate student other
3. How old are you today: ____________
4. What is your race: (Mark all that apply)
African American/Black Pacific Islander/Polynesian other ____________
Hispanic/Latino(a) S.E. Asian
Asian Non-Hispanic White/Caucasian

5. What single culture do you identify with most? (Please be as specific as possible
– choose one)
___________________________________________________________________

6. What language(s) is/are spoken at home? (Mark all that apply)
English other(s) __________________________________ (please specify)

134
7. What is your national origin?
__________________________________________________

8. How many years have you been in the United States? ____________________

9. What is your religion?
_________________________________________________________

Please think of your ideal life situation. How important would it be to you to:
(please circle ONE answer in each line across)

Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
10. have sufficient time for
your personal or home life
1 2 3 4 5
11. get recognition for good
performance/accomplishments
1 2 3 4 5
12. have a sense of security at
your job/home
1 2 3 4 5
13. have pleasant people to
work with or be around
1 2 3 4 5
14. do work that is interesting 1 2 3 4 5
15. live in a desirable area 1 2 3 4 5
16, be respected by your
family and friends
1 2 3 4 5
17. have chances for
growth/promotions
1 2 3 4 5

135
18. Have you ever been a victim of a sexual assault, which includes
unwanted/unwelcome sexual acts of threats, touching/fondling, penetration, physical
force and/or intimidation?

Yes - If you marked “yes”, please continue to fill out the survey based on your
experience(s) as a victim.

No - If you marked “no”, please continue to fill out the survey based on how you
would MOST LIKELY respond IF you were a victim.

19. Did you report the sexual assault crime to anyone? Yes No

20. If you did report the crime, whom did you report it to?
Family Member Co-worker Treatment Center Staff
Friend Authorities/Police other ______________
Teacher School Counselor I did not report it

As a victim of sexual assault (or suppose you were a victim) how true are the
statements below and how much did it (or would it) matter to you:
(please circle ONE answer in each line across)

21a.) I worried about what
people thought of me
True False
21b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
22a.) I was embarrassed True False
22b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
23a.) I didn’t want to
dishonor the people of my
community
True False
23b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
24a.) I didn’t want to bring
shame to my parents
True False

136
24b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
25a.) I wanted to protect my
family’s honor
True False
25b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
26a.) I would have felt bad
if the person/offender got
into trouble
True False
26b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
27a.) I didn’t want my
family member or friend to
be prosecuted
True False
27b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
28a.) It was partly my fault True False
28b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
29a.) I was using
alcohol/drugs at the time of
the incident
True False
29b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
30a.) I was afraid the
person/offender would hurt
me again
True False
30b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance

137
31a.) I was afraid that
people in my
community/group would
criticize me
True False
31b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
32a.) I was afraid that my
parents would scold me
True False
32b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
33a.) I was afraid that my
peers/friends would treat me
differently
True False
33b/) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
34a.) I didn’t want to be
ostracized by my family
True False
34b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
35a,) I didn’t think the
police would believe me
True False
35b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
36a.) I didn’t think I’d be
taken seriously by the
authorities
True False
36b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
37a.) I distrust the
police/justice system
True False

138
37b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
38a,) It would take too long
to legally pursue it
True False
38b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
39a.) I was afraid that I
would receive unfair
treatment from the police
because of my ethnic
background
True False
39b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
40a.) I wasn’t sure if a
crime was actually
committed
True False
40b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
41a.) I don’t know where to
get help
True False
41b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
42a.) I was uncertain if my
university provided services
regarding this kind of issue
True False
42b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
43a.) The available sexual
assault programs I know of
are not very sensitive to
people like me
True False

139
43b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
44a.) I’m financially
dependent on the
person/offender
True False
44b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
45a.) I am financially
dependent on a family
member that would
disapprove of my reporting
True False
45b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
46a.) I do not have adequate
personal finances
True False
46b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
47a.) My first language is
not English
True False
47b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
48a.) In my culture, it is not
encouraged to report these
types of crimes
True False
48b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
49a.) In my culture, it is
more important to keep the
peace
True False
49b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance

140
50a.) In my culture, these
types of problems are
handled by the family
True False
50b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
51a.) In my culture, these
types of problems are
usually handled by
community/religious leaders
in my group (i.e.: clergy,
priests, rabbis,
kupuna/kahu)
True False
51b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance
52a.) I was discouraged to
go against the traditions of
my culture
True False
52b.) How important was
this factor in your reporting
behavior
Utmost
Importance
Very
Important
Moderately
important
Of little
Importance
Very little
or no
importance

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Sexual assault (SA) is a critical public health problem, and there are many barriers that impede college women from reporting. Although there are many studies that explore these barriers, there is a lack of understanding regarding the cultural implications to reporting. The existing literature often uses race as a proxy for culture when exploring sexual assault crime reporting behaviors, and has not yet explored the probable differences between them. Hence, this study investigated the reporting rate differences among sexually assaulted college females using a cultural lens. A quantitative methods approach was used for this study and a survey was designed to address seven perceived barriers and its importance to crime reporting among underrepresented minority college women. The findings indicated that culture matters and race and culture are not synonymous and should not be used interchangeably, as race appears to be one-dimensional, while culture is multi-dimensional and comprised of different variables. The results of this research project, with reference to existing studies and implications for future research, are discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations

PDF

Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students

PDF

Under reporting of male sexual assault in the United States Marine Corps: a gap analysis

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Program content in a men-only sexual assault prevention program: the relationship between factual knowledge, familiarity with a victim, and self-reported behavior

PDF

Sexual violence prevention on college campus as a Clery Act requirement: perceptions from the field

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy in an elementary school for indigent native peoples

PDF

Impact of culturally responsive education on college choice

PDF

Addressing underreporting of sexual assault in U.S. Army units: perspectives of retired senior leaders

PDF

Supporting sexual assault survivors through on campus education/liaison programs: a descriptive case study

PDF

A case study of promising practices in the prevention of sexual assault in postsecondary institutions

PDF

Complicated relationships: the prevalence and correlates of sexual assault, dating violence victimization, and minority stress among sexual minority adolescents throughout the United States

PDF

Three essays on the high school to community college STEM pathway

PDF

Exploring community in an online doctoral program: a digital case study

PDF

The relationship between academic capitalism and student culture at two four-year higher education institutions

PDF

The public relations of campus sexual assault

PDF

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

PDF

American sexual culture: women's liberation, rock music, and evangelical Christianity, 1968-1976

PDF

Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions

Asset Metadata

Creator Smith, Malia J. (author)

Core Title Reporting differences among sexually assaulted college women: a cultural exploration

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 03/24/2010

Defense Date 02/05/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college women,OAI-PMH Harvest,sexual assault and culture,sexual ssault reporting

Place Name Hawaii (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Melguizo, Tatiana (committee member)

Creator Email maliasmi@usc.edu,msmith@hpu.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2877

Unique identifier UC1327584

Identifier etd-Smith-3568 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-294876 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2877 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Smith-3568.pdf

Dmrecord 294876

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Smith, Malia J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu