Cited by 47Sexual Assault and Victimization StudiesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchChild Abuse and Trauma

Self-efficacy, male rape myth acceptance, and devaluation of emotions in sexual trauma sequelae: Findings from a sample of male veterans.

Voller, Emily, Polusny, Melissa A., Noorbaloochi, Siamak, Street, Amy, Grill, Joseph, Murdoch, Maureen·2015·Psychological Services

Abstract

Sexual trauma is an understudied but regrettably significant problem among male Veterans. As in women, sexual trauma often results in serious mental health consequences for men. Therefore, to guide potential future interventions in this important group, we investigated associations among self-efficacy, male rape myth acceptance, devaluation of emotions, and psychiatric symptom severity after male sexual victimization. We collected data from 1,872 Gulf War era Veterans who applied for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) disability benefits using standard mailed survey methods. The survey asked about history of childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault during the time of Gulf War I, and past-year sexual assault as well as Veterans' perceived self-efficacy, male rape myth acceptance, devaluation of emotions, PTSD, and depression symptoms. Structural equation modeling revealed that self-efficacy partially mediated the association between participants' sexual trauma history and psychiatric symptoms. Greater male rape myth acceptance and greater devaluation of emotions were directly associated with lower self-efficacy, but these beliefs did not moderate associations between sexual trauma and self-efficacy. In this population, sexual trauma, male rape myth acceptance, and devaluation of emotions were associated with lowered self-efficacy, which in turn was associated with more severe psychiatric symptoms. Implications for specific, trauma-focused treatment are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ser0000046

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Voller, E., Polusny, M. A., Noorbaloochi, S., Street, A., Grill, J., & Murdoch, M.
Affiliations
  • Minneapolis VA Health Care System (US)
  • National Center for PTSD (US)
Venue
Psychological Services
Published
2015
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
420-427
ISSN
  • 1541-1559 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-148X
OpenAlex
W1928447925
Cited by
47
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
VA Health Services Research and Development Service (GWI-04-352)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
Keywords
self-efficacy, sexual trauma, male veterans, Gulf War veterans, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, child sexual abuse, sexual assault, psychiatric symptom severity, trauma-focused psychotherapy
MeSH terms
Psychological Trauma, Adult, Emotions, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Rape, Veterans, Self Efficacy, Gulf War

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review