International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 3 2022 54
Additionally, although researchers have focused more
on the impact of CSA and the disclosure process,
most studies that have attempted to understand the
disclosure process have focused on the survivors
while they are still children (Anderson, 2016 Tener &
Murphy, 2015). Little research has been done on adult
experiences of disclosure.
Some of what we know about the disclosure process is
that several barriers impact the likelihood of a victim
disclosing the abuse. Some of the noted barriers to
disclosure the professional literature includes are the
identity of the perpetrator, the survivor’s relationship
with the perpetrator (e.g., stranger, clergy, or family
member), and social factors such as stigmas related
to homosexuality and erroneous beliefs that victims
are at increased risk to become offenders (Easton,
2013, 2014 Easton et al., 2014 MacIntosh et al.,
2016 Price-Robertson, 2012). A dearth of research
is available about the disclosure process among adult
male survivors. And the limited research that has been
conducted with adult male survivors of CSA has been
more focused on the barriers to disclosure rather than
the disclosure process (Bradley &Wood, 1996 Easton,
2013).
Of the limited research available, Easton (2013)
conducted a thorough qualitative study that provided
some insight into the experience of adult male
survivors when they disclose CSA. Easton found that
many of the participants reported waiting 20 or more
years after the experience of CSA before they disclosed,
and then another 10 years before having a meaningful
conversation about the abuse experience. While most
of the participants (67%) identified having had a
meaningful conversation with their spouse or intimate
partner, 42% of participants stated that the most helpful
conversations regarding their CSA experiences were
with a mental health provider. These findings further
emphasize the need for mental health professionals to
create a safe space for adult male survivors to discuss
and process their experiences of CSA.
A significant gap also exists in professional literature
between what mental health professionals currently
understand about disclosure of CSA by children
and professional literature focused on what they
understand about the experience of adult male
survivors of CSA. Because little research has been
conducted on the disclosure experience of adult male
survivors, mental health professionals are ill-equipped
to treat adult male survivors of CSA (Anderson, 2016).
And in some cases, clinicians may inadvertently shut
down adult male survivors’ disclosure. Our focus in
this research study was to gain a deeper understanding
of the disclosure experience for adult male survivors
of CSA, to further assist mental health professionals
in providing the best-informed care while serving this
population.
Methods
The research question for this study was “How do adult
male survivors of childhood sexual abuse understand
their experiences of disclosure of the abuse to a mental
health professional?” (J. M. Smith, 2020, p. 59). The
method we chose for this study was interpretative
phenomenological analysis (IPA) because of the
extreme focus on a few participants and the meaning
they have made of very specific phenomena (J. A. Smith
et al., 2009). Traditional hermeneutic phenomenology
allows the researcher to make meaning of phenomena.
In contrast, IPA is about the researcher making “sense
of the participants trying to make sense” of what has
happened to them (J. A. Smith et al., 2009, p. 3). Another
difference between traditional phenomenology and
IPA is the narrowing of focus by using an homogenous
sample. The more similar the demographics of the
participants, the more the stories and interpretations
come together around the events.
Participants
This study included three participants whose names
have been changed for confidentiality purposes: Adam,
Bob, and Carl. All three men identified as heterosexual
and cisgender, and their abusers were all men.
Adam was a 48-year-old survivor of CSA from his
grandfather, which started at a very early age and
continued until Adam was 14. When at age 22 Adam
finally disclosed to a girlfriend, and then to his mother,
his mother went against his wishes and called the
entire extended family together to tell them what had
happened.
Bob was a 54-year-old survivor whose sexual and
physical abuse by a teacher and the teacher’s friends

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54208/0003 55
started at around age 11. This abuse continued for
2 years, until Bob moved into high school and away
from the teacher. Bob began using substances shortly
after the abuse started and continued using substances
into his late 40s, until his wife gave him an ultimatum
to get help or she would leave.
Carl was a 67-year-old survivor of CSA by his stepfather
that began when Carl was 11. His stepfather also
allowed other men to abuse Carl. He joined the Army
when he was 18, but the abuse continued whenever he
would come home on leave. It finally ended when he
was discharged from the military and could move away
from home permanently. In addition to the familial
abuse, a coworker forcibly raped Carl at the age of 16.
Although he did later disclose the abuse history to his
wife, he did not disclose to a mental health professional
until he was 63.
Procedure
IPA is a qualitative method in which researchers
attempt to make “sense of the participants trying to
make sense” of what has happened to them (J. A. Smith
et al., 2009, p. 3). To thematize these lived experiences,
IPA researchers rely on a homogenized and small
sample pool consisting of three to six participants (J.A.
Smith et al., 2009). In some circumstances, researchers
may complete the IPA process with a single case study.
IPA researchers collect data using common qualitative
methods, including in-depth interviews (J. A. Smith et
al., 2009). Predetermined research questions serve as
guides for the conversation, but the researchers may
ask follow-up questions to elicit more information.
The researchers immerse themselves in the
participants’ responses to develop a deep and thorough
interpretation. They then check their interpretation
with the respondents and other experts in the field
to ensure that their interpretations are accurate. The
authors followed the IPA research methodology J. A.
Smith et al. (2009) defined.
Data Collection
Data collection procedures included identifying
the characteristics of desired applicants to ensure
homogeneity in sample participants. The interview
process, transcription, analysis, and reporting
procedures are outlined in the following content.
Sampling
As mentioned previously, the sample in IPA should
be highly homogenous, and it should consist of from
one to six participants to allow for depth of analysis
(J. A. Smith et al., 2009). To maintain homogeneity,
purposeful sampling rather than random sampling
was necessary in this study. To that end, we sent an
open invitation to several online support groups. We
sent a request to mental health professionals and peer
advocates for referrals to the study. And we engaged in
snowball sampling when the first two methods failed to
produce enough participants.
Considerations
In adherence with the American Counseling Association
(ACA) Code of Ethics, we provided both verbal and
written statements to participants to assure that they
were fully informed regarding their consent to engage
in the study. Participants were made aware of potential
risks or discomfort they might experience from engaging
in this study, were informed they could withdraw from
the study at any time, were assured that anonymity
would be provided in any publication of the research
and were provided an opportunity to ask questions
about the study (ACA, 2014, G.2.a). The written
informed-consent form the participants received and
signed fulfilled these ethical requirements. Because of
the sensitive nature of this study and the experiences of
participants, we prepared a list of counselors local to
the participants for referrals before we conducted the
interviews. We did this as a precaution for any incident
in which any participants felt that counseling would
be helpful after the interview process was complete.
Walden University’s IRB reviewed and approved this
research as meeting stringent ethical standards.
J. A. Smith et al. (2009) suggested that approximately 10
questions would allow for a 90-minute semistructured
interview so for our interview process, we settled on
the following items (see J. M. Smith, 2020 pp. 67–68):
1) Help me understand what led you to
disclose your childhood sexual abuse to a
mental health professional when you did.