Since there are only few studies on causes of revictimization, they wanted to investigate disinhibition as a cause. Zuckerman, Buchsbaum and Murphy (1980) defined disinhibition as “a hedonistic pursuit of pleasure through extraverted activities including social drinking, parties, sex, and gambling”. Wilson et al (2014) found that past victimization correlates with increased disinhibition, which also increases future assault. Although it would be hard to mention that prior victimization predicts a future one, this study can help prevent such an event with more knowledge. The researchers mention that by studying disinhibition as a predictor of future victimization, they want to state that it is not in any way a blame game towards the victim. They talk about disinhibition as a coping mechanism for the traumatic experience, but additionally acts as a risk factor. They also mention that substance abuse is also a risk factor (Neumann et al., 1996) and sexual promiscuity as well (Testa, VanZile-Tamsen & Livingston, …show more content…
(2001) investigated, they detected some characteristics of worst dates and sexual assaults due to situational factors. They claim that if a man knew the woman well enough to be more isolated with her, this could contribute to more alcohol consumed and more misconceptions of a women’s interest and then finally leading to the sexual assault. These men feel a sense that women “owe” them that much. To add to these characteristics, Byers and Eno (1991) found that the men who used verbally coercive strategies were different to the ones who used physical force. More research needs to be done on the difference between the two and why it differs. In this case, it is important to know why and how they differ in order to implement my individual change