Four studies of trauma effects
Here, I present four recent studies related to trauma. First, Truss, Liao Siling, Phillips, Eastwood & Bendall (2022) published “Barriers to Young People Seeking Help for Trauma: A qualitative analysis of Internet forums” in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Here’s a slightly edited transcript:
Exposure to trauma is common in childhood and adolescence and is associated with significant psychopathology. Despite being amenable to treatment, many young people suffering trauma-related distress do not disclose or seek help. Multiple barriers to young people help seeking for mental health concerns have been identified, but very little research has focused on help seeking after trauma exposure. We undertook a qualitative analysis of Internet forums in which young people discuss trauma, aiming to understand the barriers preventing them from disclosing and seeking help offline. Posts about trauma written in 2016 from five Internet forums targeting young people were analyzed by thematic analysis. Results: Barriers to offline help-seeking for trauma aligned with five key themes: questioning the validity of the trauma response; negative emotions and beliefs about the self; fear of a negative response; difficulties trusting others; and not thinking or talking about the trauma. Young people conceptualized many barriers as consequences of the trauma, such as avoidance of the trauma memory, and difficulties trusting others, indicating there are trauma-specific barriers to help-seeking. Understanding of, and attempts to minimize, these barriers may facilitate provision of services to vulnerable young people.
I think this is very helpful information for all those who interact with young people with trauma histories. The second study also addresses childhood trauma, but in adults. McMahon, Griffin, Borinca, Bradshaw, Ryan & Muldoon (2022) published “Social Integration: Implications for the association between childhood trauma and stress responsivity” in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Here’s the edited abstract:
Childhood trauma is linked to the dysregulation of physiological responses to stress, particularly lower cardiovascular reactivity (CVR) to acute stress. The mechanisms that explain this association, however, are not yet fully understood. Using secondary data from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) Biomarker Project (N = 1,148; n = 652 females), we examine whether social integration can help explain the association between childhood trauma and lower CVR. Participants completed a standardized laboratory stress paradigm which involved completing executive functioning (Stroop) and mental arithmetic (MATH) tasks. Cardiovascular measurements were continuously assessed using electrocardiogram (ECG) and Finometer equipment. The Social Well-Being Scale (Keyes, 1998) and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein et al., 2003) measured social integration and trauma, respectively. Regression analyses demonstrated that childhood trauma was associated with lower systolic (SBP; β = −.14, p < .001) and diastolic (DBP; β = −.11, p < .001) blood pressure reactivity but not heart rate (HR) reactivity. Mediation analyses showed that higher levels of trauma were associated with less social integration and, in turn, linked to lower reactivity across all biological indices. Moreover, sensitivity analyses showed that this indirect effect via social integration was evident for emotional and physical abuse, emotional and physical neglect, but not sexual abuse. Overall, the results indicated that dysregulated cardiovascular stress responses owing to childhood trauma may be shaped by a lack of social integration. These findings highlight the importance of social integration for the health of those made vulnerable by adverse childhood experiences. This knowledge offers a potentially useful and inexpensive approach to support trauma-exposed individuals, potentially reducing some of its longer-lasting impacts on physical health.
What I find most interesting is that sexual abuse does not relate to dysregulated cardiovascular stress responses and lack of social integration. This merits further study though the data are helpful to other trauma survivors.
In the third study, Jones, Kreutzer, Manzler, Evans & Gorka (2023) published “Type of Trauma Exposure Impacts Neural Reactivity to Errors” in Journal of Psychophysiology.
Studies suggest that individuals with a history of trauma exposure display abnormal reactivity to threat, though the pattern of findings across prior studies has been inconsistent. At least two factors likely contribute to previous discrepant findings: (1) the type of index trauma event and (2) the type of threat paradigm. Accordingly, the current study aimed to examine the impact of trauma type on a specific psychophysiological index of threat sensitivity-error negativity (Ne), also described as error-related negativity (ERN) [The ERN is thought to reflect error monitoring and has been attributed primarily to activity in the anterior cingulate cortex]. Young adults were classified into three groups: lifetime history of interpersonal trauma (i.e., sexual assault, physical assault, or immediate family violence; n = 30), lifetime history of a non-interpersonal trauma (e.g., accidents, natural disasters; n = 30), or no lifetime history of trauma (n = 64). All participants completed a flanker task [The flanker task is a speeded task in which participants must respond as quickly and as accurately as possible to identify the direction of the center arrow in rows of arrows arranged in congruent (<<<<<, >>>>>) or incongruent (<<><<, >><>>) configurations] designed to elicit the Ne/ERN during continuous electroencephalographic (EEG) data collection. Results indicated that individuals with non-interpersonal trauma exposure displayed reduced Ne/ERN amplitude compared with the other two groups (who did not differ from each other). Broadly, these findings highlight the importance of trauma type and theory suggesting different forms of trauma may result in different neurobiological profiles. These findings also add to a growing literature indicating that non-interpersonal traumas may be uniquely associated with blunted threat sensitivity and deficiencies in self-monitoring.
What I find most interesting is the difference between non-interpersonal and interpersonal trauma as well as the fact that the latter and no-trauma persons are not statistically different.
I have cited work by Gallagher before. Here, Gallagher, Rickman & Yalch (2022) published “Influence of Maladaptive Personality Traits on Women’s Posttraumatic Cognitions of IPV” in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Here’s the edited impact statement and abstract:
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a problem for women worldwide. One factor that affects the severity of women’s distress in the aftermath of IPV is how they make meaning of the violence they experienced. Posttraumatic meaning-making takes the form of 3 distinct posttraumatic cognitions: self-blame, other negative thoughts about oneself, and negative thoughts about the world. Women’s posttraumatic cognitions in the aftermath of IPV are in part a function of personality. Research on personality and posttraumatic cognitions has focused primarily on the influence of normative personality traits, although maladaptive personality traits are more common in clinical assessment. One of the most common models of maladaptive traits is DSM–5’s Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD), which contains 5 maladaptive variants of normative personality traits (Antagonism, Detachment, Disinhibition, Negative Affect, and Psychoticism). Although there is increasing research on the AMPD traits in general, there is limited research on the influence of these traits on women’s response to IPV specifically. In this study, we examine the association between AMPD traits and posttraumatic cognitions of IPV in a sample of women exposed to IPV (N = 199) using a Bayesian approach to multiple regressions. Results suggest that IPV and Negative Affect were the primary influences on all 3 IPV-related posttraumatic cognitions and that other traits had differential effects depending on the type of posttraumatic cognition under analysis. These findings clarify our understanding of individual differences in posttraumatic response and have implications for the treatment of women exposed to IPV. Both how severe the IPV was and trait-related negative emotions were the primary influence on women’s IPV response, although this differed depending on the specific response.
I find these data important in that they focus on interpersonal violence and emphasize the role of negative affect on self-blame, other negative thoughts about the self, and negative thoughts about the world. Although this makes perfect sense, it’s helpful to have the link established.