There is an intricate divide between three major paradigms in studying traumatic processes: the psychiatric paradigm that focused mostly on the survival types of traumatic stress and on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) model (e.g., van der Kolk, Weisaeth, & van der Hart,1996), the psychoanalytic, and developmental paradigms that focused more on studying the effects of abandonment, child maltreatment, and other betrayal traumas in early childhood (e.g., Bowlby, 1988; Cassidy, & Shaver, 1999; Freyd, DePrince, & Gleaves, 2007), and the intergroup paradigm as evidenced in studying discrimination, genocide, torture, and other shared politically motivated micro and macro aggressions (e.g., for theoretical analysis of discrimination as a trauma, see Helms, Nicolas, & Green, 2010). Until recently, the three paradigms and their perspective theories and research, while some times overlap; have developed along relatively independent lines. In the first paradigm, trauma is defined as an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others (American Psychiatric Association, 2004), and has potential of leading to PTSD symptoms. In the second and third paradigms, trauma is mostly a process that can be triggered by internal or external events that threaten the person's physical, personal, or social identities and this/her basic autonomy or dependence needs and have potential of yielding different symptoms that may include PTSD, and other syndromes(and not only PTSD). American Psychological Association APA trauma group's (currently APA division 56) definition of trauma as "A process that leads to the disorganization of a core sense of self and world and leaves an indelible mark on one's world views that psychological disorders often follow upon exposure to" represents this approach. In the second paradigm traumatization process is mostly triggered by the caregiver failing to satisfy her/his natural XXX10.1177/1534765612459892TraumatologyKira et al.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Traumatology perspective on gender discrimination GD, views it as type III identity continuous trauma that has continuous and stable negative mental health effects. Current work evaluated the salience of GD's negative effects across different cultures and outcome measures and tested the differential impact of GD within the household (GD-P), and GD within social institutions (GD-S). Data from four previous studies on American Indians, Palestinians, and clients of mental health clinics in Egypt and torture survivors in the US were re-analyzed. All the four studies used the same measure of GD, and trauma types, with similar and different outcome measures which allowed measuring the stability of the effects across different cultures and different outcome measures. Partial correlation and path analysis were conducted. GD predicted increased PTSD, cumulative trauma disorders, general anxiety, annihilation anxiety, and decreased in self-esteem, general assessed functioning. Results suggested that linear and non-linear effects of GD supported its cumulative dynamics. GD-S was associated with more negative outcomes than GD-P. Further, internalizing and appraising GD as positive mediated by resulted decrease in self-esteem, predicted negative mental health outcomes, while negative appraisal did not predict any negative change. Positive appraisal of GD may be a negative coping strategy. The implications of results for trauma I. A. Kira et al. 94 theory, counseling and social justice, and for future research were discussed.