Fractured Pasts: The Structure of the Life Story in Sexual-Trauma Survivors With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Abstract

We examined the organization of past and future affective autobiographical knowledge in sexual-trauma survivors compared with control participants. Participants ( N = 113) divided their past (and future) life into chapters (e.g., “college,” “marriage”), then characterized each chapter using positive or negative attributes. Sexual-trauma survivors ( n = 27) endorsed a greater proportion of negative attributes, demonstrated greater affective compartmentalization (separation of positive and negative attributes into different chapters), and showed reduced redundancy (consistent endorsement across chapters) of positive attributes relative to control participants ( n = 23). Groups did not differ on negative redundancy for past life structure or any metrics for future life structure. In a secondary analysis, we compared life structures for the sexual-trauma group and for individuals with chronic depression but no sexual-trauma history ( n = 30) and matched control participants ( n = 56), which revealed significantly greater negative redundancy in the depressed group. The distinct life structure presented by sexual-trauma survivors may reflect efforts to constrain the impact of trauma on an individual’s self-identity.

Evaluating the association between interpersonal trauma and self-identity: A systematic review.

“…Approximately half of the studies (53%) comprised an all-female sample, with the remaining studies being an all-male sample (Ray, 1997) or a mixed sample ranging from 27% to 90% female participants. The age range across studies varied from 5 to 91 years, with over half the studies being predominantly derived from a child and/or adolescent sample (for example, 5–19 years; N = 30, 51%; Allen & Tarnowski, 1989; Deb & Mukherjee, 2009; Deb et al, 2016; Esparza & Esperat, 1996; German et al, 1990; Kinard, 1980; Mannarino et al, 1994, 1989, 1991; Mennen, 1994; Mernen & Meadow, 1994; Milan & Pinderhughes, 2000; Mota & Matos, 2015; Oates et al, 1985; Oates et al, 1994; Orr & Downes, 1985; Reyes, 2008; Reyes et al, 1996; Riesen & Porath, 2004; Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2005; Runyon et al, 2009; Rust & Troupe, 1991; Silva & Calheiros, 2020; Simmons & Weinman, 1991; Solomon & Serres, 1999; Stern et al, 1995; Stovall & Craig, 1990; Tong et al, 1987; Trickett et al, 2001; Wonderlich et al, 2001); followed by adult samples (for example, 17–91 years; N = 27, 46%; Alexander & Lupfer, 1987; Brayden et al, 1995; Briere & Rickards, 2007; Classen et al, 1998; Clifford et al, 2020a,’ 2020b; Dimmitt, 1995a,’ 1995b; Hoagwood, 1990; Kandeğer & Naziroğlu, 2021; Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017, 2019; Krause & Roth, 2011; Lopez & Heffer, 1998; Makhubela, 2012; McAlpine & Shanks, 2010; Murthi et al, 2006; Nixon & Nishith, 2005; Overstreet et al, 2017; Ponce et al, 2004; Ray, 1997; Steinberg et al, 2003; Thompson-Hollands et al, 2017; Van Buren & Weierich, 2015; Vartanian et al, 2016; 2018; Whealin & Jackson, 2002), and two studies (3%) were mixed pediatric/adult age samples (Alboebadi et al, 2015; Oates et al, 1998).…”

“…The key measure used to assess the primary construct for self-identity was highly variable across studies (see in the online supplemental materials). Fourteen studies utilized more than one measure of self-identity and/or concept (Clifford, et al, 2020a,’ 2020b; German et al, 1990; Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017; Kinard, 1980; Krause & Roth, 2011; Milan & Pinderhughes, 2000; Oates et al, 1994, 1998; Overstreet et al, 2017; Stern et al, 1995; Trickett et al, 2001; Whealin & Jackson, 2002; Wonderlich et al, 2001); whereas 33 studies used a multidimensional assessment of self-identity (Alexander & Lupfer, 1987; Allen & Tarnowski, 1989; Brayden et al, 1995; Deb et al, 2016; Dimmitt, 1995a,’ 1995b; German et al, 1990; Kinard, 1980; Lopez & Heffer, 1998; Makhubela, 2012; Mannarino et al, 1989, 1991, 1994; Mennen, 1994; Mernen & Meadow, 1994; Murthi et al, 2006; Oates et al, 1985, 1994, 1998; Orr & Downes, 1985; Reyes, 2008; Reyes et al, 1996; Riesen & Porath, 2004; Rust & Troupe, 1991; Silva & Calheiros, 2020; Simmons & Weinman, 1991; Solomon & Serres, 1999; Stern et al, 1995; Stovall & Craig, 1990; Tong et al, 1987; Trickett et al, 2001; Whealin & Jackson, 2002; Wonderlich et al, 2001). Moreover, the most common multidimensional measure used in pediatric samples was the Piers Harris Self-Concept Scale, with 14 of the 32 pediatric studies using this measure.…”

“…Nine studies used a broader assessment tool (e.g., personality inventory) that included a self-identity and/or self-concept subscale (Briere & Rickards, 2007; Esparza & Esperat, 1996; Kandeğer & Naziroğlu, 2021; Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017; Nixon & Nishith, 2005; Ray, 1997; Runyon et al, 2009; Thompson-Hollands et al, 2017; Van Buren & Weierich, 2015). Ten further studies assessed self-concept clarity (Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017, 2019; Vartanian et al, 2016; 2018); gender self-identity through feminine self-discrepancies (Krause & Roth, 2011); retrospective and current self-concept (Hoagwood, 1990); the emotional and social aspects of self-identity (Mota & Matos, 2015); the relationships between body and nonbody aspects of the self-concept (Whealin & Jackson, 2002); schemas of the “self” and “other” (Ponce et al, 2004); and the perception of self in the context of others (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2005) The remaining five studies assessed identity by a self-concept card sorting task (Clifford et al, 2020b; McAlpine & Shanks, 2010; Steinberg et al, 2003), through an idiographic approach (Classen et al, 1998), and with Roger’s standard self-concept questionnaire (Alboebadi et al, 2015).…”

“…The key measure used to assess the primary construct for selfidentity was highly variable across studies (see Table S1 in the online supplemental materials). Fourteen studies utilized more than one measure of self-identity and/or concept (Clifford, et al, 2020a(Clifford, et al, ,' 2020bGerman et al, 1990;Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017;Kinard, 1980;Krause & Roth, 2011;Milan & Pinderhughes, 2000;Oates et al, 1994Oates et al, , 1998Overstreet et al, 2017;Stern et al, 1995;Trickett et al, 2001;Whealin & Jackson, 2002;Wonderlich et al, 2001); whereas 33 studies used a multidimensional assessment of self-identity (Alexander & Lupfer, 1987;Allen & Tarnowski, 1989;Brayden et al, 1995;Deb et al, 2016;Dimmitt, 1995aDimmitt, ,' 1995bGerman et al, 1990;Kinard, 1980;Lopez & Heffer, 1998;Makhubela, 2012;Mannarino et al, 1989Mannarino et al, , 1991Mannarino et al, , 1994Mennen, 1994;Mernen & Meadow, 1994;Murthi et al, 2006;Oates et al, 1985Oates et al, , 1994Oates et al, , 1998Orr & Downes, 1985;Reyes, 2008;Reyes et al, 1996;Riesen & Porath, 2004;Rust & ...…”

“…Eight studies comprised adult samples who had a history of exposure to various interpersonal traumas. Five of these studies found interpersonal trauma to be significantly associated with greater self-identity impairments than a control group or published norms (Clifford et al, 2020a(Clifford et al, , 2020bDimmitt, 1995a;Dimmitt, 1995b;Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017). In particular, the study by Dimmitt (1995a), evaluated to be of moderate quality (66.7%), assessed the effects of physical, sexual and psychological abuse on self-identity impairments, based on an American rural female sample and found sexual abuse to be significantly associated with lower perceptions on all self-identity dimensions in comparison to all other types of abuse, and self-identity scores to be the highest (e.g., less impairment) for psychological abuse.…”