Survivor vs. Victim: Self-Labeling of Trauma Victims and Its Implicit Impact on Resilience and Recovery

Abstract

Past research demonstrates that participants who label themselves as ‘victims' experience worse trauma-related outcomes than those who label themselves as ‘survivors.' Self-labeling in trauma research is typically measured using a dichotomous measure where participants choose either victim or survivor, but this construct may be better conceived as more continuous. The current study assessed self-labeling as a possible continuous construct and explored its predictive validity. To capture self-labeling as a continuous construct, we created and utilized a new scale, the Trauma Self-Labeling Measure. Two hundred eleven participants completed a battery of questionnaires to measure self-labeling and four trauma-related outcomes: posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS), depression, anxiety, and resilience. When tested on the continuous trauma self-labeling measure, an overwhelming number of participants chose in-between victim and survivor (78.9%) which suggests self-labeling is better assessed using a continuous measure than dichotomous. However, correlation analyses revealed that the continuous self-labeling measure was not significantly correlated to the four trauma-related outcomes, whereas the dichotomous self-labeling, continuous victim, and continuous survivor measures were. When conducting post-hoc analyses, we found an unexpected positive correlation between the continuous victim and survivor self-labeling measures. This unexpected positive correlation suggests that self-labeling is not a singular construct, as previously assumed, but rather is composed of separate victim and survivor constructs. In conclusion, the current study provides the first empirical evidence to support the idea that self-labeling is more continuous than dichotomous and composed of two separate constructs of victim and survivor.