Child abuse: Betrayal and disclosure |
| |
| Authors: | Melissa Ming Foynes Jennifer J Freyd Anne P DePrince |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Psychology, 1227 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1207, USA;2. Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA;1. School of Health and Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, United Kingdom;2. Centre for Applied Developmental Psychology, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, United Kingdom;3. Children’s Wellbeing Duty Social Work Team, Randall House, Macmerry Business Park, EH33 1RW, United Kingdom;1. Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA;2. Center for Social Research, University of Hartford, 260 Girard Ave, Hartford, CT 06105, USA;1. University of Eastern Finland, School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland;2. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Finland;3. Psychology at Åbo Akademi University, Helsinki University Hospital, Forensic Psychology Center for Children and Adolescents, 20500 Turku, Finland;4. University of Tampere, School of Social Science and Humanities, 33014, Finland;1. McGill University, School of Social Work, Centre for Research on Children and Families, 3506, University, Suite 321A, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada;2. McGill University, School of Social Work, Centre for Research on Children and Families, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveThe current study tested several hypotheses about disclosure of childhood sexual, physical, and emotional abuse derived from Betrayal Trauma Theory Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press]. We predicted that the duration of time from abuse to its disclosure would vary as a function of victim–perpetrator closeness.MethodsData collected from 202 undergraduate participants using a survey methodology were submitted to logistic regression analyses. The relative variance explained by other variables was also examined.ResultsCompared to survivors of emotional abuse (EA) who were in not very close (NVC) victim–perpetrator relationships, EA survivors in very close (VC) victim–perpetrator relationships were significantly more likely to wait 1 or more years to disclose, or never to disclose, than to wait a period of time less than 1 year (OR = 2.65). Further, survivors of physical abuse (PA) in VC victim–perpetrator relationships were significantly more likely to wait 1 or more years to disclose their abuse, if it was disclosed at all, than PA survivors of NVC victim–perpetrator relationships (OR = 3.99). Results for sexual abuse were not significant.ConclusionsFor EA and PA, VC victim–perpetrator relationships predicted longer durations of time from abuse to its disclosure than NVC victim–perpetrator relationships.Practice implicationsAlthough delayed disclosure may support necessary (albeit abusive) attachments with caregivers, it may also prolong the abuse and prevent receipt of support. Increased awareness that VC victim–perpetrator relationships may predict longer durations of time from abuse to its disclosure, and that these delays may serve a functional purpose, can help guide supportive and empathic responses to traumatic disclosures. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
