Evaluation of an information processing model following sexual assault.

Heather L Littleton, Amie Grills-Taquechel
Author Information
  1. Heather L Littleton: East Carolina University.

Abstract

There is growing recognition that individuals vary in their response to traumatic experiences. Resick and Schnicke (1992) developed an information processing model of trauma response patterns, theorizing that individuals vary in how they integrate the experience into their schematic beliefs. Specifically, individuals can respond to trauma by assimilation, altering the trauma to fit with extant schemas; accommodation, altering extant schemas; or over-accommodation, engaging in maladaptive schema change. Littleton (2007) supported that these response patterns are reflected in distinct coping patterns among rape victims. The current study utilized latent profile analysis (LPA) to replicate Littleton's (2007) findings in a sample of 340 college rape victims, as well as evaluated the extent to which these response patterns were related to distress, trauma-related schemas, re-victimization risk behaviors, and re-victimization. Results of the LPA supported the existence of the three response patterns. In addition, victims classified into the three response patterns differed in their distress, adherence to trauma-related schemas, and re-victimization risk behaviors. While no significant differences in re-victimization rates were found, re-victimization was common. Implications of the findings for future research and intervention are discussed.

References

  1. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985 Jun;53(3):422-3 [PMID: 3874219]
  2. J Trauma Stress. 2006 Feb;19(1):119-28 [PMID: 16568464]
  3. J Trauma Stress. 2005 Dec;18(6):729-39 [PMID: 16382425]
  4. Health Psychol. 2008 Sep;27(5):659-67 [PMID: 18823193]
  5. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002 Apr;56(4):265-71 [PMID: 11896133]
  6. Violence Against Women. 2008 Mar;14(3):269-86 [PMID: 18292370]
  7. Womens Health Issues. 2005 Jul-Aug;15(4):157-66 [PMID: 16051106]
  8. Clin Psychol Rev. 2002 Feb;22(1):131-53 [PMID: 11793577]
  9. J Adolesc. 2008 Aug;31(4):499-517 [PMID: 17904631]
  10. J Trauma Stress. 2004 Jun;17(3):203-11 [PMID: 15253092]
  11. BMJ. 1997 Feb 8;314(7078):420-4 [PMID: 9040389]
  12. Violence Vict. 2002 Jun;17(3):319-40 [PMID: 12102056]
  13. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992 Oct;60(5):748-56 [PMID: 1401390]
  14. Violence Vict. 2006 Dec;21(6):761-78 [PMID: 17220018]
  15. Violence Against Women. 2007 Aug;13(8):789-801 [PMID: 17699111]
  16. Child Maltreat. 2006 May;11(2):131-45 [PMID: 16595847]
  17. Am J Epidemiol. 1977 Sep;106(3):203-14 [PMID: 900119]
  18. Am J Psychiatry. 1980 Sep;137(9):1081-4 [PMID: 7425160]

Grants

  1. K08 HD058020/NICHD NIH HHS
  2. K08 HD058020-01A2/NICHD NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0responsepatternsre-victimizationschemasindividualstraumavictimsvaryinformationprocessingmodelalteringextant2007supportedrapeLPAfindingsdistresstrauma-relatedriskbehaviorsthreegrowingrecognitiontraumaticexperiencesResickSchnicke1992developedtheorizingintegrateexperienceschematicbeliefsSpecificallycanrespondassimilationfitaccommodationover-accommodationengagingmaladaptiveschemachangeLittletonreflecteddistinctcopingamongcurrentstudyutilizedlatentprofileanalysisreplicateLittleton'ssample340collegewellevaluatedextentrelatedResultsexistenceadditionclassifieddifferedadherencesignificantdifferencesratesfoundcommonImplicationsfutureresearchinterventiondiscussedEvaluationfollowingsexualassault

Similar Articles

Cited By