HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Child Maltreat. 2010 August ; 15(3): 229–241. doi:10.1177/1077559510370365.

Making Meaning of Traumatic Events: Youths’ Strategies for

Processing Childhood Sexual Abuse are Associated With
Psychosocial Adjustment
Valerie A. Simon1, Candice Feiring2, and Sarah Kobielski McElroy3
1Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
Author Manuscript

2The College of New Jersey, Ewing, USA

3Virginia Treatment Center for Children, Richmond, USA

Abstract
The need to make meaning of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) is common and often persists long
after the abuse ends. Although believed to be essential for healthy recovery, there is a paucity of
research on how youth process their CSA experiences. The current study identified individual
differences in the ways youth process their CSA and examined associations with psychosocial
adjustment. A sample of 108 youth with confirmed abuse histories enrolled in the study within 8
weeks of abuse discovery, when they were between 8 and 15 years old. Six years later, they
participated in interviews about their CSA experiences, reactions, and perceived effects. Using a
coding system developed for this study, youths’ CSA narratives were reliably classified with one
Author Manuscript

of three processing strategies: Constructive (13.9%), Absorbed (50%), or Avoidant (36.1%).

Absorbed youth reported the highest levels of psychopathological symptoms, sexual problems, and
abuse-specific stigmatization, whereas Constructive youth tended to report the fewest problems.
Avoidant youth showed significantly more problems than Constructive youth in some but not all
areas. Interventions that build healthy processing skills may promote positive recovery by
providing tools for constructing adaptive meanings of the abuse, both in its immediate aftermath
and over time.

Keywords
sexual abuse; meaning making; narratives; PTSD; depression; sexual problems; stigma
Author Manuscript

It is widely believed that optimal recovery following child sexual abuse (CSA) requires that
youth process their abuse experiences (Brewin, Dalgleish, & Joseph, 1996; Cohen,
Mannarino, & Deblinger, 2006; Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Foa & Rothbaum, 1998). Processing
allows youth to elaborate trauma memories into organized accounts and better tolerate

Corresponding Author: Valerie Simon, Merrill Palmer Skillman Institute, Wayne State University, 71 East Ferry Street, Detroit, MI
48202, USA. [email protected].
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
 Simon et al. Page 2

negative emotions associated with abuse events (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers & Clark, 2000).
Author Manuscript

These activities pave the way for meaning making, a type of conceptual processing whereby
youth can reappraise cognitive or emotional reactions to the abuse that undermine well-
being and construct more adaptive meanings (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers & Clark, 2000;
Horowitz, 1986; Janoff-Bulman, 1992). By re-storying the abuse, youth can develop
narratives of their CSA experiences that allow for psychological comfort and healthy
development.

Even when some resolution is achieved, most adults with CSA histories continue to process
their experiences in search of meanings (Silver, Boon, & Stones, 1983; Wright, Crawford, &
Sebastian, 2007). Unfortunately, these efforts are often unsuccessful. Up to 50% of adults
remain unable to make sense of CSA experiences years and even decades later (Silver et al.,
1983; Wright et al., 2007). For many, processing CSA experiences is complicated by
distressing memories, difficult emotions (e.g., shame, anger, and sorrow), and negative
Author Manuscript

appraisals of the self (e.g., blame) and others (e.g., untrustworthy) that contextualize the
abuse and its sequelae (Deblinger & Runyon, 2005; Feiring, Taska, & Chen, 2002; Feiring,
Taska, & Lewis, 2002). Although not uncommon, these reactions increase risk for various
adjustment problems, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression,
externalizing behaviors, dissociation, and relationship difficulties (Feiring, Cleland, &
Simon, 2010; Feiring, Miller-Johnson, & Cleland, 2007; Feiring, Simon, & Cleland, 2009).

Clarifying how youth attempt to process CSA may help identify those at risk for developing
problems. Articulating different processing strategies and their links to adjustment could
inform the development of interventions that are sensitive to youths’ particular processing
difficulties. The goal of the current study was to identify systematic differences in youths’
strategies for processing CSA experiences and examine their associations with a range of
Author Manuscript

problems known to be common in this population. The broader literature on trauma-related

coping styles suggested three potential strategies for processing CSA-related memories,
cognitions, and emotions (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Holmes, 1996;
Horowitz, 1986; Janoff-Bulman, 1992). We labeled these primary strategies “Constructive,”
“Absorbed,” and “Avoidant” and sought to detect their presence in the trauma narratives of
youth with confirmed cases of CSA.

Our conceptualization of Constructive processing derives from the writings of Horowitz

(1986), who suggested that successful adaptation requires gradually working through trauma
in manageable doses. This entails an effortful balance between attending to and disengaging
from abuse-related memories, emotions, and cognitions, which protects youth from
becoming overwhelmed. Although not without discomfort, this strategy allows youth to
Author Manuscript

gradually construct more adaptive meanings that alleviate distress and promote positive
adjustment (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Janoff-Bulman, 2006). Iterative in
nature, constructive processing allows meanings to be updated and revised in accordance
with changing life circumstances (Harvey, Mishler, Koenen, & Harney, 2000). We expected
that Constructive CSA narratives would evidence deliberate processing; willingness to
revisit past and present emotions and appraisals; efforts to pace and regulate exposure to
CSA material; and openness to new perspectives on CSA experiences.

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 3

Our Absorbed and Avoidant strategies capture what Horowitz (1986) and others (e.g.,
Author Manuscript

Holmes, 1996) describe as two types of imbalance in attention to and disengagement from
trauma processing. The Absorbed strategy involves excessive attention to and engrossment
in abuse-related memories, emotions, or appraisals. In youths’ CSA narratives, we expected
this strategy to manifest as perseverative thinking about the abuse, inability to productively
reflect on CSA experiences, and difficulty regulating attention and responses to CSA
material (Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Holmes, 1996; Roth & Newman, 1993). Consistent with this
idea, individuals who are intensely preoccupied with stressful or traumatic events report
more severe symptoms of posttraumatic stress, dissociation, and depression (Michael,
Halligan, Clark, & Ehlers, 2007; Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991). In contrast, the
Avoidant strategy involves a pattern of habitual disengagement from CSA material.
Although distancing may provide temporary relief from the upset of revisiting painful
aspects of the abuse, the use of avoidance as a primary processing strategy may hinder the
Author Manuscript

elaboration, reflection, and cognitive restructuring required to construct adaptive meanings

of the abuse (Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Foa & Rothbaum, 1998; Roemer, Litz, Orsillo, &
Wagner, 2001). Thus, it is not surprising that self-reported use of avoidant coping strategies
is associated with more psychological distress among individuals with CSA histories (Bal,
van Oost, de Bourdeaudhuij, & Crombez, 2003; Merrill, Thomsen, Sinclair, Milner, & Gold,
2001). In the context of youths’ CSA narratives, we expected the Avoidant strategy to
manifest in speakers’ active attempts to restrict attention to CSA experiences and minimize
the importance of abuse-related events, affects, or cognitions (Holmes, 1996; Roth &
Newman, 1993).

If trauma processing is essential to posttraumatic recovery, individual differences in

processing strategies should be associated with adjustment. Accordingly, we hypothesized
that those with a Constructive strategy would report the lowest levels of various problems
Author Manuscript

frequently associated with CSA, including PTSD, dissociation, depression, and sexual
problems. Because both abuse-specific self-blame and shame reflect self-disparaging ways
of evaluating CSA experiences, we expected that those with a Constructive strategy would
exhibit lower levels of both as compared to those with Absorbed or Avoidant strategies. To
the extent that these strategies are specific to CSA, they were not expected to be related to
individuals’ overall attribution style.

Most studies of trauma processing focus on adults, with few studies examining sexual abuse.
Furthermore, the variable-centered, questionnaire approach that typifies many of these
studies may obscure important individual differences in trauma processing. For example, by
focusing on general coping patterns, most existing questionnaires fail to capture the trauma-
specific reactions that are most predictive of posttraumatic adaptation (Coffey, Leitenberg,
Author Manuscript

Henning, Turner, & Bennett, 1996; Feiring et al., 2009; Feiring et al., 2010; Simon &
Feiring, 2008). In addition, measures that focus on single variables may cluster different
types of processing styles at the scale ends. For example, low scores on a continuous
measure of absorbed processing may reflect either high levels of avoidance or high levels of
healthy processing. Similarly, low scores on a measure of avoidant processing could indicate
high use of either absorbed or healthy processing strategies.

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 4

To clearly distinguish primary strategies for processing CSA experiences, we analyzed the
Author Manuscript

abuse narratives of 108 youth with confirmed CSA histories. Narrative methods are uniquely
suited for studying how individuals process trauma because they provide a window into
speakers’ cognitive and emotional lives (Bruner, 1986; McAdams, 1993). When invited to
freely relate their accounts and evaluations of CSA experiences, youths’ narratives reflect
their current strategies for processing abuse-related memories, emotions, and cognitions.
Rather than a factual recounting of events, narratives reveal the constructive process by
which individuals organize and evaluate past events in light of current conditions (Riessman,
1993). In the CSA literature, narrative methods have been used to identify common content
themes in individuals’ attempts to make meaning of CSA (e.g., Harter, Erbes, & Hart, 2004;
Liem, O’Toole, & James, 1996) and assess the extent to which resolution of CSA themes are
related to PTSD (Newman, Riggs, & Roth, 1997). Although not without merit, these
approaches cannot discriminate those who are more or less successful in their attempts to
Author Manuscript

process abuse experiences. The current study uses a structural analysis that focuses on how
youth approach and organize their narrative accounts to identify individual differences in the
ways youth attend to and evaluate CSA memories, affects, and cognitions. This approach
makes a distinction between how youth approach the task of processing CSA experiences
and the particular meanings made of CSA events. It also differs from questionnaire strategies
by evaluating implicit or automatic modes of processing rather than relying on youths’
ability to accurately reflect upon and report their processing strategies.

Method
Sample Selection and Characteristics
Participants were part of a prospective longitudinal study of the consequences of child
sexual abuse. The majority of the sample (95%) was referred directly by Child Protective
Author Manuscript

Services (CPS) offices or regional child abuse medical clinics working with CPS. Project
staff first reviewed intake logs to identify eligible cases. To qualify for the study, children
had to be between 8 and 15 years of age, in the custody of a nonoffending parent or
caregiver, and identified as a CSA case within 8 weeks from the date CPS opened the case.
Caseworkers then contacted 185 families to obtain permission for project staff to contact
them to discuss the study. All but three families agreed to be contacted by project staff, and
of the 182 families contacted by project staff, 160 families agreed to and did participate in
the study.

Sexual abuse was defined as sexual involvement with a juvenile or an adult perpetrator by
coercion and typically involved physical contact (e.g., fondling or oral, anal, or vaginal
penetration). Even in the few cases of nonphysical contact, other indicators of severity, such
Author Manuscript

as a higher frequency of abuse or abuse by a close relative (e.g., forced to watch a parent
masturbate on multiple occasions) were present. The final recruited sample comprised of
children with confirmed cases of sexual abuse, with confirmation determined from CPS or
court records indicating at least one of the following criteria: specific medical findings,
confession by the offender, abuse validated by an expert, or conviction of the offender in
family or criminal court.

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 5

Children and their families were assessed at abuse discovery (T1) and again 1 (T2) and 6
Author Manuscript

years later (T3). At T1, participants included 117 (73%) girls and 43 (27%) boys. Of these,
88 were children aged 12 years and below (M = 9.5, SD = 1.1) and 72 were adolescents aged
13 years and older (M = 13.5, SD = 1.1). A third assessment was obtained approximately 6
years following abuse discovery (M = 6.2, SD = 1.2; range = 4.3–10.1). The sample for the
current study consists of the 121 youth who completed the T3 assessment. The vast majority
of participants (76%) were females, which precluded a thorough consideration of gender
differences in CSA processing. The age distribution of the sample was evenly divided
between those who were adolescents (ages 13 to 17 years; 54%) and young adults (ages 18
to 23 years; 46%) at T3. The majority of participants came from single-parent families
(70%) and had an income of $25,000 or less (71%). Ethnicity was self-reported as African
American (39%), White (31%), Hispanic (21%), and Other (9% including Native American
and Asian American). The sample for the current analyses did not differ on demographics,
Author Manuscript

abuse characteristics, or adjustment levels compared to those without trauma interviews at

T3 or from those seen for the T1 and T2 but not the T3 assessment.

Although the study did not include treatment, treatment recommendations were made at T1
and T2 to the agencies from which families were recruited, if caregivers and children gave
permission. T1 assessments occurred before any participants received treatment. By T2,
68% of youth had received some form of treatment, typically from community-based
agencies, because of referrals subsequent to abuse discovery. Individual therapy was the
primary modality and the average length of treatment was 5.4 months (SD = 4.7). Between
the second and third assessments, 39% of the sample reported having received some form of
treatment though not necessarily because of the abuse. Individual therapy was the primary
modality and the average length of treatment was 8 months (SD = 8.5).
Author Manuscript

Specific characteristics of the abuse incidents that qualified participants for inclusion were
determined using a checklist specifically designed for the study. After children’s T1
assessment, project staff reviewed records from law enforcement and CPS and
systematically completed the checklist for the following information: relationship of the
perpetrator to the victim; frequency and duration of the abuse; how the abuse was
discovered; types of abusive acts experienced (e.g., fondling and penetration); use of force;
medical findings; and how the case was confirmed. Based on the most serious form of
contact abuse reported, 67% experienced genital penetration. Almost all perpetrators were
known to their victims with 35% being a parent figure, 25% a relative, 37% a familiar
person who was not a relative, and 3% a stranger. Forty-three percentage of participants
lived with the perpetrator at the time of the abuse. Frequency of the reported abusive events
was once for 30% of the sample, 2–9 times for 40%, and 10 times or more for 30%. The
Author Manuscript

abuse lasted for a year or longer in 33% of cases. Use of force was reported in 25% of the
sample, threat of force in 19%, and in 56% of the cases, no force or threat was reported. The
time lapse from the last abusive act to the time of discovery was 2 weeks or less (45%), more
than 2 weeks to 6 months (33%), and 7 months or more (22%).

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 6

Procedure
Author Manuscript

All procedures for this study were approved by the institutional review boards of the
academic institutions where the research took place. At each of the three assessment points,
when the participant was a minor, children provided written informed assent, and their
parents/guardians provide written informed consent. At T3, participants who were 18 or
older supplied written informed consent. Assessment data were gathered via interview,
questionnaire, and computer-assisted methods by a trained clinician in a private office.
Participants received a total of $250 for completing the three assessments.

Measures
Abuse characteristics—After the T1 assessment, trained staff members copied
information on specific abuse characteristics from law enforcement agencies and CPS
records to a checklist. Based on records of 20 participants, two staff members copied
Author Manuscript

information from the same case files onto the checklist with 100% or near 100% accuracy
for each category of information. Coding of abuse severity information from the checklist
(e.g., identity of the perpetrator as a stranger = 1, familiar person = 2, relative = 3, and parent
figure = 4) was completed by trained project personnel, among whom acceptable interrater
reliability was obtained (κ = .73–1.0).

CSA processing strategies—Individual differences in youths’ strategies for processing

CSA experiences were assessed using narratives generated from a semistructured interview
conducted by project staff known to participants. The interview was designed to elicit
representations of abuse experiences rather than veridical accounts of events. Participants
were asked to describe their abuse experiences; express their thoughts and feelings about the
abuse and its discovery at the time it happened as well as over time; and to explain the
Author Manuscript

perceived effects of their CSA experiences. The protocol allowed participants to respond
with as much or as little detail as desired, with standard probes provided as needed.
Interviews ranged from 4 to 10 min in length, averaging about 5 min. They were audiotaped,
transcribed verbatim by project staff unfamiliar with participants or study hypotheses, and
checked for accuracy by an independent reader. All participants assessed at T3 agreed to the
interview. Thirteen interviews were excluded from the current analyses due to technical
problems (e.g., equipment failure, poor recording; n = 11) or interviews deemed too brief to
be reliably coded (n = 2). The remaining 108 narratives were coded using a system that was
first developed on an independent set of 35 CSA narratives from a separate study (Simon,
Feiring, Noll, & Trickett, 2005). Consistent with a structural approach, our system considers
both the content and style of participants’ discourse. The specific detail provided about
abuse events was less important than the coherence of the narrative, its structure, and the
Author Manuscript

manner in which youth conveyed abuse-related memories, affects, and cognitions. As with
other structural approaches, narrative coherence served as a starting point for examining how
youth process CSA. The coherence of a narrative involves the extent to which it is structured
as a sensible, internally consistent, and unified whole (Fiese et al., 1999; Grice, 1989; Main,
Goldwyn, & Hesse, 2002). Although coherence is critical for constructing adaptive
meanings, it is insufficient for differentiating variations in processing strategies (Simon et
al., 2005). For example, Constructive narratives are inherently more coherent than Avoidant
or Absorbed narratives, but the latter two may be equally incoherent. Thus, our coding

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 7

system considered coherence but centered on the identification of three specific strategies for
Author Manuscript

processing CSA experiences: Constructive, Absorbed, and Avoidant.

A Constructive narrative is characterized by the speaker’s effortful processing of abuse

memories, affects, and cognitions. In addition to providing a coherent account of abuse
events, Constructive youth recount vulnerable thoughts and feelings from a child’s point of
view while maintaining a present day perspective. These memories, thoughts, and feelings
provide a basis for youth to construct an understanding of the causal circumstances of abuse
events, as they contemplate their own or others’ actions or reactions and evaluate the impact
of abuse events at the time they occur and subsequently. Either explicitly or implicitly, these
understandings are viewed as active constructions that are open to revision in the face of
changing circumstances. For example, Constructive youth may acknowledge changes in
maturation, environment, or experience since the time of the abuse, which altered the
meanings and implications of the abuse. As such, abuse experiences are clearly contained in
Author Manuscript

the past, but the significance of these events for past and current functioning remains open
for consideration. Similarly, Constructive youth may acknowledge some degree of continued
distress as they continue to process abuse-related memories, thoughts, and feelings; yet, they
remain open to continued processing and may even describe explicit strategies for regulating
their attention or distress that keep them from feeling overwhelmed. The following quote
from one of our participants aptly captures many of the features of the Constructive strategy:

At the time, and for a while after, I felt dirty, different from other kids. I stopped,
um, hanging around my friends because I really didn’t want to be around anyone. I
didn’t know how to express what I was feeling and I like held it all inside. But
eventually I just couldn’t do that anymore and, you know, I had to start dealing with
it, cause if I didn’t it would just keep getting bigger and bigger. Not like all at once
Author Manuscript

you know, but bit by bit. I’m not sure I’ll ever totally understand why it happened. I
mean it’s like a sentence for a crime I didn’t commit. But I have to, you know,
accept it. So I’m figuring out how to deal with it—not completely, well not yet, but
in some ways. So I can be a teenager and continue on with my life.

Avoidant and Absorbed narratives each lack coherence but differ markedly in the underlying
strategy for processing abuse experiences. Whereas Constructive strategies involve the active
processing of manageable doses of abuse-related material, Absorbed strategies reflect an
engrossment in abuse-related memories, affects, or cognitions in ways that impede meaning
making. Confusing or overly detailed descriptions of abuse experiences suggest difficulty
constructing an incisive story of abuse experiences and convey a sense of being
overwhelmed by abuse-related material. “In-the-moment” accounts indicate a struggle to
maintain a current day perspective on past events. Each of these narrative features conveys a
Author Manuscript

fundamental difficulty containing and regulating abuse-related reactions in the service of

discerning key information from which useful meanings can be constructed. In short, abuse
experiences are viewed as important, but efforts to evaluate them are largely unproductive
and lack insight. As a result, Absorbed speakers seem unable to benefit from attempts to
process abuse experiences. Such efforts may appear rigid or futile (e.g., excessive
rumination or preoccupying anger) and convey a sense that whatever meanings have been
derived from abuse experiences are not readily amenable to new or discrepant input. The

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 8

following quote illustrates an Absorbed speaker’s difficulty relating an account of her CSA
Author Manuscript

experiences:

It was one of the kinds of things that happened but it was over with and nobody was
there. I don’t remember when it started. Ok, what happened, yes. My cousin—um
—God—Lord—(30sec). When I was, it’s hard because when it first happened, well
not at first, but I told then. It was just that, but after that, I never talked about it
anymore. I don’t know what to say. Where do you even begin? It’s just too much, I
don’t know.
This Absorbed speaker finds it difficult to maintain a present-day perspective on past events:

… and when I tell somebody, I am mad that the one person I mean I was extremely
mad, I still am to this day, I mean the one person that’s supposed to be there for me
24-7 for the rest of my life til whenever you know, she lives—she doesn’t believe
Author Manuscript

me, my mother and this is my mom, and she doesn’t believe me and I am eight
years old.

Unlike the approach orientation of the Constructive and Absorbed strategies, Avoidant
meaning making is evidenced by a notable restriction of attention to abuse-related memories,
affects, and cognitions. Avoidant narratives are characterized by a marked lack of effort to
understand why abuse events occurred or to evaluate the impact of the abuse on the self or
relationships. The story provided of the abuse events may be extremely brief or fact driven,
with little spontaneous discussion of thoughts or feelings. Questions regarding abuse-related
affect or cognition are typically met with marked distancing or minimization of their
importance, and evidence of personal vulnerability is either absent or largely limited to the
past. Through content and manner, youth with Avoidant meaning-making strategies suggest
that their abuse experiences are of little relevance to their present life or identity. The
Author Manuscript

following quote is illustrative of this sentiment:

Ok. Well, I had a molestation and it entered court and they took care of it. You
know, all that typical big mess that you see on TV. I was like a kid at the time. Of
course, it was his fault, so I mean, it didn’t really bother me.

Each narrative was independently coded by two of the authors (V.S. and S.M) to determine
the presence of a primary processing strategy: Constructive, Absorbed, or Avoidant.
Narratives were classified with a primary processing strategy using a two-stage approach.
First, coders used a 9-point scale to rate the presence and strength of each processing
strategy in a given transcript. Higher scores reflect a stronger and more pervasive use of that
strategy. Next, the coder used the constellation of processing style scale scores along with
the narrative’s fit to the overall descriptions of the three processing strategies to determine
Author Manuscript

whether a primary strategy was evident. A narrative was classified with one primary
processing strategies when (a) the narrative was a good fit to only one of the overall strategy
descriptors; (b) one of the processing strategies scale scores was at or above the scale
midpoint (i.e., score of 5 or above) and was higher than the two other scale scores; and (c)
the highest processing strategy scale score corresponded with the overall strategy fit. Any
transcript not meeting these criteria was to be designated as “Unclassifiable” with a
descriptive explanation. This method reflects a person-oriented approach to understanding

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 9

how youth process CSA experiences whereby individuals rather than variables are treated as
Author Manuscript

the unit of analysis, and the patterning of variables (e.g., processing style scores) rather than
the linear relationships are used to capture the essential features of a system (von Eye &
Bergman, 2003).

Concurrent adjustment—Indicators of concurrent (T3) adjustment included measures of

PTSD, dissociation, depression, abuse-specific self-blame and shame, general self-blaming
attribution style, and sexual difficulties (i.e., sexual concerns and dysfunctional sexual
behavior). Symptoms of PTSD, dissociation, and sexual problems were assessed with the
Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI; Briere, 1995). Items on the TSI are rated on a 4-point
Likert-type scale ranging from “never” to “often” and index problems during the previous 6
months. Scale scores are created by summing items, such that the higher the score, the more
symptoms reported. The scales for intrusive experiences (e.g., flashbacks of upsetting things,
suddenly remembering something upsetting from the past), defensive avoidance (e.g., trying
Author Manuscript

to forget about a bad time in your life, staying away from places or people that remind you
of something), and anxious arousal (e.g., feeling jumpy, being startled or frightened by
sudden noises) index different types of PTSD symptoms. These scales (8 items each)
demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in the current sample (Intrusive experiences α
= .89; Defensive avoidance α = .87; Anxious arousal α = .81). The TSI Dissociation scale
taps symptoms such as derealization, out-of-body experiences, depersonalization, and
emotional numbing. This 9-item scale showed adequate internal consistency (α =.86). Two
of the TSI scales were administered to index sexual difficulties. The Sexual Concerns scale
includes 9 items that tap perceptions of sexual problems in relationships, sexual
dissatisfaction, and unwanted sexual thoughts and feelings (e.g., bad thoughts or feelings
during sex, problems in sexual relations). The 9-item Dysfunctional Sexual Behavior
subscale measures sexual behavior that is indiscriminant and the use of sex to achieve
Author Manuscript

nonsexual goals (e.g., having sex to obtain love or attention). The internal consistency of
these subscales in our sample was acceptable (Sexual concerns α = .82; Dysfunctional
sexual behavior α = .78).

The Child Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-
II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) were used to index depressive symptoms at T3. Participants
16 years and younger completed the CDI and those older than 16 years completed the BDI.
Both measures use a forced-choice questionnaire to quantify a range of depressive
symptoms such as disturbances of mood, hedonic capacity, vegetative functions, and
interpersonal behaviors. Higher total scores indicate more depressive symptoms. Both the
CDI and the BDI-II have shown acceptable convergent and discriminant validity (Beck et al.,
1996; Saylor, Finch, Spirito, & Bennett, 1984). Participants’ scores on these measures were
Author Manuscript

converted to T-scores make them comparable across the two instruments for analyses. Scores
for this sample showed good internal consistency (CDI α =.80; BDI α =.92).

Abuse-related shame and self-blame were assessed using items developed for this study. A
sample item from the shame scale reads, “I feel ashamed because I think that people can tell
from looking at me what happened.” The items were rated on a 3-point scale ranging from 1
(not true) to 3 (very true). Items were summed, with higher scores indicating greater shame.
For the abuse-specific self-blame items, participants rated the extent to which each of eight

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 10

causal statements was true for why the abuse happened on the same 3-point scale used for
Author Manuscript

shame. A sample items reads, “I was to blame for what happened.” Item ratings were
summed, with higher scores indicating more self-blame. Each measure showed acceptable
internal consistency (shame α = .85; self-blame α = .75).

To assess general attribution risk, participants 16 years and younger completed the
Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ; Thompson, Kaslow, Weiss, & Nolen-
Hoeksema, 1998), and those 17 years and older completed the parallel instrument for adults,
the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Peterson & Villanova, 1988). Both measures
include an equal number of scenarios that describe events with positive and negative
outcomes (e.g., CASQ “You get a bad grade in school;” ASQ “You meet a friend who acts
hostile towards you”). The CASQ and ASQ provide three subscale scores for positive events
on each dimension, internal/external, stable/unstable, global/specific, and three parallel
subscale scores for negative events. From these, positive (positive outcome—internal, stable,
Author Manuscript

and global) and negative (negative outcome—internal, stable, and global) composite scores
are computed. The general self-blame attribution score corresponds to the positive
composite score minus the negative composite score. This score indicates the extent to
which a self-blaming style for negative events is balanced by a positive style for good
events, with lower scores indicating a more self-blaming (i.e., internal, stable, and global)
attribution style. The internal consistency of this measure was moderate (CASQ α =.73;
ASQ α =.66). The general self-blame attribution scores for the CASQ and ASQ were
converted to T-scores to make them comparable for analyses.

Results
Descriptive Information
Author Manuscript

Each of the two coders was able to classify every narrative with one of the three processing
strategies based on both overall fit to the strategy description and consideration of an
individual’s scores on the processing strategy scales. No transcript was judged
unclassifiable. Coders agreed on the classification for 101 of the 108 interviews (κ = .89, p
< .001). The seven disagreements varied in nature: Absorbed versus Constructive (n = 3),
Absorbed versus Avoidant (n = 2), Constructive versus Absorbed (n = 1), and Constructive
versus Avoidant (n = 1). All disagreements were effectively resolved through consensus
scoring by the two coders.

Scores on the three processing style scales were consistent with overall classifications. The
highest scale score corresponded with the overall classification for each of the 108 narratives
(e.g., when a narrative was classified as Constructive, the Constructive scale score was the
Author Manuscript

highest). In addition, the scale score that corresponded with the overall classification was
always at or above the scale midpoint (M = 6.98, SD = 0.95) and at least 1.5 points higher
than next highest scale score. In most cases (96.7%), the difference between the
classification scale score and the next highest score was at least two points, with the mean
difference between these scores approaching four scale points (M = 3.98, SD = 1.44).

Table 1 shows the distribution of the three processing strategy classifications for the entire
sample as well as by gender and age group at abuse discovery. Classifications were not

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 11

associated with youths’ ethnicity, income, or overall abuse severity. Similarly, they did not
Author Manuscript

differ on any of the individual abuse characteristics that comprise the overall abuse severity
score (i.e., frequency, duration, perpetrator identity, use of force, and penetration).

Most striking is the low number of participants classified as Constructive. The vast majority
of youth were either Absorbed or Avoidant. Processing strategy classifications were
associated with age and gender, χ2(2, 106) = 7.19, p = .03 and χ2(2, 106) = 7.71, p = .02,
respectively. Cell frequencies that were greater than expected by chance were identified
using cellwise residual analyses in which adjusted residuals are treated as standardized
normal deviates for the purposes of establishing levels of significance (MacDonald &
Gardner, 2000). Youth with Constructive strategies were more likely to have been
adolescents than children at abuse discovery (zadj = 2.4, p < .05). Those with Avoidant
strategies were more likely to be male than female (zadj = 2.6, p < .05). No age or gender
differences emerged within the Absorbed classification. Given these differences, gender and
Author Manuscript

age group at discovery were included as covariates in subsequent analyses.

Processing Strategies and Post-Abuse Adaptation

A significant minority of the sample reported elevated levels of psychological distress. For
example, indicators of psychopathology in the clinical range on the TSI (i.e., subscale scores
of 65 or above) were noted for about a quarter of the sample 6 years after abuse discovery (n
= 30, 25% for defensive avoidance; n = 30, 25% for intrusive experiences; 14, 11% for
anxious arousal; n = 27, 23% for dissociation).

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations among the outcome measures of
posttraumatic stress, dissociation, depression, abuse-specific self-blame, attribution style,
abuse-specific shame, and sexual problems. Each measure showed good variability. To
Author Manuscript

compare the mean scores of youth with different processing strategies on the measures of
concurrent functioning, a series of multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) were
computed controlling for gender and age group at abuse discovery. Conceptually, similar
variables were analyzed together to reduce the Type I error rate. Separate MANCOVAs were
conducted on the symptom variables (PTSD scales, depression, and dissociation), the sexual
behavior variables (sexual concerns and dysfunctions), and the shame and attribution
processes (abuse-specific shame and self-blame, and general self-blame). Planned
comparisons examined pairwise differences between youth in the three processing strategy
groups. Table 3 shows the results of these analyses along with the group means.

For symptoms, there was a significant multivariate effect for processing strategy, Pillais’
F(10, 193) = 2.54, p = .04, but not for age or gender. The univariate tests for processing
Author Manuscript

strategy were significant for all outcomes. The general pattern of mean scores was for
Absorbed youth to show the highest symptom levels followed by Avoidant and then
Constructive youth. Results of the planned comparisons revealed that Absorbed youth
reported significantly more symptoms of intrusive experiences and depression than either
Constructive or Avoidant youth. Constructive youth also reported significantly fewer
symptoms of intrusive experiences, defensive avoidance, and dissociation than either
Absorbed or Avoidant youth, as well as fewer symptoms of anxious arousal and depression
than Absorbed youth. For sexual problems, there was a significant multivariate effect for

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 12

processing strategy, Pillais’ F(4, 200) = 2.77, p = .03, as well as significant univariate effects
Author Manuscript

for each problem type. Results of planned comparisons revealed that Absorbed youth
reported significantly more sexual concerns and dysfunctional sexual behavior than either
Constructive or Avoidant youth. Neither age nor gender showed a significant multivariate
effect.

For shame and attributions, there was a significant multivariate effect for processing strategy,
Pillais’ F(6,196) = 2.26, p = .05, but not for age or gender. The univariate tests for type of
processing strategy were significant only for abuse-specific shame and abuse-specific self-
blame. Results of the planned pairwise comparisons showed that Absorbed youth reported
significantly more shame than did Avoidant or Constructive youth. Constructive youth
reported significantly less self-blame for the abuse than Absorbed youth.

Discussion
Author Manuscript

Although thought to be central to recovery, few studies have examined the strategies CSA
youth use to organize and evaluate their experiences. The goals of this study were to identify
individual differences in how youth process CSA experiences and examine associations
between processing strategies and adjustment. The findings showed that coders could
reliably discern three processing strategies. As expected, each participant clearly displayed
one primary strategy for managing abuse-related material: Constructive, Absorbed, or
Avoidant.

Coding of the Constructive, Absorbed, and Avoidant strategies focused on the structure and
manner of youths’ discourse about the meaning of the abuse and its personal implications
rather than specific content or themes. In this way, youths’ narratives provided a window
into their strategies for reflecting upon and regulating abuse-related memories, affects, and
Author Manuscript

cognitions. The use of structural narrative analysis to detect variations in the ways people
represent themselves and their experiences is not new. Relationship researchers, for example,
have successfully used this approach to identify systematic differences in individuals’ states
of mind about relationship experiences (e.g., Main et al., 2002) and their associations with
interpersonal functioning across the life span (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). The system
developed for the current study is the first to use structural analysis to index systematic
differences in youths’ strategies for processing CSA experiences. Our findings add to this
work by demonstrating the utility of a person-oriented approach to trauma processing.
Whereas questionnaire ratings of avoidance and rumination focus on group levels of these
constructs, they fail to consider their patterning within individuals or the characteristics of
healthy processing. When youth narrate their experiences in their own words, they reveal
implicit modes of processing that capture patterns of attending to and disengaging from
Author Manuscript

abuse-related material.

One of the most striking findings from the current study is the low proportion of youth with
a Constructive processing strategy (13.9%). These results are consistent with the adult
literature, in which the majority of adults report continued difficulties making meaning of
CSA experiences (Silver et al., 1983; Wright et al., 2007). Taken together, these studies
highlight the significant challenges that CSA poses to healthy processing. Many youth either

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 13

fail to process their experiences or process in ways that do not facilitate adaptive meaning
Author Manuscript

making.

As expected, processing strategies were associated with psychosocial functioning. As

suggested by trauma theories, Constructive narratives showed signs of effortful processing
that were measured and iterative over time (e.g., Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers & Clark, 2000;
Horowitz, 1986). Constructive youth may not have “resolved” their experiences; indeed,
several participants openly acknowledged continuing struggles. However, their narratives
suggested that they viewed processing as an open-ended experience of evolving meaning.
This strategy was associated with the lowest levels of psychopathological symptoms, sexual
problems, and abuse-related stigmatization (i.e., abuse-specific shame and self-blame).

Youth with Absorbed narratives were open to processing but showed great difficulty doing
so productively. Their narratives revealed problems maintaining a current perspective on past
Author Manuscript

CSA experiences without becoming overwhelmed, fearful, angry, or otherwise dysregulated.

Rigid conceptualizations of CSA experiences and difficulties regulating their current
reactions appeared to prevent these youth from capitalizing on the passage of time and
corresponding maturational advances to gain new or more helpful perspectives. In short,
Absorbed youth continued to unsuccessfully process their CSA experiences. Several of them
seemed to recognize that their efforts were unproductive and described equally unsuccessful
efforts to avoid thinking about their abuse. Not surprisingly, Absorbed youth reported more
PTSD and depressive symptoms, sexual problems, and abuse-specific shame than either
Constructive or Avoidant youth. These findings suggest that this strategy is particularly
problematic for youth and indicate a need for interventions that address the ways in which
Absorbed youth are attending to, regulating, and processing their abuse experiences.
Author Manuscript

Like Absorbed youth, those with Avoidant strategies reported more intrusive experiences,
defensive avoidance, and dissociation than Constructive youth. These findings suggest that
posttraumatic recovery is related to both whether and how youth process CSA experiences
over time. Even when no statistically significant differences emerged, Avoidant youth
typically reported more problems than Constructive youth. It is possible that the low number
of Constructive youth resulted in insufficient statistical power to detect smaller but
meaningful differences between the two strategies. Nonetheless, Avoidant youth did fare
better than Absorbed youth on several outcomes. Of particular interest is that compared to
Absorbed youth, Avoidant youth reported less defensive avoidance. This seemingly
counterintuitive finding may point to an important difference between youths’ posttraumatic
behavior and processing styles. By actively attending to CSA material, Absorbed youth may
be more consciously motivated to avoid reminders of their abuse in efforts to gain
Author Manuscript

intermittent relief from the intensity of negative abuse-related feelings and cognitions. In
contrast, Avoidant youth have established an automatic pattern of rigidly distancing from the
abuse in a way that minimizes its current relevance. To the extent that this implicit strategy is
“successful,” they may sense less need for deliberate efforts to avoid CSA material.
Additional research into the defensive avoidance behavior of those with and without
Avoidant processing styles would help clarify this issue.

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 14

The pattern of results might suggest that Avoidant processing of CSA is less healthy than
Author Manuscript

Constructive processing but with fewer generalized consequences than the Absorbed
strategy. This proposition should be considered tentative at best, as it is possible that
Avoidant youth may experience difficulties in domains other than those assessed in the
current study. Whereas our outcome measures focused on intrapsychic correlates of CSA,
Avoidant youth may be more likely to experience externalizing behavior problems, such as
substance use. The extent to which avoidant coping is detrimental to psychological
functioning is a point of contention in the broader trauma literature (Bonanno, Keltner,
Holen, & Horowitz, 1995; Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Foa & Rothbaum, 1998; Wortman &
Silver, 1989). Our findings imply that for youth with confirmed CSA histories, some degree
of processing is important to long-term adaptation but that the approach to processing also is
critical. Use of distancing and effortful regulation of attention to CSA-related material may
be helpful and even necessary for positive recovery. Some participants with Constructive
Author Manuscript

strategies discussed deliberate efforts to limit their focus on CSA experiences to balance
processing the past with building a present life. For these youth, however, distancing is
effortful and just one component of a more balanced approach to making sense of CSA
experiences. In contrast, when avoidance entails an implicit, pervasive, and automatic
strategy characterized by the minimization of CSA experiences, it is associated with a
moderate degree of psychosocial dysfunction.

Future studies should examine the development of youths’ processing strategies. CSA
processing strategies were unrelated to abuse severity but were associated with age and
gender. Although participants with Constructive strategies were a small minority, they
tended to be older. The extent to which this finding is due to the timing of the assessment
versus the timing of the abuse is unclear. The former explanation suggests that the
developmental advances of late adolescence and early adulthood may provide new skills and
Author Manuscript

opportunities for developing a more adaptive understanding of CSA experiences. However,

findings from the few relevant studies of adults with CSA histories suggest that the vast
majority either avoid or are frustrated in their efforts to process their CSA experiences
(Silver et al., 1983; Wright et al., 2007). Such findings raise questions about whether the
passage of time or developmental advances in processing capacities are themselves sufficient
for developing a Constructive strategy. Alternatively, developmental capacities at the time of
the abuse or its discovery may better account for the observed age differences. When CSA
occurs at an early age, processing strategies may be limited and contribute to greater use of
dissociative coping, which may engender subsequent processing difficulties (Macfie,
Cicchetti, & Toth, 2001; Putnam, 1996). Consistent with this idea, younger participants were
less likely than older participants to use Constructive processing and those with
nonconstructive strategies reported higher levels of dissociation. An important goal of future
Author Manuscript

work will be to assess youths’ CSA processing strategies across development. Our results
suggest that when abuse occurs at an earlier age, it may set in motion a reliance on less
healthy processing styles. However, maturational advances in cognitive, emotional, or social
capacities appear to confer little “protection” for older youth.

Gender did not distinguish among those with Constructive strategies, but Avoidant youth
were more likely to be male than female. Males’ orientation toward avoiding rather than
approaching emotions under stress might contribute to greater avoidance of processing

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 15

emotion-laden CSA material (Stanton & Franz, 1999; Stanton, Kirk, Cameron, & Danoff-
Author Manuscript

Burg, 2000). Their reluctance to discuss their CSA experiences may also be important
(O’Leary & Barber, 2008). In future work, assessment of emotional approach tendencies,
gender roles, and perceived reactions of others’ to CSA experiences may be helpful for
understanding whether and why males might prefer avoidant CSA processing strategies
(Paine & Hansen, 2002).

Understanding the development of CSA processing strategies also will require attention to
the broader context in which the abuse occurs, including youths’ initial reactions to the
abuse, the reactions of significant others, and the presence of other traumatic events. In
addition to these abuse-specific factors, youths’ biobehavioral dispositions for stress
reactivity and emotion regulation warrant careful consideration. Self-capacities for distress
tolerance and modulation begin to form early in life but are also affected by abuse and may
mediate distress responses when recalling abuse experiences (Alexander, 1992; Cicchetti &
Author Manuscript

Rogosch, 2007; Palesh, Classen, Field, Kraemer, & Spiegel, 2007).

Our study is an initial effort to articulate individual differences in the ways youth process
CSA experiences and several limitations are important for interpreting the reported results.
First, the cross-sectional, nonexperimental nature of the data precludes causal interpretations
about observed patterns of adjustment among youth with different processing strategies.
Articulating the reciprocal relations between processing, meaning making, and adjustment
over the course of development requires longitudinal research. Such work could also help
identify markers of the three strategies at different developmental stages. A second
consideration concerns the scope of the current study. As previously noted, our goal was to
identify individual differences in processing strategies rather than explain their origins or
explore the extent of their psychosocial implications. As such, many important factors,
Author Manuscript

including other aspects of the abuse experience (e.g., caregiver reactions and
polyvictimization), the broader scope of CSA-related outcomes, and youths’ dispositional
characteristics remain important topics for future work.

Nonetheless, the current findings suggest that interventions to facilitate constructive CSA
processing may be particularly helpful for long-term adaptation. Such work is compatible
with early intervention efforts that unfold over time in the context of a trusted therapeutic
alliance. For example, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), prescribes a
gradual exposure paradigm prior to trauma processing (Cohen et al., 2006). Specifically,
youth first develop a storybook about their traumatic experiences and reactions. Narrating
trauma-related events, thoughts, and feelings provides youth with an integrated story of their
experience, desensitizes them to traumatic reminders, and encourages a metacognitive
Author Manuscript

perspective of the trauma as a part rather than a defining feature of their lives. In turn, these
activities set the stage for therapists to facilitate conceptual processing skills that allow youth
to reappraise their cognitive or emotional reactions and develop adaptive meanings of their
experiences. The carefully titrated approach of TF-CBT and other integrative treatment
models (e.g., Cloitre, Chase Stovall-McClough, Miranda, & Chemtob, 2004) stand in sharp
contrast to the immediate processing demands of the single session debriefing model, which
is at best ineffective and at worst harmful (Rose, Bisson, & Wessely, 2003).

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 16

Healthy processing skills should prepare youth to revisit and update their understanding of
Author Manuscript

the abuse in accordance with their developing cognitive, emotional, and social capacities.
This may be particularly helpful for successfully negotiating developmental tasks that often
pose challenges to CSA youth, such as the emergence of romantic and consensual sexual
relationships or the transition to parenthood (Harvey et al., 2000; Silver et al., 1983). When
viewed in this way, promoting healthy processing strategies may be at least as important as
encouraging healthy understandings of CSA experiences. Youth with such strategies should
have the tools for constructing adaptive meanings of the abuse, both in its immediate
aftermath and over time.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Lynn Taska, Patricia Lynch, and Patricia Myers in data collection
and the youth and their families for participation.
Author Manuscript

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article:
National Institute of Mental Health to Valerie Simon (MH074997) and Candice Feiring (MH49885).

Biographies
Valerie Simon is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the Merrill Palmer Skillman
Institute at Wayne State University. Her research focuses the development of adolescents’
peer and romantic relationships, the ways youth process significant life experiences, and
processes related to adjustment among sexually abused youth.

Dr. Candice Feiring, is a Senior Research Scholar at The College of New Jersey. Her
research focuses on processes such as shame, attribution and social support related to
Author Manuscript

adjustment in sexually abused youth and adolescent romantic relationships.

Sarah Kobielski McElroy is a postdoctoral fellow in clinical child psychology at the

Virginia Treatment Center for Children. Her research focuses on youths’ representations of
maltreatment experiences and polyvictimization in relation to psychosocial functioning.

References
Alexander PC. Application of attachment theory to the study of sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 1992; 60:185–195. [PubMed: 1592947]
Bal S, van Oost P, de Bourdeaudhuij I, Crombez G. Avoidant coping as a mediator between self-
reported sexual abuse and stress-related symptoms in adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2003;
27:883–897. [PubMed: 12951138]
Author Manuscript

Beck, A., Steer, R., Brown, G. BDI-II manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace and Company; 1996.
Bonanno GA, Keltner D, Holen A, Horowitz MJ. When avoiding unpleasant emotions might not be
such a bad thing: Verbal-autonomic response dissociation and midlife conjugal bereavement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69:975–989. [PubMed: 7473042]
Brewin CR, Dalgleish T, Joseph S. A dual representation theory of posttraumatic stress disorder.
Psychological Review. 1996; 103:670–686. [PubMed: 8888651]
Briere, J. Trauma symptom inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources; 1995.
Bruner, J. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1986.

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 17

Cassidy, J., Shaver, P. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2. New
York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008.
Author Manuscript

Cicchetti D, Rogosch FA. Personality, adrenal steroid hormones, and resilience in maltreated children:
A multilevel perspective. Development and Psychopathology. 2007; 19:787–809. [PubMed:
17705903]
Cloitre M, Chase Stovall-McClough K, Miranda R, Chemtob CM. Therapeutic alliance, negative mood
regulation, and treatment outcome in child abuse-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2004; 72:411–416. [PubMed: 15279525]
Coffey P, Leitenberg H, Henning K, Turner T, Bennett RT. Mediators of the long-term impact of child
sexual abuse: Perceived stigma, betrayal, powerlessness, and self-blame. Child Abuse & Neglect.
1996; 20:447–455. [PubMed: 8735380]
Cohen, JA., Mannarino, AP., Deblinger, E. Treating trauma & traumatic grief in children and
adolescents. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006.
Deblinger E, Runyon MK. Understanding and treating feelings of shame in children who have
experienced maltreatment. Child Maltreatment. 2005; 10:364–376. [PubMed: 16204738]
Ehlers A, Clark DM. A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and
Author Manuscript

Therapy. 2000; 38:319–345. [PubMed: 10761279]

Feiring C, Cleland CM, Simon VA. Abuse-specific self-schemas and self-functioning: A prospective
study of sexually abused youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2010;
39:35–50. [PubMed: 20390797]
Feiring C, Miller-Johnson S, Cleland CM. Potential pathways from stigmatization and internalizing
symptoms to delinquency in sexually abused youth. Child Maltreatment. 2007; 12:220–232.
[PubMed: 17631622]
Feiring C, Simon VA, Cleland CM. Childhood sexual abuse, stigmatization, internalizing symptoms,
and the development of sexual difficulties and dating aggression. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology. 2009; 77:127–137. [PubMed: 19170459]
Feiring C, Taska LS, Chen K. Trying to understand why horrible things happen: Attribution, shame,
and symptom development following sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment. 2002; 7:26–41. [PubMed:
11838512]
Feiring C, Taska LS, Lewis M. Adjustment following sexual abuse discovery: The role of shame and
Author Manuscript

attributional style. Developmental Psychology. 2002; 38:79–92. [PubMed: 11806704]

Fiese B, Sameroff A, Grotevant H, Wamboldt F, Dickstein S, Fravel D. The stories that families tell:
Narrative coherence, narrative interaction, and relationship beliefs. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development. 1999; 64:1–162.
Foa, EB., Rothbaum, BO. Treating the trauma of rape: Cognitive-behavioral therapy for PTSD. New
York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998.
Grice, HP. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1989.
Harter S, Erbes CR, Hart CC. Content analysis of the personal constructs of female sexual abuse
survivors elicited through repertory grid technique. Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 2004;
17:27–43.
Harvey MR, Mishler EG, Koenen K, Harney PA. In the aftermath of sexual abuse: Making and
remaking meaning in narratives of trauma and recovery. Narrative Inquiry. 2000; 10:291–311.
Holmes J. Psychotherapy and memory: An attachment perspective. British Journal of Psychotherapy.
1996; 13:204–218.
Horowitz M. Stress-response syndromes: A review of posttraumatic and adjustment disorders. Hospital
Author Manuscript

& Community Psychiatry. 1986; 37:241–249. [PubMed: 3957267]

Janoff-Bulman, R. Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York, NY: Free
Press; 1992.
Janoff-Bulman, R. Schema-change perspectives on posttraumatic growth. In: Calhoun, LG., Tedeschi,
RG., editors. Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research & practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2006. p. 81-99.
Kovacs M. The Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI). Psychopharmacology Bulletin. 1985; 21:995–
998. [PubMed: 4089116]

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 18

Liem JH, O’Toole JG, James JB. Themes of power and betrayal in sexual abuse survivors’
characterizations of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1996; 9:745–761.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 8902744]
Macfie J, Cicchetti D, Toth SL. The development of dissociation in maltreated preschool-aged
children. Development and Psychopathology. 2001; 13:233–254. [PubMed: 11393645]
Main, M., Goldwyn, R., Hesse, E. Unpublished manuscript. University of California; Berkeley, CA:
2002. Adult attachment scoring and classification systems.
McAdams, DP. The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY:
William Morrow & Co; 1993.
MacDonald PL, Gardner RC. Type I error rate comparisons of post hoc procedures for I J chi-square
tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2000; 60:735–754.
Merrill LL, Thomsen CJ, Sinclair BB, Milner JS, Gold SR. Predicting the impact of child sexual abuse
on women: The role of abuse severity, parental support, and coping strategies. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001; 69:992–1006. [PubMed: 11777126]
Michael T, Halligan SL, Clark DM, Ehlers A. Rumination in posttraumatic stress disorder. Depression
and Anxiety. 2007; 24:307–317. [PubMed: 17041914]
Author Manuscript

Newman E, Riggs DS, Roth S. Thematic resolution, PTSD, and complex PTSD: The relationship
between meaning and trauma-related diagnoses. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1997; 10:197–213.
[PubMed: 9136088]
Nolen-Hoeksema S, Morrow J. A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms
after a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 1991; 61:115–121. [PubMed: 1890582]
O’Leary PJ, Barber JG. Gender differences in silencing following childhood sexual abuse. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse. 2008; 17:133–143. [PubMed: 19042242]
Paine ML, Hansen DJ. Factors influencing children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology
Review. 2002; 22:271–295. [PubMed: 11806022]
Palesh OG, Classen CC, Field N, Kraemer HC, Spiegel D. The relationship of child maltreatment and
self-capacities with distress when telling one’s story of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Child
Sexual Abuse. 2007; 16:63–80. [PubMed: 18032246]
Peterson C, Villanova P. An expanded attributional style questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal
Author Manuscript

Psychology. 1988; 97:87–89. [PubMed: 3351118]

Putnam FW. Child development and dissociation. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America. 1996; 5:285–301.
Riessman, CK. Narrative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1993.
Roemer L, Litz B, Orsillo S, Wagner A. A preliminary investigation of the role of strategic
withholding of emotions in PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2001; 14:149–156.
Rose S, Bisson J, Wessely S. A systematic review of single-session psychological interventions
(‘debriefing’) following trauma. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2003; 72(4):176–184.
[PubMed: 12792122]
Roth S, Newman E. The process of coping with incest for adult survivors: Measurement and
implications for treatment and research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1993; 8:363–377.
Saylor CF, Finch AJ, Spirito A, Bennett B. The Children’s Depression Inventory: A systematic
evaluation of psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1984;
52:955–967. [PubMed: 6520288]
Author Manuscript

Silver RL, Boon C, Stones MH. Searching for meaning in misfortune: Making sense of incest. Journal
of Social Issues. 1983; 39:81–101.
Simon VA, Feiring C. Sexual anxiety and eroticism predict the development of sexual problems in
youth with a history of sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment. 2008; 13:167–181. [PubMed: 18408212]
Simon, VA., Feiring, C., Noll, J., Trickett, P. Adolescents’ narratives about sexual abuse and
adjustment. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child
Development; Atlanta, GA. 2005 Apr.
Stanton, AL., Franz, R. Focusing on emotion: An adaptive coping strategy?. In: Synder, CR., editor.
Coping: The psychology of what works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 90-118.

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Simon et al. Page 19

Stanton AL, Kirk SB, Cameron CL, Danoff-Burg S. Coping through emotional approach: Scale
construction and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 78:1150–1169.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 10870915]
Thompson M, Kaslow NJ, Weiss B, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Children’s attributional style Questionnaire–
Revised: Psychometric examination. Psychological Assessment. 1998; 10:166–170.
von Eye A, Bergman LR. Research strategies in developmental psychopathology: Dimensional identity
and the person-oriented approach. Development and Psychopathology. Special Issue: Conceptual,
Methodological, and Statistical Issues in Developmental Psychopathology: A Special Issue in
Honor of Paul E. Meehl. 2003; 15:553–580.
Wortman CB, Silver RC. The myths of coping with loss. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 1989; 57:349–357. [PubMed: 2661609]
Wright MO, Crawford E, Sebastian K. Positive resolution of childhood sexual abuse experiences: The
role of coping, benefit-finding, and meaning-making. Journal of Family Violence. 2007; 22:597–
608.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Distribution of Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) Processing Strategy Classifications

CSA Processing Strategy Classifications

Simon et al.

Constructive Avoidant Absorbed Total

Entire sample
N 15 39 54 108
% within classification 13.9 36.1 50
Age at abuse discovery
Child
n 5 27 31 63
% within classification 33.3 69.2 55.6
Adolescent
n 10 12 22 45
% within classification 66.7 30.8 44.4
Gender
Male
n 1 14 9 24
% within classification 6.7 35.9 16.7
Female
n 14 25 45 84
% within classification 93.3 64.1 83.3

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

Page 20
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Outcome Measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Simon et al.

1. Intrusive Experiences 55.70 (11.41)

2. Defensive Avoidance 0.80 55.61 (10.66)
3. Anxious Arousal 0.70 0.80 52.49 (10.13)
4. Dissociation 0.74 0.73 0.79 55.95 (13.09)
5. Depression 0.63 0.62 0.65 0.66 50.18 (9.97)
6. Abuse-specific Shame 0.55 0.57 0.49 0.62 0.55 1.92 (1.89)
7. Abuse-specific self-blame 0.58 0.64 0.57 0.65 0.61 0.90 4.39 (4.04)
8. General attribution risk −0.29 −0.32 −0.31 −0.38 −0.46 −0.33 −0.24 50.67 (9.66)
9. Sexual concerns 0.52 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.47 0.49 −0.23 49.25 (8.49)
10. Dysfunctional sexual behavior 0.41 0.48 0.43 0.46 0.47 0.39 0.47 −0.14 0.69 49.89 (9.11)

Note. For each variable, means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are on the main diagonal. Correlations with an absolute value > .20 are significant at p < .05 and correlations with an absolute value
of .31 are significant at p < .01.

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

Page 21
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 3

Results of multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) and Planned Comparisons Testing for Differences in Outcomes by Processing Strategy
Controlling for Gender and Age at Time of Abuse Discovery
Simon et al.

Psychosocial Functioning Constructive M (SD) Avoidant M (SD) Absorbed M (SD) Between Subjects Effects Univariate F2

Symptoms1 MANCOVA
Intrusive experiences 48.06 (6.39)a 53.74 (10.03)b 61.73 (12.43)c 7.62** (2, 105)
Defensive avoidance 48.07 (4.99)a 54.94 (10.87)b 60.72 (12.45)c 9.89** (2, 105)
Anxious arousal 49.26 (6.84)a 50.46 (9.87)a 56.55 (10.62)b 3.86* (2, 105)
Dissociation 48.06 (7.46)a 54.84 (11.80)b 60.80 (14.15)c 4.82* (2, 105)
Depression 46.03 (6.83)a 48.53 (8.06)a 55.39 (11.10b 5.86** (2, 105)

Sexual problems1 MANCOVA

Sexual concerns 45.13 (5.53)a 47.90 (6.35)a 52.60 (9.82)b 4.39* (2, 106)
Dysfunctional sex behavior 45.40 (3.20)a 48.95 (6.68)a 54.76 (11.89)b 5.93** (2, 106)
Shame/attribution MANCOVA
Abuse-specific shame 2.02 (1.97)a 3.85 (2.62)a 5.94 (3.13)b 5.76** (2, 106)
Abuse-specific self-blame 1.80 (1.58)a 2.65 (2.16) 3.60 (3.09)b 3.37+(2, 106)

General attribution risk1 51.79 (7.29) 50.89 (11.25) 49.89 (9.04) 0.34 (2, 106)

Note.
1
indicates reported means are T-scores;

Child Maltreat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 04.

2
F(df) for planned pairwise contrasts between the three processing strategies.
abc
Scores with different letter superscript are significantly different from one another at p < .05;
+
p < .10,
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01.
Page 22