CSA: late disclosure theory; pathology

1 theories of child abused late disclosure?

London:

CSAAS: 5 categories of

sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS), was to outline for clinicians why child victims of intrafamilial abuse may be reluctant to disclose abuse. Summit’s model included five components: (a) secrecy; (b) helplessness; (c)entrapment and accommodation; (d) delayed, conflicted, and unconvincing disclosures; and (e) retraction of disclosure.

>> only 1 factors were supported

BEHAVIORAL consistent theories (from NZ maybe better then CSAAS?): (?)

CSAAS is not so good.

Disclosure

 

Shortcomings of these studies:

Retrospective studies

Definition problems

Different aspect of some of the models?

Suggestion of limitation

Silent

Denial

Maintained

Suggestive biased >> denial and retardation

 

Age

Less disclosure in younger children: Amnesia or do not understanding

less disclosure in older children: responsibility; shame;

 

VP relationship:

intro

 

generalizability: population are children being abused within family

they first want to at first want to diagnose >> diagnose someone being a victim of CSA

rational of the study: it is only from clinical tuition but not from empirical evidence supported

 

key: shortcomings of CSAAS

 

 

2 which factors contributed to late disclosure? (how to test

Goodman-brown >>>

Development factors, Cognitive factors, Inhibit disclosure:

Knowledge

Gender: not related (until adult)

Age: the older the longer disclose

Type of abuse: rape or molester

Relationship: 53% will never disclose intrafamilial and younger at the began

Fear of other consequences: very important, older.

Perceived responsibility for the abuse: attribution of blame themselves: girls, older

Limitation:

Sample: 218 sexual abuse victims information from transcript from the court, no directly interview them.

Maybe underestimate prior disclose

Causal relationship happened in this study may means some significant data missing.

Inconsistency being found in different studies, since severe is differently definited.

Sjoberg >>> “scientific case studies” >> cases with subjective evidence proof

         Characteristic: No false claim

Reasons of late disclose:

a lack of understanding for the abusive aspects of an event,

emotional motives

childhood amnesia

active attempts to forget or avoid abuse-related memories that lead to impaired recall.

Age of being abuse and emotion to perpetrator >>> some predictive power

Limitation:

Small samples

 

How to evoke denial (in the lecture):

The intentional forgetting

Or pressure from the outside

How to make Omission error happened:

By showing fake evidence

Misleading instruction

>> is that means children’s memory are changed/ erase?

If they could erase, the reaction time will be the same.

However, they found different in the reaction time. So it means children just answer according to the social approval, but they still remember the truth.

 

3 psychopathological consequences in general (main focus on child disclosure)

Foynes:

BTT paradigm:

emotional abuse (EA) and physical abuse (PA)  within very close (VC) victim-perpetrator relationship tend to postpone (longer than 1 yr or never) disclosure. Sexual abuse victim is not significant postpone.

 

how other factors affects on prolonged disclosure is ambiguous.

 

Betrayal Trauma Theory (BTT) framework:

BTT argues that children who can decrease awareness of the abuse perpetrated by a caregiver will be better able to maintain their attachment to the caregiver. Children who are acutely aware of the abuse by the caregiver may be at risk of engaging in behaviors (such as withdrawing from or confronting the abusive caregiver) that further threaten the attachment relationship.

why VC SA are under reported:

1.      highly stigma compare to EA and PA

impairment of memory >> VC SA are more impaired than NVC SA (wtf)

 

3 psychopathology of CSA

Molnar:

Psychopathology: depression, substance problem, PTSD

Closer >> more traumatic

Negative psychiatric

More severe traumatic to healthy family, more ‘betray’ more to normal parents

Traumatic witness           >> the resilient (recovery)

Their system, and culture?

 

4 do perpetrator has any preferences

Cann:

those people demonstrated crossover behaviour in regard to at least one of the victim dimensions examined are significantly riskier (by static-99)

•       crossover: victimization of males and females, varying ages (adults and children) situated within and outside the family

•       RESEARCH: crimes information >> more than a quarter have crossover

the longer an individual has been offending, the more likely they are to have engaged in relationship crossover. This may be simply a function of length of sexual criminal career but, regardless of potential explanation, the model explained only a very small amount of the variance within the data

since some people are crossover, Given that this group assaulted both women and children and are thus equally able to be classed as rapists or child molesters using traditional classification systems, it is not surprising that they display traits common to both these groups

maybe underestimate (because male are less being reported): but maybe filed to predict who is crossover.

major mental illness are more likely to molester both gender

ASPD/PP/ Substance abuse has little contributive to crossover

Peadophilia is those have sexual arousal to children younger than 6 yr, so they’re not really into sexual gender.

Advertisements

发表评论

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 更改 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 更改 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 更改 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 更改 )

Connecting to %s

%d 博主赞过: