The effect of individual characteristics on susceptibility to aggressive and/or intimidating approaches: quantifying probability pathways by creating a victimization model

Background: A significant body of literature has identified multiple factors that contribute to established victimization by aggressive and/or intimidating behaviours. These studies primarily originate from the fields of intimate partner violence (IPV), bullying, sexual abuse, and/or commercial sexual exploitation (CSE), and generally focus on female victims. It appears, however, complicated to quantify the cumulative contribution of these factors on susceptibility to intimidating and/or hostile engagements on an individual level.Objective: To develop a comprehensive risk model to quantify, on an individual level, the cumulative effects of previously reported characteristics on susceptibility to aggressive/intimidating approaches, leading to victimization (e.g. in the context of IPV/sexual abuse).Methods: A Bayesian belief network was developed using data from previous studies, capturing the multivariate contribution of previously reported characteristics on the likelihood of becoming victimized by aggressive and/or intimidating approaches (e.g. in the IPV/CSE context) in female victims aged 12-24 years.Results: The model showed that specific combinations of characteristics may contribute to an increased likelihood of victimization (e.g. in the context of IPV/bullying/sexual abuse or CSE). This likelihood could be quantified and categorized into specific clusters of factors differentiating between victimization by physically violent, non-physical, and/or sexual aggressive/intimidating approaches.Conclusion: The present model appears to be the first to successfully quantify the cumulative contribution of individual characteristics on the likelihood of becoming victimized by aggressive and/or intimidating approaches, typically leading to victimization. Moreover, the present scientific effort and resulting model suggest that there may be a latent variable mediating between the implemented factors and overall outcome, i.e. the susceptibility to aggressive and/or intimidating approaches. From that perspective, the model may also be considered as an initial outline to effectively indicate susceptibility to such approaches.

Gender differences in a wide range of trauma symptoms after victimization and accidental traumas: a cross-sectional study in a clinical setting

BACKGROUND

There are large gender differences in PTSD prevalence. Gender differences in a wide range of trauma symptoms including disturbances in self-organization have not been extensively researched.

OBJECTIVE

To explore gender differences in a wide range of trauma symptoms by comparing victimization trauma (VT) with accidental trauma (AT).

METHOD

A cross-sectional study of 110 traumatized patients attending a mental health outpatient clinic in Oslo, Norway (38.2% men, Mage = 40.4, 40% ethnic Norwegians). The trauma was categorized as VT or AT based on the Life Events Checklist. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-PTSD-module and Structured Interview for Disorders of Extreme Stress Not-Otherwise-Specified (DESNOS) assessed a wide range of trauma symptoms. First, we examined gender differences within the trauma categories, then MANCOVA for an adjusted two-by-two between-groups analysis.

RESULTS

Among VT patients, men reported more symptoms of alteration of negative self-perception (p = .02, ES = 0.50) and alteration in systems of meaning (p < .01, ES = 1.04). Within the AT group, women reported more symptoms of affect and impulses (p = .01, ES = 0.94). The VT-AT difference was significantly higher in men in intrusion (p < .01, η² = 0.04), affect and impulses (p < .01, η² = 0.12), negative self-perception (p < .01, η² = 0.11), difficulty in relations (p = .01, η² = 0.10) and alterations in systems of meaning (p = .01, η² = 0.14). Conclusion: Comparing the VT-AT differences between the genders, men with VT had relatively more symptoms of intrusion, self-organization, identity, ideology/meaning, cognition, and relations difficulties. Effect sizes were moderate to large. Men may be relatively more vulnerable to VT than AT, while women may be more equally affected by VT and AT. Acknowledging possible gender differences in a wider range of trauma symptoms depending on trauma category may have clinical benefits.