Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Dec 31.
Published in final edited form as: J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2008 Jul 1;16(4):391–408. doi: 10.1080/10926770801926492

Emotional Reactions During and After Trauma: A Comparison of Trauma Types

Ananda B Amstadter 1,2, Laura L Vernon 1,2
PMCID: PMC2800360  NIHMSID: NIHMS129671  PMID: 20046534

Abstract

Peri- and posttraumatic emotional responses have been understudied, and furthermore, have rarely been compared among trauma types. The current study compared college students’ retrospective self-reports of peri- and posttraumatic responses of fear, shame, guilt, anger, and sadness among four types of traumatic events: sexual assault, physical assault, transportation accident, and illness/injury. Overall emotional responding was generally high for all trauma types, and for those in the sexual assault group, emotion increased sharply from the peri- to posttraumatic time-point. Generally, fear was higher during the trauma compared to after the trauma, whereas the other emotions tended to remain stable or increase posttrauma. The sexual assault group tended to report higher levels of posttrauma emotion than the other trauma type groups.

Keywords: Trauma, peritraumatic responses, posttraumatic responses, emotion, trauma type

There is mounting evidence that traumatic events are experienced frequently in community and college samples (e.g., Breslau et al., 1998; Vrana & Lauterbach, 1994). Due to trauma’s prevalence and potential devastating effects (Solomon & Davidson, 1997; Tarnopolsky & Shammi, 1995), theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to understanding its correlates and consequences. Among such attempts are recent retrospective examinations of emotional responding (e.g., Kaysen, Morris, Rizvi, & Resick, 2005). Although thought to be important and implicated in the diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), little systematic research has been conducted with the sole purpose of examining emotional responses to trauma. Even less is known about retrospective reports of emotional responses to specific types of traumatic experiences. To our knowledge, only one study comparing several retrospectively recalled peritraumatic emotions among different types of traumatic events has been reported (Kaysen et al., 2005), and posttrauma emotional responding has yet to be compared between traumatic event types. Further, a comparison of emotions experienced at periand posttraumatic time points across trauma types has not been undertaken. Given findings suggesting that emotional responses to trauma may play a role in trauma-related psychopathology (e.g., Andrews, Brewin, Rose, & Kirk, 2000), an understanding of the different emotions elicited by different types of traumatic events seems particularly important. The current study sought to retrospectively examine five reported emotional responses (i.e., fear, shame, guilt, anger, sadness) during and after four types of traumatic events: sexual assault, physical assault, transportation accident, and illness/injury.

Although PTSD is not the focus of the present study, as the most frequently researched response to trauma, it will necessarily occupy a central position in our review of relevant literature. The diagnostic criteria for PTSD acknowledge the importance of peritraumatic emotional responses (Criterion A2), including responses of fear, helplessness, and horror (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). There is evidence for their vital etiological role in PTSD (e.g., Brewin, Andrews, & Rose, 2000; Kilpatrick et al., 1997). Among the range of potential emotional responses to trauma, fear has been the subject of most empirical studies (e.g., Foa, Steketee, & Rothbaum, 1989; Roemer, Orsillo, Borkovec, & Litz, 1998). An emotion thought to result from threat (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Losoya, 1997; Dalgleish & Power, 2004; Lazarus, 1968), fear is usually considered central to PTSD and a common peritraumatic emotional response (e.g., Foa et al., 1989; Tucker, Pfefferbaum, Jo Nixon, & Dickson, 2000). However, fear may not be the only important emotion in PTSD, nor the most elevated (e.g., Hendin & Haas, 1991; Shay, 1991; Wong & Cook, 1992). For example, Roemer and colleagues (1998) found that retrospective reports of peritraumatic fear were not predictive of PTSD symptom level in an undergraduate mixed trauma sample, implicating the need to study and assess a variety of emotional responses to trauma.

Emotion theories concerning trauma suggest that fear may be an essentially prospective emotion, arising during the event and concerning the potential for harm, whereas other emotions such as guilt may be considered chiefly retrospective emotions arising largely from posttrauma appraisals of the event and its consequences (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1997; Dalgleish & Power, 2004; Lazarus, 1968). This is not to suggest that fear may not be present posttrauma in response to trauma memories, or that other emotions might not also be reported during the trauma. Although we expect a range of emotions to be present during and after trauma, we predict that fear will be the most elevated during the immediate threat of the trauma, whereas anger, guilt, shame, and sadness will be at their height posttrauma, when appraisals of blame, responsibility, and loss become paramount.

Recently, increased attention has been devoted to emotions other than fear, particularly to peritraumatic, posttraumatic, and trait shame and guilt. Although they are often used interchangeably in everyday language, shame is defined as a self-conscious moral emotion resulting from a negative appraisal of one’s self, whereas guilt is thought to result from a negative appraisal of one’s behavior (Lewis, 1971; Tangney, 1991). Several studies indicate that guilt and shame may be common peritraumatic responses (e.g., Kaysen et al., 2005). Such findings may have classification implications, as Brewin et al. (2000) found that participants who did not meet Criterion A2 but met all other PTSD symptom criteria reported high levels of shame or anger at the time of the trauma. Further, they found that peritraumatic shame significantly contributed to PTSD symptom level scores six months posttrauma.

In addition to being common peritraumatic responses, both guilt and shame are frequently reported following traumatic experiences. For example, Cheung (1993) reported that Cambodian refugees with PTSD reported experiencing exceptionally intense shame posttrauma. In samples of veterans with PTSD, guilt may be the most elevated emotion (Hendin & Haas, 1991; Kubany, Abueg, Kilauano, Manke, & Kaplan, 1997; Shay, 1991). Further, Andrews et al. (2000) found that shame shortly after trauma was predictive of PTSD symptom severity one month and six months posttrauma. Additionally, there is one set of findings to suggest that trait shame may be related to PTSD (Leskela, Dieperink, & Thuras, 2002). Interestingly, controlling for shame proneness actually produced a negative relationship between guilt proneness and PTSD symptom severity in the Leskela et al. sample.

Anger is another common reaction to traumatic exposure (e.g., Andrews et al., 2000; Brewin et al., 2000; Connor, Davidson, & Lee, 2003; Novaco & Chemtob, 2002) and is often viewed as a response to purposeful action by an external agent leading to defeat or blocked goals (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Dalgleish & Power, 2004; Lazarus, 1968). High levels of anger are reported during trauma (e.g., Brewin et al., 2000; Kaysen et al., 2005) and strong posttrauma anger has also been reported among sexual assault victims (Ruch, Gartrell, Ramelli, & Coyne, 1991) and combat veterans (Novaco & Chemtob, 2002). In fact, posttrauma anger was a significant predictor of PTSD symptom severity in a population-based sample of 1,200 trauma victims (Connor et al., 2003), as well as in a sample of crime victims (Brewin et al., 2000) and female sexual and physical assault victims (Feeny, Zoellner, & Foa, 2000).

Sadness is another negative emotion associated with trauma and is viewed as a response to appraisals of loss (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Dalgleish & Power, 2004; Lazarus, 1968). Interestingly, although trauma is associated with elevated levels of depression (e.g., Kilpatrick et al., 1997), and sadness is the hallmark symptom of depression, the data on trauma and sadness specifically is limited. Although sadness is often elevated after trauma (e.g., Janoff-Bulman, 1985), it is rarely studied outside of the context of posttrauma depressive symptoms. Recent research on traumatic grief, of which sadness and a persistent feeling of loss are key symptoms, is beginning to address this gap (e.g., Jacobs, Mazure, & Prigerson, 2000); however, study of sadness in response to traumatic events and aside from psychopathology is needed.

Although there is evidence to suggest that a variety of emotional responses are elicited during and after traumatic events and that some of these emotions may predict later psychopathology (e.g., Andrews et al., 2000; Brewin et al., 2000), little systematic research has investigated a wide range of peri- and posttraumatic emotions simultaneously. Further, few comparisons of emotional responses among various types of traumatic events have been undertaken. However, there are some good reasons to suspect emotional variation by trauma event type. Numerous studies have found that the prevalence rate of PTSD varies by trauma type (e.g., Breslau, Davis, & Andreski, 1991; Kilpatrick et al., 1997; Norris, 1992), and sexual assault is typically associated with a particularly high prevalence rate (e.g., Kilpatrick et al., 1997). Not surprisingly, peritraumatic fear, helplessness, and horror also appear to vary by traumatic event type. Creamer, McFarlane, and Burgess (2005) found that a sexual assault group most frequently reported high levels of at least one of the Criterion A2 emotions (96.68%), followed by physical assault (83.32%) and injury groups (73.16%). These results make sense theoretically, as events that are intentionally inflicted, such as sexual or physical assault, are thought to be more difficult to cope with than are events that are accidental (Janoff-Bulman, 1992).

To our knowledge, Kaysen and colleagues (2005) have conducted the only study designed to compare retrospectively recalled peritraumatic emotional responses among traumatic event types. They examined three types of violent crime in a female sample. Sexual assault victims were more likely to report fear and humiliation than were victims of physical assault and robbery, whereas no group differences were found for anger or general anxiety. There is reason to believe that different types of traumatic events would also lead to different patterns of emotions after the event, although this has not been directly tested. Given theories predicting that peritraumatic emotional responses are likely to be related to concerns about survival (e.g., Dalgleish & Power, 2004), whereas posttraumatic responses likely allow for more cognitive elaboration, including causal appraisals and moral judgments (e.g., Frijda, 1988; Lazarus, 1968), it is expected that peritraumatic and posttraumatic emotional responding will differ, and may further differ by trauma type.

The current investigation examined retrospective self-reports of peritraumatic and posttraumatic emotional responding. Overall emotional intensity as well as the intensity of five specific emotions was examined among four different traumatic event type groups. We had several predictions regarding effects of time (peritraumatic, posttraumatic) and group (sexual assault, physical assault, transportation accidents, and illness/injury). Due to the personal and intrusive nature of sexual assault and previous findings suggesting their relatively stronger Criterion A2 emotional responses (i.e., fear, helplessness, horror), we expected a group effect for overall emotional intensity, hypothesizing that peritraumatic and posttraumatic emotional intensity would be greater than that of the other trauma type groups. We also had several hypotheses regarding individual emotions. Since sexual and physical assault are interpersonal traumas in which the survivor is purposefully targeted, we expected that individuals would become increasingly angry as they reflected about the event, reporting higher posttraumatic than peritraumatic anger. Anger was not expected to change in the transportation accident and illness/injury groups, as purposeful agency was deemed unlikely. Since shame and guilt are elicited by moral evaluative appraisals of one’s character or behavior, in the sexual assault group we expected these emotions to be higher posttrauma, when individuals had more time for reflection, than peritrauma. This increase was not expected for other trauma types. We predicted that posttrauma fear would be lower than peritraumatic fear for all traumatic event groups, as the immediate threat had passed. Lastly, it was thought that sadness, resulting from appraisals of loss, would be higher posttrauma for all trauma types, as elapsed time would afford greater opportunity for appraisals to form. The sexual assault group was expected to report the most posttraumatic sadness given the saliency of various kinds of potential loss for this trauma type (e.g., of virginity, of feelings of moral purity).

Method

Participants

Undergraduate participants (N=559) completed the Life Events Checklist (LEC) from the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS; Blake et al., 1995) as a screening measure. The LEC assesses lifetime trauma and PTSD Criterion A1 (whether there was threat of death, serious injury, or threat to personal integrity) and Criterion A2 (intense fear, helplessness, or horror) regarding the participant’s worst trauma; all participants’ worst traumas met these criteria. The LEC includes a list of 17 potentially traumatic events. Participants indicate whether they have experienced each event, have witnessed it happening to someone else, or have learned about it happening to someone close to them.

Participants who met Criterion A1 for one of four traumatic event types were selected for the study: sexual assault1 (n=31, 90.3% female), physical assault (n=29, 75.9% female), transportation accident (n=65, 64.6% female), and illness/injury (n=40, 62.5% female), resulting in a total sample size of 165. These four traumatic event types were selected because they were the most commonly reported events in our sample and they represent a range of trauma dimensions (see Janoff-Bulman, 1979; e.g., intentionality, how personal the event was, degree of unexpectedness). Participants ranged in age from 17 to 28 (M=19.53, SD=1.52) and on average were in their sophomore year of college. The majority of the sample, 82.42%, was Caucasian, with 11.52% African-American, 1.82% Asian-American, 2.42% Latina/o participants, and 1.82% reporting “other.” The groups did not differ in age χ2(21)=24.37, ns, or race/ethnicity χ2(12)=20.01, ns. As expected, the groups did differ in gender composition, χ2(3)=8.63, p<.05, as every group was composed of more women than men, with the greatest discrepancy in the sexual assault group (90.3% female).

Measures

Participants completed two versions of an Emotion Questionnaire created for individuals exposed to traumatic events (Vernon, 2000). One version of the questionnaire retrospectively assessed emotions experienced during the trauma, and the other version assessed emotions experienced shortly after the trauma (the hours or days after the trauma when the participant felt the worst). Participants were instructed to rate emotion adjectives on a 5-point scale (1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=moderately, 4=very, and 5=extremely). The Emotion Questionnaire included the following five scales: anger, fear, guilt, sadness, and shame. Four items comprised the Anger scale (i.e., “angry,” “hostile,” “irritable,” “scornful”), α=.93, during, and α=.94, after. Three items made up the Fear scale (i.e., “afraid,” “scared,” “frightened”), α=.83, during, and α=.81, after. Four items comprised the Guilt scale (i.e., “guilty,” “blameworthy,” “angry at self,” “dissatisfied with self”), α=.92, during, and α=.93, after. Three items comprised the Sadness scale (i.e., “sad,” “blue,” “downhearted”), αs=.91, during and after. Three items were combined to form the Shame scale (i.e., “ashamed,” “humiliated,” “embarrassed”), α=.90, during, and α=.86, after. Emotion was examined two ways; we used item means to compute scale scores for each of the five emotions, and overall emotional intensity was examined by summing all items to create a Total emotion scale, α=.89, during, and α=.90, after.

Results

Data Analytic Strategy

First, to examine the retrospectively reported intensity of overall emotional response during and after trauma, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with time point (peritraumatic, posttraumatic) as the repeated measures component, the total emotion score as the dependent variable, and trauma type (sexual assault, physical assault, transportation accident, illness/injury) as the between subjects factor. Next, to examine changes between reported peritraumatic and posttraumatic emotion, four repeated measures ANOVAs comparing time point were conducted with each emotion subscale (anger, sadness, guilt, shame, fear) as a single dependent variable, and trauma type as the between subjects factor. Tukey’s posthoc analyses were used when a significant group difference in the absence of a significant interaction was found, in order to determine which groups differed. In the case of a significant interaction, M and L matrices were used for follow-up contrasts of simple main effects to determine whether sexual assault was significantly different than the three other trauma types. Descriptive statistics by trauma type are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Emotion Descriptive Statistics by Trauma Type Group

Peritraumatic
 Posttraumatic
Sexual
Assault		 Physical
Assault		 Trans
Accident		 Illness/ Injury Sexual
Assault		 Physical
Assault		 Trans
Accident		 Illness/ Injury
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)
Total Emotion 50.19 (13.67) 47.55 (15.55) 43.61 (14.62) 41.97 (12.88) 58.62 (14.20) 48.83 (16.29) 42.57 (14.21) 39.03 (13.75)
Fear 11.66 (3.82) 12.28 (3.37) 12.28 (3.64) 11.89 (3.20) 11.13 (3.95) 10.27 (4.57) 10.32 (4.22) 9.72 (3.99)
Anger 10.72 (4.48) 12.62 (4.55) 9.03 (4.76) 9.39 (4.16) 12.81 (3.76) 13.83 (4.23) 9.22 (4.51) 8.62 (3.84)
Guilt 10.44 (4.67) 7.48 (4.55) 8.64 (5.68) 5.89 (3.94) 12.52 (5.58) 8.34 (5.38) 8.94 (5.61) 6.64 (4.43)
Shame 9.03 (3.99) 7.31 (4.22) 5.25 (3.47) 4.24 (3.11) 10.90 (4.05) 7.41 (4.05) 5.59 (3.59) 4.69 (3.11)
Sadness 8.93 (3.53) 7.86 (4.30) 8.41 (4.42) 10.55 (3.78) 10.27 (4.00) 8.97 (4.22) 8.51 (3.93) 9.36 (3.85)
Open in a new tab

Note: The group sizes are as follows: Sexual assault n =31, physical assault n =29, transportation accident n =65, and illness/injury n =40.

Overall Emotional Intensity in Response to Trauma

As expected, examination of overall retrospective reports of emotional intensity indicated a significant main effect of group, F(3,152)=7.95, p<.001. No significant effect of time was found, F(1,152)=1.19, ns, however, a significant time by group interaction appeared, F(3,152)=5.10, p<.01. Interestingly, participants from all four trauma groups reported similarly high levels of emotion during trauma, F(3,152)=2.61, ns, whereas after the trauma, emotional responding differed. Follow-up contrasts of time and group indicated that sexual assault was significantly different than all other trauma types, F(1,152)=12.06, p<.01, in that the slope of the line representing total emotion from during to after the trauma was highly positive, suggesting a sharp increase in overall emotional intensity following sexual assault. The slope of the line for physical assault was somewhat positive, and in the cases of transportation accident and illness, slightly negative.

Specific Emotional Responses to Trauma

When emotions were examined individually, several different patterns of results emerged. We found a similar pattern of anger and shame responding, with both emotions showing significant main effects of time, Fs(1,153)=4.91, 10.39, significant main effects for group, F(3,153)=10.11, 17.64, and significant time by group interactions, F(3,153)=4.00, 3.52, respectively, ps<.01. As seen when examining overall emotional intensity, follow-up contrasts indicated that the slope of the lines representing anger and shame from during to after sexual assault were significantly different than those for the three other trauma type groups, Fs(1,153)=6.37, 10.47, ps<.05. Anger and shame increased drastically posttrauma for sexual assault victims. In comparison, in the other groups there was little change in anger and shame during and after trauma, with the exception of a slight posttrauma increase in anger for the physical assault group.

In contrast to reported anger and shame, for guilt no interaction was found, F(3,153)=1.48, ns, although similar mains effects of time, F(1,152)=12.22, p<.01, and group, F(3,153)=7.50, p<.001, were revealed. Reported guilt was higher after trauma than during the event. Tukey’s posthoc analyses of group indicated that sexual assault participants reported significantly higher guilt than all other trauma type groups, and that transportation accident victims reported significantly higher levels of guilt than did those who experienced an illness or injury. No other significant group differences were found.

The emotion of sadness also showed a unique pattern, with a significant interaction, F(3,152)=4.52, p<.01, and no significant main effects of group, F(3,152)=1.89, ns, or time, F(1,152)=1.70, ns. Interestingly, sexual and physical assault victims reported more intense sadness posttrauma than during the event, F(1,152)=14.34, p<.01. In contrast, the transportation accident group reported stable levels of sadness, F(1,152)=0.65, ns, and the illness/injury group displayed decreased posttrauma sadness, F(1,152)=11.02, p<.01.

As expected, fear was higher during the trauma compared to after the trauma for all event types, F(1,152)=33.47, p<.001. No significant effects of group, F(3,153)=0.24, ns, or significant interaction, F(3,153)=1.48, ns, were found.

Discussion

Not surprisingly, when examining retrospective reports of overall negative emotional intensity, our findings suggest that all four of the types of traumatic events examined elicited strong negative peritraumatic and posttraumatic emotion. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find a group difference in overall peritraumatic emotional intensity. At the time of the trauma, similarly strong overall negative emotion was reported regardless of traumatic event type. What we think is particularly important, however, is our finding that overall posttraumatic emotional responding did vary by traumatic event type. In the case of sexual assault, overall emotion increased drastically posttrauma, suggesting that additional time for reflection amplified emotional responding, which is consistent with theories posited by a number of emotion theorists (e.g., Andrews et al., 2000) that appraisals of posttrauma events and resulting emotions may change over time. Overall posttrauma emotion did not increase as sharply for the other groups, and the transportation accident and illness/injury groups actually tended to report less emotion posttrauma than during the event.

These results suggest that differential emotional responses to different types of traumatic events may require the opportunity for additional cognitive elaboration, with more fine-grained reactions to specific events occurring posttrauma. It is likely that one’s recovery environment and appraisals made by others also influence such posttrauma responses. This is the first study reported in the literature to assess a range of peri- and posttraumatic emotions, allowing for retrospective examination of temporal changes in reported emotional responding. Not only did we find differential group responses in terms of overall emotional intensity posttrauma, but also several patterns of results for individual emotions.

Interestingly, although anger and shame are typically associated with opposite causal attributions, their pattern of reported responses was similar in our sample. First, all participants retrospectively reported high levels of both emotions during and after trauma, which is consistent with past reports of intense peritraumatic (e.g., Brewin et al., 2000; Kaysen et al., 2005) and posttraumatic (e.g., Andrews et al., 2000; Novaco & Chemtob, 2002) shame and anger. Whereas past research has made the important contribution of documenting intense emotional experiences elicited from traumatic events at a single time point or in examining associations of such variables with the development of psychopathology, the present research extends the literature by assessing these emotions both during and after trauma, allowing for a temporal comparison. The comparison of the two time points yielded a number of important findings. First, the temporal pattern of shame and anger was different across traumatic event types. In the sexual assault group, shame and anger increased drastically posttrauma, whereas this was not found for other trauma groups, with the exception of anger in the physical assault group. Since anger is an emotion often theorized to result from intentional actions of an identifiable agent (e.g., Dalgleish & Power, 2004), increased anger following sexual and physical assault makes theoretical sense. Also, as a stigmatized interpersonal trauma, it is not surprising that high levels of shame were reported following sexual assault. Depending on their social context, sexual assault victims may receive negative messages (e.g., it was your fault, you asked for it) that contribute to their shameful appraisals following the trauma. In comparison, the transportation accident and illness/injury groups’ reports of anger and shame did not significantly increase after the event, perhaps because these traumatic event types do not typically entail individual targeting, are frequently accidental, and recovery may not occur in a blaming social environment.

Whereas time and group interactions were found for shame, only simple main effects were found for guilt. Guilt increased posttrauma for all groups. This finding of two different patterns of results for shame and guilt adds support to theoretical contentions that the two are distinct emotions (e.g., Tangney, 1991). Consistent with past studies associating sexual assault with high levels of guilt (e.g., Kaysen et al., 2005), our results indicated that sexual assault victims reported more peri- and posttraumatic guilt than did our other trauma groups, likely suggesting internal negative appraisals concerning their own behavior. Participants involved in a transportation accident also reported more guilt relative to those who experienced illness or injury, perhaps due to greater attributions of personal agency in accidents.

Sadness displayed its own distinctive pattern, increasing from peri- to posttrauma for the sexual and physical assault groups. Alternately, reported sadness decreased following illness/injury and remained stable following transportation accidents. Of note is that both sexual and physical assaults are interpersonal traumas in which the victim is targeted and are typically associated with greater posttrauma symptom severity (e.g., Kilpatrick et al., 1997). Sadness is associated with appraisals of loss (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Lazarus, 1968), which could have contributed to the differences between trauma types in that various psychological and social losses may have been most salient for the assault groups. For example, following assault, individuals may make retrospective appraisals of losses such as personal integrity, confidence in coping ability, belief in the goodness of others, a relationship with the assailant, etc., which may be distinct from the other two traumatic event types that are typically more unintentional in nature. Future research should examine peritraumatic and posttraumatic attribution processes in relation to such emotional responses.

Not surprisingly, we found that all traumatic events elicited high levels of peritraumatic fear, which is consistent with past research (e.g., Kaysen et al., 2005; Kilpatick et al., 1997). Given that traumatic events by definition involve threat of death, serious injury, or threat to personal integrity, it was expected that intense fear would be elicited. We found that fear was greater during the event than after the event, across groups. As fear is theorized to result from threat (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Lazarus, 1968), it is predictable that fear decreased posttrauma, after the immediate threat had passed. Interestingly, no group differences or interactions were found, suggesting that the traumatic event types may have been perceived as similarly threatening during and after the events or that minor variations in such online appraisals may be relatively unimportant in retrospective reports of peritraumatic fear.

Whereas analyses of emotion subscales revealed numerous distinct patterns of emotional responding, across these analyses a group trend was observed. In both the analysis of overall emotional intensity, as well as in analyses of individual emotion subscales, sexual assault was found to be more emotionally provocative posttrauma than the other traumatic event types we examined. These findings are not completely unexpected given previous findings suggesting relatively worse outcomes following sexual assault, such as reports of higher rates of PTSD (e.g., Kilpatrick et al., 1997). Furthermore, the physical, sexual, interpersonal, and often moral nature of sexual assault carries the risk of continuing negative consequences. It is intrusive to ones’ body and has risks of sexually transmitted disease contraction and unwanted pregnancy. Additionally, sexual assault carries a higher social stigma (e.g., Kaysen et al, 2005), and there is a greater likelihood of victim-blaming than many other types of trauma (Tangney, 1991).

Religious and cultural factors such as the moral value placed on virginity and sexual purity may also play a role in responses to sexual assault. Future research should attempt to tease apart the influence of these various aspects of sexual assault on emotional responding.

Similar to other studies utilizing undergraduate samples, the current study is limited by the homogeneity of the sample. Not surprisingly, the current sample had unequal gender representation in the trauma type groups, which is both expected given that the gender prevalence of exposure differs by trauma type (e.g., Breslau et al., 1998), and is similar to other studies sampling from a college population (e.g., Roemer et al., 1998). Furthermore, brief retrospective self-report measures were employed, which are subject to memory biases. Our results should be interpreted in light of findings suggesting inconsistent recall for aspects of traumatic events and subsequent symptomotology (e.g., Southwick, Morgan, Nicolaou & Charney, 1997; Harvey & Bryant, 2000) and of evidence for mood state-dependent recall (for a review see Eich, 1995). Future research in this area would benefit from the use of prospective designs that would not be subject to such retrospective problems and would allow for the examination of the effects of treatment, recovery environment, and time elapsed on subsequent emotional responding.

Future research should also implement more extensive emotion measures and additional modalities, such as measures of facial expression, psychophysiology, or behavioral coding. It may also be important to examine the effect of gender, trauma history and participants’ role in the trauma (e.g., direct experience, witnessing), as such variables are likely affect emotional responding. Additionally, the current study was limited to four types of traumatic experiences, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other trauma types. Future research may wish to examine the role of peritraumatic and posttraumatic emotional responding in a broader range of trauma types and examine relationships with psychopathology, particularly PTSD, as well as the influence of treatment. Further, given links between cognitive appraisals and emotional reactions (e.g., Frijda, 1986, 1987; Lazarus, 1968), it would be helpful for future investigations to examine the relationships among types of traumatic events, cognitive appraisals (e.g., agency, controllability), and emotional responding.

Our results suggest that different types of traumatic experiences elicit high levels of negative emotions, retrospectively recalled, both during and after the events. Two key sets of findings, one regarding group differences and another regarding temporal differences, come from the present research. First, our results suggest that sexual assault may be distinct from other types of traumatic events, in that this group generally reported a strong increase of emotion posttrauma. In contrast, the other trauma groups’ report of emotion did not increase as drastically, and at times, actually decreased posttrauma. Second, analyses of reported emotion during and after trauma revealed two distinct patterns. Reported fear was higher peri- than posttrauma for all traumatic event type groups, suggesting it is largely an immediate response. The opposite pattern was evident for anger, guilt, shame, and sadness, which tended to increase following trauma. Taken together, these results suggest that given more time to process a traumatic event, emotions resulting from appraisals tend to increase and fear tends to decrease. Our findings indirectly support theories of emotion and cognitive appraisals suggesting relatively immediate peritraumatic emotional responses, which do not require extensive cognitive processing (e.g., Grey, Holmes, & Brewin, 2001), and hence do not show differentiation among trauma types. In contrast, theorists suggest that posttrauma responding is mediated by appraisals of meaning (e.g., Fridja, 1988; Lazarus, 1968), which is consistent with our findings of variation of posttrauma emotional intensity depending on the characteristics of the traumatic experience. An important next step in trauma research will be to examine relationships among attributions and emotional responses during and after trauma.

Footnotes

1

Given evidence that individuals often fail to apply labels such as sexual assault and rape to experiences that fit the legal definition of those terms (Koss, 1985), individuals endorsing both “sexual assault” and “unwanted or uncomfortable sexual experience” were included in the sexual assault group.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) Author; Washington, DC: 1994. [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews B, Brewin CR, Rose S, Kirk M. Predicting PTSD symptoms in victims of violent crime: The role of shame, anger, and childhood abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2000;109:69–73. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.109.1.69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blake DD, Weathers FW, Nagy LM, Kaloupek DG, Gusman FD, Charney DS, et al. The development of a clinician-administered PTSD scale. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1995;8:75–90. doi: 10.1007/BF02105408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Breslau N, Kessler RC, Chilcoat HD, Schultz LR, Davis GC, Andreski P. Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community: The 1996 Detroit area survey of trauma. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1998;55:626–632. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.55.7.626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Breslau N, Davis GC, Andreski P. Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress disorder in an urban population of young adults. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1991;48:216–222. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810270028003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brewin CR, Andrews B, Rose S. Fear, helplessness, and horror in posttraumatic stress disorder: Investigating DSM-IV criterion A2 in victims of violent crime. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2000;13:499–509. doi: 10.1023/A:1007741526169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheung P. Somatisation as a presentation in depression and post-traumatic stress disorder among Cambodian refugees. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 1993;27:422–428. doi: 10.3109/00048679309075798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Connor KM, Davidson JR, Lee L. Spirituality, resilience, and anger in survivors of violent trauma: A community survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2003;16:487–494. doi: 10.1023/A:1025762512279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Creamer M, McFarlane AC, Burgess P. Psychopathology following trauma: The role of subjective experience. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2005;86:175–182. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2005.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalgleish T, Power MJ. Emotion-specific and emotion-non-specific components of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Implications for a taxonomy of related psychopathology. Behavior Research and Therapy. 2004;42:1069–1088. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2004.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eich E. Searching for mood dependent memory. Psychological Science. 1995;6:67. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Losoya S. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. Basic Books; New York: 1997. Emotional responding: Regulation, social correlates, and socialization; pp. 129–167. [Google Scholar]
  13. Feeny NC, Zoellner LA, Foa EB. Anger, dissociation, and posttraumatic stress disorder among female assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2000;13:89–100. doi: 10.1023/A:1007725015225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Foa EB, Steketee G, Rothbaum BO. Behavioral/cognitive conceptualizations of post-traumatic stress disorder. Behavior Research and Therapy. 1989;20:155–176. [Google Scholar]
  15. Frijda NH. The emotions. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1986. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fridja NH. The laws of emotion. American Psychologist. 1988;43:349–358. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.43.5.349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Grey N, Holmes E, Brewin CR. Peritraumatic emotional hotspots in memory. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2001;29:367–372. [Google Scholar]
  18. Harvey AG, Bryant RA. Two-year prospective evaluation of the relationship between acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder following mild traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2000;157:626–628. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.4.626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hendin H, Haas AP. Suicide and guilt as manifestations of PTSD in Vietnam combat veterans. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1991;148:586–591. doi: 10.1176/ajp.148.5.586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jacobs S, Mazure C, Prigerson H. Diagnostic criteria for traumatic grief. Death Studies. 2000;24:185–199. doi: 10.1080/074811800200531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Janoff-Bulman R. Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979;37:1798–1809. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.37.10.1798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Janoff-Bulman R. The aftermath of victimization: Rebuilding shattered assumptions. In: Figley CR, editor. Trauma and its wake. Brunner/Mazel; New York: 1985. [Google Scholar]
  23. Janoff-Bulman R. Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. Free Press; New York: 1992. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaysen D, Morris MK, Rizvi SL, Resick PA. Peritraumatic responses and their relationship to perceptions of threat in female crime victims. Violence Against Women. 2005;11:1515–1535. doi: 10.1177/1077801205280931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kilpatrick DG, Resnick HS, Freedy JR, Pelcovitz D, Resick P, Roths S, et al. The posttraumatic stress disorder field trial: Evaluation of the PTSD construct: Criteria A through E. In: Widiger TA, Frances AJ, Pincus HA, First MB, Davis W, editors. DSM-IV sourcebook. vol. IV. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  26. Koss MP. The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1985;9:193–212. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kubany ES, Abueg FR, Kilauano WL, Manke FP, Kaplan AS. Development and validation of the sources of trauma-related guilt survey – war-zone version. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1997;10:235–258. doi: 10.1023/a:1024878112553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lazarus RS. Emotions and adaptation: Conceptual and empirical relations. In: Arnold WJ, editor. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1968. University of Nebraska Press; Lincoln, NB: 1968. [Google Scholar]
  29. Leskela J, Dieperink M, Thuras P. Shame and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2002;15:223–226. doi: 10.1023/A:1015255311837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lewis HB. Shame and guilt in neurosis. International Universities Press; New York: 1971. [Google Scholar]
  31. Norris FH. Epidemiology of trauma: Frequency and impact of different potentially traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1992;60:409–418. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.60.3.409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Novaco R, Chemtob CM. Anger and combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2002;15:123–132. doi: 10.1023/A:1014855924072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Roemer L, Orsillo SM, Borkovec TD, Litz BT. Emotional response at the time of a potentially traumatizing event and PTSD symptomotology: A preliminary retrospective analysis of DSM-IV Criterion A-2. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 1998;29:123–130. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7916(98)00007-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ruch LO, Gartrell JW, Ramelli A, Coyne BJ. The clinical trauma assessment: Evaluating sexual assault victims in the emergency room. Psychological Assessment. 1991;3:405–411. [Google Scholar]
  35. Shay J. Learning about stress from Homer’s Iliad. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1991;4I:561–579. [Google Scholar]
  36. Solomon SD, Davidson JRT. Trauma: Prevalence, impairment, service use, and cost. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 1997;58:5–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Southwick CA, Morgan CA, Nicolaou AL, Charney DS. Consistency of memory for combat-related traumatic events in veterans of Operation Desert Storm. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1997;154:173–177. doi: 10.1176/ajp.154.2.173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Tangney JP. Moral affect: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;61:598–607. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.61.4.598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Tarnopolsky A, Shammi C. Post-traumatic stress disorder: Personal disability, social cost, and prevention. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 1995;40:496–497. doi: 10.1177/070674379504000818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tucker P, Pfefferbaum B, Jo Nixon S, Dickson W. Predictors of post-traumatic stress symptoms in Oklahoma City: Exposure, social support, peri-traumatic responses. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research. 2000;27:406–416. doi: 10.1007/BF02287822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Vernon LL. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign; 2000. The effects of attributions and trauma characteristics on emotion. [Google Scholar]
  42. Vrana S, Lauterbach D. Prevalence of traumatic events and post-traumatic symptoms in a nonclinical sample of college students. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1994;7:289–303. doi: 10.1007/BF02102949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wong M, Cook D. Shame and its contribution to PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1992;5:557–562. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES