Abstract
This study examines the pathogenic role of rape-induced peritraumatic dehumanization, and subsequent humiliation and “freezing.” A theoretical causal model linking these rape-related peritraumatic responses to symptoms is tested while considering the ways in which rape differs from other types of nonsexual trauma in relation to this particular model. Two hundred and fifty-five participants completed self-report questionnaires. Structural path analyses identified dehumanization and humiliation as highly prevalent and almost invariably predictive of a freeze response in rape; and, in turn, of elevated self-blame and post-traumatic stress disorder in its wake while concurrently showing a poor fit for this model in respect to other traumas. In addition, multivariate analysis of variance results indicated that peritraumatic, as well as post-traumatic distress, was considerably more severe among rape survivors as compared to controls.
There has been growing interest recently in the study of peritraumatic predictors of postrape symptoms (e.g., Bernat, Ronfeldt, Calhoun, & Arias, 1998; Carlson & Dalenberg, 2000; Griffin, Resick, & Mechanic, 1997; Kaysen, Morris, Rizvi, & Resick, 2005; Resick, Churchill, & Falsetti, 1990; Rizvi, Kaysen, Gutner, Griffin, & Resick, 2008). This study seeks to expand this line of investigation by testing a theoretical causal model of pathways linking rape to psychological sequelae, centered on peritraumatic dehumanization, humiliation, and the freeze response, otherwise known as tonic immobility (TI) or rape-induced paralysis, as predictors of postrape symptoms. In addition, the ways in which rape differs from other types of nonsexual trauma in relation to this particular model are examined as well. Gaining a better understanding of central rape-induced peritraumatic responses that place rape survivors at risk for developing symptoms carries significant implications for treatment for which effectiveness depends on a comprehensive understanding of all pathogenic mechanisms responsible for the symptomatic outcome (Carlson & Dalenberg, 2000; Kaysen et al., 2005; Rizvi et al., 2008).
To date, several constructs have been identified as predictors of postrape symptoms (Bernat et al., 1998; Kaysen et al., 2005; Ozer, Best, Lipsey, & Weiss, 2003). Of the variables studied, peritraumatic dissociation has received the most attention, and has been linked consistently to rape-induced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Griffin et al., 1997; Ozer et al., 2003). Other peritraumatic predictors of post-traumatic symptoms have been established as well. For example, Resick et al. (1990) found that anxiety reactions during rape accounted for nearly half of the variance in PTSD symptoms. Similar outcomes were reported for panic attacks during the assault (Bracha, Ralston, Matsukawa, Williams & Bracha, 2004; Nixon & Bryant, 2003). Longitudinal data further substantiated that initial panic symptoms were predictive of PTSD intrusion symptoms at a 3-month follow-up (Resnick, 1997). Yet, another investigation identified immobility as an even stronger predictor of postrape PTSD than either peritraumatic panic or dissociation (Lima et al., 2010). Perceived threat was also shown to be a significant pathogenic peritraumatic experience (Kaysen et al., 2005), as were peritraumatic fear and helplessness (Moor & Farchi, 2011).
This study seeks to expand on this growing area of investigation and to explore the role of several other, largely ignored, rape-specific peritraumatic responses that might be related to postrape symptoms: dehumanization, objectification, and humiliation. A causal model is proposed in which these rape-induced peritraumatic elements are hypothesized to play a central role in the pathogenic pathways leading from rape to symptoms, primarily through their contribution to traumatic paralysis; or the “freeze response” which is expected to lead, in turn, to post-traumatic self-blame and PTSD. These specific peritraumatic responses are also presumed to be more pronounced in rape survivors as compared to victims of other forms of trauma.
LITERATURE REVIEW
On the whole, the literature tends to regard trauma as a unitary phenomenon while paying little attention to variation among different trauma types and their unique characteristics and consequences. However, identifying the uniqueness of the processes that separate rape from other, nonsexual traumas can promote more specifically suited interventions. To that end, the fit of the proposed model is examined comparatively for cases of rape versus other trauma types.
A central premise of the present conceptualization is that rape-induced dehumanization and its derivatives can be as traumatic as the physical damage, fear, or perceived threat ordinarily presumed to define trauma. In fact, it is not unusual for rape cases to be devoid of severe physical injury or life threat, and yet, be extremely traumatic. For example, a woman raped by a man on a date might not fear for her life or believe that she is in physical danger, but still be highly traumatized by the tremendous emotional pain entailed (Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Carlson & Dalenberg, 2000). This model aims to account for this.
Importantly, placing these particular peritraumatic responses at the heart of the experience of rape is not intended to minimize the pathogenic role of other equally central rape-related responses such as fear, perceived threat, helplessness, dissociation, and anxiety, among others. Nor does it imply that other forms of trauma are entirely free of dehumanization, humiliation, or immobility. Instead, it is an attempt to formulate and test a theoretical framework as a basis for clinical assessment and intervention in the aftermath of rape, as called for by other authors in the field as well (e.g., Carlson & Dalenberg, 2000).
Dehumanization, Objectification, and Humiliation
The model presented here rests on the premise that a most basic human necessity, the need to be seen and treated as a separate human being with distinct boundaries and needs, is denied in the process of rape (Carlson & Dalenberg, 2000; Hilberman, 1976; Koss & Harvey, 1991; Roberts, 1993). Forcing a sexual act on a person against her will is by definition a denial of her humanity. To illustrate, Anderson (2005) offered an account of a typical rape case. In this incident, a young woman is assaulted by a fellow male student who, like all other perpetrators, shows absolutely no concern for her feelings or wishes. Although she begs him to stop, he takes no notice of her pleading, pins her down, and penetrates her as she cries. Anderson summed up her account by stating that “this story tracks what most … rape victims experience. Sexually invasive dehumanization is what … [they] suffer” (p. 644).
Clinical narratives also shed some light on this experience. Venable-Raine (1998), for example, described the dehumanization sustained in her own rape: “I knew that it just did not matter that I existed; that I did not want this; that I was a human being, not a thing to be invaded, punched, or possibly killed.” She also relays the related sense of being objectified, indicating that “the rapist … made my body an object,” while robbing her of her humanity (p. 163).
Additional insight into the sense of dehumanization and objectification inflicted by acts of sexual infringement can be found in Esacove's (1998) account of sexual harassment victims in which she demonstrated that even the mildest forms of harassment could produce these types of reaction. The sexually harassed women interviewed in her study reported feeling utterly disregarded as human beings, treated instead as things to be used. On a phenomenological level, these experiences contributed to a diminishing sense of personhood. The study did not address the issue among rape survivors, however.
Hence, in spite of the frequent portrayal of rape in terms of dehumanization, little empirical attention has been paid to the victim's subjective response to this aspect of the ordeal. In other words, there has been sparse inquiry, to date, into the phenomenology of being treated as less than a person, of being stripped of one's humanity. There is also limited information regarding the accompanying peritraumatic correlates and post-traumatic sequelae. Exploring these very phenomena, this study is, therefore, an important contribution to the existent literature on rape.
One of the central correlates of felt dehumanization is presumed to be a deep and profound sense of humiliation, which is routinely reported by rape survivors in various settings (Hartling & Luchetta, 1999; Herman, 1992; Kilpatrick, Vernon, & Resick, 1982; Koss & Harvey, 1991; Silver, Conte, Miceli, & Poggi, 1986). For example, in an exploration of victims’ narratives from the National Crime Victimization Survey, Weiss (2010) identified the sense of humiliation as a core response to rape. Moreover, this response was shown to have an adverse effect on victims’ willingness to report the rape, keeping them from filing a complaint because of their feelings of shame and degradation. The survivors also reported that humiliation tended to increase as a function of familiarity with the perpetrator, pointing to intimate partner rape as being especially humiliating. Other studies have likewise shown rape-induced humiliation to be a pervasive peritraumatic response to rape as well as a significant predictor of postrape symptomatology such as depression and PTSD (Rizvi et al., 2008).
Hence, the model presented here views dehumanization, objectification, and humiliation as central peritraumatic responses to rape. Moreover, it postulates they could play a pivotal role in the formation of an additional, highly detrimental peritraumatic reaction to sexual assault, namely, the freeze response, which is also widely noted in such cases (e.g., Bovin, Jager-Hyman, Gold, Marx, & Solan, 2008; Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Galliano, Nobel, Puechl, & Travis, 1993). It is postulated that the experience of being treated as less than a person is received with such tremendous shock and dismay that it might generate a paralysis that precludes active reaction to the assault. Accordingly, a causal model is conceptualized in which dehumanization and its correlates are seen as major predictors of a freeze response, which in turn is expected to lead to severe postrape symptoms.
The Freeze Response
Research has well documented that traumatic events can produce a form of paralysis, a state of behavioral inhibition that prevents active reaction to the occurrence (Bracha et al., 2004; Volchana et al., 2011). This response has been referred to alternatively as the freeze response, tonic immobility, traumatic paralysis, or fright; and has been widely reported by survivors of various types of sexual assault including rape, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse (Bovin et al., 2008; Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Burgess & Holmstrom, 1976; Fusé, Forsyth, Marx, Gallup, & Weaver, 2007; Galliano et al., 1993; Gidycz, Van Wynsberghe, & Edwards, 2008; Suarez & Gallup, 1979; Rizvi et al., 2008; Russell, 1974). It has also been consistently linked to higher degrees of postrape symptomatology (Bovin et al., 2008; Lima et al., 2010) and even shown to be a significantly stronger predictor of postrape symptoms than other, more established factors such as fear (Rizvi et al., 2008).
Bucher and Manasse (2011) found, for example, that 42% of all rape victims interviewed in their study experienced complete immobilization during the assault, reporting freezing up and being entirely incapable of using either physical or verbal forms of resistance. One of these rape survivors was quoted saying that “[h]e began kissing my neck and breast and I froze … my body froze … I froze.” Yet, another relayed that “He threw me on the couch and I couldn't move. I just lay there … I wanted to scream but nothing came out” (p. 133). Similar findings were presented by Galliano et al. (1993), who noted such immobility in 37% of victims and Gidycz et al. (2008) who reported that 39% of sexual assault victims reported being unable to move or respond in any way during their assault.
The trauma literature has customarily linked the freeze response to peritraumatic fear, threat, or helplessness (e.g., Bovin et al., 2008; Lima et al., 2010). However, it has also noted that these factors explain only 25% of its variance (Fusé et al., 2007). This gap underscores the importance of accounting for the remaining variance through the examination of additional possible peritraumatic determinants. The current model attempts to do that by conceptualizing dehumanization, objectification, and humiliation as additional primary precursors of peritraumatic immobility.
It is suggested that in addition to the fear and threat experienced during rape, it is also the disbelief and shock of being disregarded, degraded, and treated as less than a person that leads to a loss of agency and an inability to respond (Carlson & Dalenberg, 2000; Gidycz et al., 2008). Quotes such as “I was just so shocked I didn't know what to do or even what I could do,” as reported by Bucher and Manasse (2011, p. 130), exemplify this debilitated state. Conceptualizing the freeze response in this vein might also help explain its occurrence in cases of rape that might not involve extreme fear or life threat at all. Such is the case in many instances of acquaintance rape, for example, as evident in the narratives of rape survivors explored by Bucher and Manasse (2011) and Galliano et al. (1993), among others.
Furthermore, the clarification of the actual nature of rape-induced immobility might facilitate a change in prejudiced victim-blaming attitudes that stem from a misconstruction of this unintentional response as a deliberate lack of resistance (Branscombe, Wohl, Owen, Allison, & N'gbala, 2003; Roberts, 1993; Suarez & Gallup, 1979; Ullman, 1996). This is particularly important given the connection between societal condemnation and the self-blame that plagues rape victims. Establishing the origin and pervasiveness of rape-induced paralysis might help ameliorate the pain suffered by many survivors who wonder why they did not put up more of a fight.
In sum, this study seeks to test a theoretical model of causality in which rape-induced peritraumatic dehumanization and humiliation are expected to lead to a freeze response; and in turn, to postrape self-blame and PTSD. The cluster of responses set in motion by the intolerable dehumanization experienced during rape is thus viewed as creating one of the central pathways from the trauma of rape to symptoms, independently of other peritraumatic responses such as fear and threat. This particular model is expected to show a poorer fit to other types of trauma such as combat stress, terror attacks, car accidents, sudden loss, and so on. Additionally, all peritraumatic and post-traumatic variables are expected to be more extreme among rape survivors as compared to victims of other forms of trauma.
METHOD
Sample
Two hundred and fifty-two subjects participated in the study, 185 (73.1%) women and 68 (26.9%) men. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 74, with the mean being 33 (SD = 11.64). Forty-six percent were single, 33.5% were married, 7.9% were in a committed relationship or marriage, and 7.2% were divorced, separated, or widowed. Students made up 33.8% of the sample, 38.7% were employees, 12.4% were self-employed, and the remaining 10.2% unknown.
Procedure
In this e-mail and Internet-based study conducted in Israel, participants were recruited through the dissemination of an online form. The invitation to participate in the study was sent by e-mail to various mailing lists and social networks throughout the country, accompanied by a request to forward the form onward to as many people as possible. The form remained posted online for a period of 3 months. Participants thus opted in at will, whenever and wherever they wished to do so.
The study was introduced as an investigation of coping with stressful life events, and portrayed as being of significant social value. Participation was entirely voluntary and no rewards were offered to encourage it. Anonymity was guaranteed through the use of an electronic form that transmitted the data directly to a database, containing no identifying information regarding the person who completed it.
Measures
The study employed a self-report questionnaire that included measures of exposure to traumatic events, peritraumatic and post-traumatic responses, encounters with social blame, and demographic questions.
Exposure to traumatic events
A scale developed specifically for this study assessed exposure to various types of traumatic events including rape, defined as experiencing forced sex; sexual harassment; sudden loss of a loved one; involvement in a serious car accident; experiencing stress during combat; and being in a terror incident. The scale includes six true–false items that measure exposure to each trauma type, described in behavioral terms. Where participants experienced more than one type of trauma, they were instructed in the final item to choose the event that was most traumatic for them and to proceed to respond to all succeeding measures in respect to that particular occurrence alone. Wherever possible, descriptions of the trauma type were adapted from separate existing measures of each trauma. For example, the item describing the event of rape was adapted from Koss and Oros's (1982) Sexual Experiences Survey. Clearly, this list of traumatic events is by no means exhaustive, but rather reflective of the many types of possible trauma-inducing incidents. No psychometric data are available for this scale.
Peritraumatic dehumanization, objectification, and humiliation
Because, to the best of our knowledge, no scale measuring peritraumatic dehumanization, objectification, and humiliation exists in the literature, a scale made up of six items assessing these responses was devised. The items were worded as follows:
| • | To what extent did you experience a sense of being stripped of your humanity during the event? | ||||
| • | To what extent did you feel exploited and used like an object during the event? | ||||
| • | To what extent did you feel humiliated during the event? | ||||
| • | To what extent did you feel that you were denied control over the event? | ||||
| • | To what extent did you feel that your personal space was thoughtlessly invaded during the event? | ||||
Responses for each item were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all to 4 = to an extreme extent). Cronbach's alpha for this scale was measured at .86.
The freeze response
The occurrence of the freeze response was evaluated by Part 1 of the Tonic Immobility Scale (TIS; Forsyth, Marx, Fusé, Heidt, & Gallup, 2000). This measure contains 10 items designed to evaluate the experience of behavioral inhibition during the incident. Specific responses are presented to the respondents who are to indicate the degree to which they have experienced them or not; for example, “Rate the degree to which you froze or felt paralyzed,” or “Rate the degree to which you were unable to move even though not restrained.” Responses are made using a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all to 4 = to an extreme extent). Higher scores reflect greater immobility or “freezing.” The coefficient alpha of the scale in this study is .89.
Self-blame
The measure of self-blame was adapted from Meyer and Taylor's (1986) measure of attributions for rape. This scale is designed to assess rape-related self-blame, and it was employed here for its ability to tap culturally inculcated self-blame, which is at the focus of this study. To adapt it to the investigation of self-blame across various trauma types, and to correct for any potential biases, only those questions that could reasonably apply to all types of trauma were included and rape-specific items were omitted. For example, items such as “there is too much pornography around” were omitted because they have no relevance to any of the other events besides rape. Items that were retained included statements such as “I got what I deserved” and “I should have been more cautious,” among others. In all, 10 items were selected. The coefficient alpha of the adapted scale in this study is .87. Respondents rated the importance of these statements in helping them to explain why they experienced the traumatic event on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely false to 5 = completely true).
PTSD
Posttrauma symptoms were assessed by the Post-Traumatic Diagnostic Scale (PTDS; Foa, Cashman, Jaycox, & Perry, 1997). The PTDS provides both a measure of PTSD symptom severity and a PTSD diagnosis. The PTDS corresponds to all six criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) and its psychometric properties were established in a large sample of male and female victims of diverse causes of trauma. The coefficient alpha of the scale in this study is .89. The diagnostic scale is composed of three parts assessing symptoms of PTSD, characteristics of the trauma and duration of symptoms, and dysfunction in daily living. This study employed only Part 1, as we were only interested in PTSD symptomatology. Seventeen items listing representative post-traumatic symptoms make up the first part. Respondents are requested to rate the number of times they have experienced each of the symptoms listed. Ratings are made on a 4-point scale (0 = not at all to 3 = all the time).
RESULTS
Characteristics of the Study Population
As the study was directed solely toward individuals who have experienced some form of trauma, all 252 participants reported experiencing at least one traumatic event. Considering that nearly all rape survivors in this study were female, with only two of them being male—thereby precluding any possibility of gender comparisons—the male survivors were excluded from the analysis. The female rape survivors represented 13% of the female participants. Similarly, all sexual harassment survivors were female as well, making up 48% of the women in the sample. The other traumas were distributed as follows: Fifty-three percent of the entire sample sustained the sudden loss of a close one, 42.9% experienced a terror incident, 13.9% were involved in a serious car accident, and 6.4% reported being in stressful combat situations (primarily men). Members of all groups, with the exception of rape and sexual harassment victims who were women only, consisted of both sexes. The mean scores and standard deviations of the main dependent variables, namely, self-blame and PTSD, within each trauma type are listed in Table 1.
Testing of Hypotheses
Structural path analysis using AMOS 6.0 was conducted to test the fit of the dehumanization-related model in the case of rape as compared to other traumas. In addition, the fit of an all-inclusive model, in which fear-related elements were added to the former model, was tested as well, as was a fear-originated model on its own.
Rape: A Trauma of Paralyzing Dehumanization
Published online:
20 November 2013TABLE 1 Comparisons between Rape Survivors and Victims of Other Traumas on All Variables, Means, and Multivariate Analysis of Variance Coefficients
To begin with, the fit of each of the three causal models to the group of rape survivors was evaluated. The first step in the path analysis involved testing a comprehensive model inclusive of both the peritraumatic responses at the focus of this study, namely, dehumanization and its derivatives, objectification, and humiliation; along with those discussed more widely in the literature (i.e., fear and helplessness), as predictors of the freeze response, self-blame, and PTSD. The fit indexes indicated that the model was a poor fit for the data, χ2(9) = 11.10, p < .05, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .815, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .09, 90% CI = [.00, .24] even though for four of the variables of the model, significant paths emerged. These were dehumanization as a predictor of humiliation and objectification (β = .57 and .45, respectively), and the freeze response and self-blame as predictors of PTSD (β = .36 and .32, respectively).
The next step involved the removal of the predictors that were not part of the present theoretical model, maintaining only the dehumanization-related variables as predictors. This improved the fit of the model considerably, and made it a very good fit for the data with χ2(2) = 0.79, p > .05, NFI = .98, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = [.00, .18] (see Figure 1). In this model, dehumanization is significantly related to humiliation, objectification, and freezing (β = .57, .45, and .39, respectively), with PTSD being predicted by the latter (i.e., the freeze response) and self-blame (β = .42 and .38, respectively). All were significant at p < .05.
Rape: A Trauma of Paralyzing Dehumanization
Published online:
20 November 2013FIGURE 1 Results of structural path analysis including peritraumatic dehumanization, objectification, and humiliation, as predictors of tonic immobility, self-blame, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
FIGURE 1 Results of structural path analysis including peritraumatic dehumanization, objectification, and humiliation, as predictors of tonic immobility, self-blame, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
To account for the role played by the predictors that were removed in Step 2, a third path analysis was performed in which these two variables, namely, fear and helplessness, replaced dehumanization and its derivatives in predicting the outcome constructs in a similar progression. This model showed a good fit as well, with χ2(1) = 0.112, p > .05, NFI = .99, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = [.00, .34] (see Figure 2), suggesting that there are two separate, independent pathways from rape to symptoms.
Rape: A Trauma of Paralyzing Dehumanization
Published online:
20 November 2013FIGURE 2 Results of structural path analysis including peritraumatic fear and helplessness as predictors of tonic immobility, self-blame, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
FIGURE 2 Results of structural path analysis including peritraumatic fear and helplessness as predictors of tonic immobility, self-blame, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Third, both final models were tested on the rest of the trauma victims as a group, with the exclusion of sexual harassment survivors. The results show a poor fit of the dehumanization-derived model for this population, with χ2(3) = 21.58, p < .05, NFI = .95, RMSEA = .19, 90% CI = [.101, .235], showing a very good fit for the fear/helplessness one, χ2(1) = .05, p > .05, NFI = .99, RMSEA = .19, 90% CI = [.00, .125].
To compare the relative magnitude of both predictor and outcome variables among rape victims versus the others, a multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. The results are shown in Table 1. The comparison between rape victims and those of all other trauma types yielded significant differences throughout. Tukey post-hoc comparisons revealed, as expected, that rape survivors were significantly worse off on all measures in comparison to the others. Following rape, the additional form of sexual violence examined, namely, sexual harassment, yielded the second worse reactions, with the exception of fear and PTSD, on which combat stress ranked second.
An analysis of the distribution of responses above and below the median score within each trauma type was performed as well. The results are presented in Table 2 and indicate that a significantly higher percentage of rape survivors exhibited high levels of all responses to the event, both during and after its occurrence.
Rape: A Trauma of Paralyzing Dehumanization
Published online:
20 November 2013TABLE 2 Levels of Various Peritraumatic and Post-traumatic Responses across Trauma Types Expressed as Percentages Above and Below the Median
Finally, to rule out the possibility that the variation in PTSD and self-blame levels was a function of gender, a 2 × 5 (Gender × Trauma Type) analysis of variance was performed. The results indicated a highly significant main effect for type of trauma on both PTSD and self-blame (F = 6.95 and 14.65, respectively; p < .00 for both), whereas gender did not show a main effect, nor was there a significant interaction. Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated that rape survivors had significantly higher levels of PTSD and self-blame compared to each of the other trauma groups.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study substantiate a theoretical model of causality in which rape-related peritraumatic dehumanization and its derivatives, objectification and humiliation, significantly predict rape-induced “freezing,” which, in turn, significantly predicts postrape self-blame and PTSD, both of which are also related to each other. The cooccurrence of peritraumatic dehumanization and immobility is thus shown to be an important risk factor for postrape symptomatology. Moreover, this causal model appears to be rather unique to the trauma of rape, setting it apart from other forms of trauma with all its components, both predictor and outcome, being more pronounced in the former as compared to the latter.
As a traumatic event, rape shares with other forms of trauma many of the widely discussed peritraumatic responses typical to all such events, such as fear, dissociation, and threat, to name a few (Foa & Rothbaum, 1998; Herman, 1992). However, concomitantly, it also appears to be typified by several other rape-specific peritraumatic responses, the oversight of which can hinder treatment for this particular population. In accordance with theoretical and clinical accounts of rape (e.g., Anderson, 2005; Carlson & Dalenberg, 2000; Herman, 1992; Hilberman, 1976; Koss & Harvey, 1991; Roberts, 1993), the findings reported here underscore the fact that rape is a most dehumanizing and humiliating experience that strips a sizable percentage of victims of their fundamental sense of personhood and dignity.
The result quite routinely is an additional, severely pathogenic, peritraumatic response, namely, immobility or “freezing.” Although traumatic paralysis has been widely noted in previous trauma investigations (e.g., Bovin et al., 2008; Burgess & Holmstrom, 1976; Fusé et al., 2007; Lima et al., 2010; Russell, 1974; Suarez & Gallup, 1979), it has not been formerly tied to either dehumanization or humiliation. This finding connecting the freeze response to the dehumanization-related cluster of responses is therefore an important addition to the conceptualization of the roots of traumatic paralysis in rape, which has previously been tied almost exclusively to fear and threat (e.g., Bracha et al., 2004; Volchana et al., 2011).
The fact that the dehumanization-derived model was considerably less suited to the description of the experience entailed by other trauma types, such as combat stress, terror attacks, car accidents, sudden loss, and so on, warrants special attention, suggests that there is something rather unique about the nature of rape that differentiates it in some important respects from other types of trauma. Evidently, the experience of being treated as less than a human being, being denied one's subjectivity, crushes the rape victim's sense of self and protective capacities in an unmatched manner.
Moreover, the fact that dehumanization and its derivatives are rather unique to rape and other forms of sexual violence, although being largely atypical of other traumas, might explain the sparse reference it receives in the trauma literature. Accordingly, it might go unexamined in therapy to the detriment of the sufferers. The findings reported here underscore the importance of routinely targeting these highly pervasive rape-induced peritraumatic responses for the sake of optimal therapy.
At the same time, the fact that a causal model centered on peritraumatic fear and helplessness was equally well suited to all forms of trauma, rape among them, stresses that there are also expected commonalities between them. The meaning of this finding in this context is that therapy for rape survivors must be all-inclusive, focused equally on all pertinent peritraumatic responses, both unique and shared. Moreover, the finding of a poor fit for the combined model, which included both the dehumanization- and the fear-originated pathways, seems to suggest that these two pathways are likely to be separate and independent, implying that it is important to treat each of them separately. All in all, these findings underscore the importance of uncovering the multitude of rape-specific peritraumatic responses for most effective treatment results (e.g., Moor & Farchi, 2011).
Equally significant are the findings of greater elevations in all peritraumatic and post-traumatic responses in the case of rape as compared to nearly all other traumas, which go beyond the findings of different causal pathways. Almost invariably, rape is shown to induce more extreme elevations in the various peritraumatic responses, creating considerably higher levels of experienced dehumanization, objectification, humiliation, and tonic immobility or “freezing.” The one exception is the case of sexual harassment, which, as expected (i.e., Esacove, 1998), resembles rape in the generation of this cluster of responses, albeit to a lesser degree.
In the same way, both self-blame and PTSD are considerably more extreme in the aftermath of rape relative to all other traumas. The latter finding, concerning outcome symptomatology, is a close duplication of similar findings in our previous study (Moor & Farchi, 2011) in which the severity of these two symptom clusters similarly differentiated between rape and other traumas. It stands to reason that it is precisely the difference in the phenomenology of the trauma of rape relative to other traumas noted here that is centrally responsible for the consistent disparity in symptoms. This conclusion is further supported by the elimination of gender as a discriminating predictive factor, thereby underscoring the centrality of trauma type in determining outcome.
Of the peritraumatic responses shown to be more pronounced in rape relative to other, nonsexual traumas, special attention must be given to the freeze response, due to its negative ramifications for survivors, in the form of social as well as self-blame. That freezing occurs to such a high degree during rape, with 89% of survivors reporting some degree of behavioral inhibition during the assault, implies that it should be viewed as no less than a normative response to rape. This conclusion resonates with previous similar indications (e.g., Bovin et al., 2008; Burgess & Holmstrom, 1976; Fusé et al., 2007; Lima et al., 2010; Suarez & Gallup, 1979; Russell, 1974), even though the present incidence of freezing was higher than that established previously (e.g., Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Galliano et al., 1993; Gidycz et al., 2008). This discrepancy likely reflects a disparity in the definition of the freeze response. Whereas we regarded any type of behavioral inhibition as freezing, irrespective of the presence of verbal objection, earlier studies did not. Once viewed in this vein, the figures are practically identical across all studies.
Thus, the findings reported here can be seen as adding credence to the notion that freezing is an adaptive response to rape, intended to enhance survival and avoid further injury, given the limited options available under the circumstances. Accordingly, the freeze response must be seen as the best explanation for the responses of a huge majority of rape victims during the assault (Bracha et al., 2004). Parenthetically, the fairly high prevalence of sexual harassment–related paralysis, reported by 67% of victims, shows it to be a rather typical response to this infringement as well.
The recognition of the sweeping incidence of rape-induced freezing can thus be used to counter widely held beliefs connecting it to victim accountability (e.g., Branscombe et al., 2003; Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Ullman, 1996). Understanding that it is a normative response to rape can free survivors of both social, as well as self-blame. Rape survivors who were paralyzed during the assault can obtain great relief from the understanding that they reacted in a most typical fashion, as demonstrated in these as well as similar findings. This should alleviate much of their self-blame (Suarez & Gallup, 1979).
Similarly, social victim blaming might subside as well, as it becomes obvious that victims should not be penalized for exhibiting a widespread, normative reaction. This is particularly important considering the present finding of considerably higher levels of social blame encountered by rape survivors versus other trauma victims. This disparity not only substantiates previous findings of severe victim-blaming following rape (e.g., Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Burt, 1980; Campbell, 1998; Frazier, 1990; Lebowitz & Roth, 1994), but it also further underscores the necessity for a pervasive change in attitudes. Given that victim blaming is inverted to the social support that is so crucial for trauma recovery (e.g., Botta & Pingree, 1997; Flannery, 1990; Ullman, 1999), such transformative awareness is absolutely critical.
Moreover, the definition of what constitutes resistance to forced sex should be modified to reflect these and other similar findings. Most notably, the fact that the freeze response was shown to result from reactions that embody pain and distress should promote the awareness that paralysis in the context of sexual interactions is, in itself, an obvious, albeit motionless, expression of lack of consent. Such a transformation in the perception of immobility in rape can likewise go a long way toward reducing victim-blaming, simultaneously raising awareness regarding the true interpersonal meaning of rape-induced freezing.
Limitations
Although this study yielded compelling results, it should be kept in mind that it might contain some sampling limitations. In particular, the type of sampling employed in this study (Internet sampling) might raise concerns about the degree to which the sample is representative. Obviously, such sampling is limited to individuals with computer access. Response bias might be an additional limitation, as those opting to participate in the study might have done so for biased reasons. At the same time, this kind of sampling could enable access to a wider range of individuals than might have been possible by probability-based sampling alone. Moreover, any biased motivation to participate in a study such as this one is most likely evened out by the opposing tendency to avoid dealing with such painful materials. In addition, all these limitations would have presumably affected all of the study populations to the same degree, thus not tampering with the group comparisons.
The exclusive focus of this study on adult female rape victims might limit the generalizability of its findings to other populations of rape victims such as children and males. In addition, the comprehensiveness of the findings might be limited to a certain degree by the absence of information regarding exposure to previous traumas, which is known to affect peri- and post-traumatic reactions in general, and freezing, in particular (e.g., Gidycz et al., 2008). At the same time, the wide-ranging incidence of the particular peritraumatic responses under study seems to imply that their occurrence might be rather independent of previous experience. Nonetheless, future research should attempt to repeat this investigation with more widely representative samples, most preferably from within a variety of clinical settings, while expanding the components of pretraumatic experience measured.
Implications for Prevention and Treatment
These findings have significant preventive implications. As rape appears to be at its core, a trauma of dehumanization, preventive measures that promote respectful sexual interactions should be undertaken to guarantee that no person is thus dehumanized (Anderson, 2005). Such interventions ought to encourage considerate communication regarding sexual interactions aimed at genuinely assessing the other's intentions whilst conveying a willingness to regard her as fully human.
In addition, inasmuch as the freeze response is reconstrued as denoting a lack of consent, preventive educational programs must echo this reframed conception, stressing that contrary to common belief, immobility during forced sex does not imply consent in any way. Rather, it is a silent cry, transmitted in the clearest manner available to the victim at the time, that her will has been ignored and disregarded. Because a certain proportion of rapes might occur as a result of uncertainty regarding the meaning of immobility on the part of the victim, this reframing might indeed make a dent in their rate of occurrence.
These findings might also inform our ability to treat rape survivors who require therapy most effectively. In essence, given the interpersonal context of rape-related dehumanization, it is the therapeutic relationship itself that takes on a most central curative role in the process of recovery. By providing survivors with the most respectful, nonhierarchical alliance, rape treatment aims, at its very core, to counter the sense of dehumanization and humiliation sustained in the assault and to restore the survivor's sense of humanity and dignity. Through unequivocal respect for her subjective narrative, including unwavering validation of her point of view and the complete refraining from imposing an external perspective onto hers, the survivor is affirmed and afforded the confidence that she is seen and upheld once again as a full and valued human being. For the most part, she will likely also need to reprocess all other traumatic memories and restructure the full array of self-blaming cognitions. Varied evidence-based trauma reprocessing protocols such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, cognitive behavioral therapy, and prolonged exposure therapy may be used to that end (Foa & Rothbaum, 1998; Shapiro & Maxfield, 2002). However, based on the findings reported here, it would appear that rape treatment should aim, above almost all else, at enabling the survivor to fully reclaim her own humanity.
This study was supported in part by the Legacy Heritage Fund.
| Rape | Sexual harassment | Terror incident | Combat stress | Car accident | Sudden loss | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dehumanization | 3.61 | 2.80 | 0.77 | 0.80 | 0.61 | 0.75 | 66.86* |
| Objectification | 3.85 | 3.18 | 0.74 | 0.80 | 0.30 | 0.46 | 55.18* |
| Humiliation | 3.62 | 3.03 | 0.63 | 0.30 | 1.09 | 0.42 | 46.77* |
| Fear | 3.69 | 2.51 | 2.45 | 2.50 | 1.91 | 1.39 | 9.27* |
| Helplessness | 3.78 | 3.09 | 2.31 | 2.38 | 2.40 | 2.57 | 4.24* |
| Freeze response | 3.08 | 2.25 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 1.15 | 1.06 | 18.55* |
| Self-blame | 2.58 | 1.60 | 0.48 | 0.80 | 0.94 | 0.39 | 23.12* |
| PTSD | 25.92 | 7.26 | 6.19 | 16.40 | 8.65 | 8.76 | 10.57* |
| Social blame | 1.74 | 0.90 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.89 | 0.45 | 9.47* |
| Note. PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder. | |||||||
| | |||||||
| Dehuman | Objectific | Humiliat | TI | Self blame | Social Blame | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Low | High | Low | High | Low | High | Low | High | Low | High | Low | |
| Rape | 97% | 3% | 98% | 2% | 91% | 9% | 89% | 11% | 88% | 12% | 54% | 46% |
| Sexual harass | 81% | 9% | 80% | 20% | 76% | 24% | 67% | 33% | 46% | 54% | 26% | 74% |
| Terror incident | 12% | 88% | 13% | 87% | 13% | 87% | 12% | 88% | 8% | 92% | 0 | 0 |
| Combat stress | 8% | 92% | 23% | 77% | 8% | 92% | 8% | 92% | 30% | 70% | 7% | 93% |
| Car accident | 8% | 92% | 6% | 94% | 24% | 76% | 16% | 84% | 4% | 96% | 5% | 95% |
| Sudden loss | 5% | 95% | 11% | 89% | 7% | 93% | 16% | 84% | 3% | 97% | 3% | 97% |
| Note. Dehuman = dehumanization; objectific = objectification; humiliat = humiliation; TI = tonic immobility; sexual harass = sexual harassment. | ||||||||||||
