|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: The perception of CSA disclosure belief is critical to long-term outcomes for CSA survivors. Despite disclosures often occurring in clinical settings CSA survivors do not always report a sense of clinician belief in response to their disclosure. Ascertaining the factors that influence clinician belief is essential to improving outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether language (i.e., word choice to describe abuse) and ongoing relationship status with a perpetrator impact perceptions of CSA belief amongst psychologists.
METHODS: This 2 × 2 within subject's study examined relationship effects (ongoing verses estranged) and language effects (consensual verses abusive), embedded in fictitious vignettes, on believability. Seventy-five participants completed demographic surveys, rated and discussed belief in four vignettes, and completed validated scales capturing clinician trauma history and CSA myth endorsement.
RESULTS: A significant main effect for relationship was found with ongoing victim-perpetrator relationships being less believed than depictions of estranged relationships (F(1,3) = 15.57, p = .001, h(2) = 0.174). While no main effect for language was found (F(1,3) = 0.06, p = .801, h(2) = 0.001) content analysis of the open-ended items revealed 80 % of psychologists reported being influenced by the language manipulations. Correlations revealed male psychologists were less likely to believe disclosures and more likely to endorse CSA myths than females, and psychologists who had engaged in trauma training appeared to have heightened disclosure belief and lower myth endorsement.
CONCLUSIONS: While psychologists generally report belief in CSA disclosures they appear to evaluate specific disclosure aspects to inform this level of belief. Issues around social desirability, measure sensitivity, and learning effects are discussed alongside the importance of trauma training for psychologists.
Language: en |