Undergoing experiences which cause an overwhelming amount of mental distress whilst being unable to navigate through the convoluted emotions being experienced tends to result in abrupt and long-term consequences, noted as trauma. How one may be affected by trauma is able to be subtle, gradual or aggressively harmful and irreparable; the level of this is influenced by a variety of factors: individual characteristics, parameters of the incident(s) and how significant they may be, as well as sociocultural pressures. Trauma comes in different forms, but it is important to further understand their effects on the individual and how they navigate through their experiences. This topic has been an on-going dialogue within the sciences in the past decade, which has dived into many aspects of these situations. Discourses which continue this are seen in studies, literature reviews, and compositions such as those by psychologists Elieen Zurbriggen, Gizem Arikan, and Caroline Dugal. Zurbiggen’s “Trauma, Attachment, and Intimate Relationships” provides further input into this discourse by highlighting the intersectionality of trauma, attachment, and intimate relationships while accounting for various variables. Secondly, Arikan introduces an additional commentary on this discussion with her commentary and study, “The Associations Between Adult Attachment, Posttraumatic Symptoms, and Posttraumatic Growth”, by working through different circumstances of those who faced significant trauma and how that influences their type of attachment according to John Bowlby’s attachment theory. Dugal composed a third contribution in this discourse, titled “Childhood Interpersonal Trauma and its Repercussions in Adulthood: An Analysis of Psychological and Interpersonal Sequelae”, where she dives into how different types of trauma in childhood create longstanding negative psycho-relational functioning disruption into adulthood. In all three carefully conducted studies, their accompanying background and extension of the researchers’ conclusions there are themes which are brought up in each: deepening the understanding of trauma as it is a delicate subject, its psychological repercussions, and how it influences attachment into adulthood. Keeping this in mind, an adequate question for further research would be: how does trauma affect an individual’s relationship with themselves and others?

Navigating life, as complex as it is, proposes many circumstances which promote vulnerability and negative impacts for the future. In maneuvering through these challenges it is quite difficult to remain unaffected by them, but even more complex to understand and grow when trauma is not widely discussed or explicitly similar in its definition; recently there has been a lack of psychometrically sound method for assessing trauma symptoms directly. There tends to be discrepancies between those in the medical field between what circumstances qualify as a traumatic event. Firstly, in Zurbriggen’s commentary on the subject she emphasizes the definition in the DSM-IV that is used to diagnose trauma-induced disorders, such as PTSD. There has been criticism about the criteria outlined for various disorders and symptoms for oversimplification or vagueness, which can oftentimes lead to misdiagnosis, self-diagnosis, or a lack thereof, but regardless of the criticism in Zurbriggen’s case; trauma is outlined as when someone “‘experienced… or was confronted with…  events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others…[but in the social sphere eventually came] to include relational trauma that was not life threatening” (Zurbriggen, 2011). To paraphrase, to have genuinely endured a medically qualifying ‘it must have had a present threat to one’s physical well-being or those around them. On the other hand, Dugal relates trauma more directly to interpersonal relationships: “interpersonal trauma can be divided into two categories: acts of omission and acts of commission… [this] not only produces compelling and long-lasting psychological and relational maladjustment, but it is also related to a greater probability of sustaining additional interpersonal trauma [later in life]… This vulnerability is referred to as revictimization…” (Dugal, 2016). The terms omission and commission in the context of abuse outline two different types of trauma in developing years: omission for when a caregiver or long-term romantic partners lacking the traits essential in interpersonal as well as individual development and commission involves abusive psychological, physical, verbal or sexual abuse that is directed toward the individual (Dugal, 2016). The main difference is seen within the method: either direct or neglectful. In other words, the root of interpersonal trauma is rooted in abuse or neglect. Dugal’s elaboration that the root of trauma is multifaceted and not completely fixed challenges the Criterion A1, in the DSM-IV, that is commonly used in trauma-induced disorders, which is presented in Zurbriggen article. Taking both of these interpretations on the dimensions of trauma, Arikan seems to completely abandon the thought of including the parameters of the incidents entirely; it is interpreted that incidents can be understood by their after effects on societal reintegration: “Traumatic life events present a challenge to the individual in [assimilating] the meaning of the event into preexisting beliefs about self, other, and the world…” (Arikan, 2016). In this perspective of the roots and development of trauma, Arikan seems to emphasize the characteristics of the individual succeeding the circumstances that induced the trauma instead of the characteristics of the incident. This completely shifts from the previous ideas, yet can be blended accordingly to form a basic understanding of what a traumatic event encapsulates: one must undergo a circumstance that causes an overwhelming stress response or endangers physical well-being of oneself or those around them which makes integrating back into their regular quality or perception of life difficult. Adjusting into life succeeding the traumatic event(s) poses becomes exceptionally difficult due to the psychological repercussions that tend to occur as a result. 

The impact of trauma is to be understood on a case-by-case basis, due to the complexity of trauma itself; there are basic understandings of what may possibly occur but it is not definitive. Some psychological impacts of trauma include anxiety and general negative cognitions alongside post-traumatic stress symptoms. Experiencing daily minor stressors is important in forming adequate adaptive mechanisms, but undergoing trauma has an accompanying stress-response that tends to be detrimental to the well-being of the individual in different aspects. Classical conditioning, as studied by Ivan Pavlov, is important when it comes to understanding responses that victims may undergo when recovering from the event(s). In classical conditioning an automatic conditioned response is paired with a fixed stimulus, which has the potential of being a prominent model for the pathogenesis of certain disorders and heightened vulnerability. Contemporary scientific literature supports this correlation, including Dugal’s findings where she explained that “Empirical results reveal that interpersonal trauma is associated with… severity of anxiety disorders… Early experiences act as vulnerability factors that can considerably affect the psychological consequences of traumatic life events often implicated in the origins of anxiety disorders… (Dugal, 2016). In short, research has posed strong evidence that the degree of trauma experienced, especially within interpersonal relationships, correlates with the origin and severity of one’s anxiety disorder (if applicable) and susceptibility within their general mental health. The use of “vulnerability” is especially important, it stresses that exposure to traumatic stressors does not inherently mean one is guaranteed to suffer an anxiety disorder, but is more susceptible to developing one and being agonized by similar psychological faults such as intrusive thoughts which play into post-traumatic stress symptoms.

Dugal’s addition into this dialogue also posed an interesting take on intrusive thoughts where they are accompanied by behaviors which are manifest due to avoiding and controlling trauma-induced mannerisms and emotions; unfortunately, with continued avoidance may come worsened anxiety (Dugal, 2016). She continued to elaborate on how intrusive thoughts, fearful behaviors, and worsening anxiety are all manifestations of post-traumatic stress symptoms. This correlation has been supported within higher level research, including Arikan’s study which emphasized the variability within those with trauma-induced anxiety and stress. Dr.Arikan comprised a sample group of 393 qualifying faculty and students to utilize the adult attachment theory, posttraumatic cognitions, and the PTGusing correlational design in order to test for an association between adult attachment, negative cognitions, and PTS. The results posed a beneficial evidence for Dugal’s assertions by finding the following:

[The] results suggest that… anxious attachment on PTS is fully mediated by negative 

posttraumatic self-cognitions… we cannot draw causal inferences from this 

cross-sectional study, [but] our results are consistent with the hypothesis… There is 

consistent evidence that supports a causal role for attachment style in PTSD 

development. (p. 14)

Arikan’s hypothesis proposed that attachment issues have an indirect effect on posttraumatic symptoms via more negative self-appraisal, with this being proved reasserts Dugal’s conclusions by presenting that there is a direct correlation between victims post-traumatically tend to endure intrusive and negative cognitions. These findings extend to another aspect of mental health, but in the sphere of social interactions: attachment. 

Although some researchers suggest that attachment style remains relatively stable throughout one’s lifetime, major life events may influence how it continuously develops. Zurbriggen’s journal highlighted the discourse that tends to be undergone within journals regarding psychology, specifically interpersonal trauma and the manifestations succeeding them within one’s interpersonal relationships. In specific, when it comes to romantic relationships Zurbriggen expressed that those who have experienced trauma are at increased risk of victimization in future romantic dynamics due to their insecure attachment by influencing a change in partner preference to those aligning with mistreatment and/or abuse, because victims would have “reported that trustworthiness [and] loyalty were slightly less desirable… they also reported being more tolerant of verbal aggression in a romantic partner” (Zurbriggen, 2016). The susceptibility for enduring these behaviors is not only influenced by the trauma, but by the attachment style the victim possesses. Attachment theory states that the security of one’s attachment directly correlates to the individual’s ability to adequately create models of the people around them whilst inadequately regulating their emotions with different stressors and formulating boundaries. Arikan’s research puts a strong emphasis on the influence of insecurity on one’s relationship with themselves and partners: those with insecure attachment styles were seemingly “mediated partially through (low) psychological well-being and anxious attachment… showed that the impact of anxious attachment on posttraumatic growth was partially mediated by fatalistic coping” (Dugal, 2016). This speculates that unresolved attachment issues result in mannerisms that result in disorientation, worsening of posttraumatic symptoms, inconsistent behavior, and entering unhealthy circumstances. While Zurbriggen and Dugal’s findings are similar when it comes to tolerating dysfunctional dynamics, like domestic violence, there are aspects only displayed within Dugal’s articles: the insecure attachments are solely divided into two groups, abandonment anxiety and avoidance of intimacy. Those with abandonment anxiety have higher negative cognitions of the self and world, whilst those with intimacy avoidance have a deeper fear and discomfort within close relationships (making the counterpart seen as untrustworthy). Both of which have strong triggers relating to their trauma and attachment, but different results: either hyperfixation and codependency or splitting and withdrawal. As a collective, the articles as a whole support the influence of trauma and anxiety on having a secure attachment style into adulthood; while correlation does not directly mean causation, with the insecurity developed from childhood and trauma comes interpersonal encounters that do not reflect secure and healthy dynamics, the security within self and relationship tends to be left deteriorated.

Trauma has overall been highly taboo and consequently defined differently; these experiences can impact an individual’s well-being as a whole, but the mental state of the victims is not entirely definitive. There is strong correlation between anxiety, negative cognitions, developing mental disorders and dysfunctional relations after experiencing traumatic events but symptoms may not become immediately evident nor arise in an expected way. Overall, the results pose the importance of approaching the results of trauma individually.