This article was downloaded by: [79.146.250.

219]
On: 06 February 2013, At: 08:35
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Trauma & Dissociation

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjtd20

I Get No Respect: The Relationship

Between Betrayal Trauma and Romantic
Relationship Functioning
a a a
Jesse Owen PhD , Kelley Quirk MA & Megan Manthos BS
a
Educational and Counseling Psychology Department, University of
Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
Accepted author version posted online: 09 Dec 2011.Version of
record first published: 29 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Jesse Owen PhD , Kelley Quirk MA & Megan Manthos BS (2012): I Get No Respect:
The Relationship Between Betrayal Trauma and Romantic Relationship Functioning, Journal of Trauma
& Dissociation, 13:2, 175-189

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2012.642760

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13:175–189, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1529-9732 print/1529-9740 online
DOI: 10.1080/15299732.2012.642760

I Get No Respect: The Relationship

Between Betrayal Trauma
and Romantic Relationship
Functioning

JESSE OWEN, PhD, KELLEY QUIRK, MA,

and MEGAN MANTHOS, BS
Educational and Counseling Psychology Department,
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

The current study explored the association among young adults’

(N = 86) experiences of betrayal traumas (interpersonal trauma
perpetrated by someone close) prior to age 18, psychological
well-being, attachment styles, and romantic relationship function
(i.e., dedication, relationship adjustment, and perceived partner
respect). Based on betrayal trauma theory, we posited that par-
ticipants’ reports of betrayal traumas would be negatively related
to their perceptions of respect from their partner but would not
relate to their perceptions of relationship adjustment or dedi-
cation. Furthermore, we expected that the relationship between
betrayal traumas and respect would be mediated by participants’
attachment style and psychological well-being. Results identified a
negative association between betrayal traumas and psychological
well-being and a positive association between betrayal trauma and
anxious and avoidant attachment. Betrayal traumas were also
shown to be negatively related to partner respect and not signif-
icantly associated with dedication and relationship adjustment.
Anxious attachment and psychological well-being were signifi-
cant mediators for the relationship between betrayal traumas and
perceived respect.

Received 20 December 2010; accepted 16 November 2011.

Address correspondence to Jesse Owen, PhD, Educational and Counseling Psychology
Department, College of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville,
Louisville, KY 40292. E-mail: jesse.owen@louisville.edu

175
 176 J. Owen et al.

KEYWORDS betrayal trauma theory, interpersonal trauma,

psychological well-being, attachment, dedication, relationship
adjustment, respect

Experiences of trauma can have long-ranging and deeply embedded conse-

quences that range in severity and duration. Not all traumas are experienced
in the same way, nor do they manifest the same symptoms and reactions (see
Green et al., 2000; McNally, 2007). For instance, the aftermath of a natural
disaster can be quite different than the experience of interpersonal traumas,
wherein the harm is at the hands of one or more potentially close individ-
uals (Findling, Bratton, & Henson, 2006; Freyd, 1996; Sandberg, Suess, &
Heaton, 2010). One theory of interpersonal traumas, betrayal trauma theory
(BTT), describes the link between psychological outcomes and interper-
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

sonal trauma perpetrated by close significant others, such as a parent,

care provider, or romantic partner (Freyd, 1994, 1996; Freyd, DePrince, &
Gleaves, 2007). For the purposes of this article we refer to interpersonal
traumas perpetrated by someone close as betrayal traumas. This type of
trauma includes a perplexing dilemma: How can someone who is a close
significant other, someone who is relied on for physical or emotional needs,
also be the source of such pain and betrayal? Cosmides and Tooby (1989)
posited that individuals have a cognitive detector—a “cheater detector”—to
help avoid these betrayal traumas. However, according to BTT, the expe-
rience of betrayal traumas can turn off or disrupt the cheater detector in
pursuit of a larger need (e.g., survival, physical and emotional needs; e.g.,
DePrince, 2005; Freyd, 1996). For instance, in the face of betrayal trauma,
children need to override their feelings of betrayal (e.g., dissociate) to cope
with the inherent conflict between the pain of the experience and the
emotional and/or physical reliance on the significant other (e.g., for love,
shelter, food).
Empirically speaking, betrayal traumas early in life have been asso-
ciated with a wide range of physical and emotional reactions, such as
somatic symptoms, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder symp-
toms, altered self-concept, substance use, and insecure attachment styles
(e.g., DePrince, 2005; Freyd, Klest, & Allard, 2005; Gobin & Freyd, 2009;
Kendall-Tackett & Marshall, 1999; Lindblom & Gray, 2010; Nelson et al.,
2002; Romans, Belaise, Martin, Morris, & Raffi, 2002; Sandberg et al., 2010).
Moreover, some research has found that betrayal traumas are associated with
greater negative psychological outcomes as compared to interpersonal trau-
mas perpetrated by other individuals not as close (e.g., Atlas & Ingram, 1998;
Lindblom & Gray, 2010). Consistent with BTT, some research has shown
that individuals with a greater number of betrayal trauma experiences were
less able to discriminate relational danger cues during cognitive recognition
tasks as compared to those with fewer instances of trauma experiences (e.g.,
 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13:175–189, 2012 177

Cloitre, 1998; DePrince, 2005; DePrince & Freyd, 1999; Sandberg, Lynn, &
Matorin, 2001).
Although research has found that individuals who have experienced
prior interpersonal traumas are at increased risk for future victimization
(e.g., sexual revictimization; Arata, 2002), other relatively less severe forms
of revictimization may be associated with betrayal traumas (e.g., poor
relationship functioning). Accordingly, this study focuses on the association
between individuals’ experience of betrayal traumas in childhood and their
current romantic relationship functioning. Specifically, we examine indi-
viduals’ perceived respect from their current romantic partner as well as
their personal dedication to and satisfaction with the relationship, which are
common indices of relationship health (e.g., Frei & Shaver, 2002; Hendrick
& Hendrick, 2006; Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2011; Sabourin,
Valois, & Lussier, 2005).
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

BTT posits a potentially counterintuitive position regarding the role

of previous betrayal traumas and subsequent relationship functioning.
Individuals who have experienced a greater number of betrayal trau-
mas may be more likely to enter into or sustain relationships with
partners who are less respectful as compared to individuals with fewer
betrayal traumas. This could be a result of individuals missing key signs
of disrespect in the relationship formation stage or being more desen-
sitized to these disrespectful actions (Chu, 1992; DePrince, Freyd, &
Malle 2007). However, because of their attachment to their partner (i.e.,
how individuals perceive their role in a relationship and how relation-
ships should be) individuals with a greater number of betrayal trau-
mas may not terminate the relationship and may concurrently describe
positive degrees of personal dedication and relationship satisfaction.
This dynamic is indeed counterintuitive, as disrespect in a relationship
often leads individuals to report diminished dedication and relationship
adjustment.

TRAUMA AND ATTACHMENT

Given the bonds or attachment between the trauma survivor and the per-
petrator, it is not surprising that interpersonal traumas can affect attachment
styles (Allen, Coyne, & Huntoon, 1998; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998;
Cloitre, Cohen, & Scarvalone, 2002; Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997;
Sandberg et al., 2010). In turn, these attachment styles shape an individual’s
desire for and comfort with intimacy, closeness, and security with others
(Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Secure attachment is repre-
sented by comfort with closeness in relationships, whereas insecure attach-
ment typically involves two processes: (a) anxiety surrounding intimacy and
abandonment and (b) avoidance of developing close relationships (Collins &
 178 J. Owen et al.

Read, 1990). Victims of betrayal trauma may form interpersonal schemas that
include representations of others as being rejecting, inconsistent, or trauma-
tizing (Larose, Boivin, & Doyle, 2001; Sandberg et al., 2010; Simpson, Rholes,
& Nelligan, 1992). Consistent with this is the idea that individuals’ rela-
tional experiences are internalized and can affect their propensity to rely on
and trust significant others in the future. Simply put, early betrayal traumas
may lead to an avoidance of depending on or trusting others. Alternatively,
betrayal traumas can also lead to anxious attachment styles, wherein people
have difficulty managing motivations to approach others for support and
withdraw to protect themselves (Sandberg et al., 2010).

BETRAYAL TRAUMA AND WELL-BEING

Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

Beyond the potential mediating effects of attachment style for the relation-
ship between individuals’ betrayal trauma histories and perceived partner
respect it is important to examine the role of individuals’ psychological
well-being. The empirical literature has identified a variety of negative
psychological symptoms connected with betrayal trauma experiences. In
addition, lower psychological distress has also been associated with greater
relationship functioning (e.g., Whisman, 2001). Thus, betrayal traumas may
result in more psychological distress, and these negative outcomes may
subsequently influence the likelihood that individuals will be involved in
romantic relationships with partners they report as less respectful. Simply
put, psychological well-being and attachment styles may work to medi-
ate the negative associations between interpersonal trauma and perceived
respect in romantic relationships.

THE CURRENT STUDY

We expected that betrayal traumas would be negatively associated with

psychological well-being (Hypothesis 1a) and positively associated with
avoidant attachment (Hypothesis 1b) and anxious attachment (Hypothesis
1c). Furthermore, we posited that betrayal traumas would be negatively
related to individuals’ perceived amount of respect from their partner
(Hypothesis 2a) but that there would be no significant association with
individuals’ personal dedication to their relationship (Hypothesis 2b) and
their sense of relationship adjustment (Hypothesis 2c). Finally, we tested
a multiple mediation model wherein we expected that psychological
well-being (Hypothesis 3a), avoidant attachment (Hypothesis 3b), and anx-
ious attachment (Hypothesis 3c) would mediate the relationship between
betrayal traumas and perceived respect after months dating, biological sex,
dedication, and relationship adjustment were controlled.
 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13:175–189, 2012 179

METHOD
Participants and Procedures
The participants were recruited from a large West Coast university in the
United States. A total of 86 participants met the requirements for the current
study (i.e., they were currently in an exclusive romantic relationship and
completed all of the measures). There were 65 women and 21 men, with
an average age of 21.15 (SD = 2.52 years). Fifty-nine participants identi-
fied as White/Euro-American, 14 identified as Asian American, 4 identified
as Hispanic/Latino(a), 5 identified as multiracial/ethnic, and 4 identified as
“other” or did not respond. Fifty-three participants were seniors, 31 were
juniors, and 2 were sophomores. The average relationship length was
24.20 months (SD = 22.67 months, median = 18.50 months). Participants
were recruited from a larger study examining romantic relationships (Owen
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

et al., in press). For this study we contacted young adults who initially
responded to the first survey. Participants completed first an informed con-
sent form and then the measures. All information was completed online.
The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board.

Measures
Brief Betrayal Trauma Survey (Goldberg & Freyd, 2006). The Brief
Betrayal Trauma Survey was used to assess self-reported exposure to inter-
personal traumas perpetrated by someone close and not close as well as
non-interpersonal traumas (e.g., natural disasters). The Brief Betrayal Trauma
Survey has 12 items that assess exposure to each type of trauma before and
after the age of 18. Each item is rated on a 3-point scale: 0 (never), 1 (one
or two times), and 2 (more than that). Similar to DePrince, Combs, and
Shanahan (2009), we only utilized the items that pertained to interpersonal
traumas perpetrated by someone close or by a person who was not so close
before the age of 18. An example item of an interpersonal trauma perpe-
trated by someone close is “You were deliberately attacked so severely as to
result in marks, bruises, blood, broken bones, or broken teeth by someone
with whom you were very close.” An example item of an interpersonal trauma
perpetrated by someone not so close is “You were deliberately attacked so
severely as to result in marks, bruises, blood, broken bones, or broken teeth
by someone with whom you were not so close.” We created an average
score based on the five items for interpersonal trauma perpetrated by some-
one close (BT-Close) and the five items for interpersonal trauma perpetrated
by someone not so close (IT-Not Close). The range of scores for BT-Close
was 0.0 to 2.0, and the range of scores for IT-Not Close was 0.0 to 0.8.
In addition we decided to utilize IT-Not Close and BT-Close before the age
of 18 in order not to conflate potentially current and ongoing interpersonal
traumas and to better approximate the temporal order of effects.
 180 J. Owen et al.

Schwartz Outcome Scale–10 (Blais et al., 1999). The Schwartz Outcome

Scale–10 was used to assess current psychological well-being (over the past
week). The 10 items are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7
(all the time or nearly all the time). An example item is “I am often interested
and excited about things in my life.” The Schwartz Outcome Scale–10 has
exhibited test–retest correlations and Cronbach’s alphas above .85 (e.g., Blais
et al., 1999; see Owen & Imel, 2010, for a review). Convergent and discrimi-
nant validity has been supported in previous studies with correlations in the
predicted direction with a variety of psychological well-being and distress
scales (Owen & Imel, 2010). Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was .89.
Adult Attachment Scale (Collins & Read, 1990). The Adult Attachment
Scale was used to assess participants’ attachment style through 18 items
(three subscales), each rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(not at all characteristic) to 5 (very characteristic). Consistent with attach-
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

ment theory, two subscales assess avoidant attachment: comfort with being
emotionally close to others (Close subscale) and ease with trusting and
depending on other people (Depend subscale). The final subscale reflects
anxiety about abandonment (Anxious Attachment subscale). The Adult
Attachment Scale was developed based on the theoretical assumptions of
child attachment theory and has shown adequate reliability and validity. For
instance, in previous studies the Adult Attachment Scale has predicted affect
regulation, interpersonal disclosures, approaching others for support, and
providing support (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Shaver, Belsky, & Brennan,
2000). To represent the theoretical position that attachment represents two
dimensions (i.e., avoidance and anxious attachment; e.g., Collins & Feeney,
2004; Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fincham, 2010) we combined the Depend
and Close subscales (r = .71) into a single measure of avoidant attachment
(α = .81) and used the Anxious Attachment subscale (α = .68) as an indica-
tor of anxious attachment. In previous studies these two dimensions demon-
strated high correlations (e.g., rs > .65) with other self-report measures of
prototype attachment styles (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2004; Owen et al., 2010).
Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The four-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(Sabourin et al., 2005) is a measure of relationship adjustment that was
derived from the 32-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The items are as follows:
“How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation, or
terminating your relationship?” “In general, how often do you think that
things between you and your partner are going well?” “Do you confide in
your mate?” and “Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things consid-
ered, of your relationship. The middle point, ‘happy,’ represents the degree
of happiness of most relationships.” The four-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale
has been shown to predict couples’ satisfaction and dissolution (Sabourin
et al., 2005). In the current study Cronbach’s alpha was .73.
Commitment Inventory, Dedication subscale. To assess dedication we
used the five-item version of the Dedication subscale from the Commitment
 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13:175–189, 2012 181

Inventory (Owen et al., 2011; Stanley & Markman, 1992). These items are
rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 7 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly dis-
agree), with higher scores indicating more dedication to the relationship.
This measure assesses participants’ perception of their priority of relation-
ship, couple identity, satisfaction with sacrifice, and long-term view of the
relationship. For instance, “I like to think of my partner and me more in
terms of ‘us’ and ‘we’ than ‘me’ and ‘him/her’” (couple identity) and “I may
not want to be with my partner a few years from now” (reverse coded,
long-term view of the relationship). In prior studies this subscale has been
associated with a variety of relationship-functioning measures (e.g., relation-
ship satisfaction, negative communication; Owen et al., 2011). In the current
study Cronbach’s alpha was .76.
Respect in Close Relationships Scale. To assess participants’ perceptions
of the level of respect from their partner we utilized eight items from Frei
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

and Shaver’s (2002) Respect in Close Relationships measure. The items were
rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree), with higher scores indicating more perceived respect from the part-
ner. Each item reflects individuals’ perceived respect from their partner.
An example item is “S/he is sensitive and considerate of my feelings.”
Respect scores have been positively associated with relationship satisfaction
and negatively associated with insecure attachment styles (Frei & Shaver,
2002). In the current study Cronbach’s alpha was .85.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the bivariate correlations among the variables in the study.
As expected, BT-Close was negatively associated with psychological well-
being (supporting Hypothesis 1a) and positively associated with avoidant
attachment (supporting Hypothesis 1b) and anxious attachment (support-
ing Hypothesis 1c). Next we found that BT-Close was negatively related
to perceived respect (supporting Hypothesis 2a), but there was no signifi-
cant association with dedication (supporting Hypothesis 2b) and relationship
adjustment (supporting Hypothesis 2c). Although this was not predicted,
IT-Not Close was not significantly related to psychological well-being,
anxious or avoidant attachment, perceived respect, or relationship adjust-
ment. However, IT-Not Close was significantly associated with dedication
(r = −.24).
Finally, we examined whether participants’ psychological well-being,
avoidant attachment, and anxious attachment would mediate the relationship
between BT-Close and perceived respect. We also controlled for participants’
biological sex, months dating, dedication, and relationship adjustment. To do
this we conducted a multiple mediation model wherein more than one medi-
ator could be tested simultaneously (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Simply put,
 182 J. Owen et al.

TABLE 1 Bivariate Correlations Among Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. BT-Close —
2. IT-NC .29∗∗ —
3. Psychological well-beinga −.38∗∗ −.11 —
4. Avoidant attachmentb .40∗∗ .14 −.49∗∗ —
5. Anxious attachmentb .22∗ .14 −.51∗∗ .35∗∗ —
6. Dedication −.13 −.24∗ .16 −.24∗ −.21 —
7. Relationship adjustmentc −.05 .04 .12 −.08 −.11 .35∗∗ —
8. Perceived respect −.37∗∗ −.18 .59∗∗ −.34∗∗ −.46∗∗ .38∗∗ .25∗ —
M 0.25 0.12 4.44 2.54 2.16 5.15 4.11 5.88
SD 0.40 0.17 0.90 0.74 0.77 1.20 0.98 1.14
Notes: BT-Close = interpersonal traumas perpetrated by someone close before the age of 18;
IT-NC = interpersonal traumas perpetrated by someone not close before the age of 18.
a
Schwartz Outcome Scale–10. b Adult Attachment Scale. c Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
∗
p < .05
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

∗∗
p < .01

multiple mediation models are an extension of traditional mediation models.

Thus, the independent variable (i.e., BT-Close) should be associated with the
mediators (i.e., psychological well-being, avoidant and anxious attachment).
These paths are listed as a1, b1, and d1 in Figure 1. The mediators should
also be associated with the dependent variable (i.e., perceived respect).
These paths are listed as a2, b2, and d2 in Figure 1. Furthermore, the inde-
pendent variable should be associated with the dependent variable (path

(a1) –0.89*** Psy. WB (a2) 0.47***

(c) –0.91**
BT-Close Respect
(c′) –0.41
(b1) 0.72***
(b2) 0.10

Avoid
(d2) –0.34*
(d1) 0.46*

Anxious

FIGURE 1 Summary of direct effects in the multiple mediation model. Coefficients reflect
unstandardized effects. In this model we also controlled for months dating, sex (coded
0 = female, 1 = male), commitment, and relationship adjustment (for parsimony these scores
are not shown; see Table 2). BT-Close = interpersonal traumas perpetrated by someone
close before the age of 18; Psy. WB = psychological well-being (Schwartz Outcome Scale–
10); Avoid = avoidant attachment (Adult Attachment Scale); Anxious = anxious attachment
(Adult Attachment Scale); Respect = perceived respect. ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗∗∗ p < .001.
 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13:175–189, 2012 183

c) when the other variables are not included in the model. But when the
other variables are included in the model the association between the inde-
pendent and dependent variable should be reduced (path c ). Preacher and
Hayes (2008) suggested utilizing a product-of-coefficient approach as well
as utilizing bootstrapping methods to estimate the indirect effects. The use
of bootstrapping methods also assists with data that are not normally dis-
tributed. We conducted our multiple mediation analysis with bootstrapping
methods (1,000 subsamples) with a script for SPSS provided by Preacher
and Hayes.
The results demonstrated that BT-Close was negatively associated
with psychological well-being (a1) and positively associated with avoidant
(b1) and anxious (d1) attachment after the variance in the other vari-
ables was controlled. Psychological well-being (a2) and anxious attachment
(d2) were significantly associated with perceived respect, but avoidant
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

attachment (b2) was not. The relationship between BT-Close and perceived
respect was initially statistically significant (c) but was no longer significant
after the variance in the other predictors was controlled (c ). Examining the
indirect effects we found that both psychological well-being and anxious
attachment were statistically significant mediators (see Table 2). Collectively
these results suggest that the association between BT-Close and perceived
respect was mediated by psychological well-being and anxious attachment,
supporting Hypotheses 3a and 3c. Because IT-Not Close was not significantly
associated with perceived respect or any of the mediators there was no need
to test whether the BT-Close mediation model would replicate IT-Not Close.
That is, the proposed mediation model only fit for BT-Close.

TABLE 2 Multiple Mediation Model Predicting Perceived Respect: Indirect Effects and
Covariates

Variable B (SE) 95% CI p

Indirect effects
BT-Close – Psychological −0.42 (.18) −0.89, −0.15
well-beinga – Respect
BT-Close – Avoidant 0.07 (.05) −0.10, 0.30
attachmentb – Perceived
respect
BT-Close – Anxious −0.16 (.11) −0.52, −0.01
attachmentb – Perceived
respect
Covariates
Months dating −0.01 (.004) .007 .007
Sex (male = 1, female = 0) −0.12 (.24) .64 .64
Dedication 0.78 (.08) .002 .002
Relationship adjustment 0.11 (.11) .32 .32
Notes: The 95% CIs that do not include 0 are statistically significant. CI = confidence interval; BT-
Close = interpersonal traumas perpetrated by someone close before the age of 18.
a
Schwartz Outcome Scale–10. b Adult Attachment Scale.
 184 J. Owen et al.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current study was to examine whether experiencing

betrayal traumas prior to the age of 18 would be associated with young
adults’ current romantic relationship functioning. As anticipated, we found
that betrayal traumas were negatively associated with psychological well-
being. This is consistent with previous research demonstrating the negative
impacts of betrayal traumas on psychological functioning (DePrince, 2005;
DePrince & Freyd, 2004; Goldsmith, Barlow, & Freyd, 2004). In addition, we
found that betrayal traumas were positively associated with avoidant attach-
ment and anxious attachment, supporting the assertion that betrayal traumas
play a role in the shaping of relational processes used in the formation
and progression of relationships (Allen et al., 1998; Mickelson et al., 1997).
Thus, the experience of betrayal traumas before adulthood may contribute to
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

the development of maladaptive attachment styles that can be reinforced in

later relationships. For instance, young adults with more anxious attachment
styles, which are typified by fears of abandonment, reported less respectful
behavior from their partner. What is interesting is that interpersonal trauma
prior to the age of 18 perpetrated by someone not close was not significantly
related to current psychological well-being or attachment styles, support-
ing the literature contrasting interpersonal traumas perpetrated by someone
close versus not close (e.g., Atlas & Ingram, 1998; Lindblom & Gray, 2010).
Consistent with BTT, betrayal traumas were found to be negatively
related to individuals’ perceived respect from their partner, whereas there
was no significant association with individuals’ personal dedication to or
satisfaction with the relationship. It is possible that those who experi-
ence betrayal traumas form expectations or schemas of maltreatment from
their romantic partners. Moreover, this association was consistent after we
controlled for perceptions of relationship functioning, suggesting that indi-
viduals may perceive their relationship as well adjusted (or not) and still
report their partner as being less respectful. One possible interpretation of
this result is related to the role of dissociation as a coping mechanism for
people who have experienced betrayal trauma. Thus, individuals may over-
ride their perception of disrespectful behavior from their partner in a way
that allows them to maintain dedication to the relationship.
The association between betrayal traumas and perceived respect was
mediated by psychological well-being and anxious attachment. Consistent
with prior research and theoretical positions, betrayal traumas are likely to
exhibit negative effects on subsequent relational functioning via psycho-
logical well-being and anxious attachment. Thus, those who experienced
betrayal traumas who were able to maintain higher psychological well-being
and less anxious attachment reported that their partner was more respectful.
However, avoidant attachment was not a significant mediator for the associ-
ation between betrayal trauma and perceived respect. It is possible that the
 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13:175–189, 2012 185

association between betrayal trauma and perceived respect may have more
to do with individuals’ current well-being and interpersonal need for close-
ness and worry about abandonment (i.e., anxious attachment) than difficulty
depending on and trusting their partner.
These two mediation effects provide a compelling addition to the cur-
rent literature, building on the work of Sandberg et al. (2010) and others
who have examined the role of mediators for the association between inter-
personal traumas and posttrauma symptomatology. Specifically, our findings
suggest that individuals’ psychological well-being and anxious attachment
style may be key mechanisms at work for the negative association between
betrayal traumas and perceived respect from a current romantic partner.
Some individuals with experiences of betrayal traumas may have been able
to cope with the distress and alter their attachment styles in a beneficial
manner, and in doing so they may have been better able to select more
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

respectful partners or help facilitate more respectful relationships. For exam-

ple, research on sexual revictimization, which is arguably one of the most
severe forms of interpersonal trauma, suggests that the availability of social
support may buffer the relationship between childhood victimization and
subsequent abusive relationships (Chu, 1992).
Although this was not predicted, individuals who experienced trauma
perpetrated by someone not as close reported lower relationship dedication
in their current relationship. It is possible, given that these experiences lack
closeness with the perpetrator, that individuals may have relied upon dif-
ferent coping mechanisms to deal with the situation (e.g., escape coping,
avoidance), which may have a residual effect on closeness and dedication
in their current romantic relationship. However, this interpretation is specu-
lative at this point, and future research is needed to better understand the
connection between trauma perpetrated by someone not close and current
relationship functioning. Also of interest is the weak association between
well-being and trauma perpetrated by someone not close. This finding is
counter to much research in this area, but it is not without precedent (e.g.,
Atlas & Ingram, 1998; Lindblom & Gray, 2010). The differences between
these types of trauma may be an important distinction and may need to be
considered in future research.
The current study should be understood within the strengths and
weaknesses of the methodological design. First, our sample consisted of
undergraduate college students, and thus the degree to which our results
will generalize to other non-college samples is unknown. Related to this
is the fact that our sample consisted of more women than men, which
hampered our ability to test gender differences in the results. Accordingly,
research with larger samples of men and women is needed to replicate these
findings. Second, our study was correlational, and thus we cannot fully dis-
entangle the directionality of the effects. We utilized young adults’ reports of
betrayal traumas prior to the age of 18 to help address the temporal order
 186 J. Owen et al.

of events. However, psychological well-being, attachment styles, and rela-

tionship functioning were all assessed concurrently. Longitudinal data are
needed to disentangle these effects. Third, we only assessed one partner of
the couple in this study. Thus, partners’ mutual influence on participants’
reports of relationship functioning is unknown.
Fourth, we do not know why some young adults had better psycholog-
ical well-being or more secure attachment styles than others. For instance,
it could be that some young adults were less affected by their betrayal trau-
mas or received treatment. Accordingly, we cannot make claims about the
viability of treatment or other coping mechanisms. Fifth, we did not differen-
tiate between trauma experiences based on severity, chronology, duration,
or type (e.g., verbal vs. physical vs. sexual assault). Sixth, we utilized an
abbreviated version of the Respect in Close Relationships measure, which
is consistent with another shorter respect scale (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick,
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

2006). We utilized items that had high factor loadings on the total scale;
this method of scale reduction was intended to reduce the burden on par-
ticipants and is consistent with procedures discussed in Vogel, Wade, and
Haake (2006). Lastly, although they were not assessed in our study, future
research may want to assess participants’ coping mechanisms (e.g., dissocia-
tive coping), as doing so may also help illuminate why young adults’ betrayal
traumas may relate to perceived respect but not dedication and relationship
adjustment. Notwithstanding these limitations, the current study adds to a
growing body of literature illustrating the damaging effects of betrayal trau-
mas by identifying mediators for the deleterious effects of betrayal traumas
on relationship functioning.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. G., Coyne, L., & Huntoon, J. (1998). Complex posttraumatic stress disorder
in women from a psychometric perspective. Journal of Personality Assessment,
70, 277–298.
Arata, C. M. (2002). Child sexual abuse and sexual revictimization. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 135–164.
Atlas, J. A., & Ingram, D. M. (1998). Betrayal trauma in adolescent inpatients.
Psychological Reports, 83, 914.
Blais, M. A., Lenderking, W. R., Baer, L., deLorell, A., Peets, K., Leahy, L., & Burns,
C. (1999). Development and initial validation of a brief mental health outcome
measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 359–373.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13:175–189, 2012 187

Chu, J. A. (1992). The revictimization of adult women with histories of childhood

abuse. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 1, 287–297.
Cloitre, M. (1998). Sexual revictimization: Risk factors and prevention. In V. M.
Follette, J. I. Ruzek, & F. R. Abueg (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral therapies for
trauma (pp. 278–304). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cloitre, M., Cohen, L. R., & Scarvalone, P. (2002). Understanding revictimization
among childhood sexual abuse survivors: An interpersonal schema approach.
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 16, 91–111.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape percep-
tions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363–383.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, mental models, and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
644–663.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of cul-
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

ture. Part 11. Case study: A computational theory of social exchange. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 10, 1–97.
DePrince, A. P. (2005). Social cognition and revictimization risk. Journal of
Trauma & Dissociation, 6(1), 125–141.
DePrince, A. P., Combs, M. D., & Shanahan, M. (2009). Automatic relationship-
harm associations and interpersonal trauma involving close others. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 33, 163–171.
DePrince, A. P., & Freyd, J. J. (1999). Dissociation, attention and memory.
Psychological Science, 10, 449–452.
DePrince, A. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2004). Forgetting trauma stimuli. Psychological
Science, 16, 336–340.
DePrince, A. P., Freyd, J. J., & Malle, B. F. (2007). A replication by another name: A
response to Devilly et al (2007). Psychological Science, 18, 218–219.
Findling, J. H., Bratton, C. B., & Henson, R. K. (2006). Development of the trauma
play scale: An observation-based assessment of the impact of trauma on play
therapy behaviors of young children. International Journal of Play Therapy,
15, 7–36.
Frei, J. R., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition,
self-report assessment, and initial correlates. Personal Relationships, 9, 121–139.
Freyd, J. J. (1994). Betrayal-trauma: Traumatic amnesia as an adaptive response to
childhood abuse. Ethics & Behaviour, 4, 307–329.
Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Freyd, J. J., DePrince, A. P., & Gleaves, D. H. (2007). The state of betrayal trauma
theory: Reply to McNally—Conceptual issues and future directions. Memory,
15, 295–311.
Freyd, J. J., Klest, B., & Allard, C. B. (2005). Betrayal trauma: Relationship to physical
health, psychological distress, and a written disclosure intervention. Journal of
Trauma & Dissociation, 6(3), 83–104.
Gobin, R. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2009). Betrayal and revictimization: Preliminary findings.
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, & Policy, 1, 242–257.
 188 J. Owen et al.

Goldberg, L. R., & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Self-reports of potentially traumatic experiences

in an adult community sample: Gender differences and test-retest stabilities of
the items in a Brief Betrayal-Trauma Survey. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation,
7(3), 39–63.
Goldsmith, R. E., Barlow, M. R., & Freyd, J. J. (2004). Knowing and not knowing
about trauma: Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy, 41, 448–463.
Green, B. L., Goodman, L. A., Krupnick, J. L., Corcoran, C. B., Petty, R. M., Stockton,
P., & Stern, N. M. (2000). Outcomes of single versus multiple trauma exposure
in a screening sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 271–286.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 881–899.
Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Marshall, R. (1999). Victimization and diabetes: An
exploratory study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 593–596.
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

Larose, S., Boivin, M., & Doyle, A. B. (2001). Parental representations and attachment
style as predictors of support-seeking behaviors and perceptions of support in
an academic counseling relationship. Personal Relationships, 8, 93–113.
Lindblom, K. M., & Gray, M. J. (2010). Relationship closeness and trauma nar-
rative detail: A critical analysis of betrayal trauma theory. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 24, 1–19.
McNally, R. J. (2007). Betrayal trauma theory: A critical appraisal. Memory, 15,
280–294.
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nation-
ally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1092–1106.
Nelson, E. C., Heath, A. C., Madden, P. F., Cooper, L., Dinwiddie, S. H., Bucholz, K.
K., & Martin, N. G. (2002). Association between self-reported childhood sexual
abuse and adverse psychosocial outcomes: Results from a twin study. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 59, 139–145.
Owen, J., & Imel, Z. (2010). Utilizing rating scales in psychotherapy practice:
Rationale and practical applications. In L. Baer & M. Blais (Eds.), Handbook
of clinical rating scales and assessment in psychiatry and mental health (pp.
257–270). New York, NY: Humana Press.
Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up”
among college students: Demographics and psychosocial correlates. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 39, 643–663.
Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. (2011). The revised com-
mitment inventory: Psychometrics and use with unmarried couples. Journal of
Family Issues, 32, 820–841.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Romans, S., Belaise, C., Martin, J., Morris, E., & Raffi, A. (2002). Childhood abuse
and later medical disorders in women: An epidemiological study. Psychotherapy
and Psychosomatics, 71, 141–150.
 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13:175–189, 2012 189

Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a brief
versions of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with a nonparametric item analysis
model. Psychological Assessment, 17, 15–27.
Sandberg, D. A., Lynn, S. J., & Matorin, A. I. (2001). Information processing of an
acquaintance rape scenario among high-and-low-dissociating college women.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 585–604.
Sandberg, D. A., Suess, E. A., & Heaton, J. L. (2010). Attachment anxiety as a
mediator of the relationship between interpersonal trauma and posttraumatic
symptomatology among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
33–49.
Shaver, P. R., Belsky, J., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). The Adult Attachment Interview
and self-reports of romantic attachment: Associations across domains and
methods. Personal Relationships, 7, 25–43.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support
giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment
Downloaded by [79.146.250.219] at 08:35 06 February 2013

styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.

Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal
relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 595–608.
Vogel, D. L., Wade, N. G., & Haake, S. (2006). Measuring the self-stigma associated
with seeking psychological help. Journal Counseling Psychology, 53, 325–337.
Whisman, M. A. (2001). The association between depression and marital dissatis-
faction. In S. R. H. Beach (Ed.), Marital and family processes in depression: A
scientific foundation for clinical practice (pp. 3–24). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.