A Critical Reflection on Information Processing Theories of Trauma Response Essay Example

in how interventions could be used to change thinking in individuals with trauma reactions and reduce PTSD through cognitive-behavioral therapy (Steele & Malchiodi, 2012).

Over the past 30 years, a number of cognitive theories of trauma adaptation have sprung from the information processing model (Benight, 2012). Some of the most popular include the emotional processing theory (Foa & Meadows, 1997), the Ehlers and Clark (2000) model, and the dual representation theory by Brewin et al. (1996). Each theory emphasizes different processes but their common primary theoretical premise is that trauma adaptation requires cognitive assimilation of the traumatic event. If the event is not processed in an appropriate way, psychopathology will result (Brewin & Holmes, 2003).

A Critical Perspective on Information Processing Theories The need for integrating traumatic information is also highlighted by competing social-cognitive theories of trauma, like Janoff-Bulmann’s (1992) theory of shattered assumptions. However, according to social-cognitive theories, the difficulty in achieving this is not attributed to the characteristics of the trauma memory itself (as is the case with the information-processing model) but on the conflict and reconciliation of the traumatic information with previous beliefs.

On the other hand, while information processing theories focus on the encoding, storage, and recall of fear-inducing events and their associated stimuli/responses, conditioning theory provides a good account of how associated stimuli and trauma cues acquire the ability to elicit fear through learned association (Keane et al., 1985). The latter theory further explains how avoidance of the conditioned stimuli is reinforced by a reduction in fear, leading to the maintenance of PTSD.

The extent to which current information processing theories can adequately account for childhood PTSD is unclear (Brewin & Holmes, 2003). Existing

theories have been developed in the context of adult reactions to trauma and virtually all studies that have tested these theories have involved adults. Furthermore, cognitive theories do not give adequate attention to the role of social factors, relationships, and attachment in the child’s response to trauma. Perry (2006) notes that relationships mediate significant developmental experiences during childhood, including how traumatic experiences are processed.

Schore (2001) also supports the notion that the crucial experiences that form a person’s ways of coping come from the caregiver-infant relationship. Theories that account for childhood reactions to trauma must also recognize a number of developmental issues. For example, the child’s level of experience and knowledge about the world influences the encoding phase of the traumatic event which determines, according to cognitive theories, the child’s ability to appraise the situation as threatening. Therefore, developmental differences can impact significantly the encoding of the traumatic experience.

Moreover, resolution of the fear network through managing traumatic memories and regulating emotions is associated with a range of capabilities such as the understanding of one’s own emotions and thinking (Flavell & Miller. , 1998). These capabilities are still under development in late childhood and adolescence (Moshman, 1998). Additionally, the child’s level of language development at the time of encoding influences the extent to which events can be reported verbally (Peterson & Bell, 1996). CBT has been validated as the treatment of choice for adult victims of trauma (Salmon & Bryant, 2002).

However, it has not been adequately tested in the context of childhood PTSD and the limitations described above have brought about considerable objections by many practitioners regarding the use of a purely cognitive-behavioral approach to trauma intervention

with children and adolescents. Furthermore, neuroscience research and neurobiological theories have enhanced our understanding of the effects of trauma on the mind and body. Empirical studies have shown that children and adults with early childhood abuse were found to have deficits in verbal declarative memory function (Bremner, 2008).

Other authors conclude that compared to healthy children, child abuse subjects were found to lag substantially on their left brain development (Teicher et al., 2006) and that children may store their memories of abuse in visual images in the right side their brain. Michaesu and Baeltig (1996) also explain that memories of trauma are not stored ‘explicitly’ (cognitively) or within a contextual framework, but ‘implicitly’ in iconic and sensory forms. In essence, trauma memories are experienced and remembered through images and sensations.

Steele (2010) also notes that when memory can not be linked linguistically in a contextual framework, it remains symbolic (iconic) and there are no words to describe it, only sensations and images. Before traumatic memory can be encoded, expressed through language, and successfully integrated, it must be retrieved and implicitly externalized in its symbolic sensory forms. Therefore, it can be argued that trauma experience can be communicated through imagery and activities associated with the sensory experiences of those incidents (Malchiodi, 2001).

These discoveries and the challenges of applying CBT in work for traumatized children have generated a variety of approaches (e. g., somatic experiencing, expressive arts therapy, play therapy) that address the sensory response to trauma rather than only cognitive areas (Steele & Malchiodi 2012).

References

1. Benight, C. (2012). Understanding human adaptation to traumatic stress exposure: Beyond the medical model. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy.
2. Treatment of
   

anxiety disorders: Implications for psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 20-35 Foa, E. B., & Meadows, E. A. (1997)