| Literature DB >> 32370114 |
David Cantón-Cortés1, María Rosario Cortés2, José Cantón2.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze the effects of attachment style and emotional security in the family system on suicidal ideation in a sample of young adult female victims of child sexual abuse (CSA). The possible effects of CSA characteristics and other types of child abuse on suicidal ideation were controlled for. The sample consisted of 188 female college students who had been victims of sexual abuse before the age of 18, as well as 188 randomly selected participants who had not experienced CSA. The results showed that both attachment and emotional security were associated with suicidal ideation, even when controlling for both the characteristics of abuse and the existence of other abuses. The strong relationships of emotional security and attachment style with suicidal ideation suggest the importance of early intervention with children who have been sexually abused and their families, in an effort to optimize their attachment style, as well as to decrease emotional insecurity to prevent the onset of symptomatology related to suicidal ideation.Entities:
Keywords: attachment; child sexual abuse; emotional security; suicidal ideation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32370114 PMCID: PMC7246433 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17093163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flow chart for the recruitment of child sexual abuse (CSA) participants.
Differences in suicidal ideation at crisis and at present among CSA survivors and non-victims (n = 376).
| Group |
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suicidal Ideation at Crisis | Non-victims | 188 | 2.3 | 2.71 | 12,191.50 *** |
| Survivors | 188 | 3.9 | 3.15 | ||
| Present Suicidal Ideation | Non-victims | 188 | 0.29 | 0.86 | 16,614.50 (NS) |
| Survivors | 188 | 0.47 | 1.27 |
*** p < 0.001. NS: non-significant.
Descriptive statistics of attachment style, emotional security in the family system, and suicidal ideation among CSA survivors (n = 188).
| Variable | M | SD | Min. | Max. | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secure attachment | 11.84 | 2.07 | 6 | 17 | −0.05 | 0.09 |
| Avoidant attachment | 11.43 | 2.63 | 5 | 19 | 0.24 | 0.07 |
| Anxious attachment | 11.18 | 2.65 | 6 | 19 | 0.27 | −0.23 |
| Security in the Family System (SIFS) Security | 22.81 | 4.37 | 7 | 32 | −1.19 | 1.44 |
| SIFS Preoccupation | 17.27 | 5.64 | 8 | 31 | 0.25 | −0.7 |
| SIFS Disengagement | 12.47 | 4.52 | 3 | 28 | 0.76 | 0.09 |
| Suicidal Ideation at Crisis | 3.91 | 3.15 | 0 | 10 | 0.38 | −1.13 |
| Present Suicidal Ideation | 0.47 | 1.27 | 0 | 10 | 4.37 | 23.7 |
Pearson correlations of all of the variables examined among non-victims (n = 188).
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Secure Attachment | |||||||
| 2. Avoidant Attachment | −0.45 *** | ||||||
| 3. Anxious Attachment | −0.07 | 0.18 * | |||||
| 4. SIFS Security | 0.18 * | −0.22 ** | −0.18 * | ||||
| 5. SIFS Preoccupation | −0.12 | 0.27 *** | 0.28 *** | −0.37 *** | |||
| 6. SIFS Disengagement | −0.09 | 0.23 ** | 0.25 *** | −0.75 *** | 0.52 *** | ||
| 7. S. Ideation at crisis | −0.16 * | 0.22 ** | 0.25 ** | −0.27 *** | 0.25 ** | 0.31 *** | |
| 8. Present S. Ideation | −0.08 | 0.17 * | 0.14 | −0.1 | 0.19 * | 0.18 * | 0.32 *** |
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Pearson correlations of all of the variables examined among CSA survivors (n = 188).
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age of onset | |||||||||||
| 2. Type of abuse | −0.08 | ||||||||||
| 3. Continuity of abuse | −0.22 ** | 0.22 *** | |||||||||
| 4. Other maltreatment | 0.1 | 0.13 | 0.13 | ||||||||
| 5. Secure Attachment | 0.06 | 0.05 | −0.14 * | −0.13 | |||||||
| 6. Avoidant Attachment | 0.05 | −0.02 | 0.14 * | 0.20 ** | −0.60 *** | ||||||
| 7. Anxious Attachment | −0.09 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.20 ** | −0.19 *** | 0.17 * | |||||
| 8. SIFS Security | 0.05 | −0.08 | −.18 * | −0.48 *** | 0.39 *** | −0.32 *** | −0.27 *** | ||||
| 9. SIFS Preoccupation | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.29 *** | −0.25 *** | 0.31 *** | 0.37 *** | −0.58 *** | |||
| 10. SIFS Disengagement | −0.01 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.38 *** | −0.38 *** | 0.33 *** | 0.33 *** | −0.77 *** | 0.67 *** | ||
| 11. S. Ideation at crisis | 0.16 * | 0.10 | 0.18 * | 0.31 *** | −0.24 *** | 0.20 ** | 0.30 *** | −0.35 *** | 0.33 *** | 0.35 *** | |
| 12. Present S. Ideation | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.27 *** | −0.26 *** | 0.15 * | 0.25 *** | −0.37 *** | 0.23 *** | 0.30 *** | 0.34 *** |
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Regression analysis of suicidal ideation at the time crisis as a function of the characteristics of the abuse, the existence of other maltreatment, attachment, and security in the family system (n = 188).
| Variable |
|
| β |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.24 | 11.79 *** | |||
| Age at onset | 0.2 | 3.06 ** | ||
| Type of abuse | 0.04 | 0.68 | ||
| Continuity of abuse | 0.16 | 2.38 * | ||
| Other maltreatment | 0.14 | 2.03 * | ||
| Secure attachment | −0.11 | −1.59 | ||
| Avoidant attachment | 0.04 | 0.59 | ||
| Anxious attachment | 0.2 | 2.98 ** | ||
| SIFS Security | −0.12 | −1.08 | ||
| SIFS Preoccupation | 0.11 | 1.29 | ||
| SIFS Disengagement | 0.21 | 2.93 ** |
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Regression analysis of present suicidal ideation as a function of the characteristics of the abuse, existence of other maltreatment, attachment, and security in the family system (n = 188).
| Variable |
|
| β |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.19 | 14.17 *** | |||
| Age at onset | 0.15 | 2.27 * | ||
| Type of abuse | 0.02 | 0.39 | ||
| Continuity of abuse | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| Other maltreatment | 0.07 | 0.99 | ||
| Secure attachment | −0.12 | −1.71 | ||
| Avoidant attachment | 0.01 | 0.07 | ||
| Anxious attachment | 0.17 | 2.52 ** | ||
| SIFS Security | −0.33 | −4.85 *** | ||
| SIFS Preoccupation | −0.05 | −0.6 | ||
| SIFS Disengagement | −0.03 | −0.34 |
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.