(3.4)--生殖健康社工医学基础BodyEgoandTraumaasCorrelatesofCo.pdf
Olga Sakson Obada*Other PapersPolish Psychological Bulletin2014,vol 45(1),92-100DOI-10.2478/ppb-2014-0013 Although the boundaries of our body determine the physical barrier between our self and our surroundings,it is accepted that there is a space around our bodies that when intruded upon by another person causes feelings of discomfort and anxiety.This space extends 70 cm from the surface of our skin(Hall,1990;Hayduk,1981).It is important to remember,however,that the extent of this space coined by Hall(1990)as personal space is quite varied.Firstly,there exist large cultural and individual differences regarding preferred distances.Secondly,even in the case of a single individual this space is subject to fluctuations at various times and in different situations(Hall,1990;for review:Hayduk,1983).One of the hypotheses on the regulatory significance of personal space attributes the function of protection against dangers threatening ones physical and emotional well-being(Dosey&Meisels,1969;Hall,1990).In this light,not only the objective danger to the self from another person is underscored,but the subjective factors that influence the way we interpret interpersonal relationships are also considered.Among these factors we find emotional state,as well as stable personality predispositions(including the image of ones own body).Results showed that schizophrenic(Deus&Joki-Begi,2006)and borderline patients(Sakson,2002),introverts(Williams,1971),those with weakly developed body boundaries(Frede,Gautney,&Baxter,1968),aggressive(Cavallin&Houston,1980),those with a tendency to feel anxious(Patterson,1977),and those in a state of anxiety(Ugwuegbu&Anusiem,1982)or stress(Dosey&Meisels,1969)prefer a greater interpersonal distance.The aforementioned assumptions let us predict,that comfort in the physical proximity remains under the influence of the personality aspect e.g.body image,which gives a shape to body experience and-as a consequence-to well-being.Body experience confusion can lead to defensive increasing both:interpersonal distance and discomfort in the physical proximity of other people.Contrary to other studies,where only the concept of constancy of the boundaries of ones own body has been conceptualized(e.g.Cavallin&Houston,1980;Sanders,1976;Schlachter,1971),this paper refers to the body ego model(Sakson-Body Ego and Trauma as Correlates of Comfort in the Physical Proximity of OthersAbstract:The purpose of the study was to investigate the associations between comfort in the physical proximity of others and interpersonal trauma and body ego.Comfort in the physical proximity of others was measured using a self-report method,as well as by means of a procedure where the experimenter initiated interpersonal touch.The results show that comfort in the physical proximity of others(based on self-report)was associated with four types of trauma(emotional,physical or sexual abuse and emotional neglect)as well as with all aspects of dysfunctional body ego(e.g.disrupted perception,problems with interpreting and regulating physical states).Defying expectations,the types of trauma studied did not differentiate individuals experiencing comfort from those experiencing discomfort,in an experimental setting of being touched.As predicted,both groups differed in all aspects of body ego.Moreover body ego proved to be a mediator between trauma and comfort in the physical proximity of others(self-report measure).Key words:interpersonal touch,personal space,trauma,body ego,body image*Institute of Psychology,Adam Mickiewicz University,Poznan,Poland Project supported by Scientific Research Committee(KBN),No.1 H01F 025 28.93Body Ego and Trauma as Correlates of Comfort in the Physical Proximity of OthersObada,2009;Mirucka&Sakson-Obada,2013).Moreover,although exploration of literature reveals many problems with regulating relations experienced by interpersonal-trauma victims(Herman,2003;Terr,1991;van der Kolk;1996),very little is known about trauma impact on comfort in physical contact.Only a few clinical reports have striven to identify the problems in regulating interpersonal distance by trauma victims(Rothschild,2000;Geanellos,2003).To the best of my knowledge,only two studies have explored this problem in the field of sexual trauma(Skrzypska&Suchanska,2011)and physical abuse(Vranic,2003).As we see presented in the literature below,the consequences of interpersonal trauma,give ground for hypothesis about discomfort in the physical proximity of others(Herman,2003;Terr,1991;van der Kolk,1996).Thus,in the presented paper my interest focused on the following questions:(1)are personality aspect(body ego)and situational aspect(trauma)related to comfort in proximity of others,(2)does body ego as personality aspect,modify the relation between trauma and comfort in proximity of others?It is worth mentioning that the theoretical model was based on the positively verified assumption,that trauma is a strong risk-factor for distorted body ego,and body ego shapes comfort in the physical proximity of others(Sakson-Obada,2009).But it seems interesting to explore whether or not situational(trauma)and personal(body ego)aspects have similar viability to predicting discomfort in the physical proximity of others.Regulatory function of body ego in the context of comfort in the physical proximity of others In the field of psychology we can distinguish two ways of approach to body-mind phenomena.The first is represented by authors who study body aspects in a fragmentary way,without considering its influence on personality.Such categories as:body image(Cash,Pruzinsky,2004;Derenne&Beresin,2006)attitudes toward the body(Brytek-Matera,2011;Smolak,2004;Pokrajac-Bulian&Zivcic-Bicirevic,2005)sensations awereness(Dunn,et al,2007;Prinz,2004)are singular aspect of body phenomena,mostly aplied to psychopathology explanation.The second approach is represented by authors who consider the possibility to experience ones body as the fundamental dimension for human personality.In these theories,the body is the“anchor of human identity”(Allport,1998),“the place mediating all experience”(Krueger,2002)and the“natural point of reference for everything,which happens inside and outside of the organism”(Damasio,2002,pp.264).The last mentioned idea is creatively developed in embodied cognition thesis in the field of cognitive science.Authors representing this idea,especially Bersalou,et al,(2003);Clark,(1996)and Lakoff and Johnson(1999),hold that all aspects of cognition are grounded in concrete,sensual experience.Cartesian dualism is therefore put into question,because even abstract representations are shaped by our body.Thus,analysis of aforementioned literature(elaborated in works of Kowalik,2003;Krueger,2002;Mirucka 2003;Mirucka&Sakson-Obada,2013)suggest that experiencing ones body is crucial for sense of identity.Describing the link between ways of experiencing ones own body and comfort in the physical proximity of others,I will refer to the construct of body ego(Sakson-Obada,2009;Mirucka&Sakson-Obada,2013).This concept was elaborated in order to present a cohesive conceptualization of body mind phenomena.It was focused on the way one experiences his or her body but also include affective disposition toward body image.Body ego is understood here as a part of ego structure,a part that organizes bodily experiences in the form of representations.Thus,body ego is a subsystem of ego since,unlike psychological ego,it is responsible for processing bodily experience on a mental plane.The organization of bodily experiences is made possible by the functions of body ego.They are acquired and elaborated throughout the process of development,with significant participation of the persons taking care of the child(Sakson-Obada,2008).The primary function of body ego is to perceive the stimuli coming from the interior of the body(e.g.muscle tone or heart beat)as well as those coming from the outside(e.g.tactile,olfactory or gustatory stimuli).In the case of strong body ego,the sensations are adequate,both:with respect to the modality and to the intensity of activation of the receptors.Further functions of body ego include interpretation of sensations,leading to such forms as emotions and physical states(e.g.hunger,fatigue or sexual arousal).Regulation of emotion and physical states is the last function of body ego.It is understood as knowledge of the causes and ways of coping with emotions and physical states.Putting it in other words,strong body ego enables the person to feel the changes taking place in their body(the function of perceiving),make the changes meaningful(the function of interpretation),and specify their causes and ways of coping with them(the function of regulating).It was also assumed that the ability to feel,understand and cope with ones own bodily experiences should be reflected in in the emotional attitude to ones own body,as well as in the sense of ones physical identity.Putting it in other words,the ability of perceiving,correctly interpreting physical and emotional states and regulating them,is the basis on which one builds positive emotions toward ones body and such aspects of the sense of ones physical identity as:the core sense of existing(e.g.James,1892/2002;Allport,1998;Damasio,2002),the sense of having physical boundaries(Moloney,1957),as well as the sense of unity with ones own body(Krueger,2002;Kowalik,2003;Cole&Paillard,1995),the sense of its permanence in time and space(Jasko,1982).Many authors assume that the normal relationship between body and mind entails the state of quiet cooperation”,where the bodily functioning does not preoccupy excessively the attention of an individual(Erikson 1956;Torras de Bea 1987).In this respect,the sense of ones own bodily identity most frequently remains a silent”experience.This is due to the body egos ability to integrate the sensations.The relation between functions,sense of ones physical identity and 94Olga Sakson Obadaemotional attitude to ones own body was presented in the model below.According to Erikson(1956),committing to a relationship with another person and building a relationship based on intimacy is not possible unless an individual has a stable point of reference in the form of adequate sense of identity.“True commitment-as writes Erikson(p.78)-in relations with others is both the result and a test of the stability of ones self image”.One may thus suppose that establishing satisfactory physical and emotional contacts with others,is facilitated by proper orientation in ones own bodily experience.Such orientation allows selecting behavior that can be optimal for maintaining(or regaining)a state of well-being.Therefore,it seems very likely that individuals with strong body ego will find emotional and physical contacts with other people comfortable.Having an orientation in bodily experience and stable point of reference(sense of physical identity)enables them to regulate the physical distance so as to feel safe and comfortable.On the other hand,being lost in the world of ones own sensations,emotions and physical states may lead to difficulties in functioning in relationships with others.Then,the relationship is then prone to be perceived as the cause of disorientation and threat(Sokolik,1993;Erikson,1956;Zimberoff&Hartman,2002).Trauma and comfort in the physical proximity of others The manner of response to the close physical proximity of another person depends both on a sense of trust in others,as well as on the way one experiences oneself(e.g.Cavallin&Houston,1980).Experiences of trauma,particularly when the suffering is caused by another person,lead to changes in both of these perspectives,as they undermine the basic sense of selfhood,as well as fundamental human relations(Herman,2003).These two aspects,namely distorted sense of identity and problems with initiating and maintaining relations are even considered as“core”symptoms of post-traumatic disorders,especially when trauma has interpersonal character,early onset and is long-lasting(see:avoidance cluster in PTSD and DESNOS Disorders of Extreme Stress not Otherwise Specified Briere&Scott,2010;Herman,2003;Perlman&Courtois,2005,and Posttraumatic Relationship Syndrome Vandervoort&Rokach,2003).Many authors emphasize,that interpersonal trauma particularly when it involves violence that touches upon such important issues as intimacy,trust and trespassing on ones own physical boundaries simultaneously violates a core sense of security(e.g.injured self Herman,op.cit.)(Yule,Perrin&Smith,1999;Janoff-Bulman,1992).Moreover,the experiencing of a traumatic event involves a confrontation with ones own terror and sense of helplessness,entailing the experience of being internally devastated person(van der Kolk&Fisler,1994),who is losing their sense of internal coherence and control over own life(Pynoos,1995),as well as feeling shame,humiliation and guilt(Yule et al,1999;Pynoos,Steinberg&Goenjian,1996).When suffering is caused by another human being not only self representation comes into question,but also the representation of others become distorted.Even single interpersonal trauma(e.g.sexual violence)can change the current direction towards relations with others.They are perceived as incapable of providing protection(Terr,1995),or even as a potential source of threat(Janoff-Bulman,1992).The aforementioned consequences are much more persistent when interpersonal trauma is long lasting and,especially,when it takes place in childhood(Briere,Scott,2010).According to many authors,abused and neglected children have well grounded negative representation of self and other people.Other people are experienced as source of threat,neglecting or indifferent to problems of trauma victims(Perlman&Courtois,2005;van der Kolk,1996;Herman,2003).For example experimental studies shown that abused children perceive angry facial expression faster than children who had not been maltreated(Pine et al,2005).Such consequences of trauma in the form of negative self and others representation incite one to assume,that this type of experience is a vital risk factor of discomfort in the physical proximity of other people.A few studies have shown that sexual interpersonal trauma is related with decreased engagement in couple relationship(Compton,1999),revictimization and victimization of others(Luxenburg,et al,2001).Moreover studies and clinical observations indicated that survivors of Holocaust suffer from feeling of loneliness and isolation(Prot a al,2010)and fear of psychological closeness as well as rejection by other people(Prot,2009).But to the best knowledge of the author of this paper,only two studies directly examined the relationship between trauma and comfort in physical closeness.Results obtained by Vranic(2003)revealed that personal space of physically abused children is larger than non-abused peers.Moreover Skrzypska and Suchanska,(2011),proved,that adult female victims of sexual trauma experience more discom
