“My body is not mine”: A mixed methods study on trauma and the experience of embodiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed methods study examined experience of embodiment in individuals with trauma. The participants, 201 women, 13 men, and 24 gender minorities ( M age = 37.68, SD = 10.74) with trauma, completed an online questionnaire that included measures of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, experience of embodiment, and an open-ended question asking them to describe their relationship with their bodies. Quantitative findings indicated a positive association between PTSD symptoms and negative experience of embodiment. Multiple regression analyses were conducted among the women sample only, with results indicating PTSD symptoms of negative alterations in cognitions and mood as unique predictors of experience of embodiment. The qualitative findings further described the participants’ relationships with their bodies through five themes: (I) The body is a place of pain, discomfort, and dissatisfaction; (II) The body and the self are separate; (III) Difficulties with the gaze of others; (IV) The trauma is in the body; and (V) Self-care, acceptance, and positive experiences of the body. We conclude that individuals with trauma report a breadth of disruptions in the way that they inhabit their bodies, yet they also attempt to foster positive embodiment, for example through attuned physical activities. Our findings suggest that clinical practice among individuals with experience(s) of trauma should address how they process and experience negative feelings in and toward their bodies. • This is the first mixed methods study on trauma and experience of embodiment. • Participants were women, men, and gender minority individuals with PTSD symptoms. • More PTSD symptoms were related to a more negative experience of embodiment. • Participants described a range of lived experiences of disrupted embodiment. • Participants also described attempts of fostering more positive embodiment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".