What Clinicians Could Not Systematically Diagnose: Cognitive Complicity: Clinical And Forensic Applied Research

Without Doing Anything Wrong: An Annotated Case Study Through the SOROMY Framework

For Clinicians · Forensic Professionals · Mental Health Practitioners · Educators · General Readers

SOROMY Framework — Manuscript Under Preparation

Before you read this document, consider one possibility: the process described on these pages may already be happening in a family you know. It may have happened in yours. It is almost certainly happening right now — and no one involved believes they are doing anything wrong.

PART ONE: SCAPEGOATING — THE HARM THAT LOOKS LIKE NOTHING

There is a form of harm so ordinary it disappears into the texture of daily life. It produces no crime scene. It leaves no bruises. It generates no formal complaint. It happens across kitchen tables, in family WhatsApp groups, at Sunday dinners, and in the quiet spaces between what people say out loud and what they say when a specific person leaves the room.

It is called scapegoating. And it is one of the most widespread, most damaging, and most systematically misunderstood forms of interpersonal harm that exists.

Not because the people involved are monsters. But precisely because they are not. Scapegoating does not require cruelty. It does not require conspiracy. It does not require a single bad actor making deliberate decisions. It requires only a family system under tension — economic pressure, unresolved grief, competitive anxiety, generational trauma, status conflict — and one member of that family who, for reasons that will become clear in the pages that follow, becomes the designated container for everything the system cannot otherwise manage.

The family does not believe it is destroying someone. It believes it is managing a problem. The tragedy is that the problem it is managing is a person.

What Scapegoating Actually Is
The word scapegoat originates in ancient religious ritual — the designation of an animal or person to carry the community's sins away, expelled so the community can feel clean. René Girard, the French philosopher and literary scholar, spent his career demonstrating that this mechanism did not end with ancient ritual. It is a permanent feature of human social organization. Every group under sufficient internal tension discovers, sooner or later, the same solution: find one member, load them with the group's anxiety, and expel them. The group coheres around the expulsion. The tension resolves. And the person who carried it away is rarely considered again.

In the family context, the process rarely reaches the dramatic endpoint of literal expulsion — though it sometimes does. More often it operates as a sustained, low-level, socially invisible campaign of reinterpretation, narrative manipulation, and relational targeting. The target is not thrown out. They are gradually made into a problem. And being made into a problem is, it turns out, a process with predictable stages, identifiable mechanisms, and measurable psychological consequences that clinical and forensic professionals encounter daily without recognizing their source.

Why Society Has Not Yet Named It Properly

The clinical literature touches family scapegoating from multiple directions simultaneously without fully naming what it is. Family therapists see it as dysfunction. Trauma specialists see its consequences without investigating its mechanism. Child protection services encounter its most severe expressions and miss its ordinary forms. Courts see the behaviors it produces and attribute them to the person's character. And mental health professionals diagnose the psychological residue of sustained targeting as primary disorder — locating the pathology in the individual rather than in the system that produced it.

This collective professional blindness has a name. This book calls it cognitive complicity. Not conspiracy. Not incompetence. A structural failure produced by assessment frameworks designed for individual pathology, not systemic targeting. By diagnostic categories that see the person but not the process. By institutional cultures that have never developed the vocabulary to make what is happening visible.

CLINICAL NOTE — All Professionals

Every professional who has ever treated a client for depression, anxiety, personality disorder, emotional dysregulation, or identity confusion without asking whether that person had been the designated problem in their family system has potentially been part of the cognitive complicity this document describes. This is not an accusation. It is an invitation to expand the clinical lens.

Who Becomes the Target — and Why

This is the finding that surprises almost every professional who encounters it for the first time. Scapegoated family members are not typically the weakest members of the family. They are frequently among the most capable. The most perceptive. The most emotionally honest. The most gifted. The most likely to succeed.

They are chosen — not randomly — for the specific quality that makes them threatening to a family system organized around maintaining a particular equilibrium. A psychologically stable individual inside an unstable system is a mirror. Their calmness reflects the family's anxiety. Their discipline reflects the family's disorder. Their perceptiveness reflects what others would prefer to keep invisible. Their future success represents a redistribution of status and resources that others fear.

Without saying a word, they challenge the existing balance. And a family system — like any social system — will respond to that challenge not by examining itself but by managing the mirror. The process of managing the mirror is what this document examines.

The most perceptive child in the room becomes the problem child. Not because they did something wrong. Because they could see something others needed to remain unseen.

The SOROMY Framework: A Clinical Lens for an Invisible Process

The SOROMY framework is a clinical and forensic analytical instrument developed to map the staged progression of sustained psychosocial targeting — the structured process by which coercive systems, including families, progressively designate, isolate, condition, and ultimately harvest a target individual across time.

Its six dimensions provide, for the first time, a precise vocabulary for a process that has previously been described only in fragments. Together, they constitute a forensic map of how ordinary families — without conspiracies, without evil intentions, without any single identifiable moment of decision — produce some of the most severe and durable psychological damage that clinical settings encounter.

Table 1 — The SOROMY Framework: Six Dimensions of Sustained Family Targeting

Source: SOROMY Framework (manuscript under preparation). Derived from Bowen (1978); Girard (1986); van der Kolk (2014); Herman (1992, 2015); Freyd (1994, 1996).

PART TWO: THE CONVERSATION — READ IT AS A READER, THEN READ IT AS A PROFESSIONAL

What follows is a reconstructed family conversation. Its characters are composite. Its mechanisms are documentary — drawn from clinical case patterns, research on family scapegoating dynamics, and the operational logic of the SOROMY framework.

Read the first exchange as an ordinary person. You will find nothing alarming. That is the point. By the final exchange, if you are paying careful attention, you will have watched a person's life be restructured around a story that has no evidence behind it — and you will have watched it happen through conversations that sounded, at every stage, like nothing more than ordinary family concern.

CLINICAL NOTE — Clinicians and Forensic Professionals

The annotations that interrupt this conversation appear in boxes. They are not interpretations of malicious intent. They are forensic mappings of mechanism. The participants in this conversation are not villains. They are running a process they have never been taught to recognize. Your job, after reading this, is to recognize it when it arrives in your consulting room — dressed as a family history, a diagnostic presentation, or a court referral.

— THE CONVERSATION —
Setting: An ordinary family gathering. No agenda. No plan. No announcement.

No one says: "Let's make him the problem."

AUNT
Have you noticed Kofi?
UNCLE
What about him?
AUNT
He's always been different. Quiet. Disciplined. Reserved. It's hard to know what he's thinking.

UNCLE
Maybe he's simply mature.
AUNT
Maybe. But sometimes people who seem too controlled make me uncomfortable.

◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage S — Selection: Strength Reinterpretation

The Selection stage begins here — and notice how gently it begins. No accusation. No incident. No evidence. A positive quality — discipline, calmness, reserve — is being repositioned as something requiring scrutiny. 'Too controlled' is doing significant work: it relocates the problem from the Aunt's internal discomfort to Kofi's external character. This is the first act of externalization. The targeting system does not begin with hostility. It begins with reinterpretation. A mirror is being tilted.

NARRATOR
The process often begins with reinterpretation. A strength is no longer viewed as a strength. Calmness becomes emotional distance. Confidence becomes pride. Independence becomes arrogance. Discipline becomes superiority. Nothing has happened. Yet meaning has begun to change.

UNCLE
I always thought he was responsible.
AUNT
He is. But have you noticed how everyone praises him? It is always him. The achievements. The recognition. The compliments.

UNCLE
That's because he performs well.
AUNT
Exactly. It is always him.
◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage S — Selection: The Threat of Visibility

The trigger has been identified. It is not what Kofi has done wrong. It is what he has done right — and who has noticed. External recognition is the critical escalation point in family scapegoating. Research consistently finds that the scapegoating mechanism intensifies sharply when the target achieves visibility outside the family system. The family has not changed its relationship to Kofi's character. It has changed its relationship to Kofi's growing social standing. His achievement has become a comparative statement about everyone else's lack of it.

NARRATOR
Psychologically stable individuals often become uncomfortable mirrors inside unstable systems. Their consistency exposes inconsistency. Their discipline exposes indiscipline. Without saying a word, they challenge the existing balance.

UNCLE
You think people are jealous?
AUNT
No. I just think people are tired of hearing how wonderful he is.

• FORENSIC WARNING

Envy rarely introduces itself by name. It introduces itself as concern, fairness, balance, a desire to 'keep someone grounded.' The Aunt has just described the exact emotional profile of competitive resentment while explicitly denying that it is jealousy. A professional who accepts this denial at face value and does not probe the underlying function of the stated 'concern' has missed the most diagnostically significant data point in this conversation. What is exhausting about another person's consistent recognition — if not the contrast it creates?

UNCLE
Still, he hasn't done anything wrong.
AUNT
No one said he did. But have you noticed how he always seems prepared? Always seems to know what he's doing? People listen to him. The younger ones admire him. Even outsiders respect him.

◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage O — Orchestration: From Character to Symbol

Observe the structural shift. The conversation has moved from what Kofi has done — nothing — to what he represents. His influence over younger family members. His standing with outsiders. He is no longer being evaluated as a person. He is being evaluated as a social force. This is the beginning of Orchestration: the individual is no longer the concern. What he symbolizes — a future leadership position, a redistribution of family status, a recognition that others will not receive — is the real subject. The targeting is beginning to accumulate around what he might become.

NARRATOR
The qualities that attract admiration often attract resentment. Intelligence. Competence. Leadership. Influence. Potential. The future often becomes threatening long before the present does.

UNCLE
I heard someone mention that if anything happens to the family property, Kofi will probably end up managing it.

AUNT
You see? That's exactly what people are talking about.

◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage O — Orchestration: Resource Anxiety and Future Threat

This is the moment the Orchestration stage fully crystallizes. A concrete resource — family property, inheritance, a leadership position — has entered the conversation. The target is no longer being evaluated for who they are. They are being evaluated for what they might receive. This shift from character concern to resource competition is the classic trigger for escalated collective targeting. Notice that no decision has been made, no will has been read, no promise has been given. The future has become threatening on the basis of probability alone. The targeting of Kofi's potential is now underway.

NARRATOR
A critical shift has occurred. The individual is no longer evaluated only for who they are. They are evaluated for what they represent. A future inheritance. A leadership role. A title. A position. An opportunity others fear they may never have.

— MONTHS LATER —
AUNT
Did you hear? Another achievement. Another success.

UNCLE
He works hard.
AUNT
Maybe. But don't you find it strange that one person always ends up being the center of attention?

◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage R — Regulation: Success as Offense

The Regulation stage is now active. The targeting is no longer about a specific quality or a future resource. It has become systemic. Kofi's continued success is generating not admiration but fatigue and suspicion. The word 'always' is doing enormous work here — it transforms a pattern of genuine achievement into a pathological compulsion. Over time, as family members are repeatedly exposed to this framing, they will begin to automatically apply skepticism to Kofi's success — not because of evidence, but because the narrative has been running long enough to feel like common sense.

NARRATOR
At this stage, success itself begins to feel offensive. Not because of what it is. But because of what it reminds others about themselves.

UNCLE
People are starting to talk.
AUNT
About what?
UNCLE
They say he enjoys the attention.
AUNT
Does he?
UNCLE
I don't know. But that's what people are saying.

• FORENSIC WARNING

This exchange demonstrates one of the most forensically significant features of advanced Orchestration: the disappearance of the source. 'People are saying' functions as a credibility multiplier without attributable evidence. It implies consensus without naming a single person. It implies evidence without providing any. When a targeting narrative reaches the point where its source has become invisible — where it is transmitted as 'what everyone knows' rather than 'what this specific person observed' — the target has lost the ability to challenge it through ordinary means. There is no argument to counter because no argument is being made. There is only atmosphere. And atmosphere, sustained long enough, becomes social reality.

NARRATOR
Facts slowly lose importance. Interpretations become dominant. Achievement becomes self-promotion. Confidence becomes arrogance. Generosity becomes manipulation. Silence becomes secrecy. Everything begins to require a hidden motive.

AUNT
Privately, I think he's one of the most capable people in this family.

UNCLE
Then why do you criticize him in front of everyone?

AUNT
Because someone has to keep him humble.
"Someone has to keep him humble." In six words, a targeting function has been declared, justified, and assigned a moral purpose. The destruction of a person's reputation has become a community service.

◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage O — Occupation: Private Validation, Public Devaluation

This exchange is the clinical center of the entire document. The target receives private validation and public devaluation simultaneously from the same source. Privately: 'He is gifted.' Publicly: 'He needs to be humbled.' The family simultaneously depends on the individual and invalidates them. The psychological consequence is specific and devastating: the target learns that private warmth predicts public attack. Intimacy becomes a setup. Positive signals cannot be trusted because they have been systematically contradicted in public by the same people who delivered them in private. This double-bind produces the epistemic injury — the inability to trust one's own perceptions — that will shape the target's attachment patterns for years or decades beyond the active targeting period.

NARRATOR
One of the most confusing experiences for a developing target is private validation combined with public devaluation. Privately: 'He is intelligent. He is gifted.' Publicly: 'He thinks he's better than everyone. He needs to be humbled.' The family simultaneously depends upon the individual and invalidates them.

UNCLE
I noticed something. People dismiss his ideas during meetings. Then later someone else repeats the same idea and everyone accepts it.

AUNT
I've seen that too.
◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage O — Occupation: Severing Achievement from Source

This mechanism deserves independent clinical recognition and has not been adequately named in the existing literature. The target's ideas are not rejected because they are inadequate. They are rejected because they originate from the target. The same ideas, transmitted through a non-targeted source, are accepted without friction. What is being severed here is not the connection between the target and their ideas — it is the connection between the target and any recognition that would otherwise flow to them. The family is harvesting the target's contributions while systematically withholding the acknowledgment that would increase the target's social standing. This is not accidental. It is Regulation in its most precise form.

NARRATOR
The goal is no longer to challenge the idea. The goal is to disconnect the idea from its source. Recognition becomes the real battlefield.

UNCLE
And whenever he leaves the room, people start talking about him.

AUNT
They're just discussing concerns.
UNCLE
Concerns about what?
AUNT
His attitude. His intentions. His personality.

◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage R — Regulation: The Character Shift

A forensically critical transition has occurred. The discussion has moved from specific actions — which do not exist — to character: attitude, intentions, personality. Character accusations are structurally different from behavioral accusations in one decisive respect: they cannot be disproved. If someone says you did a specific thing, you can prove you did not. If someone says your attitude is wrong, your intentions are suspect, your personality is problematic — there is no evidence that could counter the claim, because the claim is not about evidence. It is about interpretation. The targeting system has moved to the level where it is permanently immune to factual challenge.

UNCLE
Who started these concerns?
AUNT
Nobody in particular. People are noticing things.

UNCLE
Have you ever asked whether these claims are true?

AUNT
Not directly. But so many people seem to feel the same way.

• FORENSIC WARNING

Accountability for the targeting narrative has now been fully distributed to the point of disappearance. Nobody started it. People noticed it. This is the forensic signature of advanced Orchestration — real, coordinated in its effects, with no identifiable author. This is precisely what makes family scapegoating so resistant to investigation and so consistently dismissed by professional systems. The target who attempts to report 'what is being done to them' cannot name a perpetrator with a coherent case — because the perpetrator is a process, not a person. Courts, HR departments, and clinical assessors are all designed to investigate persons. They are structurally blind to processes.

NARRATOR
Nobody becomes responsible for the narrative. The source becomes invisible. Statements begin with: 'People are saying...' 'Everyone notices...' 'Many are concerned...' Repeated perception starts functioning as proof. The story becomes stronger than the facts.

UNCLE
I think family members are beginning to choose sides.

AUNT
What sides?
UNCLE
The side that assumes there must be something wrong with him.

◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage M — Manufacture: The Social Reality Solidifies

The Manufacture stage has arrived. Notice what has just been described: a side that assumes something is wrong — not a side that has found evidence of something wrong. The social reality has been manufactured through accumulated assumption, not through investigation. Once this social reality solidifies, it will function as the context within which every future behavior of the target is evaluated. The context is now more powerful than the evidence. Whatever Kofi does next will be processed through a framework that has already decided what it means.

NARRATOR
Scapegoating rarely begins with accusations. It begins with assumptions. Assumptions become interpretations. Interpretations become stories. Stories become beliefs. Beliefs become social reality.

AUNT
Maybe he should stop putting himself forward.

UNCLE
He doesn't put himself forward. People ask him for help.

AUNT
Then maybe he should stop helping so much.
◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage M — Manufacture: The Impossible Prescription

A threshold of particular clinical significance has been crossed. The target is now expected to reduce themselves to manage the discomfort of others. Their competence has become a liability. Their visibility has become the offense. The prescription being issued — stop being visible, stop being effective, stop being yourself — is structurally impossible to comply with without self-destruction. And this impossibility is not an accident. The Manufacture stage requires a behavioral prescription that cannot be followed, so that the failure to follow it can be used as evidence of the target's arrogance, resistance, and refusal to be part of the family.

UNCLE
Do you think he notices?
AUNT
Probably.
UNCLE
Then why doesn't he defend himself?
◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage M — Manufacture: The Engineered Double-Bind

The target has entered what the SOROMY framework identifies as the manufactured double-bind — and it is complete. If Kofi remains silent, his silence is evidence of guilt, arrogance, or contemptuous indifference. If he defends himself, his defense is evidence of oversensitivity, aggression, or instability. If he succeeds, it confirms the narrative of threatening ambition. If he fails, it confirms the narrative of underlying inadequacy. There is no available behavioral path that does not lead back to the same conclusion. This is not a conflict the target can resolve through better behavior. It is a structural trap. The only way out of a structural trap is to name the structure — and that is precisely what the targeting system prevents by making the structure invisible.

NARRATOR
The developing target enters an impossible dilemma. If they remain silent: the silence becomes evidence. If they defend themselves: the defense becomes evidence. If they succeed: it confirms the narrative. If they fail: it confirms the narrative. Every path leads back to the same conclusion.

UNCLE
The strange thing is that nobody can point to a serious wrongdoing.

AUNT
No. Yet everyone seems uncomfortable.
No wrongdoing. No evidence. No incident. Yet a social reality has been constructed that will follow Kofi into every future relationship, professional context, and institutional encounter he has. The conversation is over. The process is not.

◆ SOROMY LENS — Stage Y — Yield: The Terminal Architecture

This final exchange is the most forensically significant sentence in the entire conversation: no wrongdoing has occurred. Evidence is absent. Yet the social reality has been fully restructured around the assumption of the target's culpability or inadequacy. The Yield stage has been reached not because the target did something that warranted it, but because the process that began with a reinterpreted quality has accumulated sufficient social momentum that it no longer requires evidence to sustain itself. The story has become more powerful than the facts. Kofi will now encounter every subsequent social, professional, institutional, and clinical system through the lens of a narrative he did not author, cannot escape, and has no framework to even name.

NARRATOR
And this is how many family scapegoating processes develop. Not through a single conspiracy. Not through one evil person. Not through one dramatic event. But through hundreds of small reinterpretations. A strength becomes suspicious. A gift becomes threatening. A future becomes feared. A family member becomes a symbol. Eventually people stop responding to the person. They respond to the story. The most dangerous forms of family scapegoating are not the ones everyone sees. They are the ones that become so normal that nobody recognizes them while they are happening.

PART THREE: EIGHT INDICATORS THAT A SCAPEGOATING PROCESS IS ACTIVE

The conversation above demonstrated the process in motion. What follows names what to look for — the observable markers that, in combination and across time, indicate that a family scapegoating process is underway rather than ordinary family conflict.

These are not diagnostic criteria. No single indicator is sufficient. It is the pattern — multiple indicators appearing simultaneously, persisting over time, and intensifying rather than resolving — that constitutes the forensic signature of active targeting.

Table 2 — Eight Early Recognition Indicators of Family Scapegoating

Source: Derived from Bowen (1978); Minuchin (1974); Girard (1986); Herman (1992, 2015); Freyd (1994); SOROMY Framework (manuscript under preparation).

CLINICAL NOTE — Mental Health Professionals

The presence of three or more indicators in combination — particularly when the client cannot identify specific incidents that justify the family's stated concerns, and when the pattern has persisted and intensified rather than resolved over time — warrants systematic SOROMY-informed assessment before any diagnostic formulation is finalized. Diagnostic conclusions reached without this assessment risk locating pathology in the target rather than in the targeting system that produced the target's symptoms.

CLINICAL NOTE — Forensic Professionals

Indicators 7 and 8 carry particular forensic weight. When a client's reactive behavior — whether treated as a clinical presentation or a legal matter — occurs within the context of an active Manufacture stage, the behavior before the assessor may be manufactured evidence rather than dispositional conduct. The double-bind of Indicator 8 is the operational mechanism of Behavioral Entrapment Through Ritualized Humiliation (BERH), a discrete targeting mechanism within the SOROMY framework with direct implications for assessments of culpability and reactive behavior.

PART FOUR: WHAT RECOGNITION CHANGES
The conversation between the Aunt and the Uncle lasted perhaps twenty minutes. No one was harmed during those twenty minutes in any way that would appear on a clinical report, a police record, or a social services referral. Both participants left the conversation feeling, in all probability, that they had done nothing more than express natural family concern about a relative they know well.

But a process had begun. And processes, unlike incidents, do not leave visible evidence at the point of origin. They leave people. They leave people who arrive in clinical offices years later carrying the structural consequences of something that was never named — confused about who they are, unable to trust their own perceptions, equipped with behavioral adaptations that made perfect sense in the environment that shaped them and that have become liabilities in every environment since.

They leave people who sit in forensic assessment rooms and produce the specific presentation that the Manufacture stage engineers: genuine confusion about behavior they are confirmed to have produced, fragmented accounts of their own motivation, apparent innocence in the face of established facts. And professional systems — without the SOROMY framework, without the vocabulary that makes the targeting architecture visible — encounter that presentation and read it as disorder, deception, or character pathology.

The professional who diagnoses the consequence without investigating the cause is not a neutral observer. They have become the final mechanism of the targeting — not through malice, but through the same cognitive blindness that kept the family from seeing what it was doing.

Recognition does not undo what was done to Kofi. But it ends the portion of the harm that was being administered by invisibility. It gives the professional a lens. And a lens, once acquired, changes what it is possible to see.

Kofi is still in the room. The conversation is still happening somewhere, right now, in a language you may or may not speak, across a table you may or may not recognize. The only question this document leaves you with is whether, the next time you are in proximity to that conversation — in a consulting room, in a courtroom, in a clinical record, or in your own family — you will now be able to see what is happening.

That is what the SOROMY framework exists to make possible.

REFERENCES
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

Freyd, J. J. (1994). Betrayal trauma: Traumatic amnesia as an adaptive response to childhood abuse. Ethics & Behavior, 4(4), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0404_1

Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Harvard University Press.

Girard, R. (1977). Violence and the sacred (P. Gregory, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1972)

Girard, R. (1986). The scapegoat (Y. Freccero, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1982)

Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. Basic Books.

Herman, J. L. (2015). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence — from domestic abuse to political terror (rev. ed.). Basic Books.

Litz, B. T., Stein, N., Delaney, E., Lebowitz, L., Nash, W. P., Silva, C., & Maguen, S. (2009). Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: A preliminary model and intervention strategy. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(8), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.07.003

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press.

Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Times Books.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21778

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. Oxford University Press.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. Guilford Press.

van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.

Walker, L. E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. Springer.

Yehuda, R., Hoge, C. W., McFarlane, A. C., Vermetten, E., Lanius, R. A., Nievergelt, C. M., & Hyman, S. E. (2015). Post-traumatic stress disorder. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 1, 15057. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2015.57

cujoe999x1@yahoo.com

   Comments0