Browsing by Author "Sherwood, Ian M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Attachment, social support, and somatization after a natural disaster
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2013) Sherwood, Ian M.; Hamilton, James C.; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    Following large-scale disasters, there is a well-documented increase in medically unexplained symptoms in survivors. This increase in somatization appears to be related to an individual's attachment style, social support, and degree of exposure to the disaster. However, few studies are able to longitudinally analyze such relationships because disasters are difficult to predict and sufficient data are rarely available from immediately before the disaster to allow researchers to assess the effects of pre-trauma psychological variables on reactions to the trauma. The present study investigates the effects of the April 27, 2011 tornado of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, using data collected from screening measures administered to University of Alabama Psychology subject pool participants 2 weeks to 8 months prior to the tornado, as well as follow-up measures collected approximately 6 to 8 months after the tornado. Multiple regression analyses and structural equation modeling were conducted to assess the effects of attachment style, social support, and degree of exposure to the disaster on changes in somatization following the tornado. Two analyses were conducted, one using pre-tornado attachment and one using post-tornado attachment. In both of these analyses, high disaster exposure and low social support significantly predicted increased somatization. Post-tornado insecure anxious attachment predicted increased somatization, and this effect was most pronounced in participants with high levels of storm exposures. However, these effects were not found for pre-tornado insecure anxious attachment. For both the pre-and post-tornado attachment models, all simple and moderated effects of attachment on increasing somatization were mediated by poor social support. While these results confirm the importance of disaster exposure and social support in predicting symptom change, the inconsistency between the prospective and cross-sectional findings related to attachment cast doubt on a straightforward view that insecure attachment is a risk factor for somatization.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A meta-analysis of the relation of trauma and somatization: an investigation of methodological factors related to effect size
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2017) Sherwood, Ian M.; Hamilton, James C.; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    The existing literature suggests that there is a significant and positive relation of trauma and somatization. However, the existing literature seems to give little consideration to methodological, participant, and study characteristics that might affect estimates of the magnitude of this relation. The present study is a meta-analysis of the existing literature on trauma and somatization. The present study intended to estimate an overall effect size for the relation of trauma and somatization, to empirically describe the methods used to study the relation of trauma and somatization, and to determine if methodological differences between studies contribute to differences in estimates of the strength of the relation of trauma and somatization. In a sample of 244 studies, there was a positive and significant mean weighted correlation between trauma and somatization (r = .161, p < .05). However, study differences often had a small but significant influence on study results and effect sizes. The existing literature was overwhelmingly retrospective, and both trauma and somatization were most frequently assessed by self-report alone. Much of the existing literature employed methods that allow for alternative explanations of the apparent relation of trauma and somatization – e.g., overestimation due to poor recall, a response bias, or poor operationalization of trauma and/or somatization. In general, less stringent methods and assessments of trauma and somatization were associated with larger effect sizes, whereas more stringent methods and assessments were associated with smaller effect sizes. Future studies of the relation of trauma and somatization should consider that methodological differences between studies may affect estimates of this relation.