Resources for Researchers

Rigorous scientific research is a key pillar of our mission. Here we provide researchers with some tools and resources for research on institutional courage, institutional betrayal, betrayal trauma, and DARVO.

Also see our Knowledge Base and Research Priorities

Research Measures

Institutional Courage

The Institutional Courage Questionnaire (ICQ) assesses institutional courage in the workplace following sexual harassment (Institutional Courage Questionnaire - Individual) or in the workplace more generally (Institutional Courage Questionnaire - Climate). There are also variations of the ICQ that have been modified to measure institutional courage on university campuses.

See Resources for Changemakers for 11 Steps for Promoting Institutional Courage

Also See Smidt AM, Adams-Clark AA, Freyd JJ (2023) Institutional courage buffers against institutional betrayal, protects employee health, and fosters organizational commitment following workplace sexual harassment, PLOS ONE 18(1): e0278830. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278830

 

Institutional Betrayal

The Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire (IBQ) is a self-report measure of institutional betrayal. There are several versions available. The original IBQ, the Institutional Betrayal and Support Questionnaire (IBSQ), and The Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire - Climate (IBQ-Climate) evaluate institutional betrayal in the context of sexual assault and sexual harassment. The Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire - Health (IBQ-H) evaluates betrayals perpetrated by healthcare institutions.

Betrayal Trauma

The Brief Betrayal Trauma Survey (BBTS) is a 12-item self-report inventory of traumatic life experiences. The BBTS categorizes traumatic life experiences by level of betrayal. High betrayal traumas measured on the BBTS include sexual, physical, and emotional abuse perpetrated by individuals very close to respondents. Medium and low betrayal traumas include abuses perpetrated by individuals not close to respondents and traumas without perpetrators (like natural disasters), respectively. The BBTS is available in several different languages, such as Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, and Swedish. There are several different modified versions of the BBTS that vary in terms of target sample, response options, and trauma categorization.

DARVO

The DARVO-LF evaluates how much DARVO is used against individuals engaging in a confrontation over wrongdoing. This original 72-item questionnaire asks respondents to report how frequently the people they confronted used phrases representative of DARVO (i.e., statements of denial, personal attacks, and reversals of victim and offender roles) during the confrontation. The DARVO-SF (an 18-item version) and a DARVO-USE measure are also available for researchers . 

See the following links for more information about research on institutional courage and institutional betrayal, betrayal trauma, and DARVO. 

Analysis Resources

Reconsidering the Reference Category

When researchers include race or gender variables in their statistical analyses they tend to use dominant groups (i.e., male or White) as the reference group. This practice reinforces the unequal status quo. As an alternative to this standard practice, Courage researcher Johfre recommends intentionally and responsibly choosing a reference category or finding ways to convey results from categorical explanatory variables that avoid the problems of reference categories entirely. See:

Sasha Shen Johfre & Jeremy Freese (2021). Reconsidering the Reference Category. Sociological Methodology. (link)

Jeremy Freese & Sasha Shen Johfre & Jeremy Freese (2022). Binary contrasts for unordered polytomous regressors. Stata Journal. (link)

Trauma Research and the IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects in research. Discussing empirical, peer-reviewed evidence about the safety of trauma research in study protocols can help IRBs make informed decisions. We suggest including one or more of the following studies in IRB protocol applications for trauma-related research: 

  • Cromer, L.D., Freyd, J.J., Binder, A.K., DePrince, A.P., & Becker-Blease, K. (2006). What’s the risk in asking? Participant reaction to trauma history questions compared with reaction to other personal questions. Ethics & Behavior, 16(4), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1604_5

  • Becker-Blease, K.A. & Freyd, J.J. (2006). Research participants telling the truth about their lives: The ethics of asking and not asking about abuse. American Psychologist, 6(3), 218-226. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.218 [see also the five comments published in American Psychologist about this article, as well as Becker-Blease and Freyd’s response to the comments]

  • DePrince, A.P., & Chu, A. (2008). Perceived benefits in trauma research: Examining methodological and individual difference factors in responses to research participation. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fjer.2008.3.1.35

  • Jaffe, A.E., DiLillo, D., Hoffman, L., Haikalis, M., & Dykstra, R.E. (2015). Does it hurt to ask? A meta-analysis of participant reactions to trauma research. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 40-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.004 

  • Yeater, E., Miller, G., Rinehart, J., & Nason, E. (2012). Trauma and sex surveys meet minimal risk standards: Implications for institutional review boards. Psychological Science, 23(7), 780-787. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797611435131

 

Funding for Trauma Research

If you are interested in applying for funding for research relating to trauma, the following organizations offer research grants you might be able to apply for: