Commercial Sexual Exploitation, Stigma, and Trauma: A Detrimental Trio for an Altered Sense of Self

We know that children who experience significant adversity, say child maltreatment or domestic violence, are at increased risk of developing a negative sense of self, including feelings of shame, guilt, and a diminished sense of self-competency (National Child Traumatic Stress Network).  Are children who experience commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC) also at risk for these outcomes?  The authors of this study assessed the impact of CSEC on the development of a sense of self among a group of female adolescents (12-17 years) who had been in residential care provided by child welfare services.  They followed 124 youth over a period of over 4 years, gathering information on prior child maltreatment, perceived levels of stigmatization and on 4 variables measuring sense of self.  

When comparing the group of youth with a history of CSEC to those without these experiences, the CSEC group showed significantly different scores on all 4 measures of sense of self. They reported a greater sense of failure (e.g., feeling inadequate, inept), greater defectiveness and shame (e.g., feeling unworthy, bad, defective); a more profound lack of self-awareness (e.g., confusion regarding one’s thoughts and beliefs, inadequate access to one’s internal self and problems formulating goals); and greater tendency toward other-directedness (e.g., easily influenced by others, tendency to look to others for direction, and to focus on others’ needs, rights, and feelings at the expense of one’s own).  Notably, all of these differences persisted even when controlling for age, prior history of maltreatment and perceived stigmatization, except the sense of failure, which lost significance when the control variables were considered.

How can child-serving professionals use this information?  We can consider the possibility that youth who experience child maltreatment and/or CSEC may function in a ‘survival mode’ using coping strategies such as avoidance and dissociation. These strategies make it difficult for them to focus on their own feelings, needs, and beliefs. They may focus on the needs of others and rely on others for direction as a coping strategy to minimize their risk of danger. As a result, youth may lack a sense of purpose and of self and lack a sense of self-agency.  Professionals working with these youth need to abstain from victim-blaming and use of stigmatizing language. We need to avoid attitudes that we are ‘rescuing’ helpless children.  We need to provide opportunities for positive experiences that build confidence, rather than focusing purely on risk management.  We should encourage and facilitate opportunities for the youth to learn about themselves, and develop awareness of their own beliefs, needs, and values. Professionals need to respect a youths’ hopes and aspirations, facilitating their achievement rather than forcing the child to engage in an overly directive intervention and accept the identity we choose for them. A trauma-informed, youth-centered rights-based approach is critical.

This is a well-designed, thoughtful study that provides valuable insight for child-serving professionals. It is limited to female adolescents with experiences in residential care so the results cannot be generalized to the entire CSEC population. More research certainly needs to be done.  But the study does help us to better understand this population of youth who experience CSEC as they cope with adversity and enter adulthood.