Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Self-Silencing,Trauma,and Mental Health Among Juvenile Legal System-Involved Youth

Abstract

The current study investigates the impact of trauma exposure on adolescent girls’ and boys’ self-silencing and the impact of self-silencing on and internalizing and externalizing mental health symptoms. Results are informed by data from 206 legal system-involved youth ages 12 to 18 in short-term detention facilities. Hierarchical regression analyses with gender modeled as a moderator revealed that girls with greater trauma exposure were less likely to self-silence, and girls with lower levels of self-silencing were at increased risk for depressive and anxious symptoms. This study has implications for trauma-informed approaches in juvenile legal settings, which may inadvertently reward emotional restriction.

Keywords

adolescence/youth juvenile justice self-silencing trauma mental health

Introduction

Increasingly, research suggests that young women of color are at increased risk for myriad health and public health disparities compared to their male and White female counterparts (Epstein et al., 2017). One of the most disruptive social consequences for this population of girls is arrest and subsequent detainment in the juvenile legal system. Scholars and scholar activists have named this as one of the most pressing public health concerns of our time (Alexander, 2010; Moore & Padavic, 2010; Nanda, 2011). Indeed, girls comprise an increasing proportion of juvenile arrests (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014), which can exacerbate physical and mental health challenges (Espinosa et al., 2013), substance abuse (Chassin, 2008), and academic achievement and social difficulties (Pardini & Fite, 2010). Girls of color living in under-resourced, urban contexts are at particularly high risk for legal system involvement (Nanda, 2011).

Prominent criminological theories, including general strain, social bonding, and social learning theories, are largely gender neutral and assume that girls and boys have similar criminogenic pathways (Ishoy & Blackwell, 2019). Thus, over the past several decades, feminist scholars have advanced feminist pathways theory as a framework that accounts for risk and protective factors for legal system involvement that are particularly salient for girls and women (Belknap, 2015). Childhood abuse and comorbid mental health problems have consistently been documented as stronger predictors of delinquency outcomes that also occur at higher base rates for girls compared to boys (Leve et al., 2015; Welch-Brewer et al., 2011). Both childhood abuse and mental health problems are impacted by weaker caregiver attachments and also can lead to difficulties in interpersonal relationships—a hallmark of women and girls’ pathways to violence victimization and perpetration (Javdani et al., 2011a; Lin et al., 2016).

Despite this robust theoretical and empirical foundation, there is a dearth of literature on the specific processes and mechanisms through which childhood trauma impacts interpersonal communication. Similarly, there is little work on the impact that interpersonal communication style has on mental health within a context that punishes girls of color for violating stereotypes of white female passivity (Gaarder et al., 2004). The present study aims to address these gaps in the feminist criminology literature through incorporating theoretical and empirical scholarship on the construct of self-silencing. In doing so, this paper draws upon a framework based in ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989) that focuses on multiple levels of influence, each of which are informed by intersecting marginalized identities, including race, gender, class, nationality, and sexuality, which position individuals in contexts that render them structurally vulnerable to punitive and traumatizing policies and institutions. This approach conceptualizes the disproportionate rates of trauma, mental health problems, and juvenile legal system involvement among girls of color as arising from a complex interplay of individual factors, contextual factors, and gendered oppression.

Self-silencing was initially conceived of as a gender-specific construct by Jack (1991), who theorized that women may present themselves as passive to preserve relationships, which stems from a social dynamic that is part of the fabric of learned gender-based socialization for which women are systematically rewarded (Kittay, 1999). According to the model, a patriarchal society in which women experience negative consequences (e.g., economic; physical; social) for voicing anger or demands gives rise to cognitive schemas that direct women to defer to the needs of others, inhibit self-expression and self-directed action, repress anger, and compare the self to an ideal (Jack, 1991). Self-silencing results in loss of self, which according to empirical literature creates vulnerability to depression (Grant et al., 2011). Although the original self-silencing literature posited that this construct was specific to women, a multitude of studies have since documented the presence of self-silencing in boys and men (Harper et al., 2006) as well as self-silencing predicting depression in boys and men (Harper et al., 2006; Whiffen et al., 2007).

Youth involved in the juvenile legal system are an understudied population with regard to the relationship between self-silencing and mental health outcomes. No published study has investigated the relationship between trauma and self-silencing in juvenile legal system-involved youth, despite trauma and relational difficulties (associated with self-silencing) being predictive of adolescent externalizing difficulties and subsequent legal system involvement, particularly for girls. We address this gap in the literature through incorporating theoretical and empirical scholarship on the construct of self-silencing in relation to trauma and mental health outcomes. This empirical gap is critical to fill because trauma-informed approaches implemented within legal settings are likely influenced by the demands of legal settings themselves. Central among them are youth compliance, demonstration of deference to adults, and capacity to demonstrate emotional regulation through their communicatory tendencies (Ford & Blaustein, 2013).

Girls’ Pathways and Trauma

Research consistently demonstrates that girls involved in the juvenile legal system have high rates of victimization and poly-victimization compared to juvenile legal system-involved boys, youth receiving outpatient and inpatient mental health services, and community samples (Ford et al., 2013; Stewart et al., 2020). Indeed, the rate of sexual abuse among girls in the juvenile justice system is four times the rate of boys in the juvenile justice system (Baglivio et al., 2014). Trauma is predictive of girls’ entry into the system, as well as being pushed farther into the system. For instance, Gehring (2018) found that childhood abuse directly and indirectly predicted pretrial failure for women, but not for men.

Trauma has significant implications for girls’ emotion regulation and interpersonal communication. In youth who experience trauma, personal resources that would have been utilized for development of myriad affective, self-regulatory, and interpersonal processes are instead adaptively allocated to survival and to cope with an overwhelming environment (Kliethermes & Wamser, 2012). Although youth who have histories of childhood abuse may engage in prosocial behaviors to cope with negative and overwhelming emotional states, such as talking to a trusted adult or seeking mental health services, leading criminological theories including general strain theory (Agnew, 2013) posit that criminal behaviors may emerge from youths’ efforts to cope with sequelae of trauma (McKenna et al., 2020). Indeed, youth with histories of trauma often present as reactively aggressive and oppositional (Ford et al., 2012). Particularly among girls of color, whose violation of White, middle class norms of femininity (i.e., passivity and compliance) may be interpreted by authority figures as aligning with stereotypes of Black females as being hypersexual and aggressive, this way of communicating needs may result in a higher likelihood of being reprimanded and punished (Blake et al., 2011). Indeed, Morris (2007) and Crenshaw (2012) have noted that girls of color are often sanctioned for behaviors that exemplify their resilience and survival in a racist and sexist society, such as being “loud,” “aggressive,” and “assertive.”

Self-Silencing and Mental Health

Previous research suggests that, among adolescents, self-silencing correlates with internalizing conditions including depression (Harper & Welsh, 2007), as well as risky sexual interactions (Widman et al., 2006), relationship dissatisfaction (Remen, 2000), and disordered eating (Morrison & Sheahan, 2009). While the original examination of self-silencing utilized a sample comprised of 92% White women (Jack & Dill, 1992), researchers have since evidenced a positive relationship between self-silencing and depression among women of color, including a sample of 214 predominantly low-income and African-American women (Brody et al., 2014), and a sample of 194 black female college students and community members (Abrams et al., 2019).

Additional research that examines correlates and outcomes of self-silencing among adolescent girls of color is indicated, given that Black and Latina girls’ communication of opinions and needs is subject to racialized and gendered stereotypes (Leiber et al., 2009) that contribute to disparities in school exclusionary discipline (Blake et al., 2011) as well as court officers’ juvenile justice decision making (Leiber et al., 2016). Ethnographic research conducted with girls of color suggests that girls initially attempt to maintain relationships through self-silencing, but when their needs are unmet or they are rejected, they utilize violence (Brown, 2003; Miller, 2008). To date, one study has examined self-silencing in adolescent girls at risk for incarceration, and found that self-silencing influenced girls’ suppression of relational needs and explained the positive association between negative peer interactions and disruptive behavior challenges (Javdani et al., 2014).

Trauma and Self-Silencing

The body of literature examining a relationship between trauma and self-silencing is relatively new, and findings are mixed. Women who self-silence are more likely to be in physically and emotionally abusive relationships (Ali et al., 2000). A recent study conducted with 739 adolescent girls and boys in Canada reported a significant positive association between child sexual abuse and self-silencing (Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2019), although it did not examine differences by gender. Arata & Lindman (2002) found similar results, in that child physical abuse and sexual abuse were significantly positively correlated with self-silencing among 341 female and majority white college undergraduates. In an examination of mechanisms accounting for the association between trauma and binge eating among 179 African American women, Harrington et al. (2010) found a significant positive relationship between trauma exposure and self-silencing. However, a study comprised of 219 female and majority white college undergraduates (Banyard et al., 2000) found that self-silencing and child sexual abuse were not significantly related.

Not yet demonstrated in the literature is an examination of trauma and self-silencing among adolescent girls of color involved in the juvenile legal system. Trauma-informed theoretical perspectives suggest that girls’ disruptive behaviors occur because of, in response to, or as an attempt to survive experiences of interpersonal and community trauma (Ford & Blaustein, 2013). However, the values of trauma-informed care may be antithetical to the institutionalize policies and practices of the juvenile legal system (Javdani et al., 2011b). Court actors and staff in the juvenile legal system are tasked with contradictory aims of rehabilitating and punishing youth, the latter of which potentially inhibits trauma-informed care’s emphasis on safety, trust and transparency, voice and choice (Sichel et al., 2019). And yet, due to its more lenient charging and sentencing guidelines compared to the adult criminal legal system, the juvenile legal system is uniquely positioned to carry out the tenets of trauma-informed care (McKenna & Holtfreter, 2020). Despite this potential for creating healing in the system, feminist criminologists have identified an array of interpersonal and structural barriers to creating a trauma-responsive system of care for girls, from victim-blaming attributions held by legal system staff (Javdani, 2013; Mallicoat, 2007), to evidence of gender and racial bias in court decisions that surveille and control girls under the guise of protection (Leiber et al., 2009; Morash et al., 2014). Thus, the need for systems-level change is paramount, particularly given increasing evidence that anger, depression, and their correlates are more robustly linked to men and boys’ other-directed aggression and more likely predict women and girls’ self-directed harm (Sadeh et al., 2011). Although trauma-informed approaches show promise in reducing mental health symptomatology and reducing the frequency of restraints used in residential treatment settings (Hodgdon et al., 2013), little empirical research has examined the interpersonal processes and communicatory tendencies of adolescent girls that may correlate with exposure to traumatic experiences. Without knowledge of how trauma impacts youth’s interpersonal communication styles, trauma-informed approaches may be limited in their effectiveness at best (Branson et al., 2017; Hanson & Lang, 2016); or promote iatrogenic effects at worst (Lambie & Randell, 2013).

The Present Study

The current study investigates the relationship between trauma and self-silencing, as well as self-silencing’s association with mental health symptomology, and the impact of gender on these relationships among youth residing in short term detention facilities. A specific focus on adolescent communication in relation to mental health is critical for youth in the juvenile legal system, as relationships can provide support and resiliency for adolescents in under-resourced communities (Javdani et al., 2011a). Consistent with previous research and the self-silencing framework, we hypothesized that (1) gender would moderate the association between traumatic experiences and self-silencing, such that trauma would predict decreased self-silencing for girls, and (2) self-silencing would be positively associated with internalizing symptoms and externalizing symptoms for girls and boys. The current study utilized a cross-sectional design, which is an important limitation and limits the causal conclusions that can be drawn about the temporal ordering of the variables under consideration. However, we theorized based on past literature that trauma would temporally precede self-silencing, and self-silencing would predict internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Findings stand to inform an understanding of associations between traumatic experiences and interpersonal communication styles and the subsequent impact on mental health, and have implications for trauma-informed approaches.

Method

Participants, Design, and Procedure

This study employed a cross-sectional design and constitutes a de-identified secondary analysis based on baseline data collected to track youths’ progress in a pilot of a manualized, evidence-informed, gender-responsive, group intervention developed by the second and third authors. Comprised of 10 lessons, the intervention incorporated dialectical behavior therapy skills training (Linehan, 1993) with anti-oppression education (i.e., sociopolitical development; Watts et al., 1999, 2003). The intervention was delivered twice-weekly by pairs of trained and supervised students from a counseling master’s program. Sessions, which were 90-min, incorporated multimedia content, role-plays, and didactic training. The program was piloted over the course of 2 years between 2013 and 2015 within short-term detention facilities in a large metropolitan area in the United States. All youth in participating facilities were invited to participate in the program. Youth and facility staff were informed that participation was voluntary, that non-participation would not impact youths’ relationship with facility staff and that youth could choose to stop participation at any time or participate at a later date. De-identified assessment data at baseline were analyzed according to secondary analysis techniques and used to report results in aggregate. Measures were administered by four graduate student research assistants, who received comprehensive training and supervision on assessment. Youth completed measures using paper and pencil format. All youth were offered snacks regardless of participation, and alternate materials, such as word searches, were offered to youth who did not wish to participate in the assessment.

Table 1 reports demographics and descriptive statistics for the total sample. Participants included 99 girls and 107 boys between the ages of 12 and 18 (M = 15.05; SD = 1.1). The majority (over 90%) identified as racial/ethnic minorities, and over 40% of girls reported identifying as homosexual, bisexual, or questioning/ other. Over half of youth had repeated a grade and over 40% had previously resided in a short-term detention facility.

Table 1.

Demographics and Descriptive Statistics for Total Sample and Within Each Gender (N = 206).

	Total (N = 206)		Boys (n = 107)		Girls (n = 99)		Statistical diff test
Age	M (SD)	Min/Max	M (SD)	Min/Max	M (SD)	Min/Max
	15.05 (1.1)	12/18	15.1 (1.1)	13/18	14.98 (1.0)	12/17	t (171) = −0.829, p = .408
Race/ethnicity	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Asian or Asian American	5	2.9	5	5.4	0	0	X² (4) = 17.4, p = .002**
Black	106	60.9	65	69.9	41	50.6
Caribbean	28	16.1	7	7.5	21	25.9
Hispanic, Latino/a	28	16.1	12	12.9	16	19.8
White	7	4.0	4	4.3	3	3.7
Sexual orientation	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Heterosexual	127	73.4	90	84.1	37	46.3	X² (4) = 58.6, p = .000**
Homosexual	9	5.2	1	1.1	8	10
Bisexual	28	16.2	0	0	28	35
Questioning/Other	3	1.8	0	0	3	3.8
Don’t want to answer	6	3.5	2	2.2	4	5.0
Grade level	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
7th grade or lower	7	4.1	4	4.4	3	3.8	X² (4) = 2.3, p = .679
8th grade	32	18.7	15	16.5	17	21.3
9th grade	61	29.5	30	33.0	31	38.8
10th grade	54	26.1	33	36.3	21	26.3
11th grade or higher	17	8.2	9	9.9	8	10.1
Key study variables	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
MAYSI trauma	1.24	1.44	0.85	1.22	1.66	1.55	t (204) = 4.22, p = .000**
MAYSI angry/irritable	3.46	2.95	2.68	2.64	4.31	3.05	t (204) = 4.09, p = .000**
MAYSI depressed/anxious	1.84	2.12	1.25	1.76	2.48	2.3	t (204) = 4.34, p = .000**
MAYSI somatic complaints	1.57	1.83	0.96	1.37	2.23	2.03	t (204) = 5.32, p = .000**
Self-silencing	2.46	0.71	2.68	0.68	2.22	0.65	t (204) = −4.89, p = .772

Note. MAYSI = Massachusetts youth screening instrument-second version.

= p < .05. **p < .01.

Measures

Youth mental health and trauma

Youth mental health was assessed via four subscales of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2), a 52-item gold-standard self-report screening inventory used to identify mental health symptoms in legal system-involved youth (Grisso & Barnum, 2006; Shulman et al., 2018). Respondents are asked to rate items as yes or no to indicate whether the item has been true for them “within the past few months” for the mental health subscales and “ever in your whole life” for the Traumatic Experiences subscale (Grisso & Barnum, 2006). All scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas >.70). Subscale scores were calculated as the mean of items in each individual subscale. Externalizing mental health symptoms were assessed using the Angry-Irritable subscale (nine items), and internalizing symptoms were assessed using the Somatic Complaints subscale (six items) and Depressed-Anxious subscale (nine items). Trauma was measured using the Traumatic Experiences scale (five items). Three of the items focus on exposure to specific traumatic events, including rape, abuse, and physical harm, while two items focus on any other events the youth experienced as “bad or terrifying” (Grisso & Barnum, 2006).¹ The MAYSI-2 has one item in the Traumatic Experiences scale that differs for boys and girls, in which girls are asked, “Have you ever been raped or been in danger of being raped?” and boys are asked, “Have people talked about you when you are not there?” Given the high rates of assault reported by boys and girls in the juvenile legal system (Ford et al., 2012), we retained the item related to rape for both boys and girls. The scale’s measure of exposure to traumatic events, rather than the presence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), is important because many youth experience traumatic events that do not manifest in symptoms of PTSD (Grisso & Barnum, 2006).

Each subscale in the MAYSI-2, with the exception of the Traumatic Experiences subscale, has cut-offs for “caution” and “warning” scores. Scores in the caution range indicate a youth scored higher than two-thirds of youth on probation, intake, reception centers, or pretrial detention. Scores in the warning range indicate that a youth scored higher than the 90th percentile compared to the normative sample in the original evaluation of the scale (Grisso & Quinlan, 2005; Grisso & Branum, 2006). The cut-off scores vary by scale: Angry-Irritable (caution, 5–7; warning, 8–9), Somatic Complaints (caution, 3–5; warning, 6), Depressed-Anxious (caution, 3–5; warning, 6–9) (Grisso & Barnum, 2006). The MAYSI-2 has 3rd grade reading comprehension score.

Self-silencing

The Silencing the Self (STS) subscale of Silencing the Self Scale—Adolescent Version (STSS-AV; Spinazzola & Stocking, 1998) was used to assess adolescents’ inhibition of expression and communication to prevent relationship conflict. The STS is designed to assess cognitive schemas affecting social behavior and self-concept (Buchholz et al., 2007; Jack & Dill, 1992). The STS consists of seven items (e.g., “I avoid disagreements with my partner to keep the peace; I talk about my feelings with my partner, even when it leads to problems or disagreements”) rated by the respondent on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), averaged to compute a total score. Items on the STS are worded in gender-neutral terms allowing participants to report about romantic partnerships with boys or girls. The STS demonstrated adequate reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .84). The STS has 5th grade reading comprehension score.

Data Analytic Plan

Bivariate correlations between demographic variables in the study, including race, sexual orientation, grade, and key study variables were calculated. A series of four hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test study hypotheses. First, hierarchical linear regression was used to examine the hypothesis that gender would moderate the association of trauma with self-silencing. Grade was entered as a covariate in Block 1 to adjust for the potential influence of age and educational status. Race and sexual orientation were also included as covariates in Block 1 to adjust for significant gender differences on these variables. An indicator variable was created for race to compare African American and Latino participants to other race/ethnicity participants, and an indicator variable was also created for sexual orientation to compare homosexual and bisexual participants to heterosexual participants. The MAYSI-2 Traumatic Experiences subscale and gender were entered in Block 2, followed by their interaction in Block 3 (Weinberg & Abramowitz, 2008).

Next, we conducted three separate hierarchical linear regression models to examine our hypothesis that higher self-silencing would predict higher internalizing symptoms, including depression/anxiety and somatic complaints, as well as higher externalizing symptoms, specifically angry/irritable symptoms, in both girls and boys. We did not hypothesize a gender difference in these associations given literature that supports the self-silencing-depression pathways for girls and boys (Harper et al., 2006). Grade, race, and sexual orientation were included in Block 1, self-silencing and gender were entered in Block 2, and the gender x self-silencing interaction was entered in Block 3 (Weinberg & Abramowitz, 2008).

Analyses using dummy variables to compare variables with missing data and non-missing data revealed no significant demographic or descriptive differences (p > .05) between participants with missing data and non-missing data. This indicates that mean imputation is appropriate (Li, 2013; Reckdenwald & Parker, 2012). Therefore, data was imputed for participants missing data on variables of interest. We examined all models excluding all participants with missing data, and the results remained the same. Additionally, results utilizing multiple imputation were consistent with results of analyses using imputed means. Thus, we imputed means by gender for 9.7% of participants to retain the maximum amount of statistical power (Roth, 1994), which is an appropriate decision when less than 10% of data are missing (Bono et al., 2007; Donner, 1982). Preliminary analyses were conducted and no violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity were discovered. The study had over 85% power at alpha =.05 to detect small to moderate effect sizes with N = 206 participants. This indicates that analyses under consideration in this paper had adequate power. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 25.

Results

We refer readers to Table 1 for a summary of demographics and descriptive statistics. As expected, girls reported significantly higher traumatic experiences and internalizing and externalizing symptoms compared to boys. Forty-one percent of girls reported two (or more) traumatic experiences, compared to 25% of boys. Likewise, 23% of girls reported three (or more) traumatic experiences compared to 13% of boys. On all MAYSI-2 subscales, girls were more likely to have scores in the “Caution” range, which is indicative of scores comparable with clinical significance cut scores on equivalent scales on more comprehensive measures (Grisso & Barnum, 2006, p. 22). Specifically, with regard to internalizing symptoms, 29% of girls had scores in the caution range for the Depressed/Anxious subscale and 12% in the warning category. Meanwhile, 14% of boys had scores in the caution range and 4% in the warning range. Twenty-eight percent of girls had scores in the caution range for the Somatic Complaints subscale compared to 11% of boys, and 11% of girls had scores in the warning range compared to 1% of boys. With regard to externalizing symptoms, 31% of girls had scores in the caution range for the Angry/Irritable subscale, compared to 17% of boys, and 17% of girls had scores in the warning range, compared to 6.5% of boys.

Self-silencing and trauma were negatively correlated for girls (r = −.34; p < .01), but not boys (r = .01, ns); a significant correlational difference (Fisher’s Z = −2.54, p < .01). Depression/anxiety symptoms were positively associated with self-silencing for boys (r = .22, p < .05), but not girls (r = −.19, p = .07); a significant difference in correlation (Fisher’s Z = −2.92, p < .01). Self-silencing was negatively and insignificantly related to internalizing and externalizing outcomes for girls. MAYSI-2 subscales were significantly correlated, (r ranged from .47 to .74, p < .05). For girls, trauma was positively associated with depression/anxiety symptoms (r = .70, p < .01), somatic complaints (r = .68, p < .01), as well as angry/irritable symptoms (r = .66, p < .01). Similarly, among boys, trauma was positively associated with depression/anxiety symptoms (r = .65, p < .01), somatic complaints (r = .47, p < .01), as well as angry/ irritable symptoms (r = .66, p < .01).

Table 2 reports hierarchical linear regression analyses for the association between traumatic experiences and self-silencing. Results suggested that gender moderated the relationship between self-silencing and MAYSI-2 Traumatic Experiences (β = .31, SE = 0.33, p < .01). Examination of simple slopes demonstrated that the association between trauma and self-silencing was significant and negative for girls (b = −0.37, SE = 0.04; t (75) = −3.54, p < .01) but was not significant for boys (b = 0.01, SE = 0.06; t (86) = 0.08, p = .94). According to a standardized Beta coefficient (β), for boys, for every one standard deviation increase in traumatic experiences, self-silencing decreased by −0.12 standard deviations. Among girls, for every one standard deviation increase in traumatic experiences, self-silencing decreased by 0.34 standard deviations.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression with Gender, Traumatic Experiences, and Their Interaction Associated with Self-Silencing (N = 206).

Dependent variable: STSS STS
	β (SE)	p-value
	Covariate (R² = .03)(F (3, 167) = 1.87, p = .14)
Grade	−.15 (0.05)	.05
Race/ethnicity	−.03 (0.00)	.69
Sexual orientation	.08 (0.00)	.32
	Simple Effects (ΔR² = .14**) F (5, 165) = 7.05, p = .00)
Gender	.27 (0.11)	.00**
MAYSI-2 traumatic experiences	−.19 (0.04)	.01*
	Gender Moderation (ΔR2 = .03*) F (6, 164) = 6.86, p = .00)
Gender x MAYSI-2 traumatic experiences	.21 (0.07)	.03*

Note. STSS STS = Silencing the Self subscale from the silencing the self scale; MAYSI-2= Massachusetts youth screening instrument-second version.

Betas are standardized and interaction terms are mean-centered; *= p < .05. **= p < .01

Table 3 reports the separate hierarchical regression analyses for the association between self-silencing and MAYSI-2 Depressed/Anxious, Somatic Complaints, and Angry/Irritable subscales. Results also demonstrated that gender moderated the relationship between Self-Silencing and MAYSI-2 Depressed/ Anxious symptoms (β= .31, SE = 0.47, p < .01). Examination of simple slopes demonstrated that the association between self-silencing and depressed/ anxious symptoms was significant and negative for girls (b = −0.27, SE = 0.41; t (75) = −2.32, p < .05) but was not significant for boys (b = 0.15, SE = 0.27; t (86) = 1.38, p = .17). According to a standardized Beta coefficient (β), among boys, for every one standard deviation increase in self-silencing, MAYSI-2 Depressed/Anxious symptoms decreased by −0.01 standard deviations, which did not represent a significant finding. Among girls, for every one standard deviation increase in self-silencing, MAYSI-2 Depressed/Anxious symptoms decreased by −0.32 standard deviations.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression with Gender, Self-Silencing, and Their Interaction Associated with Internalizing and Externalizing Mental Health Symptoms (N = 206).

	(A) Dependent variable: internalizing (MAYSI-2 Depression/anxiety)		(B) Dependent variable: internalizing (MAYSI-2 Somatic complaints)		(C) Dependent variable: externalizing (MAYSI-2 Angry/irritable)
	β (SE)	p-value	β (SE)	p-value	β (SE)	p-value
Covariate (R² = .00) F (3, 167) = 0.15, p = .93)			(R² = .01) F (3, 167) = 0.33, p = .81)		(R² = .00) F (3, 167) = 0.22, p = .00)
Grade	.03 (0.16)	.71	−.03 (0.14)	.72	.00 (0.22)	.99
Race/Ethnicity	−.03 (0.00)	.67	.02 (0.00)	.84	.06 (0.00)	.42
Sexual Orientation	.03 (0.00)	.67	−.07 (0.00)	.36	−.00 (0.00)	.97
Simple Effects (ΔR² = .13**) F (5, 165) = 5.00, p = .00)			(ΔR² = .19**) F (5, 162) = 5.28, p = .00)		(ΔR² = .11**) F (5, 165) = 4.03, p = .00)
Gender	−.33 (0.34)	.00**	−.40 (0.29)	.00**	−.30 (0.48)	.00**
STSS STS	−.08 (0.24)	.32	−.08 (0.21)	.25	−.06 (0.34)	.45
Gender Moderation (ΔR² = .04**) F (6, 164) = 5.77, p = .00)			(ΔR² = .01) F (6, 161) = 6.36, p = .00)		(ΔR² = .01) F (6, 164) = 3.73, p = .00)
Gender x STSS STS	.31 (0.47)	.00**	.14 (0.40)	.18	.16 (0.67)	.15

Note. STSS STS = silencing the self subscale from the silencing the self scale; MAYSI-2= Massachusetts youth screening instrument-second version.

Betas are standardized and interaction terms are mean-centered; *= p < .05; **= p < .01.

Gender did not moderate the relationship between self-silencing and MAYSI-2 Somatic Complaints (β = .14, SE = 0.40, p = .18) or MAYSI-2 Angry Irritable symptoms (β = .16, SE = 0.67, p = .15). However, a main effect of gender was found in the model predicting both MAYSI-2 Somatic Complaints (β = −.40, SE = 0.29, p < .01) as well as MAYSI-2 Angry/Irritable symptoms (β = −.30, SE = 0.48, p < .01), suggesting that girls report higher levels of these symptoms than boys.

Discussion

There is a dearth of literature on the specific processes and mechanisms through which childhood trauma impacts interpersonal communication, and the ways in which interpersonal communication confers risk mental health problems among girls in the juvenile legal system. Therefore, the overarching objectives of this study were to investigate the relationship between trauma and self-silencing, as well as self-silencing’s association with mental health symptomology, and the impact of gender on these relationships among youth residing in short-term detention facilities.

This study adds to the literature on gender-responsive and trauma-informed treatment in juvenile justice settings. There are three key findings with implications for research and practice. First, as hypothesized, girls’ traumatic experiences were related to lower tendencies to self-silence; whereas there was no relationship between trauma and self-silencing for boys. This effect was observed even after accounting for girls’ higher prevalence of sexual assault. One interpretation of this finding is that girls may display interpersonal communication styles that prioritize safety and reject gender-based communication norms of deference and passivity (Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Ford & Blaustein, 2013). This finding sheds light on qualitative accounts of probation officers’ and front line staffs’ perceptions of girls as demanding, hysterical, whiny, and manipulative (Gaarder et al., 2004; Galardi & Settersten, 2018). Meanwhile, staff perceive boys as reticent to communicate thoughts and feelings, less emotional, and thus requiring less attention (Galardi & Settersten, 2018). At the level of intervention, it is critical to understand the degree to which trauma-informed approaches may inadvertently reward or promote girls’ and boys’ self-silencing when implemented within juvenile legal settings designed to reward emotional restriction. Staffs’ attributions of youth behaviors shape the way in which they respond to youth (Galardi & Settersten, 2018), and research suggests that staffs’ attributions of girls are especially salient for Black girls with histories of trauma, who are less likely to be offered a plea concession compared to their White peers (Lowery, 2019). Thus, it is important for trauma-informed interventions to increase staffs’ knowledge about the adaptive function of girls’ communication tendencies. Specifically, if juvenile courts and facility staff understand girls’ communication as serving to prioritize safety, they can shift away from more deficit-oriented attributions of girls’ behaviors as stemming from oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD) (McKenna & Holtfreter, 2020).

Future studies should also examine the possibility of a curvilinear relationship between trauma and self-silencing. For instance, girls with low or high trauma may be more likely to report higher levels of self-silencing than those with intermediate levels of trauma. Our scatterplots demonstrated a linear relationship between these constructs in our sample, but since our sample is characterized by elevated levels of trauma, additional research is needed to examine this hypothesis. The possibility of an inverted U relationship between trauma and self-silencing is supported by a body of literature that has evidenced a curvilinear relationship between posttraumatic growth and distress, such that individuals with low or high stress responses are likely to report lower post-traumatic growth than those with intermediate levels of stress responses (e.g., Tomich & Helgeson, 2012).

Second, contrary to our hypothesis, our results indicated that girls who were low in self-silencing were high in depression/anxiety symptoms. This finding is not in keeping with the original female-specific self-silencing construct (Jack, 1991). It is also inconsistent with a large body of literature documenting a positive relationship between self-silencing and internalizing symptoms for boys and girls (Harper et al., 2006), and contradicts research showing that lower self-silencing is associated with increased resilience in women with HIV (Dale et al., 2014).

Importantly, these findings suggest that girls’ reduced self-silencing is met with an invalidating and punishing response from their context, which perceives their communication as problematic and more in need of control than boys who demonstrate similar traits. Feminist scholars have suggested that gender, race, and class intersect to create a context in which girls of color from low socioeconomic status are heavily policed and criminalized for attempts to protect themselves from abuse (Chesney-Lind & Merlo, 2015). Morris (2007) linked girls’ disciplinary infractions in schools for being too controlling or aggressive to the adultification of girls of color, a term which refers to the perception of girls of color as less innocent compared to same-aged White peers (Epstein et al., 2017). This phenomenon is particularly heightened for girls of color who experience early puberty and therefore are physically more mature compared to their peers (Carter et al., 2018).

In our study, boys reported higher levels of self-silencing compared to girls, consistent with previous studies with comparable populations (Harper et al., 2006), and self-silencing was not significantly associated with internalizing symptoms for boys. More research is needed to examine differences in the function of self-silencing for boys and girls, particularly in juvenile legal settings. One hypothesis is that boys suppress their needs and desires to maintain power within relationships, while girls inhibit self-expression to avoid relationship conflict (Miller, 2008). Alternatively, self-silencing may be consistent with traditional norms of masculinity around which boys are socialized, which rewards boys for toughness and emotional restriction (Impett et al., 2008). Our study suggests that there are mental health implications of these gender differences. According to our findings, incarcerated boys’ trauma, depression, or externalizing challenges are not associated with their tendencies towards self-silencing. However, incarcerated girls’ childhood trauma histories are linked with lower self-silencing tendencies which are, in turn, associated with poorer mental health correlates.

Theoretical and Applied Implications

Findings of the current study are consistent with a body of work from feminist criminology, which has documented girls’ and womens’ unique pathways into the juvenile legal system, and the ways in which the juvenile legal system itself is one that was created with boys in mind (Bloom et al., 2003; Gehring, 2018). First, our findings regarding the high prevalence of mental health symptomatology and trauma, especially in girls of color, bolster the existing literature underscoring the urgency of mental health issues and the critical need for trauma-informed and gender-responsive setting-level practices (Briggs et al., 2013; Gehring, 2018). This is especially relevant given that the risk for re-traumatization is high when youth are in short-term detention (e.g., through the use of seclusion and restraints; Espinosa et al., 2013; Huckshorn, 2006), underscoring a need for aftercare programming that can respond holistically to girls’ basic needs (e.g., housing) and histories of trauma and mental health issues (e.g., Anderson et al., 2019; Gehring, 2018). At the level of assessment, consideration should be given to the sensitivity of juvenile risk assessment instruments, which typically display weaker predictive validity for girls compared to boys (e.g., Anderson et al., 2016).

A second key finding from this study is that reduced self-silencing may be part of girls’ responses to traumatic stress (Ko et al., 2008) and third, these data indicate that girls’ lower propensity to self-silence is associated with depression and anxiety symptoms. The current results require consideration of how trauma-informed care approaches implement strategies to support youth in “managing emotions,” considered one of the pillars of trauma-informed care (Bath, 2008). The feminist pathways approach should be extended to focus on juvenile legal system employees’ attributions of girls’ behaviors and subsequent responses (Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014). However, our findings suggest that short-term detention facilities should consider adopting trauma-informed organizational culture interventions, which locate the environment as the target of trauma-focused intervention rather than the individual (Sichel et al., 2019). For instance, interventions such as the Sanctuary Model (Bloom, 1997) reorganize settings by educating staff on the impact of trauma on the climate and encourage organizational change by emphasizing a democratic process for decision making, open communication, healthy boundaries, social responsibility, and a culture of growth and change. Our results can enhance extant gender-responsive policies and interventions (e.g., Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014) by promoting a culture of emotional expression for both youth and staff through critiquing a broader culture of hyper masculinity that encourages emotionally restrictive styles of communication for boys and girls (Howarth, 2004). Additionally, education for staff around interpersonal skills for rewarding, normalizing, and validating youths’ expression of needs is crucial for enhancing youth mental health outcomes in juvenile legal settings (Marsh et al., 2010; Westphal et al., 2016).

Research suggests that the Sanctuary Model is associated with positive changes in staff’s and girls’ feelings of safety in secure detention facilities (Elwyn et al., 2015). However, trauma-informed organizational culture interventions such as Sanctuary do not attend to gender, which is alarming in light of research showing that “gender-neutral” programming designed to address disruptive behavior problems fail to address gender-sensitive factors for girls, such as histories of childhood abuse (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006), and comorbid mental health problems (Granski et al., 2019). Our findings underscore the need for attention to gender in the development and evaluation of trauma-informed interventions. Specifically, trauma-informed practices in short-term detention should be rooted in an understanding of systematic racial injustice which have historically criminalized girls of color for being defiant and oppositional, even when they are no more likely to engage in disruptive behaviors compared to their White peers (Karnik et al., 2010). Moving away from a person-mediated perspective, which attributes girls’ delinquency to their contexts (i.e., trauma experienced at home) is important in that it moves the attribution of blame from “broken families and neighborhoods” (Sichel et al., 2019). Adopting an ecological perspective that focuses on social structures and institutions that provide differential access to social power based on group membership will allow short-term detention facilities to prioritize changing the context that encourages and rewards emotional restriction.

Finally, our results call for an expansion of the self-silencing theory to in order to be applicable for youth with multiple marginalized identities in legal settings. Findings of the current study suggest that girls’ contexts may respond to their decreased self-silencing with an invalidating and punitive response, which results in increased depressive and anxiety symptoms (Mallicoat, 2007). Identifying a theoretically grounded pathway through which girls’ communication of needs and emotions is in fact deleterious for their mental health due to the context’s response is critical for shifting the focus of trauma-informed interventions to changing the setting itself rather than teaching youth to adapt to oppressive conditions (Pollack, 2007).

Study findings should be interpreted in light of limitations, including that the design is cross-sectional, limiting the causal conclusions that can be drawn. Additional limitations include our reliance on self-report, exclusion of clinical diagnoses, and reliance on dimensional classifications of symptom counts for all mental health symptoms. Lastly, we tested multiple hypotheses, which increases the likelihood of incorrectly rejecting a true null effect (i.e., Type-I error). A Bonferroni correction may compensate for this increased likelihood by multiplying p-values (p) with the number of hypotheses (h) (Bonferroni-corrected α = .0125). Due to the fact that our results were all p < .01, the Bonferroni correction had a negligible impact.

Despite its limitations, we extend the feminist pathways literature on gender-responsive and trauma informed care in juvenile legal settings by evidencing gender differences in the relationship between trauma and self-silencing as well as between self-silencing and internalizing symptoms. Girls who have experienced trauma self-silence less, and girls’ decreased self-silencing is associated with depression/anxiety symptoms. Our results also corroborate previous findings of the heightened risk for elevated levels of trauma, externalizing and internalizing symptoms among girls in the juvenile legal system. The study’s findings contribute to the field of feminist criminology by increasing our understanding of the gender differences in self-silencing and mental health. In particular, these findings underscore the importance of understanding girls’ trauma-related communication and expanding trauma-informed education for juvenile legal system staff to ensure a workforce that is rewarding, normalizing, and validating of girls’ expression of their needs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Megan Granski

Notes

Author Biographies

Megan Granski is a doctoral candidate at New York University. She studies pathways to disruptive behavior problems, with a focus on trauma, and the development of intervention models for youth at risk for or affected by disruptive behavior problems.

Shabnam Javdani is an associate professor of Applied Psychology at New York University. The overarching goal of her scholarship is to understand and reduce the development of inequality-related mental health and legal problems and study community and institutional responses to these complex challenges. Her research hopes to identify meaningful solutions, with a focus on promoting equality for underserved families, girls, women, and gender-expansive individuals.

Corianna E. Sichel is a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute. She studies how individuals interact with the social systems around them, and how those interactions influence personal mental health, focusing on underserved populations, trauma, and prevention.

Morgan Rentko is an honors graduate of the Connecticut College Psychology Department whose research explores the relationships among intersectionality, critical consciousness, and social dominance, particularly through the lens of education. She currently works as a customer insights specialist for the educational technology company Newsela.

References

Abrams

J. A.

Hill

Maxwell

(2019). Underneath the mask of the strong Black woman schema: Disentangling influences of strength and self-silencing on depressive symptoms among US Black women. Sex Roles, 80(9–10), 517–526.

Agnew

(2013). When criminal coping is likely: An extension of general strain theory. Deviant Behavior, 34(8), 653–670.

Alexander

(2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New Press.

Ali

Toner

B. B.

Stuckless

Gallop

Diamant

N. E.

Gould

M. I.

Vidins

E. I.

(2000). Emotional abuse, self-blame, and self-silencing in women with irritable bowel syndrome. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(1), 76–82.

Anderson

V. R.

Davidson

W. S.

Barnes

A. R.

Campbell

C. A.

Petersen

J. L.

Onifade

(2016). The differential predictive validity of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory: The role of gender. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(7), 666–677.

Anderson

V. R.

Walerych

B. M.

Campbell

N. A.

Barnes

A. R.

Davidson

W. S.

Campbell

C. A.

Onifade

Petersen

J. L.

(2019). Gender-responsive intervention for female juvenile offenders: A Quasi-experimental outcome evaluation. Feminist Criminology, 14 (1) 24–44.

Arata

C. M.

Lindman

(2002). Marriage, child abuse, and sexual revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(9), 953–971.

Baglivio

M. T.

Epps

Swartz

Huq

M. S.

Sheer

Hardt

N. S.

(2014). The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 1–23.

Banyard

V. L.

Arnold

Smith

(2000). Childhood sexual abuse and dating experiences of undergraduate women. Child Maltreatment, 5(1), 39–48.

10.

Bath

(2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(3), 17–21.

11.

Belknap

(2015). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.

12.

Blake

J. J.

Butler

B. R.

Lewis

C. W.

Darensbourg

(2011). Unmasking the inequitable discipline experiences of urban Black girls: Implications for urban educational stakeholders. The Urban Review, 43(1), 90–106.

13.

Bloom

Owen

Covington

(2003). Gender responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

14.

Bloom

S. L.

(1997). Creating sanctuary: Toward the evolution of sane societies. Routledge.

15.

Bono

Ried

L. D.

Kimberlin

Vogel

(2007). Missing data on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: A comparison of 4 imputation techniques. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 3(1), 1–27.

16.

Branson

C. E.

Baetz

C. L.

Horwitz

S. M.

Hoagwood

K. E.

(2017). Trauma-informed juvenile justice systems: A systematic review of definitions and core components. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(6), 635–646.

17.

Briggs

E. C.

Fairbank

J. A.

Greeson

J. K.

Layne

C. M.

Steinberg

A. M.

Amaya-Jackson

L. M.

Ostrowski

S. A.

Gerrity

E. T.

Elmore

D. L.

Belcher

H. M. E.

Pynoos

R. S.

(2013). Links between child and adolescent trauma exposure and service use histories in a national clinic-referred sample. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(2), 101–109.

18.

Brody

L. R.

Stokes

L. R.

Dale

S. K.

Kelso

G. A.

Cruise

R. C.

Weber

K.M.

Burke-Miller

J. K.

Cohen

M. H.

(2014). Gender roles and mental health in women with and at risk for HIV. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 311–326.

19.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

20.

Brown

L. M.

(2003). Girlfighting: Betrayal and rejection among girls. New York University Press.

21.

Buchholz

Henderson

K. A.

Hounsell

Wagner

Norris

Spettigue

(2007). Self-silencing in a clinical sample of female adolescents with eating disorders. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 16(4), 158.

22.

Carter

Mustafaa

F. N.

Leath

(2018). Teachers’ expectations of girls’ classroom performance and behavior: Effects of girls’ race and pubertal timing. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(7), 885–907.

23.

Chassin

(2008). Juvenile justice and substance use. The Futures of Children, 18(2), 165–183.

24.

Chesney-Lind

Merlo

A. V.

(2015). Global war on girls? Policing girls’ sexuality and criminalizing their victimization. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(1–2), 71–82.

25.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.

26.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(2012). From private violence to mass incarceration: Thinking intersectionally about women, race, and social control. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1418.

27.

Dale

S. K.

Cohen

M. H.

Kelso

G. A.

Cruise

R. C.

Weber

K. M.

Watson

Burke-Miller

J. K.

Brody

L. R.

(2014). Resilience among women with HIV: Impact of silencing the self and socioeconomic factors. Sex Roles, 70(5–6), 221–231.

28.

Donner

(1982). The relative effectiveness of procedures commonly used in multiple regression analysis for dealing with missing values. The American Statistician, 36, 378–381.

29.

Elwyn

L. J.

Esaki

Smith

C. A.

(2015). Safety at a girls secure juvenile justice facility. Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal of Therapeutic Communities, 36(4), 209–218.

30.

Epstein

Blake

J. J.

González

(2017). Girlhood interrupted: The erasure of Black girls’ childhood. Georgetown University Law Center on Poverty and Inequality.

31.

Espinosa

E. M.

Sorensen

J. R.

Lopez

M. A.

(2013). Youth pathways to placement: The influence of gender, mental health need and trauma on confinement in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(12), 1824–1836.

32.

Fagan

Piquero

A. R.

(2007). Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 715–748.

33.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Shattuck

Hamby

S. L.

(2015). Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 746–754.

34.

Ford

J. D.

Blaustein

M. E.

(2013). Systemic self-regulation: A framework for trauma-informed services in residential juvenile justice programs. Journal of Family Violence, 28(7), 665–677.

35.

Ford

J. D.

Chapman

Connor

D. F.

Cruise

K. R.

(2012). Complex trauma and aggression in secure juvenile justice settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(6), 694–724.

36.

Ford

J. D.

Grasso

D. J.

Hawke

Chapman

J. F.

(2013). Poly-victimization among juvenile justice-involved youths. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(10), 788–800.

37.

Gaarder

Rodriguez

Zatz

M. S.

(2004). Criers, liars, and manipulators: Probation officers’ views of girls. Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 547–578.

38.

Galardi

T. R.

Settersten

R. A.

(2018). “They’re just made up different”: Juvenile correctional staff perceptions of incarcerated boys and girls. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 200–208.

39.

Gehring

K. S.

(2018). A direct test of pathways theory. Feminist Criminology, 13(2), 115–137.

40.

Granski

Javdani

Anderson

V. R.

Caires

(2019). A meta-analysis of program characteristics for youth with disruptive behavior problems: The moderating role of program format and youth gender. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(1–2), 201–222.

41.

Grant

T. M.

Jack

D. C.

Fitzpatrick

A. L.

Ernst

C. C.

(2011). Carrying the burdens of poverty, parenting, and addiction: Depression symptoms and self-silencing among ethnically diverse women. Community Mental Health Journal, 47(1), 90–98.

42.

Grisso

Barnum

(2006). Massachusetts youth screening instrument-version 2: User’s manual and technical report. Professional Resource Press.

43.

Grisso

Quinlan

J. C.

(2005). Massachusetts youth screening instrument – version 2. In Grisso

Vincent

Seagrave

(Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 99–111). Guilford Press.

44.

Hanson

R. F.

Lang

(2016). A critical look at trauma-informed care among agencies and systems serving maltreated youth and their families. Child Maltreatment, 21(2), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559516635274

45.

Harper

M. S.

Dickson

J. W.

Welsh

D. P.

(2006). Self-silencing and rejection sensitivity in adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 435–443.

46.

Harper

M. S.

Welsh

D. P.

(2007). Keeping quiet: Self-silencing and its association with relational and individual functioning among adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 99–116.

47.

Harrington

E. F.

Crowther

J. H.

Shipherd

J. C.

(2010). Trauma, binge eating, and the “strong Black woman”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(4), 469–479.

48.

Hodgdon

H. B.

Kinniburgh

Gabowitz

Blaustein

M. E.

Spinazzola

(2013). Development and implementation of trauma-informed programming in youth residential treatment centers using the ARC framework. Journal of Family Violence, 28(7), 679–692.

49.

Howarth

(2004). Re-presentation and resistance in the context of school exclusion: Reasons to be critical. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(5), 356–377.

50.

Huckshorn

K. A.

(2006). Re-designing state mental health policy to prevent the use of seclusion and restraint. Mental Health Services Research, 33(4), 482–491.

51.

Impett

E. A.

Sorsoli

Schooler

Henson

J. M.

Tolman

D. L.

(2008). Girls’ relationship authenticity and self-esteem across adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 722–733.

52.

Ishoy

G. A.

Blackwell

B. S.

(2019). Situational action theory’s self-control/morality interaction effects and the moderating influence of being female: A comparison of property and violent offending using a sample of juvenile delinquents. Feminist Criminology, 14(4), 391–419.

53.

Jack

D. C.

(1991). Silencing the self: Women and depression. Harvard Press.

54.

Jack

D. C.

Dill

(1992). The silencing the self scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97–106.

55.

Javdani

(2013). Gender matters: Using an ecological lens to understand female crime and disruptive behavior. In Perceptions of female offenders (pp. 9–24). Springer.

56.

Javdani

Sadeh

Verona

(2011a). Expanding our lens: Female pathways to antisocial behavior in adolescence and adulthood. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(8), 1324–1348.

57.

Javdani

Sadeh

Verona

(2011b). Gendered social forces: A review of the impact of institutionalized factors on women and girls’ criminal justice trajectories. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(2), 161–211.

58.

Javdani

Rodriguez

E. M.

Nichols

S. R.

Emerson

Donenberg

G. R.

(2014). Risking it for love: Romantic relationships and early pubertal development confer risk for later disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(8), 1325–1340.

59.

Karnik

N. S.

Soller

M. V.

Redlich

Silverman

M. A.

Kraemer

H. C.

Haapanen

Steiner

(2010). Prevalence differences of psychiatric disorders among youth after nine months or more of incarceration by race/ethnicity and age. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 21(1), 237–250.

60.

Kittay

E. F.

(1999). Love’s labor: Essays on women, equality and dependency. Routledge.

61.

Kliethermes

Wamser

(2012). Adolescents with complex trauma. In Cohen

J. A.

Mannarino

A. P.

Deblinger

(Eds.), Trauma-focused CBT for children and adolescents: Treatment applications (pp. 175–196). Guilford.

62.

S. J.

Ford

J. D.

Kassam-Adams

Berkowitz

S. J.

Wilson

Wong

Brymer

M. J.

Layne

C. M.

(2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 396–404.

63.

Lambie

Randell

(2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(3), 448–459.

64.

Leiber

Brubaker

S. J.

Fox

(2009). A closer look at the individual and joint effects of gender and race on juvenile justice decision making. Feminist Criminology, 4, 333–358.

65.

Leiber

M. J.

Peck

J. H.

Beaudry-Cyr

(2016). When does race and gender matter? The interrelationships between the gender of probation officers and juvenile court detention and intake outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 614–641.

66.

Leve

L. D.

Chamberlain

Kim

H. K.

(2015). Risks, outcomes, and evidence-based interventions for girls in the US juvenile justice system. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 18(3), 252–279.

67.

(2013). Little’s test of missing completely at random. The Stata Journal, 13(4), 795–809.

68.

Linehan

M. M.

(1993). Skills training manual for treating borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.

69.

Lin

Chi

Wang

Heath

M. A.

Fang

(2016). Child maltreatment and interpersonal relationship among Chinese children with oppositional defiant disorder. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 192–202.

70.

Lowery

P. G.

(2019). Plea bargains among serious and violent girls: An intersectional approach exploring race in the juvenile court. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 115–139.

71.

Mallicoat

S. L.

(2007). Gendered justice: Attributional differences between males and females in the juvenile courts. Feminist Criminology, 2(1), 4–30.

72.

Marsh

S. C.

Evans

W. P.

Williams

M. J.

(2010). Social support and sense of program belonging discriminate between youth-staff relationship types in juvenile correction settings. In Child & youth care forum (Vol. 39(6), pp. 481–494). Springer.

73.

McKenna

N. C.

Golladay

K. A.

Holtfreter

(2020). Integrating general strain theory and trauma-informed principles into the study of older adult victimization. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 21(2), 187–200.

74.

McKenna

N. C.

Holtfreter

(2020). Trauma-informed courts: A review and integration of justice perspectives and gender responsiveness. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1747128

75.

Miller

(2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York University Press.

76.

Moore

L. D.

Padavic

(2010). Racial and ethnic disparities in girls’ sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 263–285.

77.

Morash

Stevens

Yingling

(2014). Focus on the family: Juvenile court responses to girls and their caretakers. Feminist Criminology, 9(4), 298–322.

78.

Morris

E. W.

(2007). ‘‘Ladies’’ or ‘‘Loudies’’? Perceptions and experiences of Black girls in classrooms. Youth and Society, 38, 490–515.

79.

Morrison

T. G.

Sheahan

E. E.

(2009). Gender-related discourses as mediators in the association between internalization of the thin-body ideal and indicants of body dissatisfaction and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(4), 374–383.

80.

Nanda

(2011). Blind discretion: Girls of color & delinquency in the juvenile justice system. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1502–1539.

81.

Pardini

D. A.

Fite

P. J.

(2010). Symptoms of conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and callous-unemotional traits as unique predictors of psychosocial maladjustment in boys: Advancing an evidence base for DSM-V. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(11), 1134–1144.

82.

Pollack

(2007). “I’m just not good in relationships”: Victimization discourses and the gendered regulation of criminalized women. Feminist Criminology, 2(2), 158–174.

83.

Reckdenwald

Parker

K. F.

(2012). Understanding the change in male and female intimate partner homicide over time: A policy-and theory-relevant investigation. Feminist Criminology, 7(3), 167–195.

84.

Remen

A. L.

(2000). Silencing the self: An examination of a theoretical explanation for depression in women. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(12-B), 6380.

85.

Roth

P. L.

(1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 47(3), 537–560.

86.

Sadeh

Javdani

Finy

M. S.

Verona

(2011). Gender differences in emotional risk for self-and other-directed violence among externalizing adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(1), 106–117.

87.

Shulman

E. P.

Bechtold

Kelly

E. L.

Cauffman

(2018). Mental health screening in juvenile justice settings: Evaluating the utility of the Massachusetts youth screening instrument, Version 2. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(8), 849–872.

88.

Sichel

C. E.

Burson

Javdani

Godfrey

E. B.

(2019). Theorizing safety informed settings: Supporting staff at youth residential facilities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3–4), 405–417.

89.

Sickmund

Puzzanchera

(2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report. National Center for Juvenile Justice. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2014/downloads/NR2014.pdf

90.

Snyder

H. N.

Sickmund

(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

91.

Spinazzola

Stocking

V. V.

(1998). Psychometric Properties of a Revised Silencing the Self Scale (STSS) for use with adolescents. CA.

92.

Stewart

S. L.

Thornley

Lapshina

Erickson

Vingilis

Hamilton

Kolla

(2020). Sex differences in youth with mental health problems in inpatient, outpatient and youth justice settings. BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), 1–16.

93.

Tomich

P. L.

Helgeson

V. S.

(2012). Posttraumatic growth following cancer: Links to quality of life. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(5), 567–573.

94.

Vaillancourt-Morel

M. P.

Bergeron

Blais

Hébert

(2019). Longitudinal associations between childhood sexual abuse, silencing the self, and sexual self-efficacy in adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(7), 2125–2135.

95.

Wattanaporn

K. A.

Holtfreter

(2014). The impact of feminist pathways research on gender-responsive policy and practice. Feminist Criminology, 9(3), 191–207.

96.

Watts

R. J.

Griffith

D. M.

Abdul-Adil

(1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression—theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 255–271.

97.

Watts

R. J.

Williams

N. C.

Jagers

R. J.

(2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1–2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023091024140

98.

Weinberg

S. L.

Abramowitz

S. K.

(2008). Statistics using SPSS: An integrative approach (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press.

99.

Welch-Brewer

C. L.

Stoddard-Dare

Mallett

C. A.

(2011). Race, substance abuse, and mental health disorders as predictors of juvenile court outcomes: Do they vary by gender? Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28(3), 229–241.

100.

Westphal

Leahy

R. L.

Pala

A. N.

Wupperman

(2016). Self-compassion and emotional invalidation mediate the effects of parental indifference on psychopathology. Psychiatry Research, 242, 186–191.

101.

Whiffen

V. E.

Foot

M. L.

Thompson

J. M.

(2007). Self-silencing mediates the link between marital conflict and depression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(6), 993–1006.

102.

Widman

Welsh

D. P.

McNulty

J. K.

Little

K. C.

(2006). Sexual communication and contraceptive use in adolescent dating couples. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(6), 893–899.