Contact with other survivors is a way of reinforcing reattribution of blame. Learning how other survivors were engaged in the abuse, why they maintained their secret, and how they dealt with issues of responsibility can help clients more easily come to accept that they were not responsible for their own abuse. One way of learning about the experiences of other survivors is by reading about their lives. This can initially be less threatening than speak�ing personally with other survivors and is often done by survivors prior to entering group counselling.
Involvement in groups with other survivors of childhood sexual abuse is another powerful way to reinforce new perceptions. In groups, survivors often find that the engagement and secrecy strategies used by their offenders and family were similar to those used in other families. Cordy (1983) reported that members in her group identified a 'central motif', which was that offenders frequently used brainwashing (e.g. convincing the child she had solicited the abuse) as a method of ensuring the child's silence and continued participation in the sexual abuse activities.
Discussing issues of responsibility, engagement processes, 'why me?' issues, and secret keeping within the group setting can be especially useful. Survivors find they can appreciate the fact that their peers were not to blame, had reasons for keeping the secret, and were powerless to stop the abuse. Because it is easier to be 'objective' when evaluating the abuse situations of others, this process can reinforce survivors' developing beliefs about their own abuse.
Reframing the abuse experience, especially the reattribution of blame, can be reinforced with techniques involving vicarious or actual encounters with the offender or with significant others. These techniques include role playing, letter writing, and planned confrontations.
After survivors have worked on reframing the abuse emotionally and cognitively from an adult perspective, it is helpful if they can assert their new beliefs experientially. When the survivor can vicariously verbalize a new belief to the offender or to important others, it can serve both to reaffirm the belief and to further integrate the affect associated with the belief. Role playing may be done by using the Gestalt empty-chair technique, in which the survivor is asked to imagine the offender or other person sitting before them. They can prepare a state -ment summarizing their new beliefs or discoveries, their feelings associated with these dis�coveries, and any questions they may have for the other individual before carrying out the role play. It is important for survivors to process their feelings and reactions to this experience as the role playing can be very powerful. Examples of role play scenarios may include:
* a female survivor telling her father that she now realizes that as a five-year-old child she was too young to initiate the abuse. Therefore, she was not a 'seductive little thing,' as he had always called her;
* a male survivor telling his uncle, the perpetrator, that although he did experience sexual arousal during the abusive experi�ences, he did not enjoy or seek the sexual activity. The survivor expresses his anger toward the offender, reaffirms his sexual preference, and then tells his uncle that he (the survivors no longer needs to hide his feelings behind a 'macho' image;
* a female survivor listing to her mother all the reasons she kept the abuse by her father secret for so many years. She expresses disappointment that her mother was not perceptive enough to see, or strong enough to admit, that the abuse was occurring.
A similar technique to reaffirm new beliefs is the use of the unsent letter (Faria and Belohlavek, 1984; Hall and Lloyd, 1989; Joy, 1987). Survivors write a letter to the offender or to others with whom they wish to share their new beliefs regarding the abuse. This technique is effective for survivors who find the empty-chair technique too threatening or for survivors who find its dramatic aspects too awkward. The letter remains unsent, as this allows survivors to express their thoughts and feelings without concern for the other's reaction. As with the role play, it is important that the counsellor process the experience with survivors by exploring what it was like for them to write the letter and what feelings were associated with the experience. (Actually mailing the letter involves issues similar to confrontation, which is discussed below.) Survivors may wish to keep the letter in a safe place and add to it as they continue to develop new beliefs or experience new feelings.
Confronting the perpetrator can be a powerful opportunity for survivors to assert their new beliefs and perceptions of the abuse experience. Because confronting the perpetrator has many ramifications for the healing process of survivors, it should be discussed thoroughly in counselling before the confrontation occurs (Agosta and Loring, 1988; Hall and Lloyd, 1989; Swanson and Biaggio, 1985).
Agosta and Loring (1988) have stressed that the decision to confront the perpetrator must originate with survivors them�selves, since it is imperative that the confrontation be their choice. It is also important for survivors to realize that a confrontation with the offender is not a prerequisite to healing; rather, it is an experience that can be very beneficial for some survivors. Con�frontation is most successful when survivors use it to assert, rather than to test out, their new insights related to the sexual abuse. If survivors continue to struggle with denial, minimization, or self-blame, they are not ready to confront the offender, as the offender's response of denial, minimization, or blaming the survivor could be detrimental to the survivors' healing (Hall and Lloyd, 1989). Many survivors may harbour the hope, even with�out realizing it, that the offender will admit to the abuse, fully recognize the impact it has had, and ask for forgiveness. If sur�vivors can verbalize this hope, they often realize it is unrealistic and re-evaluate their need for the confrontation.
It is also helpful for clients to consider what feelings the con�frontation experience might provoke. Because a confrontation can evoke strong affective responses and at times a return of trauma symptomatology, survivors may need to provide for their self�care, safety, and self-nurturance.
In addition to an awareness of the emotional risks of a con�frontation to the survivor, counsellors, due in large part to the false memory controversy, have become increasingly sensitive to issues of harm to third parties. Courtois stressed that counsellors should not advise any action with the potential to harm others, such as confrontation, but should explore the advantages and disadvantages of such actions:
Counsellors may assist the client to prepare for a confrontation if he or she continues to express the desire for this after carefully considering all ramifications; has progressed significantly with issues of denial, minimization, and self-blame; and is not moti�vated by hope of the offender's contrition. Clients must first decide how they would like to confront the offender (face to face, over the phone, by sending a letter). The pros and cons of each of these approaches should be discussed. Sending a letter may be less threatening, but may leave the survivor wondering whether the letter was received and what the offender's response was. It is, nonetheless, often the method used when the survivor and the offender have been estranged for some time and the survivor does not desire personal contact. Confrontation over the phone can be less threatening than a face-to-face confrontation and is safer if violence by the offender is a concern. However, the survivor is not privy to the offender's non-verbal responses and the offender can easily choose to hang up the phone at any time.
(Lionel Richie - "Truely")
