Moderated Mark's Response To Trauma Essay

• One primary contextual factor that moderated Mark’s response to trauma was his perceived responsibility for the trauma (i.e., culpability). As such, the events of the Marketplace Incident negatively impacted him because he believed he could have taken control of the situation, but he failed to do so, which resulted in innocent people losing their lives. While we are unable to know for sure if firing on the car would have stopped the Marketplace Incident from occurring, Mark believes that to be true. Therefore, part of the reason this traumatic event was the most impactful is related to Mark’s perception of controllability.
• Another impactful contextual factor is the multitude of traumatic experiences Mark has been exposed to. Although Mark did not know his father well, his father’s death could have been somewhat traumatic, as Mark was only 8-years-old when he died. In addition, Mark’s mother was physically and verbally abusive towards him and his sister. Mark’s next traumatic experience occurred in 1989 whereby he sustained shrapnel wounds

as the result of a mortar round explosion. Mark experienced two subsequent traumatic experiences during his 2006 deployment, and finally experienced the Marketplace Incident. Therefore, the rule of multiplicity tells us that repeated exposures to trauma are likely to have a greater impact on individuals’ traumatic stress response.
• Two cultural factors that likely impacted Mark’s trauma response is his exposure to military culture, as well as his environment between when he left home and joined the military.

Specifically, Mark ran away from home and bounced around multiple foster care homes, which likely led him to believe he could not trust many people and he could only rely on himself. Similarly, the military culture can be known for having a ‘macho’ attitude whereby individuals (specifically males for this example) may feel emasculated if they admit to having mental complications related to their combat experience. Mark’s likely identification to military culture and his belief that he can only rely on himself and not trust anyone, then, likely increased the effects of his traumatic stressors because Mark may have felt ‘weak’ for admitting he needed help, and/or he may have felt like he had to rely on himself to solve his own

problems.
• One cultural factor that likely (or will likely) decrease the effects of Mark’s traumatic stressors is his support system (i.e., Amy). Although Amy reported that she has recently become afraid to go out in public with him, which is actually negative in the sense she is participating in his avoidance behaviors, she is the one who requested that Mark see a therapist. Up to this point, Mark has experienced many negative symptoms associated to his traumatic experiences. However, since Amy appears to truly care about him and his well-being, she insisted he see a therapist. Therefore, her support for him and his recovery will hopefully help Mark see a significant decrease in the effects of his traumatic stressors.
• A final contextual factor that may have influenced Mark’s response to his traumatic experiences, is his mother’s history of mental illness. Specifically, Mark’s mother was diagnosed with PTSD, secondary to multiple domestic violence altercations with Mark’s father, prior to Mark’s birth. As such, Mark’s response to traumatic stressors may have a significant genetic component, as genetic factors can increase the risk of developing PTSD after an exposure to a traumatic stressor between 30 and 72 percent. Specific genetic altercations can include hypersensitivity to stress due to low levels of GABA, an elevated startle response to stressors, a smaller hippocampus, or inefficient communication pathways between prefrontal cortex and limbic system. While we are unable to determine if or how Mark’s genetics impacted his response to traumatic stressors, it is highly likely they played a prominent role in his development of PTSD or ASD.