Anger, Guilt, and Intergenerational Communication of Trauma in the

Interpersonal Narratives of Second Generation Holocaust Survivors

Hadas Wiseman, PhD, and Einat Metzl, MA
University of Haifa, Israel
Jacques P. Barber, PhD
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania
School of Medicine
The nature and expression of anger and guilt in sons and daughters of Holocaust survivors were studied
by a quantitative and qualitative analysis of relationship narratives. Findings are discussed in relation to
the reciprocal overprotectiveness between the surviving parents and their children in the context of
intergenerational communication of trauma.
Keywords: Holocaust, emotional-trauma, parent-child communication, narratives, second generation
The interpersonal aspects of emotion and the inseparability of
emotion and interpersonal communication have been stressed by
researchers of emotion and communication (e.g., Andersen &
Guerrero, 1998; Miller & Leary, 1992; Izard, 1992). Although
emotions can exist apart from interpersonal interactions and may
arise without social and communicational stimulus, they are often
an outcome of past, current, or imagined social interactions taking
place in the context of interpersonal relationships. In close rela-
tionships especially, interpersonal communication is the primary
elicitor of most emotions (Guerrero & Anderson, 2000). The focus
of the present study is on the emotional experiences of anger and
guilt in the close relationships of sons and daughters of Holocaust
survivors as they relate to the nature and quality of their interper-
sonal communication. We propose that the nature and quality of
trauma-specific interpersonal communication between the
survivor-parents and their children has played a role in the emo-
tional experiences of their sons and daughters.
A key aspect assumed to be involved in the intergenerational
transmission of various traumas in the descendants of those who
suffered them is the quality of familial communication about the
forbears traumatic experiences (Danieli, 1998). Intergenerational
communication patterns between parents who experienced various
traumas and their offspring have been described in families of
Holocaust survivors (Felsen, 1998; Auerhahn & Laub, 1998),
Japanese American Internment camps (Nagata, 1998), Dutch war
sailors and resistance veterans (Op den Velde, 1998), and Vietnam
veterans (Ancharoff, Munroe, & Fisher, 1998). These studies
suggest that the quality of familial communication (verbal and
nonverbal) about the parents traumatic experiences may have
major consequences for their childrens inner and interpersonal
lives.
An intergenerational communication pattern referred to as the
conspiracy of silence has been found to be prevalent in families
of survivors (Danieli, 1998). The conspiracy of silence refers to a
nonverbal agreement in the family of keeping some traumatic
experiences unspoken and detached from everyday life. It ema-
nated not only from the parents need to forget and to adjust to new
social contexts, but also from their belief that withholding infor-
mation about the horrors of the Holocaust was crucial to their
childrens normal development (Bar-On, Eland, Kleber, Krell,
Moore, Sagi, et al., 1998). Their children, in turn, often became
sensitive to their parents need to keep silent. In consequence, a
double wall of silence developed that was mutually maintained
by both generations (Bar-On, 1995): parents do not tell, and
children do not ask (Bar-On, 1996, p. 168).
Studying trauma-related communication patterns in offspring of
Holocaust survivors (HSO), Wiseman, Barber, Raz, Yam, Foltz &
Snir (2002) identified a pattern characterized by offsprings non-
verbal knowledge of their parents Holocaust experiences coupled
with little or no verbal knowledge of it. This familial communi-
cation pattern, which was called knowing and not knowing
(Jucovy, 1985), was found to be related to distinct interpersonal
patterns in close relationships in adulthood (Wiseman et al., 2002).
It is our contention that the familial communication of trauma
forms the context for understanding the dynamics involved in the
emotional experiences of second generation Holocaust survivors.
Guerren and Anderson (2000) grouped social emotions into 4
broad interpersonal clusters: affectionate, self-conscious, melan-
cholic, and hostile. These authors suggest that the 4 clusters are
embedded within social contexts and help shape and define the
nature of close relationships. In the present study the intergenera-
tional communication of trauma experienced by HSO was consid-
ered specifically in relation to the social emotions of anger and
guilt in response to their parents. These emotions belong to the
hostile and self-conscious clusters, respectively. We now review
Hadas Wiseman, PhD, Einat Metzl, MA, University of, Haifa, Israel,
and Jacques P. Barber, PhD, University of Pennsylvania School of Medi-
cine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
This study was presented in part at the 11th International Conference on
Personal Relationships, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, July 2002. It was
supported in part by the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation
(BSF Grant 94-00199) to Hadas Wiseman and Jacques P. Barber. The
authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable help and input of Dr. Carol
Foltz, University of Pennsylvania, and of Alon Raz, Idit Yam, Sharon Snir,
Nurit Gur, and the research assistants of the Second-Generation Project,
University of Haifa.
For reprints and correspondence: Hadas Wiseman, PhD, Faculty of
Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel Haifa 31905, Israel. E-mail:
hadasw@construct.haifa.ac.il
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 76, No. 2, 176184 0002-9432/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0002-9432.76.2.176
176
briefly the literature on the nature and expression of these emo-
tions in general, and the findings on HSO specifically.
Anger
Anger is one of the most common and frequent emotions expe-
rienced by human beings (Canary, Spitzberg, & Semic, 1998).
Anger maybe felt outside social interactions, but mostly it is an
outcome of troubled interpersonal circumstances (Guerrero &
Andersen, 2000). The origins of anger are found in self-protective
instincts in the context of interpersonal aggression. People become
angry when others insult, reject, criticize, or aggress toward them
(Andersen & Guerrero, 1998), or when their relatives are being
hurt; even a person faced with an injustice may grow angry
(Lazarus, 1991). In most situations, when someone feels anger he
or she will try to deal with the injury by responding with anger
against another person, which creates an uncomfortable climate for
problem-solving and further hinders interpersonal communication.
Being one of the strongest emotions in its impact, anger may cause
damage and present interpersonal danger (Guerrero & Andersen,
2000). Anger may put a person at risk if he or she expresses it, and
this may cause him/her to conceal it, consciously or unconsciously,
or even shift it to a different person who constitutes no threat.
Nevertheless, being able to express anger calmly, rather than
inhibiting it or resorting to aggression, is an important relational
skill (Guerrero, 1994).
Studies on sons and daughters of Holocaust survivors have
documented the difficulties in the expression of anger and the
regulation of aggression in this group. Clinical reports have sug-
gested that survivors children were overvalued and overprotected
by their parents (Jucovy, 1992). The survivors perceived their
children as a source of new hope and meaning and expected them
to be a form of restitution for the families, aspirations, and com-
munities that were lost in the Holocaust (Nadler, Kav-Venaki, &
Gleitman, 1985; Russell, 1980). The childrens sensitivity to their
parents suffering led to a guilt-ridden protectiveness of the par-
ents. Thus, acting out aggression toward the parents became prob-
lematic, as did acknowledgment of aggression and conflict in
general (Wanderman, 1976; Danieli, 1983). A study using a pro-
jective test with a nonclinical sample of Israeli HSO (in their late
twenties) found that compared with a non-HSO group, the HSO
group was less likely to externalize aggression (Nadler et al.,
1985).
Guilt
In contrast to traditional theories, which depict guilt as an
intrapersonal phenomenon based on self-judgment, contemporary
researchers on emotions (e.g., Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton,
1995; Jones, Kugler, & Adams, 1995) view guilt as an interper-
sonal phenomenon based in close relationships, especially in cer-
tain interactions with intimate partners. According to this view,
although people may experience guilt when they are alone, the
source of this unpleasant emotion is mostly interpersonal worries
and problems (Baumeister, Reis, & Delespal, 1995) or interper-
sonal situations and relationships (Tangney, 1992). Generally,
people tend to feel guilty when they gain something in an improper
manner, cause damage, loss, distress or disappointment to a sig-
nificant other, or fail to help him/her (Vangelisti & Sprague, 1998).
Guilt involves empathic distress for the suffering of ones partner
or victim (Hoffman, 1982), and separation or exclusion anxiety
over the possible loss or damage to the relationship caused by
ones transgression (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994;
Bowlby, 1973). Guilt, therefore, serves as an interpersonal protec-
tor: maintaining and strengthening relationships.
A special case relevant to the present study is guilt felt by a
person who bears no responsibility for any transgression. For
example, children may take responsibility for aggression or hos-
tility between their parents. Sexually abused children may feel
guilty even though they are clearly not the transgressor but the
victims (e.g., Lamb, 1986). In the case of Holocaust survivors, the
phenomenon termed survivor guilt (Lifton, 1967) was described
as feelings of guilt for outliving loved ones, though the survivors
themselves were victims of the atrocities but somehow managed to
survive. It has been suggested that HSO are prone to feelings of
guilt on 2 accounts: the parents feelings of guilt may have been
transmitted to their children; and the children may feel guilty
toward their parents because of the parents suffering even though
the HSO are not responsible for it. Higher levels of guilt feelings
may go hand in hand with inhibition of the expression of aggres-
sion and anger (Nadler et al., 1985), and greater difficulty in anger
resolution (Solomon, 1998).
Reviewing studies on HSO that were conducted in North Amer-
ica, Felsen (1998) concluded that although the psychological func-
tioning of HSO has been found to be within the normative range,
a picture of certain typical characteristics emerges. It includes
difficulties around separation-individuation, greater proneness to
anxiety, depressive experiences, and psychosomatic complaints.
Specifically with regard to anger and guilt, she notes difficulties in
expressing emotions (especially hostile ones), difficulties in the
expression of aggressive impulses and assertive behavior, and
higher feelings of guilt (Felsen, 1998). Previous studies on anger
and guilt in HSO usually relied on self-report measures (e.g.,
Weiss, OConnell, & Siiter, 1986) and some employed projective
techniques (e.g., Nadler et al., 1985). In this study we set out to
study the patterns of anger in guilt by means of narrative method-
ology in a nonclinical sample of randomly selected HSO adults.
Researchers studying the intergenerational transmission of the
Holocaust trauma (Bar-On et al., 1998; Sagi-Schwartz, van IJzen-
doorn, Grossmann, Joels, Grossman, Scharf, et al., 2002; Solkoff,
1992; Solomon, 1998) have underscored the methodological issues
of subject selection and the use of sensitive measurement tools.
Studying Anger and Guilt in HSO by Means of Narrative
Methodology
The need to rely on narrative methodology to study such a
complex phenomenon as intergenerational transmission of trauma
has been suggested by a number of researchers (e.g., Bar-On et al.,
1998; Wiseman & Barber, 2004). In the present study we applied
the clinician-rated Core Conflictual Relationship Theme method
(CCRT) to narratives that were collected by employing the Rela-
tionship Anecdotes Paradigm (RAP) interview. Interviewees are
asked to tell stories of meaningful interpersonal interactions with
significant others (Barber, Foltz, DeRubeis, & Landis, 2002; Lu-
borsky, 1998). In the CCRT method (Luborsky, 1977; Luborsky &
Crits-Christoph, 1998 3) components of central relationship pat-
terns are assessed: a persons wish, need, or intention (W); an
177
ANGER, GUILT, AND COMMUNICATION OF TRAUMA
actual, anticipated, or fantasized response from other (RO); and an
experienced, anticipated, or fantasized response of the self (RS) in
the form of thought, emotion, behavior, or symptom (for more
information on the CCRT, see Luborsky & Crits-Christoph, 1998).
The wishes, ROs, and RSs are inferred from the narratives that the
person told about his or her specific interactions with other people.
Thus, in the CCRT framework emotions are most notably consid-
ered part of the response of self (e.g., I am angry), and they may
also appear in the responses of the other (other is angry). In the
present study the interpersonal aspects of anger and guilt were
examined in the relational narratives that sons and daughter of
Holocaust survivors told about recollected meaningful interper-
sonal interactions with their parents. Studying these emotions by
means of narrative methodology is in keeping with the recent use
of the autobiographical-narrative methodology in studies on emo-
tions, particularly anger and guilt (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995).
To study the relational narratives in HSO that involved feelings
of anger and guilt in response to their parents, we adopted a
quantitative as well as a qualitative approach to the analysis of the
narratives. The quantitative analysis was aimed to examine asso-
ciations in the CCRT ratings that evolved around feelings of anger
and guilt in the relational narratives. It consisted of testing inter-
correlations in the ratings of the CCRT themes that seemed most
relevant according to the literature on anger and guilt in HSO
reviewed above: responses of self (RS) of anger, guilt, and
avoiding confrontation; responses of other (RO) of the parents
being controlling, vulnerable, and angry; and wishes (W)
toward the parents to assert self and to be understood. The
qualitative analysis was aimed to further explore these relational
themes in order to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics
involved in the experiences of anger and guilt in HSO, while
taking into account the role of familial communication of the
parents traumas.
Method
Participants
The sample included 52 HSO (26 men and 26 women) born to mothers
who were survivors of Nazi concentration camps. They ranged in age from
31 to 46 years (M 39.35, SD 3.43), and were recruited from a random
sample of Israeli-born Jewish men and women whose parents migrated to
Israel from Eastern European countries after 1945. The inclusion criterion
for this sample of HSO, namely that the mother was a survivor of a Nazi
concentration camp, was intended to reduce heterogeneity in the mothers
Holocaust experiences (Danieli, 1983). Regarding the fathers of this sam-
ple, 67% were also of a Holocaust background (37% were also survivors
of concentration camps). In marital status, 94.2% of the participants were
married with children, and the mean number of children they had at the
time of the study was 2.75 (SD .87). Mean years of education was M
15.12 (SD 2.49).
Measures
Relationship Anecdotes Paradigm (RAP) interviews. The narratives of
the emotional events were collected through the Relationship Anecdotes
Paradigm (RAP) interview (Luborsky, 1998). Initially, in studies employ-
ing the clinician-rated CCRT, its 3 components (wishes, responses of other,
responses of self) were identified only from relational narratives told
spontaneously in psychotherapy sessions (Luborsky & Crits-Christoph,
1998). Later, Luborsky (1998) developed the RAP as a method to elicit
narratives that could be used to identify the CCRT components as with
narratives drawn from psychotherapy sessions. This method of interview-
ing enabled researchers to study narratives outside the therapeutic sessions
and to study narratives in individuals who were not in psychotherapy.
The instructions for administration of the RAP interview are as follows:
Please tell me some incidents or events, each about an interaction between
yourself in relation to another person . . . (the entire set of instructions is
found in Luborsky, 1998; p. 110). The accounts have to be about specific
incidents, not amalgams of several incidents. For each specific incident the
interviewee is asked to say when it occurred, who was the other person it
was with, something of what the other person said or did, something of
what the interviewee said or did, and what happened in the end. The RAP
instructions indicate that the event in the narrative . . .has to be about a
specific event that was personally important or a problem to you in some
way (Luborsky, 1998; p. 110). The total time for each interviewees RAP
interview, which usually covers 10 such incidents (relationship episodes
[REs]), is 30 to 50 min.
Barber, Luborsky, Crits-Christoph, and Diguer (1995) showed that in a
sample of depressed patients the CCRTs obtained from the RAP interviews
conducted before therapy started were quite similar to those obtained by
independent judges from early therapy sessions. In other words, by obtain-
ing narratives with this method of interviewing, we are able to elicit
personally relevant narrative materials similar to the kind of narratives that
could have been obtained in psychotherapy sessions.
In Luborskys original RAP interview, the participant was free to tell
about 10 interactions with any other person he or she chose. However, the
instructions regarding who the other person in the relational narrative
might be may vary as a function of the purpose of the interview (Barber et
al., 2002). In the present study participants were asked to tell 2 REs for
each of the following 5 relationships: mother, father, spouse/partner, same-
sex friend, and child (or nephew or niece in the few cases where subjects
had no children). Once transcribed, judges trained in the CCRT method
rated these narratives using the set of CCRT standard categories (Ws, ROs,
and RSs) developed for research purposes (Barber, Crits-Christoph, &
Luborsky, 1998).
CCRT standard categories (Barber et al., 2002). The standard cate-
gories provide judges with a common language that enables the researcher
to study interviewees CCRTs quantitatively. The complete rating form
includes standard categories for rating wishes (33 categories), responses of
other (24 categories), and responses of self (23 categories). The judges rate
the extent to which the interpersonal theme/category appeared in the
narratives on a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by not present (1) and
very much present (7). The 7-point rating scale allows judges to capture
the presence of specific standard categories and makes it possible to
average the ratings made by different judges. For the purpose of the present
study, based on the literature review, we decided to include in our quan-
titative analysis eight categories (3 RSs, 3 ROs, and 2 Ws): (1) RS feeling
angry; (2) RS feeling guilt; (3) RS avoiding conflict or confrontation;
(4) RO controlling (controlling, rigid, does not understand); (5) RO
vulnerable (vulnerable, anxious, out of control, worried, cannot be relied
on); (6) RO angry; (7) W to assert self and be independent; and (8) W
to be understood. The quantitative analysis of the narratives was based
on the averaged scores that the 2 judges assigned to these CCRT categories
for the REs that participants told about interpersonal events with their
mother and with their father (2 REs concerning each parent).
CCRT reliabilities. Interjudge reliabilities for each category were com-
puted by an interclass correlation (ICC) formula with 2 judges that corrects
for the bias because of each judge. This is the relevant ICC because of its
reliance on the mean of the 2 judges as the final score in each category
(Barber et al., 2002). The ICCs were computed across the 5 relationship
referents that were included in the RAP interviews. The ICCs for the 8
CCRT categories used in the present study ranged from .65 to .88, with a
median of .72. These ICCs are at an acceptable level and indicate that we
178
WISEMAN, METZL, AND BARBER
were successful in obtaining reliable ratings of the CCRT categories for the
REs in this nonclinical sample.
Procedure
Training and rating process. The CCRT judges in this study were 7
graduate students in clinical psychology and counseling psychology with at
least 1 to 2 years of practicum experience. They all trained in the CCRT
method (including a number of training sessions with a CCRT expert who
oversaw the process) and reached a level of acceptable agreement. After
starting to rate the materials, they held regular meetings to refine certain
categories and to correct for drift in the use of the categories. The RAP
interviews were fully transcribed. Two raters were trained to bracket the
interviews into REs, indicating the beginning and ending of each RE, and
they also indicated the referent of each RE. All RAPs were rated by 2 (out
of the 7) independent judges.
The narrative qualitative analysis. Two primary judges (the 1st and
2nd authors) and two other judges read the narratives of the HSO group.
Judges made independent notes referring to the themes that emerged. The
final analysis that focused on the narratives of anger and guilt was con-
ducted by the 2 primary judges together with 1 of the other judges by going
over all the notes and arriving at core themes (Hill, Thompson, & Williams,
1997).
Results
The Quantitative Picture
The quantitative analysis was conducted on the ratings of the
CCRT categories, referring to RSs of anger, guilt, and avoid-
ing confrontation (in response to the parents); ROs of the parents
(controlling, vulnerable, and angry); and Ws toward the parents
(to assert self and to be understood). Table 1 presents the inter-
correlations among the ratings on these 8 CCRT categories.
With regard to anger, the correlations obtained for the RS
feeling angry and the RO that we tested indicated that perceiving
the parents as controlling (RO) was highly associated (r .50,
p .001) with feeling angry (RS). In contrast, there was no
association between perceiving the parent as vulnerable (RO)
and feeling angry (r .01, ns). The correlation between an
angry parent (RO) and an angry response of self (RS) was not
significant (r .15, ns). The wishes to assert self and to be
understood both correlated significantly with the RS feeling
angry (r .42, p .01 and r .37, p .01, respectively).
With regard to guilt, the correlations obtained for the RS feel-
ing guilt and the RO that we tested indicated that perceiving the
parents as vulnerable (RO) was correlated positively with feelings
of guilt (r .27, p .05).
Considering the RS avoidance of confrontation, the correla-
tion between RO controlling parents and the RS avoiding
conflict was significant (r .36, p .01). As can be seen in
Table 1, the wish to assert self also correlated significantly with
avoidance of conflict (RS). Finally, there was a positive correlation
between avoiding conflict with the parents and feelings of guilt
(r .27, p .05).
The Qualitative Picture
The qualitative report that follows includes examples from the
narratives that the HSO told that demonstrate the association
between the themes. In considering these examples further we
focused on the familial communication patterns of the parents
trauma as a context for the understanding the HSOs experiences
of anger and guilt in their interactions with their parents.
Anger in the Relational Narratives
The relatively strong associations found between perceiving the
other as controlling (RO) and feeling angry (RS) can be clearly
demonstrated in the narratives. The parents controlling behaviors
often revolved around situations in daily life in which their ex-
treme overprotective behaviors and fears for the childs safety
became a burden on the child, and anger would evolve.
A daughter describes her struggles with her mothers insistence
on making her eat: It was so important for her that I eat, and it was
so important for me not to eat. . .I was mad at her. . .why is she
making me eat. . .I was afraid she would catch me and make me
eat. . .she simply chased after me through the street and I ran and
hid. . . This interviewee says that she knew her mother meant
well, and that she was acting out of her excessive worrying, but she
states in the interview that despite that knowledge it made her
angry.
A similar situation is described by a son, but in this case the
anger arose only later in life: My mother used to dress me and
feed me with a spoon until the age of 10. He remembers himself
as enjoying the extra care at the time, but later in life I became
angry about it as I became aware of the costs of such a
relationship.
The burden of the parents worries is expressed, for example, by
an interviewee who describes feeling angry when before every
Table 1
Intercorrelations Among the CCRT Ratings of the Relational Narratives
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. RS-anger
2. RS-guilt .22
3. RS-avoid conflict .31* .27*
4. RO-vulnerable .01 .27* .01
5. RO-controlling .50*** .14 .36** .02
6. RO-angry .15 .15 .11 .23 .72***
7. Wish-to assert self .42** .18 .27* .13 .46** .03
8. Wish-to be understood .37** .16 .24 .22 .53*** .22 .44***
Note. n 52; RS Response of Self; RO Response of Other.
* p .05. **p .01. ***p .001
179
ANGER, GUILT, AND COMMUNICATION OF TRAUMA
school trip, or camp of the youth movement, her father told her:
. . .every time you go on a trip I get more white hair. She adds:
Today, as a mother, I try to hide my worries from my children and
to give them their freedom. Although this woman tells the inter-
viewer that she felt angry, it is also clear from in her description of
the interaction with her father that she did not express her anger
toward him directly.
The lack of feelings of anger of the HSO toward the parent, in
situations where the parent is described as angry (see Table 1), can
be seen in the following account of a son that describes an episode
that he recalls from adolescence (age 1516) in which his father
was angry with him about something he did: He came home from
work and was terribly angry with me. . .he took my radio and
threw it on the floor and broke it to pieces that scattered all over.
Then the interviewee explains: My father had nervous attacks
sometimes. . .I do not remember what I did, but I remember that
what I had done that upset him was not as extreme as his ac-
tion. . . . I felt horrible. . .I was hurt. I did not understand his
reaction.
In this example the son seems not to have been angry with his
father, or at least he does not say in the RAP that he felt angry.
However, he does state that he felt hurt. He appears to perceive his
fathers reaction as not really connected to his own behavior and
seems puzzled by his fathers aggressive overreaction toward him.
His own lack of reaction at the time is apparent, in that he
swallowed his hurt. This is an example of how the father is
allowed to be angry and to express his anger, while the son, who
indicates that the fathers aggressive reaction was unjust (which is
expected to elicit anger in response), allows himself to feel
mostly hurt. This is a less overt and threatening emotion than anger
toward his father. Here, as in other narratives of the HSO, the child
seems to have perceived the parent as losing control and as fragile.
This is in keeping with the lack of association that we found
between perceiving the other as vulnerable (RO) and feeling angry.
The difficulty of HSO to communicate their frustration toward
their parents can be seen in an RE regarding a mother. She tells her
daughter over the phone to be home early from a party, even before
the party, which she had actively helped to prepare, had begun.
The RAP interviewer tried to get the daughter to say more about
her response to the mothers demand. The interviewee replied: I
cried, I had tears in my eyes. . .it was the feeling that you were not
given freedom. All the time you are trapped by the rigid family
system. To further questioning about what happened in the end,
she responded: I went back home! Like a good girl at 8:00 PM (8,
0, 0), and I did not utter a word about it. In this situation, which
would be expected to elicit anger, the daughter did not even try to
communicate her frustration to her mother; her anger and pain over
not being given freedom is muted. This tendency not to express
the anger in words or in action seemed to characterize the reactions
of HSO to their parents behavior, especially when the behavior
seemed puzzling or irrational.
The above RE also points to the frustration of the daughters
wish to assert herself with her mother, her wish to be understood,
and the difficulty to negotiate openly with her mother the time she
has to be home, so that she will not have to leave the party even
before it begins. This demonstrates the significant correlations that
were found between these wishes and feeling angry (see Table 1).
Finally, it is interesting that some of the HSO referred to their
difficulty in communicating openly with their parents in trying to
assert themselves and to be understood as a pattern that seemed to
extend generally to other close relationships. One woman indicated
that her spouse was a welcome exception to these difficulties: I do
not like arguing at all, and in fact. . .I argue only with him [the
spouse] because only with him do I feel comfortable. . .With my
mother I do not feel comfortable [confronting her], I do not want
to do her wrong. . .only with him am I not threatened. . .only with
him am I safe.
Guilt in the Relational Narratives
Studying the narratives qualitatively showed that the association
found between feelings of guilt (RS) and parents vulnerability
(RO) (see Table 1) usually appeared to involve a dynamic in which
the sons or daughters felt that they caused the parents undue worry
and pain. This was because of their not thinking enough about the
possible impact of pursuing their own wishes on their vulnerable
parents.
One of the women describes a memorable event in her late
adolescence when she took her fathers car for the night. After
meeting some friends she decided to park the car back at home and
then continued with her friends for an outing: The time was close
to 4 in the morning when I got back. . .I see light in the house. . .I
go in. . .My mother is crying. . .she woke up and saw I hadnt
come back yet. . . . She saw the car in the parking lot and thought
that something had happened. She started calling around to my
friends homes, saying that the child has been murdered. In
describing this RE the interviewee says that she felt very sad and
distressed when she realized how worried she made her parents
by not telling them where she was, especially as this was not the
norm at their home (In our family we always need to report where
we go and what we do). She adds: I realized what I had done;
there was tension, there was a lot of anger and accusations. . . . I
felt I had worried them and inflicted pain.
In this typical example, feeling guilty is an outcome of not being
on guard against parents anxieties and sensitivities. Often the
HSO were aware of these sensitivities and mostly managed to
prevent situations that could have hurt the parents. However, such
situations were at times inevitable, especially because it was im-
possible always to anticipate situations that could potentially touch
on the parents traumas. This seems to be particularly the case
when the parents trauma was not talked about openly and there
was silence about the survivors traumatic experiences.
In the following RE, a participant recalls an interaction between
him and his mother during his adolescence when he wanted her to
buy him an electric hand drill. His mother denied his request,
saying that she did not want to buy the drill because the noise
drives her crazy. He insisted: at the time I did not notice it so
much, I insisted. . . . I usually got everything I wanted. To his
surprise, so did she: I do not want a drill in the house, I do not
want this noise in the house. At the time his mother did not
explain why the noise drove her crazy. Only much later (about 2
years later) did his mother explain to him that during the Holo-
caust, she did forced labor. . .Her job was to drill all day long in the
tins. This noise, she said, I can not hear.
In retrospect, in telling and reflecting on this narrative this man
seems to feel guilty for insisting on getting what he wanted, while
not noticing that he had touched on his mothers traumatic mem-
ories, even though he did not know the reason for her response. His
180
WISEMAN, METZL, AND BARBER
feelings of guilt seem to suggest that he should have known the
reason even without being told and should have stopped insisting.
Another example of not guarding against the parents sensitiv-
ities and being caught by surprise in a situation that triggers the
parents traumatic past concerns a man who told an RE that
occurred when he was aged 18 and about to begin his mandatory
military service. As part of the regular screening process before
being drafted, he filled out some questionnaires in which he was
asked to provide personal details about his parents. Soon after, an
army official came to their home without any advance notice to
interview the parents:
My mother went into a panic and hysteria. . . . She burst out
crying, started shouting. His mothers reaction made him feel
guilty for unknowingly putting her in what turned out to be a
stressful situation, as she always connects the army with killings
and war. He regretted that he had provided direct and detailed
information about his parents in the questionnaire which prompted
the home visit. He felt that he should have thought through the
possibilities of soldiers coming to their home to inquire further. He
also felt shame and embarrassment over her uncontrollable behav-
ior, I wanted to bury myself, to vanish.
The last example is of a daughter who describes general feelings
of guilt over her mothers suffering in the Holocaust. The narrative
describes a recurrent situation in which her mother criticizes her
for not keeping things neat and orderly, but then, even before the
daughter has a chance to try to tidy up herself, her mother gets to
work at it. This womans idiosyncratic response to this recurring
interaction with her mother is feelings of guilt: Everything I do I
feel some kind of feeling of guilt toward my mother. Maybe I did
not do enough for her, maybe I hurt her. This woman struggles
with these ongoing feelings of guilt: I try to overcome it because
I can not live all the time with this kind of feeling, of guilt. I am
not guilty for what happened to her, it is not my fault.
In trying to make sense of her experience with her mother,
whose behavior she finds confusing (in both demanding that she
tidy things up and at the same time doing the work herself), this
HSO makes a connection between the mothers behavior and one
of the very few stories that her mother told her about her experi-
ences during the Holocaust:
. . . it turned out that she once got from the Germans, she got an
additional portion of food near her bed, there in the (concentration)
camp, she found another. . .she found some, I do not know, some kind
of piece of cloth and put it on some piece of wood, there they had
some box instead of a table, and she put it like a table cloth and she
also found a flower and put it. . .and for this she got from the Germans
a reward, another portion of food. It could be, I always thought to
myself, that may be it imprinted on her, that this issue of being
organized and clean is so very important for her. . .
This womens attempts to convince herself that it is not her
fault suggest that although she realizes intellectually that she is
not to be blamed, emotionally she is still to some extent not free of
feelings of guilt. The unique quality of feelings of guilt among the
HSO will be discussed later in relation to this kind of knowing-not
knowing pattern of intergenerational communication. It is depicted
by the rare fragment from the mothers story about her experience
in the concentration camp (a piece of cloth, a piece of informa-
tion) that is described in the above narrative.
Discussion
This study explored the emotional experiences of anger and
guilt in the narratives that sons and daughters of Holocaust survi-
vors told about their interpersonal relationships with their parents.
The RAP interview method was used to obtain narratives about
meaningful interpersonal interactions with mothers and fathers of
a nonclinical group of HSO. Application of the CCRT method to
rate the narratives enabled a quantitative analysis of the interper-
sonal patterns (wishes, responses of others and responses of self)
involved in the experiences of anger and guilt. A qualitative
in-depth analysis of these emotional narratives shed further light
on the specific dynamics occurring between the HSO and their
survivor parents in the context of intergenerational communication
of trauma.
The quantitative analysis of the CCRT ratings of the narratives
pointed to the interpersonal patterns of HSO with their parents in
respect of anger and guilt. Parents controlling responses were
found associated with responses of anger of by the HSO (RSs).
However, parents angry responses were not associated with angry
feelings by the HSO. This finding is consistent with previous
studies showing that HSO did not externalize anger in order to
protect their traumatized parents from further pain and hurt (Na-
dler et al., 1985). In the context of trauma, expression of anger may
be inhibited as a way to avoid inflicting pain on the parent.
The absence of association between perceiving the parent as
vulnerable and feeling angry suggests that while a strong and
controlling other clearly evokes an angry response, perceiving the
other as vulnerable does not involve an angry response. This can
be particularly the case in the context of the perceived traumatic
past of the parents in which the HSO sons and daughters avoid
responding in anger to the parents anger.
The wish to be understood and the wish to assert the self as rated
in the narratives were associated with anger. The wishes to be
loved, to be understood, and to assert the self have proved to
be among the most common CCRT wishes in the relationship
narratives that patients told during psychotherapy (Luborsky, Bar-
ber, Schaffler, & Cacciola, 1998). The associations that we found
between these wishes and anger suggest that in recalling relation-
ship emotional events that tend to be unfinished business (Lu-
borsky et al., 1998; Thorne & Klohnen, 1993; Wiseman et al.,
2002), anger is associated with experiences of the frustration of the
wishes to assert the self and to be understood by the other.
Note that ratings of anger by the CCRT judges do not always
imply that the narrator expressed anger at the other directly. There
was a significant association in the narratives between feeling
angry and avoiding conflict with the other. The recalled events
may involve anger in situations in which the narrator at the same
time attempts to withhold the expression of anger and to avoid
direct confrontation with the other. Similarly, perceiving the other
as angry is also associated with avoiding confrontation.
With respect to emotional experiences of guilt, the quantitative
findings suggest some interesting patterns in the HSO interactions
with their parents. First, although perceiving the parent as vulner-
able, as indicated earlier, was not associated with feeling angry, it
was associated significantly with guilt. Second, feelings of guilt
were associated with avoiding conflict with parents. These asso-
ciations are in keeping with the literature on the interpersonal
aspects of guilt (Baumeister et al., 1994), indicating that feeling
181
ANGER, GUILT, AND COMMUNICATION OF TRAUMA
responsible for a significant others distress or disappointment, or
failing to help him/her, involves feelings of guilt (Vangelisti &
Sprague, 1998).
The quantitative findings on the emotional interpersonal pat-
terns of anger and guilt can be further understood in light of the
qualitative analysis of the narratives told by HSO. We identified a
pattern that we call mutual overprotection, in which the parents
tendency to overprotect their children was met with the childrens
tendency to be overprotective of their parents. Many of the narra-
tives that concerned anger toward the parents revolved around
overprotective behaviors. Such behaviors were perceived as stem-
ming from a good, caring intention on the parents part, in re-
sponse to which the HSO appeared to feel obligated to their
parents special care for them, even when it became a burden.
Nevertheless, the parents overprotection (e.g., worrying about the
daughter going on a trip, insisting that the daughter be home early
from a party that had not even begun) appeared to lead to frustra-
tion, which in order to protect the parents was not expressed (e.g.,
not saying a word).
We suggest that this mutual overprotection can be further un-
derstood in the context of the nonverbal presence of the Holocaust
in the home and the lack of open communication between HSO
and their parents regarding the parents traumatic experiences. The
knowing-not knowing pattern of familial communication seems to
play a role in the sons and daughters walking on eggs (Bar-On,
1995) with their survivor parents. This style of relating with the
parents seems to impede a more open expression of anger and
freeing from guilt. The daughter who describes in her narrative
overwhelming feelings of guilt toward her mother, trying to tell
herself that she is not guilty for her mothers suffering during the
Holocaust, recounts in this connection a rare fragment from her
mothers story about her experience in the concentration camp.
This is an example of how the parents trauma is inevitably present
in the home even when it is not discussed directly (Bar-On, 1995;
Krell, 1979). As the mother rarely discussed her traumatic expe-
riences and much is left undiscussable (Bar-On, 1999), a great deal
of room remains for the daughters fantasies about her mothers
experiences and their various possible influences on her. This
unknown part of the mothers past and the thoughts about it
(every time I think what a difficult life she had and how difficult
it was for her and how much. . .how much she suffered) have left
the daughter feeling guilty. In these cases it seems that perceiving
the survivor parent as vulnerable makes it too dangerous to oppose
them, and out of identification with the parents suffering the HSO
are afraid to let them down and add to their suffering.
The parents silence thus plays a part in silencing the anger and
frustration. The unspoken and undiscussable trauma, hinder open
communication of feelings of anger and contribute to feelings of
guilt, experienced even though the person who feels guilty bears
no responsibility for the transgression. The tension between the
noise of the trauma (the electrical drill, the sight of soldiers, the
mothers need to keep things neat and tidy) and the silence (not
knowing why the noise drives mother crazy, not anticipating the
trigger of the mothers panic) leads to feelings of guilt. In these
guilt-arousing situations there is an unexpected element in which
the sons and daughter are suddenly faced with a fragment of the
parents trauma from the past.
The findings of the present study suggest that the vulnerability
of HSO to feelings of guilt in their relationship with their parents
can be understood in light of their sensitivity to their parents
traumatic past. Hoffman (1982) suggested that guilt is dependent
on empathy and mutual commitment to the relationship, and as
such it characterizes meaningful relationships with high intensity.
In future research the relationship between guilt and empathy
could be further explored in the context of intergenerational com-
munication of trauma.
There are a number of limitations to this study. We examined
the correlations of feelings of anger and guilt with wishes and
certain responses of other. Naturally we cannot argue for a causal
relation for example, that feelings of guilt may precede avoidance
of conflict, or vice versa. In addition, the relationship episodes that
we collected with the RAP interview did not ask participants
specifically for narratives involving feelings of anger or guilt
(Baumeister et al., 1995). A different picture might have emerged
if participants had been asked to focus on these emotions. Never-
theless, the RAP method seems to be a promising way to study
emotions. In future research it is suggested that one may consider
adopting Lecours, Pellerin, Giguere, and Philippes (2003) re-
cently developed version of the RAP in which participants are
asked to tell narratives of specific emotions.
Finally, the participants of this study were Israeli-born children
of survivors who immigrated to Israel; hence, it is important to
consider the findings in this sociocultural context (Solomon,
1998). In a recent meta-analytic investigation of secondary trau-
matization in Holocaust survivor families that included 32 sam-
ples, van IJzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg and Sagi-Schwartz
(2003) did not find evidence for differences in adjustment between
offspring of Holocaust survivors growing up in Israel and second-
generation survivors raised in Western European or North Amer-
ican countries. In discussing the Israeli context these authors point
to the possibility of, on the one hand protective factors present in
Israeli society (e.g., anti-Semitism was unlikely to take place in a
predominantly Jewish community, the common goal of building a
new nation); and, on the other hand the strains and stresses of
living in Israel (e.g., wars and acts of terrorism). Regarding the
issue of communication about the Holocaust, it has been suggested
that the myth of the heroic Sabra, who was an antithesis to the
image of Holocaust survivors as passive victims of the Nazi
regime (Segev, 1992), had contributed to the silencing of Holo-
caust survivors that was prevalent in Israeli society at the time that
our participants grew up (see Bar-On et al., 1998). In future
cross-cultural studies it would be important to address the impact
of sociocultural characteristics on the emotional experiences of
second generation Holocaust survivors while comparing and con-
trasting the long range effects of HSO in other countries with those
in Israel.
Conclusion
Previous research on second generation Holocaust survivors
referred to emotions that were thought to be problematic among
this group, including such emotions as anger, guilt, shame, anxiety,
helplessness, and loneliness. These studies most often referred to
clinical material as part of depicting the clinical profile of this
group (Jucovy, 1992; Kogan, 1995; Wardi, 1992). Empirical stud-
ies of nonclinical samples usually relied on paper-and-pencil as-
sessment of these emotions, such as the degree of hostility and
guilt that HSO reported, compared with non-HSO (Felsen, 1998).
182
WISEMAN, METZL, AND BARBER
Our aim was to examine the nature of the experience and the
expression, or lack of expression, of anger and guilt by means of
relationship narratives that HSO told about their interactions with
their parents. The narrative approach appears to be advantageous
over self-report measures in that it taps the subjective experiences
and the meanings that individuals give to their experiences (e.g.,
Bar-On, 1995; Denzin, 1995; Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber,
1998; MacAdams, Josselson, & Lieblich, 2001).
More specifically studying the interpersonal emotional patterns
in the narratives through combining quantitative ratings on the
CCRT with a qualitative analysis appears to be a promising way to
shed light on such a complex phenomenon as the intergenerational
transmission of trauma (Bar-On et al., 1998). The advantage of the
quantitative analysis is that it is based on reliable ratings; however,
it suffers from lack of sensitivity to context. In the qualitative
analysis we could identify patterns and content unique to HSO for
which we have no predefined CCRT category. Although the CCRT
ratings of the response of self of avoidance of conflict and
confrontation may imply silencing ones will, the qualitative
content analysis enabled us to examine further the quality of
communication between HSO and their parents. In-depth analysis
led us to identify the tension between the silence about the
parents traumatic experiences and the noise of the trauma.
Survivors of trauma themselves live with the conflict between the
wish to forget and the need to tell their stories (Herman, 1997).
This conflict seems to provide the background music of both
silence and noise in the lives of sons and daughters growing up in
the shadow of the Holocaust. We suggest that understanding this
dynamic is relevant clinically for working with HSO adults who
seek psychotherapy. Moreover, therapists may be alerted to paying
special attention to experiences of muted anger and guilt in further
exploring processes of knowing-not knowing related to trauma.
References
Ancharoff, M. R., Munroe, J. F., & Fisher, L. (1998). The legacy of combat
trauma: Clinical implications of intergenerational transmission. In Y.
Danieli (Ed.), International handbook of multigenerational legacies of
trauma (pp. 257279). New York: Plenum Press.
Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Principles of communication
and emotion in social interaction. In P. A. Andersen, & L. K. Guerrero
(Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotions: Research, theory,
applications, and contexts (pp. 4996). New York: Academic Press.
Auerhahn, N. C., & Laub, D. (1998). Intergenerational memory of the
Holocaust. In Y. Danieli. (Ed.), International handbook of multigenera-
tional legacies of trauma (pp. 2141). New York: Plenum Press.
Barber, J. P., Crits-Christoph, P., & Luborsky, L. (1998). A guide to the
CCRT standard categories and their classification. In L. Luborsky & P.
Crits-Christoph (Eds.). Understanding transference: The core conflic-
tual relationship theme method (2nd ed., pp. 4354). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Barber, J. P., Foltz, C., DeRubeis, R. J., & Landis, R. (2002). Consistency
of interpersonal themes in narratives about relationships. Psychotherapy
Research, 12, 139158.
Barber, J. P., Luborsky, L., Crits-Cristoph, P., & Diguer, L. (1995). A
comparison of core conflictual relationship themes before psychotherapy
and during early sessions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 64, 619622.
Bar-On, D. (1995). Fear and hope: Three generations of five Israeli
families of Holocaust survivors. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Bar-On, D. (1996). Attempting to overcome the intergenerational trans-
mission of trauma. Dialogue between descendants of victims and of
perpetrators. In R. Apfel & B. Simon (Eds.), Minefields of their hearts:
The mental health of children in war and communal violence (pp.
165188). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bar-On, D. (1999). The indescribable and undiscussable: Reconstructing
human discourse after trauma. Budapest: Central European University
Press.
Bar-On, D. Eland, J., Kleber, R. J., Krell, R., Moore, Y., Sagi, A., et al.
(1998). Multigenerational perspectives on coping with the Holocaust
experience: An attachment perspective for understanding the develop-
mental sequelae of trauma across generations. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 22, 315338.
Baumeister, R. F., Reis, H. T., & Delespal, P. (1995). Subjective and
experiential correlates of guilt in daily life. Personality & Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 21, 12561268.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. E. (1994). Guilt: An
interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243267.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Interper-
sonal aspects of guilt: Evidence from narrative studies. In J. P. Tangney
& K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of
shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 255273). New York:
Guilford Press.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol 2. Separation. New York:
Basic Books.
Canary, D. J., Spitzberg, B. H., & Semic, B. A. (1998). The experience and
expression of anger in interpersonal settings. In P. A. Andersen, & L. K.
Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotions: Research,
theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 189213). San Diego, CA, US:
Academic Press, Inc.
Danieli, Y. (1983). Families and survivors of the Nazi Holocaust: Some
long- and short-term effects. In N. Milgram (Ed.), Psychological stress
and adjustment in time of war and peace (pp. 405421). Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Danieli, Y. (Ed.) (1998). International handbook of multigenerational
legacies of trauma. New York: Plenum Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1995). Symbolic interactionism. In J. H. Smith, R. Harre &
V. Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking psychology (pp. 4358). London:
Sage.
Felsen, I. (1998). Transgenerational transmission of effects of the Holo-
caust: The North American research perspective. In Y. Danieli (Ed.),
International handbook of multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp.
4369). New York: Plenum Press.
Guerrero, L. K. (1994). Im so mad I could scream: The effects of anger
expression on relational satisfaction and communication competence.
The Southern Communication Journal, 59, 125141.
Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (2000). Emotion in close relationships.
In C. Hendrick, & S. S. Hendrick, (Eds.), Close relationships: A source-
book (pp. 171183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to
conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psycholo-
gist, 25, 517572.
Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy
and guilt. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Development of prosocial behavior (pp.
281313). New York: Academic Press.
Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relationship among emotions, and
emotion cognition relations. Psychological Review, 99, 561565.
Jones, W. H., Kugler, K., & Adams, P. (1995). You always hurt the one
you love: Guilt and transgressions against relationship partners. In J. P.
Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self- conscious emotions: The psy-
chology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 301321). New
York: Guilford Press.
183
ANGER, GUILT, AND COMMUNICATION OF TRAUMA
Jucovy, M. E. (1985). Telling the Holocaust story: A link between the
generations. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 5, 3150.
Jucovy, M. E. (1992). Psychoanalytic contributions to Holocaust studies.
The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73, 267282.
Kogan, I. (1995). The cry of the mute children: The psychoanalytic per-
spective of the second generation of the Holocaust. New York: Free
Association Books.
Krell, R. (1979). Holocaust families: The survivors and their children.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 20, 560568.
Lamb, S. (1986). Treating sexually abused children: Issues of blame and
responsibility. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 303307.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Lecours, S., Pellerin, N., Giguere, C., & Philippe, F. (June, 2003). Adap-
tation of the RAP interview for the study of affect components in
psychotherapy research. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of
the Society for Psychotherapy Research, Weimar, Germany.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research:
Reading, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lifton, R. J. (1967). Death in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Luborsky, L. (1977). Measuring a pervasive psychic structure in psycho-
therapy: The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme. In N. Freedman & S.
Grand (Eds.), Communicative structures and psychic structures (pp.
367395). New York: Plenum Press.
Luborsky, L. (1998). The Relationship Anecdotes Paradigm (RAP) inter-
view as a versatile source of narratives. In L. Luborsky & P. Crits-
Christoph (Eds.), Understanding transference: The core conflictual re-
lationship theme method (2nd ed., pp. 109120). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Luborsky, L., Barber, J. P., Schaffler, P., & Caccoila, J. (1998). The
narratives told during psychotherapy and the types of CCRTs within
them. In L. Luborsky & P. Crits-Christoph (Eds.). Understanding trans-
ference: The core conflictual relationship theme method (2
nd
ed., pp.
135150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Luborsky, L., & Crits-Christoph, P. (1998). Understanding transference:
The CCRT method (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
MacAdams, D. P., Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (Eds.) (2001). Turns in the
road: Narrative studies of Lives in transition. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Miller, R. S., & Leary, M. R. (1992). Social sources and interactive
functions of emotion: The case of embarrassment. In M. S. Clark (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 202221).
New Park, CA: Sage.
Nadler, A., Kav-Venaki, S., & Gleitman, B. (1985). Transgenerational
effects of the Holocaust: Externalization of aggression in second gen-
eration of Holocaust survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 53, 365369.
Nagata. D. K. (1998). Intergenerational effects of the Japanese American
internment. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook of multigenera-
tional legacies of trauma (pp. 125141). New York: Plenum Press.
Op den Velde, W. (1998). Children of Dutch war sailors and civilian
resistance veterans. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook of
multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 147163). New York: Plenum
Press.
Russell, A. (1980). Late effects: Influence on children of concentration
camp survivors. In J. E. Dimsdale (Ed.), Survivors, victims, and perpe-
trators (pp. 175204). New York: Hemisphere.
Sagi-Schwartz, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Grossmann, K. E., Joels, T.,
Grossmann, K., Scharf, M., Koren-Karie, N., & Alkalay, S. (2003).
Attachment and traumatic stress in female Holocaust child survivors and
their daughters. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 10861092.
Segev, T. (1992). The seventh million. Jerusalem: Keter.
Solkoff, N. (1992). Children of survivors of Nazi Holocaust: A critical
review. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 342358.
Solomon, Z. (1998). Transgenerational effects of the Holocaust: The Israeli
research perspective. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook of
multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 6985). New York: Plenum
Press.
Tangney, J. P. (1992). Situational determinants of shame and guilt in young
adulthood. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 199206.
Thorne, A., & Klohnen, E. (1993). Interpersonal memories as maps for
personality consistency. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-
Keasey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality
and development (pp. 223253). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Vangelisti, A. L., & Sprague, R. J. (1998). Guilt and hurt: Similarities,
distinctions, and conversational strategies. In P. A. Andersen & L. K.
Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotions: Research,
theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 123153). New York: Academic
Press.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Sagi-Schwartz,
A. (2003). Are children of Holocaust survivors less well-adapted? A
meta-analytic investigation of secondary traumatization. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 16, 459469.
Wanderman, E. (1976). Children and families of Holocaust survivors: A
psychological review. In L. Steinitz & D. Sozonyi (Eds.), Living after
the Holocaust: Reflections by the post-war generation in America (pp.
115123). New York: Bloch Publishing.
Wardi, D. (1992). Memorial candles: Children of the Holocaust. London:
Routledge.
Weiss, E., OConnell, A. N., & Siiter, R. (1986). Comparisons of second
generation Holocaust survivors, immigrants, and nonimmigrants on
measures of mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 50, 828831.
Wiseman, H., & Barber, J. P. (2004). The core conflictual relationship
theme approach to relational narratives: Interpersonal themes in the
context of intergenerational communication of trauma. In A. Lieblich,
D. P. McAdams, & R. Josselson (Eds.), Healing plots: The narrative
basis of psychotherapy (pp. 151170). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Wiseman, H., Barber, J. P., Raz, A., Yam, I., Foltz, C., & Snir, S. (2002).
Parental communication of Holocaust experiences and interpersonal
patterns of offspring of Holocaust survivors. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 26, 371381.
Received April 4, 2004
Revision received December 6, 2004
Accepted January 4, 2005
184
WISEMAN, METZL, AND BARBER