The Wound That Doesn't Close: How Ambiguity, Institutional Opacity, and Prolonged Uncertainty Create and Sustain Psychological Trauma

The Wound That Doesn't Close

How Ambiguity, Institutional Opacity, and Prolonged Uncertainty Create and Sustain Psychological Trauma

A Comprehensive Examination of Trauma, Institutional Betrayal, and the Path to Recovery

Introduction: The Difference Between Grief and Entrapment

Some losses are painful because they are final. Others are painful because they never feel finished. A person can often begin healing when they understand what happened, even when the truth hurts, because pain that can be named, located, and explained has edges. It can be grieved. It can be integrated into a coherent narrative of self and survival. But when the story does not make sense — when words, actions, timelines, and explanations conflict; when institutions hold information while offering only opacity; when investigations proceed without clarity; when legal processes demand patience without explanation — the mind cannot form those edges. Instead of a wound that can be tended, it becomes a wound that cannot be located.

The question is no longer only "Why did I lose this?" It becomes "What was real?" And more painfully, "Can I trust my own mind?"

This paper examines the psychological mechanisms through which ambiguity becomes traumatic, how institutional opacity intensifies that trauma, and why prolonged uncertainty — especially when combined with personal loss, investigatory processes, and legal proceedings — can trap a person in a cycle of reactivated distress that prevents recovery. It draws on four distinct but converging bodies of research: Pauline Boss's decades-long study of ambiguous loss, which named the particular grief that has no confirming end; Jennifer Freyd's research on betrayal trauma and institutional betrayal, which explains why harm done by a trusted system cuts differently than harm done by a stranger; Miranda Fricker's philosophical account of epistemic injustice, which describes what happens when a person's own understanding of their experience is structurally undermined; and the clinical and neurobiological literature on intolerance of uncertainty, allostatic load, and prolonged grief, which shows how unresolved threat and unresolved loss leave measurable traces in the body.

The central argument is this: trauma is not defined solely by the severity of an event. It is defined by the nervous system's inability to process and integrate the experience. When ambiguity, institutional silence, contradictory accounts, and lack of control are sustained over time, they create conditions under which trauma can form, persist, and deepen — even in the absence of a single catastrophic event. The path to recovery does not require perfect answers or complete institutional accountability. It requires something more fundamental: openness, honesty, and transparency from the systems and people involved, and, where that is not forthcoming, a way of making peace with a story that may never fully close.

Part One: The Architecture of Ambiguity

The Mind's Need for Coherence

The human mind is not only an emotional organ; it is a meaning-making system. It organizes experience through narrative, linking cause and effect — this happened because of this, this changed because of that, this is what it meant, this is how I move forward. When a coherent narrative forms, the brain can file the experience. It becomes part of memory rather than an active, unresolved process. The nervous system receives a signal that the episode is finished and that safety has returned.

But when events resist coherence — when explanations contradict experience, when key information is missing, when the official account diverges from lived reality — the narrative cannot close. The brain does not simply give up. It continues searching. It replays conversations, reinterprets moments, reanalyzes decisions, looking for a version of events that finally makes sense. This is not overthinking in the casual sense. It is the mind attempting to complete an incomplete structure, one that remains consequential because the person's safety, identity, or future may still depend on understanding it.

The psychological cost of this search is significant, and it is not merely metaphorical. The clinical and cognitive-neuroscience literature on intolerance of uncertainty — the dispositional difficulty of enduring the unknown — describes how unresolved threat-relevant ambiguity keeps the brain's error-detection and threat-anticipation circuitry engaged well past the point where a resolved event would have allowed it to stand down. Grupe and Nitschke's influential integrative model of uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety describes this as a state in which the nervous system, unable to confirm that danger has passed, continues to generalize threat outward from the original point of ambiguity to situations that merely resemble it. Laboratory work on threat generalization has found that people higher in intolerance of uncertainty show weaker discrimination between cues that signal danger and cues that signal safety, meaning that for a highly uncertainty-intolerant nervous system, more of the world starts to feel unsafe, not less, the longer resolution is withheld (Morriss, Macdonald, & van Reekum, 2016). Neuroimaging research has further linked intolerance of uncertainty to heightened activity in prefrontal and limbic circuits governing emotion regulation and threat appraisal, and to altered coupling between threat-reactive regions such as the anterior insula and the neural systems that drive avoidance behavior. None of this is a character flaw. It is the mind attempting to solve a problem it perceives, correctly, as unsolved.

When Reality Splits: Cognitive and Emotional Dissonance

One of the most destabilizing conditions arises when a person is forced to hold two conflicting realities at once: that a relationship was real, meaningful, and built on trust, and that its outcome contradicts everything that seemed true; that an institution was meant to protect them, and that the same institution has instead made their reality feel uncertain; that their own perception can be trusted, and that an authority with more power insists that perception is wrong. This creates a form of cognitive and emotional dissonance that ordinary coping mechanisms are not built to resolve.

The mind attempts to reconcile words against actions, promises against outcomes, perceived intentions against actual behavior, memory against present reality, and personal experience against official record. When reconciliation fails, the mind does not discard the contradiction. It cycles through it — reinterpreting past events in light of new outcomes, questioning its own perception, reconstructing alternate timelines built around what might have happened "if only," searching for a singular turning point that would explain everything, hunting for the one missing fact that would finally make the whole story make sense. When no single explanation accounts for all the elements, the loop continues.

This is not a character flaw or a sign of psychological weakness. It is the mind doing exactly what it is designed to do: attempting to create meaning from experience. The problem arises when the conditions that produce the contradiction persist, preventing integration and closure — when the institution never releases the missing document, when the timeline is never reconciled, when the explanation that was promised never arrives.

Ambiguity as a Source of Psychological Injury

Ambiguity is not merely uncomfortable. Under sustained conditions, it becomes psychologically injurious, because unresolved contradiction interferes with three systems the mind depends on to function.

The first is meaning-making. The brain cannot construct a stable narrative, and without a coherent story the person cannot understand their own experience, cannot explain it to others, and cannot locate themselves within it. The experience remains alien, fragmented, and active rather than settling into the past tense.

The second is prediction. The person cannot reliably anticipate behavior or outcomes. If a person's words and actions do not align, or if institutional processes are opaque and inconsistent, the person cannot develop reliable expectations about what will happen next. This creates a state of perpetual uncertainty in which the nervous system cannot distinguish between ordinary situations and genuine threats — precisely the failure of threat-safety discrimination that the uncertainty research describes.

The third is trust calibration. The person cannot determine what signals are reliable. When someone has been told one thing and experienced another, they lose confidence in their ability to read reality. They may begin to doubt not only others but their own judgment, asking themselves what else they might be misreading if they could not understand this.

When these three systems are disrupted simultaneously, the mind enters a state of prolonged uncertainty, and prolonged uncertainty is one of the conditions under which trauma can form. Trauma is not defined solely by the severity of an event. It is defined by the intensity of the threat or loss, by the person's sense of helplessness or lack of control, by the disruption of fundamental assumptions about safety, predictability, and meaning, by the nervous system's inability to process and integrate the experience, and by the absence of a clear signal that danger has passed or that the event is over. When something cannot be integrated, it remains active. The nervous system continues to treat it as an ongoing problem. The person's attention remains oriented toward it. Their body remains prepared for threat. Their future remains suspended.

Part Two: Ambiguous Loss and the Suspension of Closure

The Concept of Ambiguous Loss

The family psychologist Pauline Boss, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, coined the term "ambiguous loss" in the 1970s to describe situations where loss lacks clarity or resolution (Boss, 1999; Boss, 2011). Unlike a clear death or definitive ending, ambiguous loss exists in a state of suspension. Boss distinguished two types: loss in which a person is physically absent but psychologically present, as with a missing person or a family separated by immigration, and loss in which a person is physically present but psychologically absent, as with a loved one lost to dementia or addiction. In an interview reflecting on nearly fifty years of this research, Boss described the defining feature plainly: with ambiguous loss there is no possibility of closure, and, she added, not even resolution — the grief simply looks, to a clinician, like what the DSM would now call complicated or prolonged grief, except that the complication is not a flaw in the mourner. It is a property of the loss itself. Boss and her colleague Donna Carnes made this point explicitly in their paper "The Myth of Closure": the pathology lies in the ambiguity, not in the person whose grief is frozen, and the therapeutic task is therefore not closure but a paradoxical kind of meaning-making that learns to hold both loss and presence, both grief and hope, at once (Boss & Carnes, 2012).

The pain of ambiguous loss comes from being unable to place the loss neatly into the past. The door feels neither fully open nor fully closed. The person cannot fully hold on, and cannot fully let go. The relationship, identity, or future remains psychologically open even when it is functionally over. This creates a state of suspended closure in which the mind continues to treat the situation as unresolved, because in a structural sense, it is. Boss's later work extended the concept well beyond her original cases of missing soldiers and family separation, applying it to relationship endings, divorce, and — as she noted in reflecting on the pandemic year of 2020 — to entire societies grieving losses that never received a clear ritual of closure (Tippett, 2016/2020). The theory has since been applied clinically to community interventions with families of the missing, including families of workers unaccounted for after the September 11th attacks, where Boss and colleagues found that structured, community-based meaning-making — not the pursuit of certainty that might never arrive — was what allowed grief to begin moving again (Boss, Beaulieu, Wieling, Turner, & LaCruz, 2003).

Why Ambiguous Loss Prevents Integration

Traditional grief follows a recognizable arc. There is an event, a recognition of loss, a period of acute pain, and gradually, integration. The person develops a new relationship to what was lost — not as something present, but as something that was, that mattered, and that has now become part of their history. Ambiguous loss disrupts this arc. The person cannot say "this is finished." They cannot say "this is what happened." They cannot say "this is what it meant." Instead they remain in a state of perpetual questioning — whether they misunderstood what was happening, whether the things they were told were true, when things actually changed, whether there was something they missed, whether they could have done something differently, why reality turned out differently than what they believed, and, underneath all of it, what was real.

This repeated searching can become emotionally exhausting, but more importantly it prevents the nervous system from receiving a clear signal that the event is over and that the person is safe. This is precisely the clinical picture the DSM-5-TR now codifies, in its 2022 revision, as prolonged grief disorder: a bereavement response marked by intense yearning or preoccupation with the deceased, alongside symptoms such as identity disruption, marked disbelief about the loss, avoidance of reminders, and a sense that part of oneself has died, persisting well beyond the year mark and causing significant impairment (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). What is notable, for the purposes of this paper, is that the disorder was placed not among the depressive disorders but among the trauma- and stressor-related disorders — a formal, diagnostic acknowledgment that grief which cannot resolve behaves, in the nervous system, like unresolved trauma rather than like ordinary sadness. Research since the criteria were finalized has found that ambiguity and violence in the manner of loss — homicide, disappearance, death without a clear cause — are among the strongest predictors of who goes on to develop this prolonged, unintegrating form of grief (Djelantik et al., 2020).

Part Three: How Ambiguity Becomes a Trauma Cycle

When ambiguity persists over time, it creates and sustains a trauma cycle through six interlocking mechanisms, each of which reinforces the others.

Recurrent Cognitive Activation

Unanswered questions repeatedly trigger mental engagement. The brain treats the situation as unfinished, returning to it as a problem that still requires solving. The person finds themselves replaying conversations late at night, rereading messages looking for hidden meaning, analyzing the tone of a voice or the phrasing of a sentence, constructing alternate explanations, searching for contradictions in official accounts, and hunting for the one fact that will finally make everything make sense. This is not rumination in the sense of dwelling on sadness. It is the mind attempting to solve a puzzle, and the person may feel compelled to keep working at it even while recognizing that the work is painful and, so far, unproductive. Each time the person revisits the unanswered question, the neural pathways associated with it are reactivated, which is consistent with what the intolerance-of-uncertainty literature describes as a failure to extinguish threat associations: without a clear resolution, the brain has no basis on which to down-regulate its own alarm, and so it keeps the question flagged as important and unresolved (Morriss et al., 2016).

Emotional Reactivation

Each attempt to figure it out reactivates the original emotional pain — loss, confusion, betrayal, or disorientation. A person may be having an ordinary day when something triggers a memory: a phrase someone uses, a date on the calendar, a passing reference in the news, a piece of music. Suddenly they are back in the emotional state of the original event. The nervous system does not clearly distinguish between the original event itself, thinking about the original event, and thinking about unanswered questions related to the event; to the body, all three register as a threat, a loss, a contradiction that requires attention. The result is that the person experiences repeated waves of acute distress, separated by periods of relative calm. This pattern of activation followed by recovery followed by reactivation is characteristic of trauma, and it prevents the nervous system from ever fully settling into a state of safety.

Nervous System Arousal

Because the situation lacks resolution, the body may remain in a state of low-level threat detection, never receiving a clear signal that the event is over. This can manifest as hypervigilance, as constant scanning for signs of danger or contradiction; as sleep disruption, with the mind remaining active even when the body is trying to rest; as an exaggerated startle response to sounds, movements, or unexpected information; as chronic muscle tension, the body held in a posture of readiness; as difficulty concentrating, attention divided between present tasks and unresolved concerns; and, over time, as physical symptoms including digestive complaints and immune dysregulation. This last point is not speculative. Bruce McEwen's allostatic load model, developed across several decades of research at Rockefeller University, describes exactly this process: chronic or unresolved stress keeps the body's adaptive stress-response systems — the neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, metabolic, and immune systems — switched on past the point where they can safely stand down, producing a cumulative "wear and tear" on the body and brain that McEwen termed allostatic load (McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Gianaros, 2010). Sustained allostatic load has been linked in the literature to impaired immune function, cardiovascular strain, and measurable atrophy of neurons in brain regions responsible for memory and emotion regulation, and researchers have specifically noted that many of these physiological patterns overlap with those seen in chronic anxiety and depressive illness. In other words, a person's exhaustion, insomnia, and physical fragility during a period of prolonged uncertainty are not "just stress" in a dismissive sense. They are a real physiological signature of a nervous system that has not been allowed to complete its stress response, because the ambiguity that triggered it has never resolved.

Identity Destabilization

If a person's sense of self was tied to the relationship, experience, or identity now in question, unresolved contradictions can fracture identity itself. The person may find themselves wondering whether they were loved or mistaken, whether that version of their life was real, who they are now if that foundation was not what they thought, whether they can trust their own judgment about who they are, and what else they might have misread about themselves if they misread that. Identity is not a fixed possession; it is continuously constructed through relationships, experiences, and the narratives a person tells about them. When those narratives become unreliable, identity becomes unstable in turn. A person in this state may experience confusion about their own values and preferences, difficulty making decisions about the future, uncertainty about what they want or who they want to be, a sense of being fundamentally mistaken or foolish, and shame about having trusted, believed in, or invested in something that turned out differently than it appeared. This is not vanity or oversensitivity. It is the disruption of the fundamental sense of self that ordinarily allows a person to navigate the world with confidence.

Erosion of Self-Trust

Repeated inability to reconcile reality can lead to profound doubt in one's own perception. The person begins to ask whether, if they could not understand that, there is anything else they are misreading; how they failed to see this; whether they can trust their own perception at all; whether they are being objective or simply defensive; and whether, in the end, they are the problem. This erosion of self-trust rarely stays contained to the original situation. A person unable to make sense of one significant experience may begin to doubt their instincts about people, their professional judgment, their decisions as a parent, their body's own signals, and even their basic perception of what is happening around them. This generalized self-doubt is clinically significant: it can be a precursor to depression and anxiety, and it can also leave a person more vulnerable to manipulation, precisely because they have lost confidence in their own ability to assess situations accurately — a vulnerability that is compounded, as the next section will show, when the very institutions a person turns to for clarity treat their account as unreliable in the first place.

Behavioral Paralysis

When the past cannot be understood, future decisions feel unsafe. The mind remains oriented toward resolving what has already happened instead of engaging with what lies ahead. The person may find it difficult to make decisions about the future, may feel that the future is on hold until the past is resolved, may become reluctant to invest in new relationships, work, or plans, may feel that moving forward would somehow betray the unresolved past, and may find themselves unable to grieve and move on because the loss is not yet finished. The trap is that the person becomes psychologically organized around the unresolved situation. Their energy, attention, and emotional resources are directed backward. The present becomes secondary. The future is delayed. A person can spend years searching for the one missing piece that would finally make everything make sense, and Boss's clinical work suggests that sometimes healing requires accepting, painfully, that complete understanding may never arrive — that the task is not to solve the mystery but to learn to live meaningfully alongside it.

Part Four: Institutional Opacity and the Second Wound

When Systems Hold the Answers

In a personal relationship, a person may seek clarity from another individual. In an institutional setting, however, the institution alone may possess the records, the terminology, the procedures, the authority, and the decision-making power needed to explain what occurred. That creates a profoundly unequal informational relationship. A person may know that something consequential happened to them while lacking the documents, the plain-language explanation, or the procedural access needed to understand it. Researchers in medicine, disability studies, and organizational behavior describe this as institutional opacity: a condition in which an institution becomes difficult for its users to assess or understand, impairing their ability to know how to speak, act, or advocate effectively within it. The resulting question is often not merely "what happened?" It becomes "what happened to me inside a system I cannot see into?"

The Second Wound: Institutional Betrayal

This is the territory mapped most rigorously by the psychologist Jennifer Freyd, whose decades of research at the University of Oregon gave rise to the concept of institutional betrayal — wrongdoing perpetrated by an institution upon individuals who depend on it, including a failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoing that occurs within its own walls (Smith & Freyd, 2014). Freyd, who had earlier developed betrayal trauma theory to explain why harm inflicted by someone a person trusts and depends upon is processed differently from harm inflicted by a stranger, extended that insight to institutions themselves: a hospital, a police department, a court, an employer, or a religious body can occupy the same psychological position in a person's life that a trusted individual does, and betrayal by that institution can be similarly, sometimes more, damaging (Freyd, 1994; Freyd & Birrell, 2013). Freyd and her colleague Carly Smith's research demonstrated that institutional betrayal is associated with measurable harm to both mental and physical health, independent of the harm caused by the original precipitating event — meaning that how an institution responds after something goes wrong can wound a person nearly as deeply as what went wrong in the first place (Smith & Freyd, 2013; Smith & Freyd, 2017).

Part of what makes this dynamic so disorienting, in Freyd's account, is a pattern she named DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. In cases of institutional betrayal, the person who raises a concern is sometimes met not with investigation but with a subtle or overt reversal, in which the institution or its representatives position themselves as the ones being harmed — by the allegation, by the reputational risk, by the disruption — while the original complainant is recast, implicitly, as the aggressor (Harsey, Zurbriggen, & Freyd, 2017). Even where DARVO is not explicitly present, the ordinary mechanics of institutional self-protection — delayed responses, shifting explanations, procedural language that obscures rather than clarifies, an insistence on "process" without a timeline for resolution — reproduce many of the same effects. The person is left holding a contradiction between what they experienced and what the institution is prepared to acknowledge, with no institutional actor accountable for closing that gap. Freyd's more recent work, through the Center for Institutional Courage she founded, has focused on the antidote: what she calls institutional courage, meaning accountability, transparency, and a willingness to gather and act on uncomfortable data about an institution's own failures, rather than protecting the institution's reputation at the expense of the people it is meant to serve (Freyd, 2014; Freyd & Smidt, 2019).

The Injury of Contradictory Accounts

The psychological impact becomes sharper still when the person receives materially inconsistent messages: a hospital saying one thing verbally while records, billing, discharge instructions, or later outcomes imply another; officials describing an event differently at different stages of a process; a legal process promising transparency or review while providing only vague, delayed, or shifting explanations; an institution acknowledging harm in general terms while denying responsibility in the individual case; a procedure described as routine, fair, or complete while the affected person experiences it as confusing, inaccessible, or unexplained. Not every discrepancy proves deception, misconduct, or intent — complex systems generate genuine error, poor communication, fragmented records, and differing professional interpretations without any bad actor being involved. But the psychological effect of unresolved inconsistency can still be serious, because the person's nervous system experiences uncertainty about safety, reality, and recourse regardless of whether the inconsistency was malicious or merely careless. The individual is asked, implicitly or explicitly, to accept an account that may not fit their lived experience, and this can produce a painful split between institutional reality — what the official record says happened — and experienced reality — what the person remembers, saw, felt, or endured.

The Loss of Epistemic Safety

People need more than physical safety. They also need what might be called epistemic safety: a reasonable ability to know what is happening, to understand the rules affecting them, and to have their account treated as intelligible and worthy of consideration. This is the territory the philosopher Miranda Fricker mapped in her book Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, which distinguishes two related but distinct harms (Fricker, 2007). The first, testimonial injustice, occurs when a hearer gives a speaker's word a deflated level of credibility because of prejudice or institutional bias — when a person's account of what happened to them is discounted not because the evidence warrants it, but because of who they are or what position they occupy relative to the institution. The second, hermeneutical injustice, is subtler and in some ways more corrosive: it occurs when a person's experience genuinely cannot be understood, by themselves or by others, because the shared concepts needed to make sense of it are missing or underdeveloped — what Fricker calls a gap in society's collective interpretive resources (Fricker, 2007). Applied philosophers working in healthcare, Ian James Kidd and Havi Carel among them, have shown how routinely this second injury appears in institutional settings such as hospitals, where patients report chronic testimonial frustration — not being believed — compounded by hermeneutical marginalization, in which the very vocabulary needed to describe what is happening to them is controlled by the institution rather than available to the patient (Kidd & Carel, 2016).

When institutions are opaque, a person can become epistemically vulnerable in exactly this way. They may not know which documents matter, which deadlines apply, which staff member holds actual authority, what specialized terminology means, or whether they are being given a complete explanation at all. Research on institutional opacity emphasizes that this burden falls especially heavily on people who are already vulnerable in the interaction — people who are ill, traumatized, grieving, detained, financially strained, disabled, or simply unfamiliar with legal and medical systems. For these people, the opacity of institutional process is profoundly disorienting, and it produces a particular, corrosive form of self-questioning: did I misunderstand, am I asking the wrong question, am I the unreasonable one for still needing an answer. This is where the erosion of self-trust described in Part Three and the epistemic injustice described here converge and compound one another: a person already destabilized by ambiguous loss meets an institution that, whether through malice, indifference, or simple bureaucratic inertia, declines to restore their epistemic footing — and the two wounds, personal and institutional, become nearly impossible to disentangle from one another.

Part Five: Toward Integration — What Recovery Actually Requires

If the mechanisms above explain why ambiguity, institutional silence, and prolonged uncertainty produce and sustain trauma, they also point toward what recovery genuinely depends on, and what it does not.

Recovery does not depend on winning. It does not depend on the institution admitting fault in the terms the person would choose, or on every contradiction being resolved, or on a single missing fact finally surfacing to make the whole story make sense. Boss's own clinical conclusion, reached after decades of working with families who never received confirmation of what happened to a missing loved one, is that the pursuit of certainty can itself become a trap when certainty is not available; the more durable path is what she calls a tolerance for ambiguity — not resignation, but a deliberate, supported practice of holding two things at once: the reality of the loss and the reality that some of its edges will never be fully drawn (Boss & Carnes, 2012). Freyd's research points toward a parallel, institutionally-facing truth: what measurably reduces the harm of institutional betrayal is not a perfect outcome but institutional courage — an institution's willingness to be transparent about what it knows, to acknowledge uncertainty honestly rather than paper over it, and to treat the person's account as worth taking seriously even before all the facts are settled (Freyd, 2014; Freyd & Smidt, 2019). And Fricker's account of epistemic injustice suggests that part of what heals hermeneutical injury is simply this: having the experience witnessed and named, even by someone outside the institution, in language that finally fits.

None of this promises resolution. What it offers instead is a way to stop the six mechanisms described in Part Three from continuing to feed one another indefinitely — a way to let the nervous system down-regulate even without full closure, by replacing the demand for certainty with honest naming of what is, and is not, known. This is the sense in which the paper's central claim should be understood: openness, honesty, and transparency are not merely ethical ideals for the institutions and people involved. They are, in the most literal clinical sense, what the nervous system needs in order to stop treating an old wound as a live one.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Boss, P. (1999). Ambiguous Loss: Learning to Live with Unresolved Grief. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Boss, P. (2011). Loving Someone Who Has Dementia: How to Find Hope While Coping with Stress and Grief. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boss, P., Beaulieu, L., Wieling, E., Turner, W., & LaCruz, S. (2003). Healing loss, ambiguity, and trauma: A community-based intervention with families of union workers missing after the 9/11 attack in New York City. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 455–467.

Boss, P., & Carnes, D. (2012). The myth of closure. Family Process, 51(4), 456–469.

Djelantik, A. A. A. M. J., Smid, G. E., Mroz, A., Kleber, R. J., & Boelen, P. A. (2020). The prevalence of prolonged grief disorder among bereaved individuals following unnatural losses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 265, 146–156.

Freyd, J. J. (1994). Betrayal trauma: Traumatic amnesia as an adaptive response to childhood abuse. Ethics & Behavior, 4(4), 307–329.

Freyd, J. J. (2014). Official campus statistics for sexual violence mislead. [Institutional courage framework].

Freyd, J. J., & Birrell, P. J. (2013). Blind to Betrayal: Why We Fool Ourselves We Aren't Being Fooled. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Freyd, J. J., & Smidt, A. M. (2019). So you learned the term "institutional betrayal" — Now what? A companion article to Institutional Courage Applied. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 20(5), 505–512.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grupe, D. W., & Nitschke, J. B. (2013). Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: An integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(7), 488–501.

Harsey, S., Zurbriggen, E. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2017). Perpetrator responses to victim confrontation: DARVO and victim self-blame. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(6), 644–663.

Kidd, I. J., & Carel, H. (2016). Epistemic injustice and illness. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(2), 172–190.

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine, 338(3), 171–179.

McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2010). Central role of the brain in stress and adaptation: Links to socioeconomic status, health, and disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1), 190–222.

Morriss, J., Macdonald, B., & van Reekum, C. M. (2016). What is going on around here? Intolerance of uncertainty predicts threat generalization. PLOS ONE, 11(5), e0154494.

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119–124.

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587.

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2017). Insult, then injury: Interpersonal and institutional betrayal linked to health and dissociation. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(10), 1117–1131.

Tippett, K. (Host). (2016, updated 2020). Pauline Boss: Navigating loss without closure [Audio podcast episode]. In On Being. The On Being Project.