Content uploaded by Migle Povilenaite
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Migle Povilenaite on Mar 13, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
AIHE Academic Institute for Higher Education GmbH
London Metropolitan University
MSc Clinical Psychology
Is this pain yours? A literature review on transmission of historical
intergenerational trauma and resilience
Master’s Dissertation
Student’s ID: 23052613
Date: 12.12.2024
Abstract
This literature review addresses how historical trauma is transmitted intergenerationally,
focusing on attachment styles and parenting approaches, family communication, as well as
resilience in the communities affected by Soviet and Nazi committed genocides. Millions of
people have been harmed by these regimes directly, and their impact may extend to the
second and the third generations. Having conducted a literature search, 23 studies were
selected for the review. Integrative methods were used to analyse the studies, while thematic
analysis was used to find patterns across the studies. Family communication emerged as
one of the most common trauma transmission pathways: open communication was
associated with transmission of resilience, while absent communication was associated with
transmission of traumatic symptoms. Also, trauma tended to be transmitted through insecure
attachment styles, and overprotective or avoidant parenting approaches. The results were
comparable across samples, though communities affected by Soviet genocides reported
more mistrust and helplessness, which could be explained by the historical context of the
Soviet crimes. Finally, the findings on intergenerationally transmitted resilience imply that the
survivors of these regimes and their offspring have unique strengths that go beyond the
trauma-induced vulnerabilities, therefore, future research on intergenerational resilience
could benefit the field.
1
Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................... 2
List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................................4
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Research Questions.............................................................................................................7
3. Theoretical Background....................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Attachment Theory.......................................................................................................7
3.2 Family Systems Theory................................................................................................8
3.3 Post-Traumatic Growth................................................................................................ 8
4. Method................................................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria................................................................................... 9
4.2 Search........................................................................................................................10
4.3 Sample....................................................................................................................... 12
4.4 Analysis......................................................................................................................12
5. Results............................................................................................................................... 13
5.1 Attachment Styles and Parenting Approaches...........................................................13
5.1.1 Attachment styles.............................................................................................. 13
5.1.2 Parenting Approaches.......................................................................................14
5.2 Family Communication...............................................................................................16
5.2.1 Soviet Regime................................................................................................... 16
5.2.2 Nazi Regime......................................................................................................18
5.3 Resilience...................................................................................................................19
5.3.1 Soviet Regime................................................................................................... 19
5.3.2 Nazi Regime......................................................................................................20
5.4 Additional Findings.....................................................................................................20
5.4.1 Societal..............................................................................................................21
5.4.2 Individual........................................................................................................... 21
5.5. Analytical themes...................................................................................................... 22
5.6 Critical Evaluation of the Quality of Studies Presented..............................................22
5.7 Contribution to the Research Field.............................................................................24
6. Discussion..........................................................................................................................26
6.1 Addressing the Research Questions..........................................................................26
6.1.1 Attachment Styles and Parenting Approaches..................................................26
6.1.2 Family Communication......................................................................................26
6.1.3 Resilience..........................................................................................................27
6.1.4 Differences in Samples......................................................................................27
6.1.5 Generation effects............................................................................................. 27
6.2 Summary of Results...................................................................................................28
6.3 Limitations.................................................................................................................. 28
6.3.1 Critical Reflection on Research Strategy...........................................................28
6.3.2 Critical Reflection on the Master’s Thesis......................................................... 29
6.4 Implications and Practical Recommendations............................................................30
2
6.5 Future Research Questions....................................................................................... 31
6.6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................32
Reference List........................................................................................................................ 33
Word Count............................................................................................................................ 42
3
List of Abbreviations
C-PTSD Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
ICD-11 International Classification of Diseases, the 11th edition
PTG Post-Traumatic Growth
PTSD Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
4
1. Introduction
The twentieth century was marked by oppressive regimes and genocides (Snyder, 2010). As
the offspring of survivors grow up, they start exploring their historical trauma legacy.
Historical trauma can be defined as systematic intentional violence from the outsiders
affecting entire communities, causing long-term distress and a loss of community members
(Evans-Campbell, 2008; Sotero, 2006). This traumatic experience can be transmitted from
survivors to their offspring, affecting the development of the community, its health, well-being
and prosperity (Gailienė, 2019; Sotero, 2006). Intergenerational trauma outlines how
second, third and the following generations experience traumatic symptoms, even though
they have never been directly exposed to traumatic events (Mažulytė-Rašytienė, 2017).
Intergenerational trauma can be transmitted in different ways. Firstly, there are
biological transmission paths, such as epigenetic transmission, where trauma-related
biochemical changes that alter gene expression get passed to the next generation
(Kellermann, 2013). On a psychological level, trauma may be transmitted through family
interactions, such as parent-child attachment styles, parenting types and family
communication (Salberg, 2015). However, there is emerging research showing that
transmission entails not only the negative traumatic consequences but also positive
adaptation – resilience (Shmotkin et al., 2011). In some research, resilience is defined as
coping skills, such as a sense of strength, that can be transmitted alongside vulnerabilities
(Hu et al., 2015). Resilience can also be related to Post-Traumatic Growth, the – seemingly
unlikely – positive developments in one’s outlook and life after a traumatic experience.
Another definition depicts resilience as protective factors that may prevent the trauma
transmission altogether (Sagi-Schwartz et al., 2008).
While the significance of and the research body on Nazi-committed genocide is
well-established, less data exists on the crimes committed by the Soviet Union, even though
it may have had a comparable victim toll (Naimark, 2010; Rummel, 1994). About 6 million
Jewish people and 6 million more ethnic, sexual, and other groups died due to Nazi
committed genocide (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2023). Under the Soviet
regime, if we only include the deaths related to Soviet imprisonment or deportation, the
death toll is estimated to be from 3 million to 3.5 million (Ellman, 2002). Holodomor – a
man-made famine in Ukraine – is estimated to have from 5 to 10 million deaths (Stark,
2010). Some estimates, including deportations, targeted killings and Holodomor, suggest
that over 61 million people died due to the Soviet regime (Rummel, 1994).
These forms of oppression, their duration, scale, and impact qualify as historical
trauma (Mažulytė-Rašytienė, 2017). According to Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term
5
genocide, this term concerns not only mass murder of individuals, but the aim to destroy the
culture and nation itself (Lemkin & Irvin-Erickson, 2014). Soviet actions such as killings, as
well as deportations and imprisonments leading to deaths, can be defined as genocidal
actions as they were directly related to the policies aiming to limit and eradicate local
languages, religions and cultural rituals (Lemkin & Irvin-Erickson, 2014; Schmaltz & Sinner,
2002). Soviet oppression against the Baltic countries, Georgians, Ukrainians and other
occupied nations can be recognised as a genocide, according to 1948 Genocide Convention
(Sagatienė, 2021; Pohl, 2000; Yakubovskyi, 2021). Even in the case of persecuting people
within Russia, Soviet policies of ethnic cleansing targeting Crimean Tatars and other ethnic
groups, can be defined as genocide (Özçelik, 2020). According to Shaw (2017), the Soviet
Union was influential in affecting the definition of genocide agreed upon in the convention by
successfully arguing to exclude the elimination of political groups from the concept of
genocide. While there is a debate around the definition of genocide in the context of Soviet
crimes, some academics call for an even more inclusive definition, especially when it comes
to political persecution (Mälksoo, 2001; Naimark, 2010). It is important to emphasise that the
Soviet regime lasted up until 1991, and therefore the research on its crimes, or even the
accessibility of their documentation, are still limited (Naimark, 2010).
Therefore, one of the goals of this review is to understand the limited research
available and to encourage future research in the area. Beyond the academic interest, this
data is needed to acknowledge the impact of the genocidal regimes, bringing justice and
closure to the victims (Danieli, 2009). As the victims’ offspring are learning more about their
traumatic past, clinical psychologists need information and tools to understand the
challenges of their clients, especially since historical intergenerational trauma is not
well-established in the 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11).
Sometimes historical trauma can be associated with and measured as PTSD
(Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) or Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD)
(Ehlers et al., 2022; Mutuyimana & Maercker, 2023). PTSD is characterised by avoidance of
the traumatic event memories, re-experiencing such memories, hypervigilance, anxiety,
shame, sadness. C-PTSD occurs in the contexts of repeated, prolonged traumatic events,
and while it contains most of the PTSD symptoms, it also includes disruptions in affect
regulation, difficulty sustaining relationships and feeling close to others, lowered self-worth
(World Health Organisation, 2022). Coincidentally, similar experiences are reported by
second and third generations of genocide survivors (Adelman, 1995; Aintablian et al., 2018;
Mazor & Tal, 1996).
There are a number of factors why the literature on Soviet genocide is scarce. Firstly,
the victims of the Soviet regime were prohibited from reporting on its crimes and their
6
impact. Secondly, Soviets focused on damaging the reputation of psychology and psychiatry
as a field (Kazlauskas & Želvienė, 2016). Thirdly, after regaining independence from the
Soviet Union, many countries lacked resources for conducting such research (Kazlauskas et
al., 2017). These factors may have had implications on the traumatic experiences as well.
Since Soviet regime lasted longer than the ones committed by Nazi regime, the victims and
their offspring were denied the opportunity to process the traumatic experiences or even
acknowledge their existence (Etkind, 2009). Therefore, this review will aim to address the
existing literature on historical intergenerational trauma transmission in the communities
affected by Soviet genocidal actions, while using Nazi genocide literature for comparative
context.
2. Research Questions
Based on the research aims, the following research questions were formulated. Firstly, how
does intergenerational historical trauma get transmitted through attachment styles and other
parenting approaches in families who have experienced Nazi or Soviet genocide? Secondly,
how does intergenerational historical trauma get transmitted through family communication
in families who have experienced Nazi or Soviet genocide? Thirdly, how is resilience
transmitted in families who have experienced Nazi or Soviet genocide? Finally, how does the
intergenerational trauma transmission differ between the offspring of victims from Nazi and
Soviet genocide?
3. Theoretical Background
3.1 Attachment Theory
According to Bowlby (1969), attachments are bonds that are formed between children and
their caregivers, affecting children’s development of a sense of safety and self-worth. The
types of attachment are divided primarily into secure and insecure ones. When children have
a secure attachment to their caregivers, they feel free to explore their surroundings, knowing
the caregivers are available to comfort them – while they may get worried when the
caregiver leaves, they are easily soothed when the caregiver comes back. When children
have insecure attachment, it can be defined either as anxious attachment, characterised by
clingy, fearful behaviour, or avoidant attachment, that is characterised by emotional
distancing (Ainsworth, 1979). Disorganised attachment may switch from anxious to avoidant
attachment types and is often a sign of traumatic history (Cook et al., 2005; Main &
Solomon, 1986).
Attachment styles are found to be transmitted from parents to their offspring, and
together with them, traumatic experiences can be passed intergenerationally as well (Aloni
7
et al., 2020; Iyengar et al., 2014; Gravener et al., 2012). In addition, attachment styles can
be seen as the path through which the trauma gets transmitted (Salberg, 2015). Complex
trauma is related to damaging the sense of safety, therefore, it can affect the formation of
secure attachment (Cook et al., 2005). According to Van der Kolk et al. (1996), secure
attachment works as a protective mechanism against the expression of trauma.
3.2 Family Systems Theory
Family Systems theory envisions the family unit as a system, where family members affect
one another, relying on each other, and trying to protect each other in times of need (Figley,
1988). When there is trauma history present in the family, it may lead to disruptive outcomes,
such as parent-child role reversal known as parentification, as well as disturbed
differentiation of self, affecting the balance between one’s sense of individuality and a sense
of connectedness (Calatrava et al., 2022; Hooper, 2007). In addition, since family members
seek to maintain a sense of harmony, communication about emotionally difficult matters may
be avoided – which may lead to a lack of discussion about family’s traumatic past
(Crittenden & Dallos, 2009).
Research shows that differentiation of self, and other dynamics within family systems,
can be transmitted intergenerationally (Abrams, 1999; Čepukienė & Neophytou, 2024).
Differentiation of self can be seen as a protective factor related to resilience (Süloğlu &
Güler, 2021). In addition, according to Bowen (1978), people maintaining their family
relationships and values show higher resilience in managing stress in their lives.
3.3 Post-Traumatic Growth
Post-Traumatic Growth (PTG) can be defined as positive shifts related to one’s personality,
functioning or cognition after a traumatic experience (Ortega-Williams et al., 2021). The
authors created a historical trauma-PTG framework, suggesting that personal growth is
interconnected with communal growth.
According to Berger and Weiss (2009), PTG can be applied to Family Systems
theory, resulting in positive outcomes for the whole family unit, such as improved
relationships, strengthened family identity, better focus on priorities, more life appreciation.
Therefore, PTG may help to explain how families that experienced historical trauma can
recover and even experience growth together.
Interestingly, while PTG may be used synonymously with resilience in some
research, their differences are debated (Westphal & Bonanno, 2007). The difference may lie
in the different definitions of resilience, as the authors argue that people showing more
resilience would not necessarily display signs of PTG, because resilience implies a lack of
8
traumatic symptoms, a lack of issues, and therefore, a lack of a need to work those issues
out – meaning, a lack of potential for post-traumatic growth. For example, Levine et al.
(2009) found that higher resilience was associated with lower PTG.
4. Method
4.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Four inclusion criteria were used. Firstly, the empirical studies containing both qualitative and
quantitative methods were included. Secondly, studies of second and/or third generations
were included, the first generation defined as the direct victims of genocide. Thirdly, the
samples containing offspring of people who survived Soviet or Nazi committed genocides
were included. Finally, studies that were published in or translated to English were included.
One non-English (Lithuanian) paper was nonetheless included due to the author’s native
proficiency in the language.
Four exclusion criteria were used. Firstly, reviews, meta-analyses and opinion pieces
were excluded. Secondly, studies where all generations in the sample were exposed to the
genocide were excluded as they would not be demonstrating transmission that this review is
focused on. Thirdly, studies were excluded when they did not address historical trauma or
psychological transmission: studies focused on personal trauma, on biological transmission
of trauma, studies detailing only the consequences of trauma without addressing the ways of
transmission or resilience factors were excluded. Finally, duplicate data samples were
excluded: two cases were found where studies released in different years relied on the same
data, collected at the same time, from the same individuals. The duplicate studies were
excluded to maintain the accuracy of the results, and the scientific integrity of the review.
The criteria can be justified through a few key factors. Firstly, since the data on this
topic is so limited, especially in the sample on Soviet regime, it was important to maximise
the type of studies that could be analysed. Therefore, both quantitative and qualitative
studies were included, both second and third generation studies were included, and no
date-based exclusion criteria was created. Secondly, it was important to maximise the
comparability of the studies, making sure that they can answer the research questions.
Therefore, the studies where the offspring were directly affected by the genocidal actions
were excluded, other types of traumas were excluded, duplicate data sets were excluded,
while only the selected samples of Nazi and Soviet genocides were included.
9
4.2 Search
The search was conducted on the 11th of October 2024 on PsycNet, DOAJ and PubMed
databases. PRISMA statement was used to guide the search process of this integrative
review (Page et al., 2021).
The following keywords were used: ‘intergenerational trauma’’ or ‘transgenerational
trauma’, ‘Soviet’ or ‘Holocaust’. Initially, Boolean logic was tested, however, the results
returned were not as relevant to the research questions as using the sets of keywords
separately. In addition, after testing the initial search string, few results were retrieved.
Therefore, the approach was adapted and only the essential keywords were left, because
using more keywords, including some of the key variables as “attachment” or “resilience”,
produced insufficient results and left out a considerable number of studies that analysed the
variables addressing the research questions.
Using the keywords ‘soviet intergenerational trauma’, 15 results were found, out of
which 13 did not answer the research questions. From the remaining two, one was
inaccessible due to (Russian) language, and one was a review. All 15 results were excluded,
however, after analysing the references used in the review paper, three relevant papers were
selected from the references. No duplicates were found across the databases. The
alternative keyword string ‘soviet transgenerational trauma’ did not yield any results on
PsycNet and DOAJ, while producing the same number of results on PubMed (12) with one
study being different, which was excluded due to being irrelevant to the research questions.
Using the keywords ‘holocaust intergenerational trauma’, 161 results were found, out
of which 18 were duplicates and 104 did not answer the research questions. From the
remaining 39 studies, 24 were reviews or non-empirical studies. From the 15 relevant
studies left, one was inaccessible. Finally, 14 remaining studies were selected to be used for
analysis. The alternative variation including a keyword ‘transgenerational’ yielded 116
results, out of which 31 studies were new, having removed the duplicates. Out of them, 21
did not answer the research questions and six were reviews or non-empirical papers. From
the four relevant studies left, three were inaccessible. In the end, one study was selected.
Having read the selected studies, five more studies were added from references.
This resulted in the final number of 23 studies. Eight of them concerning Soviet genocide,
and 16 on Nazi genocide – one comparative study focused on both samples, as can be seen
in Figure 1.
After analysing the abstracts of inaccessible papers – the versions of which were
either not found online or were not in English – it was concluded that the general findings of
them tended to be broadly consistent with the trends of the selected papers. The authors of
inaccessible papers have been contacted when their email addresses were available online.
10
Figure 1.
The Flow Chart of the Search Process
Note. This figure represents the literature search process across the scientific databases.
While the Boolean logic was initially tested, it did not produce relevant and sufficient results,
therefore, separate searches for different samples and synonyms were run, producing a high
number of duplicates. Studies that did not answer the research questions or that met the
exclusion criteria otherwise (e.g. review studies and meta-analyses) were excluded, with
overall eight studies added from the references of the papers that were found. The final
count included 23 studies, with one of the studies addressing both Soviet and Nazi regime
samples.
11
4.3 Sample
Out of the eight studies related to Soviet genocide, three were quantitative studies, four were
qualitative studies, and one contained both qualitative and quantitative elements.
Considerable effort was invested into finding peer-reviewed studies, and due to the limited
research available on the topic, two dissertations and two chapters containing original
research were included in the final sample. The rest of the studies were peer-reviewed. Out
of 16 studies on Nazi genocide, six were quantitative studies, seven were qualitative studies,
and three were mixed. All studies were peer-reviewed.
Out of all 23 studies, eight studies focused on trauma transmission to only the
second generation, 13 studies reported on trauma transmission to the third generation (out
of which nine studies included both the second and the third generation participants), and
two studies did not specify the generations, indicating that the results concern second or
third generation participants in one study, and the family members of the first generation in
another study.
In terms of the cultural and ethnic diversity, out of the eight studies on the Soviet
regime, one was conducted in Georgia, four in Lithuania, two in Ukraine, and one in Russia.
Five of them focused on killings, deportations and imprisonment throughout the time of the
Soviet regime, two of them focused on Holodomor famine and one of them focused
specifically on Stalin’s Purge of 1937-1939, which is defined as a particularly deadly period
of the Soviet history when millions of people were tortured, send to concentration camps,
deported to Siberia and killed (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994). Out of the 16 studies on the
Nazi regime, nine of them were conducted in Israel, three in the United States of America,
one in Italy, one in Hungary, one in Brazil, and one in Australia. All the studies on the Nazi
genocidal actions in this review focused on the Holocaust, with the participants usually
described as the offspring of concentration camp survivors, or, more broadly, as the offspring
of people who lived under the Nazi regime and survived.
4.4 Analysis
The selected studies will be presented in an integrative review. To process quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed method data from diverse samples, integrative review methodology by
Whittemore & Knafl (2005) was used.
The analysis of the studies was conducted relying on thematic analysis by Thomas &
Harden (2008). Firstly, codes were assigned to analysed concepts based on the research
questions, such as “attachment”, “parenting”, “resilience”, with new codes created as
patterns in the studies emerged, such as “mistrust”, “sadness”, “anxiety”. Secondly,
descriptive themes were developed based on these codes, such as parenting approaches
12
(involving parental styles, avoidance, overprotection, parent-child role reversal), family
atmosphere (involving sadness, anxiety and other emotion-related codes), resilience
patterns (involving patriotism, optimism, well-being, respect towards the parents, pride),
traumatic symptoms (involving sadness, anxiety, fear, PTSD symptoms), family
communication (open communication, reflective communication, fragmented communication,
absent communication, hidden communication, avoided communication). Thirdly, analytical
themes were created based on interconnections among the descriptive themes and
individual codes, to provide insight into the findings. The Results and Discussion are
structured based on the research questions, while utilising thematic analysis to identify the
themes, understand and interpret the findings. See Results for the overview of the analytic
themes that emerged from the findings.
5. Results
5.1 Attachment Styles and Parenting Approaches
5.1.1 Attachment styles
5.1.1.1 Soviet Regime. Javakhishvili (2018) analysed the attachment styles carried
by the offspring of Georgians who were oppressed by the Soviet regime, finding that the
relationship pattern, as well as the attachment style, were transmitted from the second
generation to the third. In the interviews, the second generation discussed the
hyper-protectiveness of their parents, and parentification. The interviews with the third
generation revealed that the same pattern of hyper-protectiveness and parentification was
found in the parental relationship between the second and the third generations, interfering
with the process of achieving autonomy. The author suggested that this pattern shows
insecure, ambivalent attachment, that may be explained by trauma-induced anxiety.
Zasiekina et al. (2021) compared the traumatic experiences of Holocaust and
Holodomor survivors in Ukraine. Similarly, they found patterns of insecure attachment in both
samples, both among the second and the third-generation survivors, discussing it in the
context of complex intense emotions – such as fear, anger, disgust – caused by the
genocide trauma, transmitted across generations, and interfering with a secure parent-child
bond. Therefore, while the focus on the reasons behind insecure attachment was different in
these samples – discussing parentification or emotions in the family – these studies are
painting a similar picture of extreme emotions affecting attachment styles through parental
fearfulness and protectiveness.
13
5.1.1.2 Nazi Regime. Insecure attachment was found to be transmitted to the second
and third generations (Scharf, 2007; Scharf & Mayseless, 2011; Zasiekina et al., 2021).
Scharf (2007) found that adolescent grandchildren of Holocaust survivors had higher levels
of ambivalent attachment style when both of their parents were from the Holocaust-affected
families. In addition, adolescents with both parents from Holocaust-affected families rated
their parents as less accepting and less encouraging of autonomy – these perceptions were
correlated with adolescents’ lower self-perception and higher levels of ambivalent
attachment style. There was one finding inconsistent with the rest of the data, reporting that
adolescents with a father from Holocaust-affected family showed lower levels of ambivalent
attachment style than the adolescents from a group unaffected by Holocaust. However, only
12 participants were in this group, and the authors expressed a need for replication of this
result with a higher sample. Signs of insecure attachment were also found among second
and third generation offspring of Holocaust survivors (Zasiekina et al., 2021). Scharf and
Mayseless (2011) discovered a similar pattern of findings, showing that neglecting the needs
for autonomy, as well as competence, results in disorganised attachment for second and
third generations.
However, Sagi-Schwartz et al. (2003), did not find evidence for intergenerational
trauma transmission through attachment styles. While they confirmed that Holocaust
survivors tended to have less secure attachment than the comparison group that has not
experienced Holocaust, their offspring did not differ from the comparison group – neither in
terms of attachment styles, nor in terms of traumatic stress or maternal behaviour. The
authors explained these effects as a presence of resilience.
5.1.2 Parenting Approaches
5.1.2.1 Soviet Regime. Anxiety and fear were common emotions in the families
affected by Soviet genocides (Bezo & Maggi, 2015; Javakhishvili, 2018; Zasiekina et al.,
2021). In a study of Holodomor survivors and their offspring, the third generation saw their
parents as avoidant of contact, anxious, fearful, passive, ashamed, and closed off to others.
They defined this state as staying in a constant survival mode (Bezo & Maggi, 2015).
Similarly, Javakhishvili (2018) found that the third generation tended to describe their parents
as overprotective, authoritarian, and anxious, describing the family atmosphere as filled with
fear – fear of the authorities and mistrust of people. Just as in the Holodomor study, the
second generation tended to distance themselves from their children, reluctant to talk about
their trauma. Fear featured in these family accounts as well, with the second generation
reporting fear about the security of their country. These emotions from the family
environment were passed to the third generation, as they reported often feeling scared,
14
obsessive, sad, anxious, ashamed (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994; Bezo & Maggi, 2015;
Zasiekina et al., 2021).
In contrast, Mažulytė-Rašytienė (2017) discovered that the offspring of the Soviet
oppression victims found their mothers to be less overprotective compared to the offspring
from families that did not experience direct oppression. In addition, the participants rated
their fathers as more caring compared to the non-victim offspring responses. It is worth
mentioning that the study was quantitative and focused on resilience, so more nuanced
accounts on family atmosphere were not studied.
5.1.2.2 Nazi Regime. A pattern of parent-child role reversal was transmitted across
generations (Letzter-Pouw et al, 2014; Scharf & Mayseless, 2011; Wiseman, 2008;
Zasiekina et al., 2021). The second generation described their parents as anxious,
overprotective, and failing to meet their needs. The third generation also reported feeling
controlled, while showing signs of parentification – for example, they avoided sharing
worrying news to protect their mothers. Second generation tended to avoid experiencing
their feelings in order not to suffer, and modelled this approach to the third generation,
distancing themselves emotionally. The third generation reported emotional numbness
(Zasiekina et al., 2021). Similarly, Wiseman (2008) found that the second generation saw
their parents as overprotective, neglecting the emotional needs of their offspring while
over-emphasising their physical needs, which facilitated the parent-child role reversal and
led to loneliness both in relation to their peers and their parents. Scharf and Mayseless
(2011) established that when offspring were not provided with a sense of competence,
autonomy and relatedness, they tended to neglect their own needs and attempted to meet
parents' needs instead, contributing to the role-reversal pattern. Wiseman et al. (2006)
showed that parents’ controlling responses were linked to a reaction of anger by the second
generation, but parent’s angry responses were not linked to the offspring’s anger - they were
seen as vulnerable reactions, and were linked to a sense of guilt, which was also associated
with conflict avoidance. The author suggested that this pattern had contributed to “mutual
overprotection”, also implying signs of parentification. Letzter-Pouw et al. (2014) suggested
that parental burden tended to revert parent-child roles. They observed the transmission of
parental burden to the second and third generations, which was linked to more
post-traumatic symptoms and Holocaust salience, defined as the lingering thoughts,
behaviours and feelings associated with Holocaust. These links were not found in the
comparison sample.
Reduced autonomy was linked to anxiety, PTSD and other trauma-related symptoms
(Békés & Starrs 2024; Gangi et al., 2009). Gangi et al. (2009) concluded that the families of
Holocaust survivors tended to limit autonomy, showing reduced independence and more
15
submission among the second generation. They worried about relationships and avoided
intimate relationships more than the control group, which may be partially explained by the
findings of their lower self-worth and higher anxiety than controls. Békés and Starrs (2024)
studied parental styles, discussing their impact on mental health symptoms such as PTSD,
C-PTSD, anxiety, and depression. They found that the second generation had higher levels
of the mental health symptoms when their parents used victim style, while numb style was
associated with these symptoms as well, apart from anxiety. Fighter style was not linked to
any symptoms neither for second nor for the third generation. Fighter style was the most
common, while the victim style was the least common in the studied families. The authors
suggested that traumatic transmission was influenced by parenting and parents’ coping
abilities more than by the generational distance from the traumatic event. The victim style
can be associated with overprotectiveness and control, the numb style can be associated
with silence and avoidance of communication, while the fighter style may be linked to efforts
to maintain identity, making this study consistent with the previous ones showing the link
between the traumatisation and the overprotective or avoidant parenting. Interestingly, this
was the only study that found higher levels of traumatic symptoms in the third generation
than in the second generation, the authors suggesting that since control groups were not
used, more research is needed, especially controlling for age groups.
5.2 Family Communication
5.2.1 Soviet Regime
Multiple studies found that the traumatic family history was often not discussed within the
family, and even when they were, the offspring were told to not talk about it outside of the
family (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994; Bezo & Maggi, 2015; Javakhishvili, 2018; Vaskelienė et
al., 2011). The third-generation offspring reported difficulty in complying with this rule, feeling
like they had to constantly control themselves, being unable to share their thoughts with their
friends or teachers (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994; Vaskelienė et al., 2011). Most of the
offspring only learned about the family history as adults and reported difficulties making
sense of it (Javakhishvili, 2018).
In the cases of absent communication, the reasons were both psychological
(indicating emotional intensity) and political (avoiding Soviet persecution) (Bezo & Maggi,
2015; Vaskelienė et al., 2011). Some of the emotional reasons were linked to the trauma
transmission: the third generation noticed that parents’ anxiety led to constant busyness to
avoid conversations, which led to a lack of communication (Bezo & Maggi, 2015). The
significance of the political reasons is supported by the fact that communication about
oppression became more frequent and open after Lithuania declaring independence from
16
the Soviet Union (Vaskelienė et al., 2011). In addition, the second generation said they
learned that they had to be silent out of fear, being aware of the social and political
consequences of speaking out (Bezo & Maggi, 2015).
Open communication was often associated with resilience (Javakhishvili, 2018;
Mažulytė-Rašytienė, 2017; Vaskelienė et al., 2011). Open communication within the family
was linked to a sense of strength and meaning, respect to the oppressed parents, resilience,
and pride. However, some open conversations resulted in sadness and anger for the second
generation, especially in those cases when the conversations were overly detailed
(Vaskelienė et al., 2011). According to Javakhishvili (2018), those third-generation
participants who had open discussions about family trauma history in childhood, tended to
see more positive outcomes of it, such as heightened empathy, resilience, and patriotism. In
addition, more third generation participants saw positive outcomes compared to the second
generation. Conversations with the first generation were seen as protective against the
traumatic effects, if the oppression stories were framed as meaningful – if they were
described as mere misunderstandings, no protective effect of communication was seen.
Contrary to the findings of Vaskelienė et al. (2011), even the stories that were seen as too
detailed and too emotional seemed to have a positive effect, as they contributed to the
processing and ascribing meaning to the trauma. The author indicated two communication
types, with Emotional-reflective style facilitating meaning-making and Conspiracy of silence
preventing this process (Javakhishvili, 2018). Mažulytė-Rašytienė (2017) demonstrated that
the families with trauma history had more conversations about the trauma than the
comparison group, which is consistent with the finding that the offspring from the latter group
knew less about their family history. Most of the victim families (84.98%) had these family
discussions. The type of communication used was significant: families with traumatic history
expressed sadness and humour more, as well as more sense of strength and pride. It may
indicate that the trauma was being processed and integrated, which may explain the study’s
finding that the second and third generation offspring had higher scores of well-being and
optimism than the comparison group (Mažulytė-Rašytienė, 2017).
Even if no trauma memories are shared in a family, the trauma may be transmitted
through a non-verbal approach – a third-generation participant described remembering her
grandmother always crying and staying quiet. This finding suggested yet another type of
transmission – non-verbal communication (Zasiekina et al., 2021).
Finally, there is silence on the societal level. Zasiekina et al. (2021) indicated that
most Ukrainians found it important to remember and commemorate Holodomor, as the
Soviet regime tried to hide it, sharing the aim to break the silence and to start communication
about the traumatic events on the societal and state level.
17
5.2.2 Nazi Regime
The communication in the family was found to influence the transmission of both the
traumatic effects and resilience (Braga, 2012; Johns et al., 2022; Giladi & Bell, 2012). The
communication style affected the second generation’s ability to process and integrate the
parental trauma: open, loving, humour-filled communication was associated with resilience,
and more fragmented, indirect, secretive communication was associated with more
pronounced trauma experience in the second generation. The authors explained the findings
through fear and avoidance of other negative emotions – parents wanted to protect their
offspring from the family trauma, which led to less communication, making it harder for the
offspring to process these events (Braga, 2012). Similarly, open verbal communication as
well as higher differentiation of self, were linked to lower traumatic stress and higher
psychological well-being for both second and third generations. Poorer communication and
lower differentiation of self were linked with more traumatic stress. The fact that lower levels
of differentiation of self were associated with poorer family communication relates these
findings to other studies reporting overprotective, authoritarian parenting being associated
with the intergenerational trauma (Giladi & Bell, 2012). Unhealthy communication, defined as
indirect and guilt-inducing, was associated with lower mental well-being, such as more
anxiety and depression, in the lives of second and third generations of Holocaust survivors.
Healthier – more frequent and willing – communication was not found to be associated with
better mental well-being, which, authors suggested, may mean that unhealthy
communication is more impactful than healthy communication (Johns et al., 2022).
Communication type may be also related to parenting style (Békés & Starss, 2024;
Wiseman et al., 2006; Wiseman, 2008). When parents were silent about the experienced
trauma, it affected the offspring's ability to express their emotions and needs, leading to a
sense of guilt, mutual overprotection, and loneliness (Wiseman et al., 2006). Second
generation shared a need for more open communication, stating that their parents struggled
to openly talk about traumatic events (Wiseman, 2008). Also, numb parental style was
related to a lack of communication about the trauma in the family, suggesting that trauma
gets transmitted not (only) through active parenting, but through a lack of communication
and emotional expression (Békés & Starss, 2024).
In addition, communication about Holocaust was linked to a sense of identity (Johns
et al., 2022; Kassai & Motta, 2006). Affective communication was correlated with ethnic
identification, showing the link between more reflective communication within the family and
the offspring developing a stronger sense of ethnic identity (Kassai & Motta, 2006). More
frequent communication about Holocaust and stronger ethnic identity were linked to more
18
historical loss awareness – more frequent thinking about Holocaust and the related events
(Johns et al., 2022).
According to Cohn and Morrison (2018), a new type of trauma transmission can be
observed in the third generation, in contrast to other studies. The third generation was
described as active in the search for information about the traumatic family past, outside of
family communication. The researchers claimed that this self-research approach is emerging
as information about Holocaust is becoming more accessible independently. Having said
that, this qualitative study had only 6 participants, and therefore the results may not be
generalisable.
Out of all the studies reviewed, only one of them saw the silence between the parent
and child as a potentially positive type of communication (Kidron et al, 2019). The authors
explained the shared silence as an interaction without words, rather than a lack of
communication, and linked it with resilience.
In contrast to other studies, Kassai and Motta (2006) did not find evidence for
intergenerational trauma transmission. However, this quantitative study measured
transmission through a STROOP test, that may not have captured the traumatic effects –
they presented the participants with colours and words on the cards to test if they will react
differently to Holocaust-related words. This operationalisation choice is further discussed in
the reflection on the quality of studies.
Some generational differences were reported. Zasiekina et al. (2021) noted that the
third generation showed more signs of trauma integration, compared to the second one,
given the differences in the interviews – more words used, more details described, higher
coherence of their accounts. The authors suggested that with every generation the
communication may become freer. They also noticed that the third generation showed more
preparedness to understand and create family narratives, as well as more motivation to pass
these stories forward, compared to the second generation.
5.3 Resilience
5.3.1 Soviet Regime
Resilience was associated with a sense of identity (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994;
Javakhishvili, 2018; Vaskelienė et al., 2011). Baker and Gippenreiter (1994) found that the
third generation who was engaged in researching their family’s genocide history, tended to
have higher levels of resilience. Vaskelienė et al. (2011) concluded that the coping strategies
transmitted to the second generation included resilience, strength, a sense of meaning in
their lives, pride in the parents and respect for them, patriotism, and even a sense of
superiority since they were the ones knowing the truth shared by their families. Similarly,
19
Javakhishvili (2018) framed the resilience found among the third generation as a force
impacting their patriotic values, empathetic personality, and fighting spirit.
Resilience was higher in families affected by deportations, imprisonment and killings
(Kazlauskas & Želvienė, 2016; Mažulytė-Rašytinė, 2017). Kazlauskas and Želvienė (2016)
reported that the well-being of the families with the oppressive background was found to be
higher than in the families without it. Interestingly, the experience of lifetime traumatic events
was not associated with lower well-being. According to the authors, it suggests that the
oppressive experiences may facilitate the transmission of resilience and even well-being for
the future generations, which may count as a protective mechanism against traumatic events
in the lives of the offspring. Mažulytė-Rašytinė (2017) identified that the second and third
generation participants from the victim families had higher well-being, higher resilience, as
well as more optimism and hope, compared to the families without exposure to direct Soviet
oppression.
One study explicitly addressed the transmission of resilience from the first to the
second generation, suggesting that parental resilience is associated with child resilience.
Namely, they found a correlation between the sense of coherence in the parents and
offspring of the oppressed families (Kazlauskas et al., 2017).
5.3.2 Nazi Regime
In the Holocaust studies, resilience and ways of coping were portrayed both as behaviours
and personality traits (Braga et al., 2012; Giladi & Bell, 2012; Shrira et al., 2011). Braga et al.
(2012) found the transmitted acts of resilience such as visiting locations connected to family
trauma, expression through art, joining communities, and activism. Giladi and Bell (2012)
reported the presence of resilience in the examples of focusing on high achievement,
choosing empathetic careers, and sharing the legacy of Holocaust. Shrira et al. (2011)
concluded that the offspring of Holocaust survivors had more optimism, hope, and
satisfaction with life compared to the non-Holocaust group. The authors also found that
resilience is observed more in families with affectionate and open communication, as
described in the previous section (Braga et al, 2012).
On a different note, Kidron et al. (2019) found that the offspring of Holocaust
survivors see the transmitted resilience and vulnerability as interlinked rather than distinct
concepts, interacting and reinforcing each other. They suggested the concept of resilient
vulnerability to explain their results.
5.4 Additional Findings
While the studies in this review were selected to address the research questions related to
the transmission of trauma through family communication, attachment styles, parenting
20
approaches, as well as transmission of resilience, these studies provided additional findings
that may enrich the understanding of the topic. In this section, the additional findings, that
were consistently occurring in the reviewed studies, will be presented.
5.4.1 Societal
5.4.1.1 Soviet Regime. On the societal level, mistrust of other people was
transmitted through generations (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994; Bezo & Maggi, 2015;
Javakhishvili, 2018). Even relatives would often refrain from communicating with the second
generation of oppressed families out of fear – the third generation claimed that because of
the hostility from the state and rejection from the community, they learned to mistrust others
(Javakhishvili, 2018). Both the second and the third generations talked about fear and
mistrust of other people as a result of Holodomor, leading to isolation from others in society
(Bezo & Maggi, 2015).
Bezo and Maggi (2015) also found the transmitted sense of indifference towards
other people among second and third generation participants, that arose as a need for
self-preservation during Holodomor, encouraging the focus on survival of the family and
ignoring the struggle of others. Participants claimed that in the present-day Ukraine society,
people are less generous towards each other or concerned with helping each other. They
attributed this to learning and trauma transmission through the social environment (Bezo &
Maggi, 2015).
The authors also reported on lost opportunities (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994;
Javakhishvili, 2018). The third generation in Russia talked about jobs that they would not be
admitted to despite qualifications, because they were the offspring of the oppression victims
(Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994). Similarly, the second generation in Georgia experienced
hostility resulting in inability to get a job, pursue medical studies, obtain music education,
and go abroad (Javakhishvili, 2018).
5.4.1.2 Nazi Regime. Among the Holocaust studies, only one study found the
participants reporting mistrust. The second generation described being raised with reminders
not to connect with people, and not to fall in love. They thought they may have passed this
sentiment to their daughters – the third generation (Zasiekina et al., 2021).
5.4.2 Individual
5.4.2.1 Soviet Regime. Both the second and the third generations reported elements
of passivity and helplessness (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994; Bezo & Maggi, 2015;
Javakhishvili, 2018). The third generation in the Russian sample stated that they struggle
with taking initiative (Baker & Gippenreiter, 1994). In the Georgian sample, the third
generation tried to stay invisible and avoid people, with their second-generation parents
21
describing this tendency as well, explaining it as an attempt to stay safe and unseen, since
their own parents were anxious about their children being noticed by the regime and affected
by oppressions (Javakhishvili, 2018). In the Ukrainian sample, both the second and the third
generations talked about the fear to take action that was transmitted from their parents,
leading to what they described as slave mentality. It was related to inability to actively make
decisions in the spheres of employment and personal life, leading to passivity and low
self-esteem (Bezo & Maggi, 2015).
5.4.2.2 Nazi Regime. No Holocaust studies discussed a lack of initiative or attempt
to stay unseen. One study addressed low self-worth (Gangi et al., 2009).
5.5. Analytical themes
The results of the studies reveal three key analytical themes, that can be unified into one
suggested mechanism. One of the most prominent themes that emerged was open family
communication leading to resilience patterns. It was related to the mechanisms of
strengthened identity and emotional processing, such as using expressions of humour or
even sadness when talking about family trauma. Another analytical theme addressed the link
between fragmented, absent, or overly detailed communication and more traumatic
symptoms. Finally, a theme was identified around family communication type correlating with
parenting approaches, with a lack of communication being associated with avoidance of
traumatic topics, leading to parentification and numbness.
Taken together, multiple codes and themes suggest a pattern showing that the family
atmosphere of anxiety and fear affects parenting approaches, communication, and
attachment styles. Negative mental health symptoms such as anxiety, sadness and fear may
lead to more overprotective or avoidant parenting approaches, at points leading to insecure
attachment, which results in more fractured and less open family communication, and which
may then influence the transmission of such attributes and processes to the next generation.
5.6 Critical Evaluation of the Quality of Studies Presented
Nineteen out of 23 studies were peer-reviewed. Out of the remaining four, two studies were
published as doctoral dissertations and two studies as chapters. The analysis of the
research journals in which the studies were published, indicated that the journals follow
rigorous peer review policies. All of them described the review process as anonymous or
blinded, and eight of them characterised it as double blinded or double masked. Given the
limited number of studies on the topic, especially the studies on the Soviet regime, it was
important to include all academic data available, while carefully evaluating the conclusions
that it presents. Therefore, while not all the studies were peer-reviewed, the ones that were,
22
came from journals with robust review processes, and the ones that were not, were checked
by the authors of the books in which the research chapters got published and by the doctoral
dissertation supervisors. The findings of non-peer-reviewed studies were consistent with the
rest of the studies.
Eight studies had control groups. Since half of the studies had qualitative elements, a
lack of control groups may be understood due to the exploratory nature of qualitative
research goals. In addition, finding relevant comparison groups in this research field may be
difficult, as historical trauma affects entire populations. However, a lack of comparison,
especially coupled with non-random sampling, may make the conclusions less robust and
thus, less generalisable and less replicable.
Only three studies used random samples. The remaining ones relied on recruiting via
networks and convenience samples – obtaining the participant contacts from governmental
data registries (such as Israeli Ministry of the Interior), or nongovernmental organisations
related to traumatic experiences (such as Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research
Center, Jewish Community of Rome and Milan, Brazilian Jewish Institution, Memorial
organisation dedicated to Stalin’s Purge victims). In addition, the nature of research limits the
participant characteristics: research that involved the elderly first generation participants,
tended to over-represent women, as women tend to live longer than men (World Health
Organisation, 2018). Only the participants that were willing to be a part of the research were
included, which means that survivors of more extreme experiences and their families may
not have been represented, as recalling these experiences in the context of research may
have been too painful. While a lack of random sampling may seem problematic, the research
on historical intergenerational trauma requires participants with rather specific experiences,
and while the results may not be fully representable of the wider society, they still offer
insight into the process of trauma transmission in the researched communities.
Two studies had limitations in operationalising the researched variables. One study
measured sense of coherence while using the results for conclusions on resilience, without
using scales measuring resilience (Kazlauskas et al., 2017). Another study assessed trauma
transmission through response latency in a Stroop test. While the authors indicated that no
other study has used this procedure before to assess trauma transmission, they defined
trauma transmission as response latency in this test, and when the hypothesis was not
supported, they concluded that the trauma transmission to the third generation may not
occur (Kassai & Motta, 2006). Having said that, both operationalisation options can be
argued for, nonetheless, construct validity of these studies may be affected. While
Kazlauskas et al. (2017) mentioned this operationalisation choice as a potential limitation,
23
Kassai and Motta (2006) did not acknowledge downsides of this procedure in measuring
trauma transmission.
Twelve studies in this review used quantitative measurements - only, or in addition to
qualitative analysis of the interviews. Even when quantitative scales were used, most of
them relied on self-report, which might have been problematic in the cases where
participants had to recall their experiences from many years ago (such as stories from their
childhood), when they had to describe vulnerable experiences of their own (such as
evaluating their well-being), or when they had to make judgements that may be hard to
observe from the first person (such as evaluating if their grandparents experiences had
influence on their lives). The qualitative study results may not be generalisable. However, the
quantitative findings tended to be consistent with qualitative ones, offering both
generalisable insight and deeper understanding behind the quantitative findings.
Two studies did not specify if the participants belonged to the second or third
generation. In one case, it was stated that all participants were from the second or third
generation. In another study, it was mentioned that the participants are family members of
the victims. While this lack of specificity did not seem to significantly affect the study as the
results of these studies were largely consistent with the rest of them in the review, knowing
which generations specifically were studied would have allowed for a more insightful
analysis.
One study had only six participants – since it had conclusions that were slightly
different to the others, these conclusions may need to be approached cautiously (Cohn &
Morrison, 2018).
Finally, three studies did not include any limitations.
There are a lot of signs of quality research in this sample. Three studies implemented
control for immigration effects, which is especially relevant to the Nazi genocide sample as it
includes many people who moved to Israel, so it is important to understand if their struggles
can be partially explained by immigration. Secondly, three studies controlled for the degree
of trauma transmission when only one of the parents had family trauma history, compared to
both parents coming from trauma-affected families. Thirdly, six studies controlled for
traumatic experiences in participants’ lives, to understand if there are any other variables
that may have influenced their current state, other than the family trauma transmission.
5.7 Contribution to the Research Field
The finding that historical trauma in the Soviet and Nazi genocide samples was related to
insecure attachment types, is consistent with the wider trauma research field. In a study on
Armenian genocide, Ghrjyan (2023) found that insecure attachment correlated with the
24
transmission of intergenerational trauma. A systematic review on refugee trauma found that
parental traumatic experiences affected their children through insecure attachment
(Flanagan et al., 2020). Consistent with these results was the finding that adult children of
Holocaust survivors showed lower capacity for emotional intimacy in their romantic
relationships, while being more emotionally connected to their parents than the comparison
group (Mazor & Tal, 1996). This is supported by Family Systems theory, implying a struggle
for differentiation, as well as displaying elements of anxious attachment. One Holocaust
study in the sample did not find any connection between attachment styles and the historical
trauma, which can be related to studies in the literature that did not find consequences of
historical trauma to second or third generations (Sagi-Schwartz et al., 2008; Van IJzendoorn
et al., 2003). The authors suggested that a lack of secondary or tertiary traumatisation could
be explained by the presence of resilience.
Communication was another way of trauma transmission in the Soviet and Nazi
genocide samples: open communication more often correlated with better social and
psychological functioning, and absent or fragmented communication was linked to more
traumatic transmission. In a study on Apartheid, the second generation reported a lack of
communication in the family, as well as a lack of societal conversation about the trauma
(Hoosain, 2013). A study on Rwandan genocide reported disturbed family communication,
such as silence out fear of talking about the traumatic events, as well as due to
parentification (Ingabire et al., 2022). These findings also contribute to the Family Systems
theory, showing how traumatic parental experiences may lead to parent-child role reversal,
resulting in avoidance of communication out of mutual protection. Importantly, parent-child
role reversal can be linked to insecure attachment, and while not many studies in this
sample focused on attachment styles, one found the connection between insecure
attachment and parentification as well, consistent with wider literature (Baggett et al., 2015;
Engelhardt, 2012). Another element of Family Systems theory was supported by the finding
that differentiation of self and open communication were linked to lower traumatic stress.
Other studies in the field provided similar findings on differentiation of self, showing that
lower differentiation of self of the offspring can be related to higher post-traumatic symptoms
in ex-prisoners of war and their children (Nicolai et al., 2017). The authors explained this
effect through children’s inability to develop and protect their individuality due to the family
environment influenced by anxiety, overprotection and fear stemming from parental trauma.
The research on intergenerationally transmitted resilience within the field of trauma,
and especially historical trauma, is relatively new. In this study, resilience was often
transmitted through familial and cultural identities embedded in family communication,
consistent with Family Systems theory, suggesting that family members benefit from relying
25
on each other, and that family values such as shared identity correspond with presence of
resilience (Bowen, 1978). Other studies on genocides offer comparable findings. A study on
Cambodian genocide found open and less hierarchical parental communication to be related
to resilience transmission (Mak et al., 2021). Some studies in the sample discovered not only
resilience, but higher levels of well-being when compared to the control group, implying
post-traumatic growth. The connection between more open communication within family and
higher levels of well-being is further evidenced by a link between storytelling and
post-traumatic growth in the context of race-based historical trauma, as well as the genocide
in Rwanda (Chin et al., 2023; Grayson, 2018). According to Cozolino (2016), storytelling is
hardwired in human beings, and therefore, family stories become common transmission
pathways.
This review has found the pattern of intergenerationally transmitted mistrust and
helplessness, especially in the Soviet genocide sample. While not widely researched in the
context of intergenerational historical trauma, mistrust has been noticed in communities of
indigenous people in Canada affected by genocidal policies, as well as in the
genocide-affected Rwanda (Ingelaere & Verpoorten, 2020; Leckey et al., 2022; Manirakiza,
2018). More generally, a sense of helplessness is shown to be associated with traumatic
experiences (Herman, 1992).
6. Discussion
6.1 Addressing the Research Questions
6.1.1 Attachment Styles and Parenting Approaches
Elements of insecure attachment were found to be transmitted to second and third
generations in both samples, with two cases of ambivalent attachment, a case of
disorganised attachment and a study describing insecure attachment without specifying its
type. While one study focused on attachment found no evidence for insecure attachment
transmission, the presence of the other studies suggests that insecure, and especially
ambivalent, attachment might be present in the offspring of genocide survivors. Parental
overprotection and parent-child role reversal were found to be transmitted intergenerationally
as well. In addition, parenting styles were found to be transmitted from the first to the second
generation. The results often describing a family atmosphere of fear and anxiety support this
conclusion.
6.1.2 Family Communication
Trauma was transmitted through family communication in three key ways. Firstly, a lack of
communication or fragmented communication was associated with more traumatic effects
26
getting transmitted, some studies finding that overly detailed communication had similar
effects. Secondly, open and affective communication was linked to higher resilience and
well-being transmitted – as well as stronger identity. Thirdly, non-verbal communication was
found to transmit the traumatic effects without explicitly talking about them, but only in one
case.
6.1.3 Resilience
Resilience was transmitted through open family communication, the sense of family and
community identity, as well as behaviours such as activism or visiting meaningful sites. The
offspring from families affected by trauma reported higher well-being and optimism in some
studies, especially in the Soviet regime sample. In some of them, the absence of traumatic
effects was explained through the presence of resilience. In addition, having one parent not
affected by genocides could count as a protective factor. One study suggested that
resilience is non-distinct from vulnerability, defining resilient vulnerability as a concept
present in trauma transmission.
6.1.4 Differences in Samples
The trauma transmission mechanisms discussed in the studies of Soviet and Nazi genocides
were remarkably similar and overlapping. There were two key differences between the
samples. Firstly, on top of the emotional silence induced by the traumatic events, there was
a political silence present in the Soviet genocide studies, even when the genocidal actions
such as Holodomor or deportations to Siberia were over. A lack of communication about the
family trauma was also more often mentioned in the Soviet regime sample, with all but one
of them touching on it. Secondly, helplessness and a lack of initiative were often mentioned
in the Soviet genocide studies, while they were never mentioned in the Nazi genocide, which
some of the authors explained through the fact that Soviet committed genocides are rarely
known or acknowledged.
6.1.5 Generation effects
While the differences between the second and the third generations were not a part of the
research questions, some generational observations contribute to the understanding of the
transmission addressed in the research questions. Overall, most of the results applied both
to the transmission to the second and to the third generations. However, in some studies the
third generation had reduced traumatic reactions, compared to the second generation. They
showed milder behavioural reactions and provided more cohesive responses, using more
words when speaking about the historical trauma and sharing more details than the second
generation. In addition, the third generation more than the second tended to notice positive
outcomes related to the historical trauma, such as family resilience. Some of the authors
27
explain this effect as parents consciously trying to raise their children differently to prevent
the transmission of traumatic symptoms that they inherited themselves.
6.2 Summary of Results
To sum up, the results of this literature review show that there is evidence for family
communication as a transmission pathway in intergenerational trauma, with open
communication being more associated with transmission of resilience, and absent
communication associated with symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, sadness. Traumatic
experiences were also found to be transmitted through insecure attachment styles and
controlling or avoidant parental approaches. Some families affected by genocides showed
only resilience with no traumatic outcomes. The outcomes in Nazi and Soviet genocide
samples were comparable, with the variable of mistrust and helplessness featuring mostly in
the families affected by the Soviet regime. The limitations of the study and the nuance with
which the data should be interpreted will be discussed up next.
6.3 Limitations
6.3.1 Critical Reflection on Research Strategy
While the inclusion criteria accounted for only English language studies, the exception was
made for one Lithuanian language study due to the author's native proficiency in it. One
study was excluded due to language, when no translated version was found. This may
introduce a bias into the sample, however, the Lithuanian study that was accepted showed
similar patterns to other studies and did not skew the results. Given how limited the current
research field is, it was important to use all the data available to present the research that is
as conclusive and comprehensive as possible.
Some studies that were selected were not accessible – the full versions of the articles
were not available to the author. Effort was made to find the email addresses of the authors
and to ask for a copy of the articles. Four authors agreed to share their articles, which
enabled the analysis of their studies. No email address was found for two articles, which
deprived this review from a more comprehensive view. The abstracts of the missing articles
suggested that their data was largely in agreement with the studies analysed in this review.
While established scientific research databases PsycNet, DOAJ and PubMed were
utilised in the search, some databases like ScienceGov ended up not being used in the
process after testing the search strings on them and finding that they returned insufficient
results. When conducting the literature search on the databases, Boolean operators were
not used, because after initial string testing, they did not return relevant results. However, the
search and analysis processes were clearly documented, so that other researchers can
28
replicate them. Inclusion criteria was chosen to lean towards capturing more studies, in order
not to miss limited data, and studies were sifted through manually to find articles relevant to
the research questions. Every study found was documented with a noted reason for
exclusion, to account for duplicates and to lead the process with transparency. The thematic
analysis of the studies was described through codes and themes, to share visibility on the
process.
Although Nazi genocide includes more atrocities than Holocaust, most of the
literature found was focused exclusively on Holocaust, which may not reveal the full picture
of the traumatic impact by the regime. More search strings might need to be tested to
capture the non-Holocaust Nazi impact on trauma transmission. In addition, more research
in the field is needed.
On a positive note, while studies on the Soviet regime are extremely limited, the
selected search strategy was successful in producing all the empirical studies that are
currently available and that concern the intergenerational trauma transmission, to the best of
the author’s knowledge. To check the sensitivity of the search procedure, a comprehensive
Google Scholar search was conducted to cross-reference the included papers and to make
sure that there are no additional studies in this field missing from the sample of this review. It
was concluded that all the studies that address the research question and are available on
Google Scholar were detected on the academic databases used in the search procedure.
6.3.2 Critical Reflection on the Master’s Thesis
There were multiple papers by the same authors in this review. While it may introduce a bias
in the sample, it reflects how limited the research in the field is for now. Since their research
questions did not completely overlap, these research papers were kept to provide a more
detailed view of the literature.
The comparison groups in the studies varied - while in some studies they consisted
of participants who have never experienced anything similar to a genocide, other samples,
especially the ones focusing on the Soviet regime, had the comparison samples of people
who have lived under the Soviet regime, albeit not directly affected by genocidal actions. As
a result, in these cases the differences between the groups may be less established.
Although the conclusions of the studies were quite consistent, each research
question of the review had a varying number of studies addressing it, in the varying levels of
depth. Family communication as a trauma transmission pathway was addressed by the most
research papers, while attachment transmission was covered less frequently. Having said
that, the research questions were addressed with a mixture of qualitative and quantitative
studies for each question, providing both potential for generalisable data and insight behind
29
the pattern. No systematic differences were noticed between outcomes of quantitative and
qualitative studies for the same research questions, suggesting that the qualitative studies,
although not generalisable, are largely consistent with quantitative data.
The author of this review is Lithuanian, whose great grandparent was deported to
Siberia by the Soviet regime. As a result, this background may introduce a bias in this study.
To prevent it, the author followed the scientific principles to document an impartial process
and unbiased results. For example, the use of integrative methodology and thematic
analysis allowed for a comprehensive synthesis of different studies to go beyond descriptive
results and understand the interactions among the studies, the different samples,
generations and methodological approaches.
While the trauma in both samples fell under comparable definitions of genocide, the
research was conducted in different countries, under different political and cultural settings. It
is likely that trauma exposure was different in different families and communities, and while
quantitative studies may attempt to account for it through random sampling, the qualitative
studies that are abundant in this research may not be fully representative and therefore may
not reflect on entire populations.
The genocidal status of Stalin’s crimes and ethnic cleansing of Georgians,
Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and other occupied nations is sometimes questioned, but according
to the documentation cited in Introduction, these crimes of Holodomor, Stalin’s Purge and
mass deportations to Siberia can be classified as genocides and thus compared to Nazi
Holocaust. Importantly, the similarity of the findings between the two samples supports this
classification.
6.4 Implications and Practical Recommendations
These findings have implications for individual and societal settings, leading to practical
recommendations.
On the individual level, these findings have implications for the mental health
professionals working with clients who may experience intergenerational trauma. On the one
hand, it is important to acknowledge the promising findings of resilience transmitted
intergenerationally, and therefore, not to victimise the patients, and rather help them uncover
their own coping resources and skills. On the other hand, many significant vulnerabilities can
be transmitted as well, and these findings may help clinical psychologists to provide their
patients with deeper understanding of their family histories and personal experiences. The
findings imply that the most effective interventions may relate to open and empathetic
communication within the family. This type of communication is associated with an ability to
process trauma, and therefore to move towards post-traumatic growth. Therefore, focusing
30
on communication within family would be recommended for mental health professionals
working with the patients that may have the family history of intergenerational historical
trauma.
On the societal level, these findings imply that the traumatic consequences under
both Nazi and Soviet regimes were comparable, and that more research on the
psychological impact of Soviet regime is needed not only to close the empirical gap, but also
to provide an opportunity for the post-Soviet communities to understand their and their
family’s experience, to see it internationally acknowledged, and to process it communally. A
lack of justice and acknowledgement may prevent trauma processing and explain the
helplessness expressed by the families affected by these genocides (Bezo, 2017; Heart &
DeBruyn, 1998; Javakhishvili, 2018). Practical societal campaigns and educational policies
are needed to help the communities break the cycle of trauma by encouraging trust,
emotional communication and institutional changes (Isobel et al., 2019). Support groups and
similar communal constructs can be recommended for storytelling, processing traumatic
events, and leaning into the resilience factors: discussing shared identity, pride of ancestors,
strength that can be derived from the family stories (Friskie, 2020).
6.5 Future Research Questions
Studies discussed in this review largely relied on self-report by the participants. Future
research should focus on more objective assessments, including biological measurements
such as cortisol levels, amygdala activity, structured observation of attachment styles, as
well as analysis of organic family communication, focusing on emotions and beliefs shared.
Artificial Intelligence can now diagnose depression and anxiety by analysing words and their
emotional quality, so in the future this technology could be tested on the cases of
intergenerational trauma, since the symptoms tend to be deeply ingrained and normalised,
so self-reported experiences may not be accurate (Lin et al., 2022). Having said that,
intergenerational trauma is a complex phenomenon, and subjective, qualitative accounts will
stay essential to understanding people’s experiences behind the quantitative metrics. Future
research could focus on exploring to what extent biological trauma transmission markers and
psychological self-report scales correlate.
Most of the studies related to Soviet genocide were conducted in Lithuania, with two
studies set in Ukraine, one in Russia and one in Georgia. Studies in different countries
affected by this regime are needed to understand to what degree the findings can be
generalised. In addition, studies analysing people who emigrated abroad might help to
understand to what extent trauma is transmitted purely through the family environment, and
to what extent the societal environment contributes to it.
31
As the findings on the value of open communication were so pronounced, it would be
useful to conduct research to see if open family communication may work as an intervention,
even if survivors’ offspring were raised in the context of absent communication about the
traumatic experiences. In addition, different types of communication contexts could be
researched, trying to understand if communication about the traumatic experiences within
the community can be effective when it happens outside of the family unit, and how it may
affect the trauma transmission to the future generations.
Since studies found different strengths and vulnerabilities that were transmitted due
to intergenerational trauma, as well as different degrees of transmission, future research
may focus on identifying what makes certain individuals and families more vulnerable, and
more resilient. The findings on resilience in the context of intergenerational trauma is
emerging and may offer an empowering rather than a victimising perspective, therefore,
more research is needed to understand the variables relevant to the transmission of
resilience in traumatic contexts. Finally, since this is a new field and the studies are few,
more replications are needed.
6.6. Conclusion
This integrative literature review analysed the transmission of historical intergenerational
trauma and used thematic analysis to discover that family communication is one of the most
prominent ways of passing trauma from one generation to the next, with absent
communication often associated with more trauma transmission, and more open
communication associated with transmission of resilience. The insecure attachment styles
were also found to be transmitted intergenerationally, often due to the emotional effects of
the trauma, such as fear, anxiety, sadness leading to parental overprotection or avoidance,
parent-child role reversal and less supportive parental styles. However, half of the studies
were qualitative and hence offered limited generalisability. In addition, a limited number of
studies did not find evidence for trauma transmission – in some of those cases, it was
explained by the transmission of resilience. More research is needed to understand the
transmission of resilience and the circumstances that facilitate it. In addition, future studies
could cover more cultural contexts: while Soviet-committed genocides affected over 15
countries for over 60 years, only eight relevant studies from four countries were found
(Fischer, 1994; Kenez, 2016). The results of the review were similar across both Soviet and
Nazi genocide samples, therefore, the transmission of the historical intergenerational trauma
in these samples may be seen as similar, and more research is needed to examine it better
– both to provide more quantitative insight, and to replicate the findings.
32
Reference List
Abrams, M. S. (1999). Intergenerational transmission of trauma: Recent contributions from
the literature of family systems approaches to treatment. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 53(2), 225-231.
Adelman, A. (1995). Traumatic memory and the intergenerational transmission of Holocaust
narratives. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 50(1), 343–367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1995.11822409
Ainsworth, M. S. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34(10), 932-937.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932
Aintablian, H. K., Markarian, B., Irmak, I., Galoustian, N., Melkonian, C., Vardapetyan, M., ...
& Aintablian, N. (2018). Direct ancestry to a genocide survivor has transgenerational
effects on mental health: A case of the Armenian population. MOJ Public Health,
7(4), 233-239. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00235
Aloni, R., Mikulincer, M., Zerach, G., & Solomon, Z. (2020). The intergenerational sequelae
of war captivity: The impact of a self-amplifying cycle of PTSD and attachment
insecurities on offspring’s attachment orientations. European Journal of
Psychotraumatology, 11(1), 1741859.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1741859
Baggett, E., Shaffer, A., & Muetzelfeld, H. (2015). Father–daughter parentification and young
adult romantic relationships among college women. Journal of Family Issues, 36(6),
760-783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13499759
Baker, K. G., & Gippenreiter, J. B. (1998). Stalin’s purge and its impact on Russian families:
A pilot study. In Danieli, Y. (Eds) International handbook of multigenerational legacies
of trauma (pp. 403-434). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5567-1_26
Békés, V., & Starrs, C. J. (2024). Transgenerational trauma: Perceived parental style,
children’s adaptational efforts, and mental health outcomes in second generation and
third generation holocaust offspring in Hungary. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000758
Berger, R., & Weiss, T. (2009). The posttraumatic growth model: An expansion to the family
system. Traumatology, 15(1), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765608323499
Bezo, B. (2017). A child rights perspective on intergenerational trauma. Canadian Journal of
Children's Rights, 4(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.22215/cjcr.v4i1.89
Bezo, B., & Maggi, S. (2015). Living in “survival mode:” Intergenerational transmission of
trauma from the Holodomor genocide of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. Social Science &
Medicine, 134, 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.009
33
Braga, L. L., Mello, M. F., & Fiks, J. P. (2012). Transgenerational transmission of trauma and
resilience: A qualitative study with Brazilian offspring of Holocaust survivors. BMC
Psychiatry, 12, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-134
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume I. Attachment. Basic Books.
Calatrava, M., Martins, M. V., Schweer-Collins, M., Duch-Ceballos, C., &
Rodríguez-González, M. (2022). Differentiation of self: A scoping review of Bowen
Family Systems Theory’s core construct. Clinical Psychology Review, 91, 102101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102101
Čepukienė, V., & Neophytou, K. (2024). Intergenerational transmission of familial relational
dysfunction: A test of a complex mediation model based on Bowen family systems
theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(11), 3385-3408.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241265472
Chin, D., Smith-Clapham, A. M., & Wyatt, G. E. (2023). Race-based trauma and
post-traumatic growth through identity transformation. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,
1031602. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1031602
Cohn, I. G., & Morrison, N. M. (2018). Echoes of transgenerational trauma in the lived
experiences of Jewish Australian grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 70(3), 199-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12194
Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., & Van der Kolk, B.
(2005). Complex trauma. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390-398.
https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20050501-05
Cozolino, L. J. (2016). Why therapy works: Using our minds to change our brains. W.W.
Norton & Company.
Crittenden, P. M., & Dallos, R. (2009). All in the family: Integrating attachment and family
systems theories. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 14(3), 389-409.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104509104048
Danieli, Y. (2009). Massive trauma and the healing role of reparative justice. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 22(5), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20441
Ehlers, C. L., Yehuda, R., Gilder, D. A., Bernert, R., & Karriker-Jaffe, K. J. (2022). Trauma,
historical trauma, PTSD and suicide in an American Indian community sample.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 156, 214-220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.10.012
Ellman, M. (2002). Soviet repression statistics: Some comments. Europe-Asia Studies,
54(7), 1151-1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966813022000017177
34
Engelhardt, J. A. (2012). The developmental implications of parentification: Effects on
childhood attachment. Graduate Student Journal of Psychology, 14, 45-52.
https://doi.org/10.52214/gsjp.v14i.10879
Etkind, A. (2009). Post-Soviet Hauntology: Cultural Memory of the Soviet Terror.
Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 16(1).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2009.00527.x
Evans-Campbell, T. (2008). Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska communities:
A multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals, families, and
communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(3), 316-338.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507312290
Fischer, S. (1994). Russia and the Soviet Union then and now. In The Transition in Eastern
Europe, Volume 1, Country Studies (pp. 221-258). University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226056814-009
Figley, C. R. (1988). A five-phase treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder in families.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 1, 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00974909
Flanagan, N., Travers, A., Vallières, F., Hansen, M., Halpin, R., Sheaf, G., ... & Johnsen, A.
T. (2020). Crossing borders: A systematic review identifying potential mechanisms of
intergenerational trauma transmission in asylum-seeking and refugee families.
European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11(1), 1790283.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1790283
Friskie, S. M. (2020). The healing power of storytelling: Finding identity through narrative.
The Arbutus Review, 11(1), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.18357/tar111202019324
Gailienė, D. (2019). When culture fails: Coping with cultural trauma. Journal of Analytical
Psychology, 64(4), 530-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5922.12519
Gangi, S., Talamo, A., & Ferracuti, S. (2009). The long-term effects of extreme war-related
trauma on the second generation of Holocaust survivors. Violence and Victims, 24(5),
687-700. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.5.687
Ghrjyan, Y. (2023). The effects of the intergenerational transmission of trauma, attachment
style, and differentiation of self within Armenian Americans (Doctoral dissertation,
Alliant International University).
Giladi, L., & Bell, T. S. (2013). Protective factors for intergenerational transmission of trauma
among second and third generation Holocaust survivors. Psychological Trauma:
Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(4), 384-391.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028455
Gravener, J. A., Rogosch, F. A., Oshri, A., Narayan, A. J., Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2012).
The relations among maternal depressive disorder, maternal expressed emotion, and
35
toddler behavior problems and attachment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
40, 803-813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9598-z
Grayson, H. (2018). Articulating growth in Rwandan terms: Adapting the posttraumatic
growth inventory. Studies in Testimony, 1(1), 4-30.
Heart, B., & DeBruyn, L. M. (1998). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical
unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8(2),
56-78.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Complex PTSD: A syndrome in survivors of prolonged and repeated
trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5(3), 377-391.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490050305
Hooper, L. M. (2007). The application of attachment theory and family systems theory to the
phenomena of parentification. The Family Journal, 15(3), 217-223.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480707301290
Hoosain, S. (2013). The transmission of intergenerational trauma in displaced families.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of the Western Cape).
Hu, T., Zhang, D., & Wang, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental
health. Personality and Individual differences, 76, 18-27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039
Ingabire, C. M., Kagoyire, G., Habarugira, N., Rutayisire, T., & Richters, A. (2022). “They tell
us little and we end up being confused”: Parent-child communication on familial
experiences of genocide and its aftermath in Rwanda. Transcultural Psychiatry,
59(3), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615221078483
Ingelaere, B., & Verpoorten, M. (2020). Trust in the aftermath of genocide: Insights from
Rwandan life histories. Journal of Peace Research, 57(4), 521-535.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319899136
Isobel, S., Goodyear, M., Furness, T., & Foster, K. (2019). Preventing intergenerational
trauma transmission: A critical interpretive synthesis. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
28(7-8), 1100-1113.
Iyengar, U., Kim, S., Martinez, S., Fonagy, P., & Strathearn, L. (2014). Unresolved trauma in
mothers: Intergenerational effects and the role of reorganization. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 966. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00966
Javakhishvili, D. J. (2018). Trauma caused by the repressions of totalitarian regime in
Georgia and its transgenerational transmission (Doctoral dissertation, Ilia State
University).
Johns, A. N., Brown, L. S., & Cromer, L. D. (2022). Examining intergenerational transmission
of Holocaust trauma as it relates to Jewish identity, communication type, and mental
36
well‐being. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 35(5), 1497-1507.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22856
Kassai, S. C., & Motta, R. W. (2006). An investigation of potential Holocaust-related
secondary traumatization in the third generation. International Journal of Emergency
Mental Health, 8(1), 35-47.
Kazlauskas, E., Gailienė, D., Vaskelienė, I., & Skerytė-Kazlauskienė, M. (2017).
Intergenerational transmission of resilience? Sense of coherence is associated
between Lithuanian survivors of political violence and their adult offspring. Frontiers
in Psychology, 8, 1677. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01677
Kazlauskas, E., & Želvienė, P. (2016). Trauma research in the Baltic countries: From political
oppression to recovery. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 7(1), 29295.
https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v7.29295
Kellermann N. P. (2013). Epigenetic transmission of Holocaust trauma: Can nightmares be
inherited? The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 50(1), 33–39.
Kenez, P. (2016). A history of the Soviet Union from the beginning to its legacy. Cambridge
University Press.
Kidron, C. A., Kotliar, D. M., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2019). Transmitted trauma as badge of honor:
Phenomenological accounts of Holocaust descendant resilient vulnerability. Social
Science & Medicine, 239, 112524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112524
Leckey, R., Schmieder-Gropen, R., Nnebe, C., & Clouthier, M. (2022). Indigenous parents
and child welfare: Mistrust, epistemic injustice, and training. Social & Legal Studies,
31(4), 559-579. https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639211041476
Lemkin, R., & Irvin-Erickson, D. (2014). Soviet genocide in the Ukraine. Kashtan Press.
Letzter-Pouw, S. E., Shrira, A., Ben-Ezra, M., & Palgi, Y. (2014). Trauma transmission
through perceived parental burden among Holocaust survivors’ offspring and
grandchildren. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 6(4),
420-429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033741
Levine, S. Z., Laufer, A., Stein, E., Hamama‐Raz, Y., & Solomon, Z. (2009). Examining the
relationship between resilience and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 22(4), 282-286. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20409
Lin, D., Nazreen, T., Rutowski, T., Lu, Y., Harati, A., Shriberg, E., Chlebek, P., & Aratow, M.
(2022). Feasibility of a machine learning-based smartphone application in detecting
depression and anxiety in a generally senior population. Frontiers in Psychology, 13,
811517. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.811517
37
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented
attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development
in infancy (pp. 95–124). Ablex Publishing.
Mak, C., Lewis, D. C., & Seponski, D. M. (2021). Intergenerational transmission of traumatic
stress and resilience among Cambodian immigrant families along coastal Alabama:
Family narratives. Health Equity, 5(1), 431-438.
https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2020.0142
Mälksoo, L. (2001). Soviet genocide? Communist mass deportations in the Baltic States and
international law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 14(4), 757-787.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156501000371
Manirakiza, V. (2018). Field research ethical challenges in a post-conflict Rwandan society:
Mistrust experienced in data collection in Kigali City. Rwandan Journal of Education,
4(2), 85-93.
Mazor, A., & Tal, I. (1996). Intergenerational transmission: The individuation process and the
capacity for intimacy of adult children of Holocaust survivors. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 18, 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02196853
Mažulytė-Rašytienė, E. (2017). Long-term consequences of historical family trauma:
Psychological resilience of the offspring (Doctoral dissertation, Vilniaus universitetas).
Mutuyimana, C., & Maercker, A. (2023). Clinically relevant historical trauma sequelae: A
systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 30(4), 729-739.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2836
Naimark, M. N. (2010). Stalin's Genocides. Princeton University Press.
Nicolai, S., Zerach, G., & Solomon, Z. (2017). The roles of fathers' posttraumatic stress
symptoms and adult offspring's differentiation of the self in the intergenerational
transmission of captivity trauma. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73(7), 848-863.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22377
Ortega-Williams, A., Beltrán, R., Schultz, K., Ru-Glo Henderson, Z., Colón, L., & Teyra, C.
(2021). An integrated historical trauma and posttraumatic growth framework: A
cross-cultural exploration. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 22(2), 220-240.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2020.1869106
Özçelik, S. (2020). The Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014: The second sürgün (the
Soviet genocide) of the Crimean Tatars. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.31454/usb.721939
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... &
Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting
systematic reviews. BMJ,372(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
38
Pohl, J. O. (2000). Stalin's genocide against the “Repressed Peoples”. Journal of Genocide
Research, 2(2), 267-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/713677598
Rummel, R. J. (1994). Power, genocide and mass murder. Journal of Peace Research,
31(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343394031001001
Sagatienė, D. (2021). The debate about Soviet genocide in Lithuania in the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights. Nationalities Papers, 49(4), 776-791.
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2020.56
Sagi-Schwartz, A., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2008). Does
intergenerational transmission of trauma skip a generation? No meta-analytic
evidence for tertiary traumatization with third generation of Holocaust survivors.
Attachment & Human Development, 10(2), 105-121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730802113661
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(6), 1086-1092. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.6.1086
Salberg, J. (2015). The texture of traumatic attachment: Presence and ghostly absence in
transgenerational transmission. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 84(1), 21-46.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2167-4086.2015.00002.x
Scharf, M. (2007). Long-term effects of trauma: Psychosocial functioning of the second and
third generation of Holocaust survivors. Development and Psychopathology, 19(2),
603-622.
Scharf, M., & Mayseless, O. (2011). Disorganizing experiences in second-and
third-generation Holocaust survivors. Qualitative Health Research, 21(11),
1539-1553.
Shaw, M. (2017). The politics of defining ‘genocide.’ Patterns of Prejudice, 51(5), 468–470.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2017.1389014
Schmaltz, E. J., & Sinner, S. D. (2002). " You will die under ruins and snow": The Soviet
repression of Russian Germans as a case study of successful genocide. Journal of
Genocide Research, 4(3), 327-356.
Shrira, A., Palgi, Y., Ben-Ezra, M., & Shmotkin, D. (2011). Transgenerational effects of
trauma in midlife: Evidence for resilience and vulnerability in offspring of Holocaust
survivors. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3(4),
394-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020608
Shmotkin, D., Shrira, A., Goldberg, S. C., & Palgi, Y. (2011). Resilience and vulnerability
among aging Holocaust survivors and their families: An intergenerational overview.
39
Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(1), 7-21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2011.544202
Snyder, T. (2010). Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books.
Sotero, M. (2006). A conceptual model of historical trauma: Implications for public health
practice and research. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice,1(1),
93-108.
Stark, R. (2010). Holodomor, Famine in Ukraine 1932-1933: A Crime against Humanity or
Genocide? Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 10(1), 2.
https://doi.org/10.21427/D7PQ8P
Süloğlu, D., & Güler, Ç. (2021). Predicting perceived stress and resilience: The role of
differentiation of self. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 9(4), 289-298.
https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2021.106140
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research
in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2023, September 27). How many people did
the Nazis murder?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-o
f-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution
Van der Kolk, B. A., McFarlane, A. C., & Weisæth, L. (Eds.). (1996). Traumatic stress: The
effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society. Guilford 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, 459-469.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025706427300
Vaskelienė, I., Kazlauskas, E., Gailienė, D., & Gota, V. D. (2011). Komunikacija apie patirtas
politines represijas šeimoje: Tarpgeneracinis aspektas. International Journal of
Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, (9), 91-104.
Westphal, M., & Bonanno, G. A. (2007). Posttraumatic growth and resilience to trauma:
Different sides of the same coin or different coins? Applied Psychology, 56(3),
417-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00298.x
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Wiseman, H. (2008). On failed intersubjectivity: Recollections of loneliness experiences in
offspring of Holocaust survivors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(3),
350-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014197
40
Wiseman, H., Metzl, E., & Barber, J. P. (2006). Anger, guilt, and intergenerational
communication of trauma in the interpersonal narratives of second generation
Holocaust survivors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(2), 176-184.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.2.176
World Health Organization. (2018, May 17). World health statistics 2018: Monitoring health
for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565585
World Health Organization. (2022). ICD-11: International classification of diseases (11th
revision). https://icd.who.int/
Yakubovskyi, I. (2021). The Genocide Intention in the Light of New Documents on the
Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. East European Historical Bulletin, (18),
127-134. https://doi.org/10.24919/2519-058X.18.226565
Zasiekina, L., Leshem, B., Hordovska, T., Leshem, N., & Pat-Horenczyk, R. (2021).
Forgotten stories of women: Intergenerational transmission of trauma of Holodomor
and holocaust survivors’ offspring. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8(1),
137–158. https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2021.8.1.zas
41
Word Count
Word count: 11,621.
42
