Review Of Literature On The Psychological Phenomenon Of Posttraumatic Growth
Introduction
Trauma is defined as a deeply distressing or disturbing experience. It is something that causes physical, emotional, spiritual, and/or psychological harm. In the past this commonly established stance on trauma has produced little research into the possible positive effects that trauma can have. Following this absence of research in the mid-1990s scholars Calhoun and Tedeschi hypothesized that trauma can lead towards a variety of positive effects through a process coined PTG. Calhoun and Tedeschi (2000) defined posttraumatic growth as “positive change that an individual experiences as a result of the struggle with a traumatic event”. This literature review will examine how and what research has been conducted on the topic of posttraumatic growth and what findings have been obtained concerning its meaning, its usefulness, and its various positive and negative effects.
A Variety Of Reasoned Takes On PTG
Research into the positive and negative effects of PTG exhibits mixed findings. An overwhelming amount of research has provided evidence that traumatic events can produce numerous negative physical and psychological consequences. Although little attention has been paid to the possibility of a positive impact of negative events. Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995, 1996, 2000) have awakened a new area of study by examining the potential for a positive reaction to trauma and coined it posttraumatic growth or PTG. For a number of years all work following Tedeschi and Calhoun’s study of PTG has focused solely on the positive effects of Posttraumatic Growth. A number of years after Tedeschi and Calhoun’s research has been released academics such as Hobfoll (2007) and Boerner (2017) skeptical of the findings looked into PTG from a different perspective. They found that the association between self-reports of post-traumatic growth and well being show mixed findings. Meanwhile other researchers such as Butler (2005) and Bauwen (2010) have reasoned that PTG is associated with a multitude of positive effects. Today PTG is still unclearly defined and its various effects are widely disagreed upon.
The First Methods & Findings Utilized To Understand PTG
Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) predicted that traumatic events might have a positive impact through PTG. To check their hypothesis the researchers developed the PTGI (Posttraumatic Growth Inventory), tested its accuracy, and utilized it to examine PTG. This method allowed them to examine PTG by looking at the positive changes in the perception of self, relationships with others, and philosophy of life, accruing from attempts to cope with trauma and its aftermath. The researchers performed a study through the use of the PTGI on a group of 604 undergraduate students who had been recruited from various classes in psychology at a large university in the southeastern United States. The students picked had experienced a traumatic event within the past 6 months prior to the study.
Utilizing the PTG
The researchers provided the students with 34 questions that could be marked on a scale of 1-5. The purpose of these questions was to examine to what extent the students felt positive effects accruing from their traumatic experience. Findings displayed that all students had in one way or another experienced a positive impact on their life due to PTG. This positive impact was noticeable in one of the three previously named categories being perception of self, relationships with others, and philosophy of life. Tedeschi and Calhoun tested the accuracy of their method against the ideas of social desirability, optimism, and several personality characteristics. Take note that social desirability is a response bias through which survey respondents answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. When testing the relationship between PTGI and the above listed things the researchers utilized the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale to look at social desirability, the Life Orientation Test (LOT) to examine optimism, and the NEO Personality Inventory to look at personality characteristics. The relationships between PTGI and the above listed things have been shown through this study to be small and in some areas non-existent. In this way the study has proved the reliability of the PTGI method whilst also showcasing established support for the possibility of a positive accruing from traumatic events.
Methods & Findings Pointing Towards The Negative Effects Of PTG
Years after Tedeschi and Calhoun have conducted their research various researchers and psychologists such as Hobfoll and Hall (2007) and Boerner and Joseph (2017) looked into PTG and arrived at very different conclusions than the ones at which Tedeschi and Calhoun had arrived. The scholars looked into how the act of self-reporting PTG might provide illusionary results due to the use of various defense styles by the individuals and how greater amounts of PTG might actually be more closely tied to greater PTSD and other negative indicators. For example, in one study conducted by Hobfoll (2007) PTG was measured by examining the impact of the Al Aqsa Intifada on the Israeli Jews and Arabs and it was found that independent of the impact of exposure and resource loss, PTG was related to greater PTSD symptoms. In a different study Boerner and Joseph created a questionnaire battery and recruited 153 participants to test the relationship between three different defense styles and the act of self-reporting PTG. To measure defense mechanisms along responses to traumatic events, the Defense Style Questionnaire-40 (DSQ-40) developed by Andrews, Singh and Bond (1993) was used. The findings accumulated by the researchers suggest that the interference of defense styles in reports of posttraumatic growth cause many of those reports to be illusionary. Nevertheless all of the above listed researchers have stated that there are cases where PTG could possibly act as a salutogenic processes. These cases include action-based growth where an individual actualizes their benefit-finding cognitions and in other cases where defense styles do not interfere with an individual’s ability to self-report PTG.
Methods & Findings Pointing Towards Positive Effects Of PTG
There are studies conducted that point towards a strong connection between PTG and positive effects. Scholars Butler (2005) and Bauwens (2010) studied PTG, which was caused by the trauma from 9/11, in two diverse ways and examined the range of its effects. To study PTG Butler looked into how symptoms, worldview, and coping strategies changed over the course of 6 months after 9/11. To do this the researcher used a questionnaire and a secure Stanford University research website that was posted on September 28, 2001. Changes in worldview, PTSD symptoms, and coping strategies were assessed through the use of the 26-item Changes in Outlook Questionnaire, the 17-item PTSD Checklist – Specific, and the 28-item Brief COPE. Findings obtained through this method indicated PTG was related to positive changes in worldview and higher use of denial as an early coping strategy. The investigation presented a positive correlation between PTG and trauma. In another study Bauwen (2010) utilized surveys with several yes or no questions and two open-ended question regarding professional and personal experiences after September 11. A content analysis was conducted on the open-ended question. A constant comparison method was used to develop codes. Also to ensure trustworthiness of the data analysis the primary coder was blinded to the quantitative results of the study until coding was complete. The following codes were then compressed and divided into six themes that represented the various findings obtained through the study.
One of the themes coined professional posttraumatic growth displayed an increase in open and flexible boundaries, a deeper connection and compassion for clients, improved self-care habits, and a newfound desire to be politically active, a finding consistent with Ai and colleagues’ (2005). Some of the themes revealed positive effects alongside negative ones. Both studies list trauma symptoms as being positively linked to PTG. The studies elaborate upon how this association could be interpreted to suggest that PTG is associated with more negative outcomes. Instead the researchers in both studies focused on how trauma symptoms could be indicative of active attempts to cognitively metabolize the event. Which was supported by the greater decrease in trauma symptoms for those reporting the most growth over an extended period of time. One of the studies relates back to Tedeschi and Calhoun through the statement, “Traumatic events and the distress they evoke are theorized to precipitate growth”.
Conclusion
In conclusion PTG is a possibly beneficial or disadvantageous psychological phenomenon that arises when an individual experiences trauma. Through the use of the self-reporting technique and the PTGI Tedeschi and Calhoun analyzed PTG and noted it’s positive effects. Years later Hobfoll, Hall, Boerner and Joseph developed their own techniques for examining PTG through the consideration of some of the effects that Tedeschi and Calhoun unaccounted for in their study. These included but were not limited to defense styles and self report bias. Through their studies the above researchers found that PTG is strongly connected to a multitude of negative effects, but that it still could have a positive effects. Butler and Bauwens meanwhile looked into the positive effects of PTG, in doing so they utilized the method of self-reporting but with a set of different tools and a more distinctive approach then Tedeschi and Calhoun. These studies pointed towards the positive effects of PTG such as an improved worldview and deeper compassion for clients. Similarities across all studies include the positive correlation between trauma and PTG. However there is a clear distinction in the way that studies judge this correlation. Another key difference is the way in which studies define positive and negative effects.
In general PTG is a complex theory that is to a certain degree clearly understood but that is still mostly undefined and disagreed upon and requires further research.
