Beyond "post," "traumatic," "growth," and prediction in research on posttraumatic growth.

Abstract

Thirty years after the introduction of posttraumatic growth (PTG), research on the concept has expanded dramatically. Novel theoretical perspectives included in this special issue, however, demonstrate that nearly every element of PTG requires revision. "Post" implies a definitive before and after adversity that simply does not exist, either empirically or in the everyday navigation of adversity, especially for marginalized people. "Trauma" is appropriately scaled to the gravity of some forms of adversity, yet the term is often overly pathologizing or flattening of individual experience. And "growth" is often misleading, difficult to operationalize, and always value-laden. Studying PTG requires grappling with these claims in a way that can inspire pessimism. What is left in PTG after we question the P, T, and G? In asking this question, we ultimately encounter the limits of empiricism. Drawing insights from contemporary research in lifespan development, we suggest that it may be impossible to prospectively predict, using individual-level variables, how people grapple with adversity and develop after it. There are limits to our understanding of PTG that may simply be insurmountable. But complementary perspectives in narrative research, especially those espoused in this issue, as well as in the humanities and the arts, offer a way forward. Retrospectively understanding adverse events and taking an idiographic and qualitative perspective on the ways in which people navigate them can both humanize and bolster inclusivity in PTG research. We conclude by suggesting a period of enhanced divergent exploration, one that embraces disciplinary humility and epistemological and methodological pluralism to further understand PTG. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).