Illusory posttraumatic growth is common, but genuine posttraumatic growth is rare: A critical review and suggestions for a path forward

Abstract

Over the last 2.5 decades, trauma researchers have increasingly become interested in posttraumatic growth (PTG) – the concept that some people experience growth as a result of trauma exposure. I begin by reviewing extant research on PTG, with a focus on measurement and conceptual issues. Expanding on arguments made by others, I distinguish between three forms of PTG, 1) perceived PTG, which is an individual's beliefs about their own PTG, 2) genuine PTG, which is veridical growth following adversity, and 3) illusory PTG, which is motivated fabrications of PTG. Perceived PTG is extremely common, as over half of individuals exposed to a potentially traumatic event (PTE) report moderate or greater levels of PTG. I review evidence that most self-reports of PTG are greatly exaggerated and argue that perceived PTG is mostly illusory PTG. I propose five reasons for the disconnect between perceived PTG and genuine PTG, including design flaws in the current measurements, emotional biases that favor perceived PTG, the inherent appeal of PTG, cultural expectations, and problems of definition. I then review the empirical evidence concerning the prevalence rate of genuine PTG, coming to the bold conclusion that the occurrence of genuine PTG is very rare, contradicting current fundamental beliefs about PTG. I recommend researchers focus on the key areas of measurement and etiology of genuine PTG, which are necessary to create interventions that foster genuine PTG. I conclude by outlining a path to steer the scientific progression of PTG back in the right direction.