Abstract
Recent research has distinguished between actual posttraumatic growth (PTG) and perceived PTG. We used a prospective research design to measure both actual and perceived PTG in an attempt to replicate and extend previous findings. We examined college students (N = 64) who experienced a traumatic event between the start (Time 1) and end (Time 2) of a semester. We included three measures of change from pre- to post-trauma: (1) Actual PTG (change scores in measures of PTG domains), (2) perceived general growth (Time 2 ratings of functioning at Time 1 subtracted from actual ratings given at Time 1), and (3) perceived PTG (self-reports of PTG on the posttraumatic growth inventory). The results revealed perceived general growth and actual PTG were significantly correlated, suggesting that participants’ perceptions of change were accurate. However, perceived PTG was not significantly related to either actual PTG or perceived general growth. Further, increases in actual PTG and perceived general growth were significantly related to decreases in distress and unrelated to coping. By contrast, higher levels of perceived PTG were significantly related to increases in distress and higher levels of avoidance coping. Our results suggest perceived PTG may be more of a coping process than an accurate recall of posttraumatic change.
Highlights
Since its introduction in the mid-1990s, a plethora of research has focused on the possibility that people may experience positive changes after a traumatic event (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 1996, [1]).Such positive changes have been referred to by a number of names, including benefit finding and adversarial growth, but the most commonly used name is posttraumatic growth (PTG)
We examined the correlation between the C-posttraumatic growth inventory (PTGI)-Past at Time 2 and the current standing version of the PTGI (C-PTGI) at Time 1
The preliminary results demonstrated the solid validity of our primary measure of actual PTG, which replicated and extended similar findings reported in Frazier et al (2009) [7]
Summary
Since its introduction in the mid-1990s, a plethora of research has focused on the possibility that people may experience positive changes after a traumatic event (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 1996, [1]). Sci. 2019, 9, 10 often skewed towards beliefs of positive, self-enhancing changes (Fleeson and Heckhausen, 1997, [13]) Another reason to suspect self-reports of PTG to be biased is that research in social psychology is full of cautionary tales demonstrating that humans have a strong tendency to overinflate their perceptions of themselves (Greenwald, 1981; Humberg et al, 2018; Taylor and Brown, 1988, [14,15,16]), and this tendency is exacerbated in times of distress (McFarland and Alvaro, 2000, [17]). In a prospective study of the construct validity of the PTGI, Frazier et al (2009), [7], administered assessments of functioning in the domains that comprise PTG before and after a traumatic event, to assess actual PTG These assessments of functioning were direct measures of the domains believed to comprise PTG, including personal strength, appreciation of life, relationships with others, new possibilities, and spiritual growth. Perceived PTG may be a coping mechanism—another cognitive strategy that is part of the earlier discussed ‘psychological immune system’ designed to maintain ego and well-being
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
