Can respondents accurately self-report posttraumatic growth when coached through the required cognitive steps?

Effects of Resilience and Emotion Regulation on Perceptions of Positive and Negative Life Changes in Cancer Survivors: A Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

While many studies have investigated the sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors associated with perceived positive change after cancer, longitudinal work examining how emotion regulation, and resilience impact perceptions of life change among newly diagnosed cancer survivors is lacking.

PURPOSE

This study examined the prevalence of perceived positive and negative life changes following cancer and explored the role of emotion regulation and resilience on perceived change over 6 months.

METHODS

Data from 534 recent survivors of breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer (Mage = 59.3, 36.5% male) collected at baseline (Time 1) and 6-month follow-up (Time 2) were analyzed. Multivariate linear regressions were estimated separately to examine if resilience or emotion regulation were associated with perceived change at Time 2 after controlling for relevant sociodemographic and psychosocial measures.

RESULTS

At both time points, greater than 90% of participants reported at least one perceived positive change while fewer than a third reported a negative change. Indices of emotion regulation and resilience were positively related to perceived positive change at both time points and negatively related to perceived negative change at Time 1. Emotion regulation but not resilience was negatively associated with perceived negative change at Time 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that cancer survivors who are less resilient and struggle with emotion regulation are more susceptible to perceptions of fewer positive and greater negative life changes after cancer. As such, psychosocial interventions should be developed to promote resilience and emotional regulation in cancer survivors.

Encouraging inflated reports of posttraumatic growth: the presence of a wording effect on self-reports of posttraumatic growth

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Posttraumatic growth (PTG) refers to positive psychological changes that result from a traumatic experience. The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) and the Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS) are the two most commonly used measures of PTG. One criticism of these measures is that all their items are positively worded (for example, "I have a greater feeling of self-reliance").

DESIGN AND METHODS

In the current paper, we conducted two studies that examined a possible wording effect in these two measures.

RESULTS

In Study 1, we found that positively worded items on the PTGI are positively correlated with the negatively worded version of the same items. Additionally, the positively and negatively worded versions of these items formed two separate factors, further suggesting a wording effect. In Study 2, we conducted an experimental design by comparing self-reports of PTG when randomly assigned to complete either positively- or neutrally worded versions of the items. We found that participants reported 27% less PTG when given neutrally worded items.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined results strongly suggest a wording effect that encourages overreporting of self-reports of PTG.

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

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.