Posttraumatic Growth: Progress and Problems

Abstract

During the past 20 years, there has been a dramatic increase in research on life events. The majority of these studies have focused on documenting the negative sequalae of events. Tedeschi, Calhoun, and others (e.g., Taylor, 1989) have emphasized that stressful life events can bring about posttraumatic growth, or “positive psychological change experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances ” (Tedeschi & Calhoun, this issue). These investigators were among the first to focus attention on such positive changes. By so doing, they have encouraged all of us to take a more comprehensive look at the effects of stress, trauma, and loss. To their credit, Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (this issue) work has been careful and programmatic. They have given considerable thought to how posttraumatic growth should be measured, and have developed a scale to assess the major domains of posttraumatic growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). They have developed a model of posttraumatic growth, and in so doing, have attempted to clarify the conditions under which growth is most likely to occur. They have also discussed how posttraumatic growth relates to ostensibly similar concepts, such as resilience and optimism. Although the evidence regarding many of these links is speculative, the authors ’ hypotheses are likely to encourage more and better theory-based research. Yet despite what has been accomplished, many questions remain unanswered. Perhaps the most important question concerns what the data really show. Here, I argue that the type of growth Tedeschi and Calhoun (this issue)

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 110 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.