Are predictions and perceptions of post-traumatic growth a form of ultimate justice reasoning?

Abstract

Researchers have questioned whether self-report questionnaires adequately assess post-traumatic growth as it was theorized (positive personality change after trauma), versus assessing a broader coping mechanism. Across four studies, we examine whether individuals report post-traumatic growth as a coping mechanism to restore a sense of justice. In Studies 1 and 2, participants predicted greater post-traumatic growth for a hypothetical victim after a severe accident that caused grave suffering (and disrupted one’s belief in a just world), compared to an accident that caused minimal suffering (and did not disrupt one’s belief in a just world). Both perceptions of deservingness of post-traumatic growth for the victim (a belief in a just world mechanism) and engagement in deliberative rumination (a post-traumatic growth mechanism) mediated the effect of suffering on the prediction of post-traumatic growth in Study 2. The same pattern of results held when participants considered their own imagined suffering (Study 3), and when participants reported post-traumatic growth from distressing events in their own lives (Study 4). As such, we conclude that following an episode of suffering, either occurring to another or to oneself, self-reports of post-traumatic growth on questionnaires can reflect two distinct motivations: (1) an attempt to cope with perceived injustices and (2) the will to search for meaning in one’s suffering.