View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Relationship between Explanatory Style and Posttraumatic Growth after Bereavement in a Non-Clinical Sample

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Relationship between Explanatory Style and Posttraumatic Growth after Bereavement in a Non-Clinical Sample
Language: English
Authors: Ho, Samuel M. Y., Chu, Kwung Wing, Yiu, Jessie
Source: Death Studies. May 2008 32(5):461-478.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2008
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Futures (of Society), Grief, Attachment Behavior, Foreign Countries, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Undergraduate Students, Cognitive Processes, Death
Geographic Terms: Hong Kong
DOI: 10.1080/07481180801974760
ISSN: 0748-1187
Abstract: The relationship between explanatory style and self-perceived posttraumatic growth was examined among 105 undergraduates in Hong Kong who had experienced bereavement in the past 6 years. Individuals who tended to attribute positive events to internal, global, and stable factors reported more posttraumatic growth than individuals who tended to attribute positive events to external, specific, and unstable factors. The explanatory style for positive events might affect later cognitive processing, such as meaning making after bereavement, which will affect self-perceived posttraumatic growth. One's explanatory style for negative events is not related to posttraumatic growth after bereavement. Directions for future study are described. (Contains 4 tables and 2 footnotes.)
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 54
Entry Date: 2008
Accession Number: EJ791787
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHPumYTtE1eIb55lnlb6013AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEm7RxwmJoJASjwNBQIBEICBmgHZnjS-hRmMYaeZYR8EgkpOqQHIEbYeHz8bxM14MVR0v9bmCIr0SMOEnmY8mMjM5llNC3YCLmQ1R1tK2-mEgdJMfHVvIuEmjyMduXnhiXZit_oF5aaFtTpPbDKrE-pD9GwePNXRePi81ZFqRk57muuWJqsjSBj8uiCA5RYk9ktStPRx64hes7op8xuem_Mymz7gnHgg1Bi0fPc=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0031730269;dea01may.08;2019Mar30.06:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0031730269-1">The Relationship between Explanatory Style and Posttraumatic Growth after Bereavement in a Non-Clinical Sample. </title> <p>The relationship between explanatory style and self-perceived posttraumatic growth was examined among 105 undergraduates in Hong Kong who had experienced bereavement in the past 6 years. Individuals who tended to attribute positive events to internal, global, and stable factors reported more posttraumatic growth than individuals who tended to attribute positive events to external, specific, and unstable factors. The explanatory style for positive events might affect later cognitive processing, such as meaning making after bereavement, which will affect self-perceived posttraumatic growth. One's explanatory style for negative events is not related to posttraumatic growth after bereavement. Directions for future study are described.</p> <p>There is much evidence that people report positive changes after a loss (Bonanno, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; Bonanno & Kaltman, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]; Calhoun & Tedeschi, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]; Joseph et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref5">21</reflink>]; Lehman et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]; Nerken, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]; Schaefer & Moos, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]). In a seminal prospective study on adjustment after conjugal bereavement, Bonanno et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]) assessed 205 individuals at pre-loss, 6 months, and 12 months after the loss. They reported that 10.2% (<emph>n</emph> = 21) of their participants became less depressed post-bereavement. Shuchter and Zisook ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref10">49</reflink>]) also reported that 42% of their conjugally bereaved participants indicated positive changes 2 months after the loss. Schwartzberg and Janoff-Bulman ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref11">45</reflink>]) conducted interviews among 21 undergraduate students who had lost one of their parents, and 35% of the students reported that they had gained a deeper understanding of life. Although these findings show that benefit finding is not uncommon among bereaved individuals, it is also true that not all bereaved individuals report positive changes after a loss. The question, therefore, is why some individuals report positive changes, whereas others do not (Joseph & Linley, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>]). Identifying factors that facilitate benefit finding is important, because these factors can play an important role in adjustment after bereavement (Gillies & Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several models have been proposed to account for the underlying mechanisms of posttraumatic growth (Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]; Gillies & Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]; Joseph & Linley, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]; Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]; Park & Helgeson, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref19">36</reflink>]; Schaefer & Moos, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref20">43</reflink>]; Tedeschi & Calhoun, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref21">51</reflink>]). Tedeschi and Calhoun used the term <emph>posttraumatic growth</emph> (PTG) to refer to the phenomenon of self-reported positive changes after a highly stressful event, and posited that cognitive processing plays a crucial role in PTG. According to the researchers, people ruminate about a traumatic event until they rebuild the assumptions, values, schemas, and personal narratives that have been challenged by their experience. The more that an individual actively thinks about the circumstances of the event and ways to make sense of the event, the more likely it is that PTG will take place (Tedeschi, Park, & Calhoun, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref22">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref23">53</reflink>]). According to the organismic valuing process theory of growth through adversity (Joseph & Linley, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]), people are intrinsically motivated to rebuild their assumptive world after a traumatic event through the process of accommodation and assimilation. The initial stage after a traumatic event is characterized by a need to "search for meaning" to comprehend what has happened, and how and why the event happened. If the new information is accommodated positively, "these questions of significance lead to growth as people reevaluate and appreciate more fully their relationships, their strength and resilience, and their philosophy of life" (Joseph & Linley, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>], p. 273). Basing their argument on constructivist theory, Neimeyer and his colleagues (Gillies & Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref26">16</reflink>]; Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref27">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>]) posited that meaning reconstruction is an important task after bereavement. There are three major activities related to meaning reconstruction: sense making, benefit finding, and identity change. It is suggested that if these tasks are accomplished successfully, permanent positive change in oneself and one's assumptive world will occur. Schaefer and Moos ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>]) adapted the transactional model of stress (Folkman & Moskowitz, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref30">12</reflink>]; Lazarus & Folkman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref31">25</reflink>]) to explain personal growth after bereavement. They proposed that pre-loss social and personal resources will affect one's appraisal and coping during and after the bereavement, which will in turn affect post-bereavement outcomes. Personal growth will occur if one can establish new and positive social resources and coping skills after the bereavement. The new resources that are established may also contribute to the development of personal resources such as self-esteem, maturity, and life satisfaction over the long term.</p> <hd id="AN0031730269-2">Explanatory Style and Posttraumatic Growth after Bereavement</hd> <p>Most existing models identify cognitive processing as a prominent underlying mechanism of positive transformation after adversity, whether it is called rumination, meaning making, sense making, or positive appraisal (Park & Helgeson, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>]). We believe that explanatory style is an important cognitive factor related to PTG.</p> <p> <emph>Explanatory style</emph> is defined as one's tendency to offer similar sorts of explanations for the causes of bad or good events involving oneself (Peterson, Buchanan, & Seligman, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref33">37</reflink>]). There are three dimensions of explanatory style: internal ("It's me") versus external ("It's someone else"); global ("It affects many different aspects of my life") versus specific ("It affects only this aspect of my life"); and stable ("It's long lasting") versus unstable ("It's only transient"). A pessimistic explanatory style for bad events is the tendency to view the causes of a bad event as internal, global, and stable; an optimistic explanatory style for bad events is the tendency to view the causes of a bad event as external, specific, and unstable. Similarly, an optimistic explanatory style for good events is defined as a habitual style to explain the causes of a good event as internal, global, and stable whereas a pessimistic explanatory style for good events is the tendency to view a good event as external, specific, and unstable.</p> <p>Explanation theory has a rich history of research and applied work in clinical psychology (Hilt, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]). There is strong support for the prediction that people with a pessimistic explanatory style for bad events (i.e., viewing bad events as internal, global, and stable) are more prone to suffering from depression and anxiety (Mineka, Pury, & Luten, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]; Robins & Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]). In traumatology, it has generally been found that a pessimistic explanatory style for bad events is associated with more depressive and posttraumatic stress symptoms in the aftermath of a disaster (Joseph, Yule, & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]). Also, people with a self-serving bias (i.e., people viewing positive events as internal, global, and stable, but negative events as external, specific, and unstable) were reported to have less psychotic symptoms (Jolley et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref38">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, the role of explanatory style for good events per se is less clear in the original model of explanatory style, as the original model is concerned only with the way that people respond to bad events (Seligman et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref39">47</reflink>]). In fact, empirical findings show that the relationships between explanatory style for positive events and psychopathology are less consistent than the relationships between explanatory style for negative events and psychopathology (Reivich, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]). In summary, existing findings provide strong support that one's explanatory style for negative events plays a much more important role in predicting psychopathology than one's explanatory style for positive events.</p> <p>How are explanatory style and positive outcomes after bereavement, such as self-perceived posttraumatic growth, related? Is one's explanatory style for negative events a better predictor for self-perceived posttraumatic growth after bereavement than one's explanatory style for positive events? To the best of our knowledge, there are no existing data that answer these questions. This could be because only recently have behavioral scientists seriously addressed the phenomenon of posttraumatic growth (Park & Helgeson, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>It has been proposed that PTG and PTSD are separated (but related) entities, and that PTG and PTSD could occur simultaneously after a trauma (Cohen, Cimbolic, Armeli, & Hettler, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>]). Some empirical studies have also reported that PTG and PTSD were unrelated after a traumatic event (Frazier, Conlon, & Glaser, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]). Hence, findings on the relationship between explanatory style for bad events and psychopathology cannot be generalized to PTG. Regarding explanatory style for good events, Kivimaki et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref44">24</reflink>]) had conducted a prospective study involving a large sample size (<emph>N</emph> = 5007) to investigate the differential effect of optimism and pessimism on health after death or onset of severe illness in family. The researchers reported that individuals with higher optimistic level (defined by high expectation of positive events) were more resilient than those with lower optimism after a major life event. No such relationship was found in relation to pessimism (defined by high expectation of negative events). Kivimaki et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]) used the expectancy theory of optimism (Scheier & Carver, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref46">44</reflink>]) in their study and, although their study is not a direct measure of explanatory style and posttraumatic growth, there are important links between the two concepts. The findings of Kivimaki et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]) provided indirect support to the proposition that explanatory style for positive events may exert a more important effect than explanatory style for negative events on benefit finding after bereavement that may be worth investigation.</p> <p>This study aims to examine the relationship between explanatory styles and benefit finding after bereavement among college students. In particular, we sought to investigate the differential effect of explanatory style for positive and negative events on benefit findings after bereavement. Based on the finding of Kivimaki et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]), we predicted that one's explanatory style for good events should be more related to self-perceived positive changes after bereavement than one's explanatory style for bad events.</p> <hd id="AN0031730269-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0031730269-4">Participants and Procedure</hd> <p>One hundred and five undergraduate students from the University of Hong Kong who had had a significant other die within the past six years were recruited for this study. If a participant had experienced the loss of more than one significant other within the past six years, she/he was instructed, when answering the questions in the assessment package, to refer to the deceased person to whom she/he was closest. College students are an appropriate population for this study, because unexpected bereavement is the most distressing event for them (Joseph et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]). The study's participants received credits as part of the requirements of an introduction to psychology course. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Psychology Department at the University of Hong Kong. Participants completed a package of questionnaires in English in groups of approximately 10 after giving their informed consent. A research assistant was available to answer queries from the participants during all data collection sessions. The language of the questionnaires will not affect the participants' understanding of the items, as English is the medium of instruction at the University of Hong Kong.</p> <p>The sample included 75 women (71.4%) and 30 men (28.6%). The mean age was 19.79 years (range = 18–23 years; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.20 years). The majority of the participants (<emph>n</emph> = 88, 83.8%) were native Chinese who were born in Hong Kong. The other 16.2% of participants were born in Mainland China (<emph>n</emph> = 13, 12.4%), Canada (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 1.9%), and Korea (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 1.9%). Approximately 60% of the participants indicated that they had no religious belief. The other participants identified themselves as Protestant (<emph>n</emph> = 15, 14.3%), Catholic (<emph>n</emph> = 11; 10.5%), members of another Christian denomination (<emph>n</emph> = 13, 12.4%), or Buddhist (<emph>n</emph> = 3; 2.9%).</p> <hd id="AN0031730269-5">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0031730269-6">EXPLANATORY STYLE</hd> <p>The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Peterson et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref50">38</reflink>]) was used to measure explanatory style in this study. The ASQ has 12 hypothetical events (6 positive and 6 negative) and respondents were asked to imagine vividly the events presented in the ASQ before answering 3 questions to measure their appraisal of the internality, globality, and stability of the events using a 7-point Likert scale. A composite explanatory style score for positive events (CP) was obtained by summing up a respondent's responses for the six positive events. A high CP score implies a habitual tendency to view the causes of positive events as internal, global, and stable. Similarly, a composite explanatory style score for negative events (CN) was obtained by summing up a respondent's responses for the 6 negative events. A high CN score represents a participant's tendency to view the causes of negative events as internal, global, and stable.</p> <p>The ASQ is perhaps the most common instrument to measure explanatory style. Although an expanded and newer version of the ASQ (i.e., the Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire, EASQ) is available (Peterson & Villanova, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref51">39</reflink>]), this questionnaire does not measure explanatory style for positive events. As one of our objectives is to compare the effect of explanatory style for positive events versus explanatory style for negative events on benefit findings after bereavement, the EASQ was not used in the present study. Because it has been found that composite scores are more reliable indicators of explanatory style than the six individual dimension scores (internal positive, global positive, stable positive, internal negative, global negative, and stable negative), only the composite scores (i.e., CP and CN) were used in this study (Reivich, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref52">40</reflink>]). Cronbach's alpha reliability scores of these composite scores according to our sample were CP (α = .72), CN (α = .75).</p> <hd id="AN0031730269-7">BENEFIT FINDING</hd> <p>The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi & Calhoun, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref53">50</reflink>]) was adapted to measure benefit finding after bereavement. The PTGI comprises 21 items on possible positive changes after adversity. Response choices range from 0–5 (0 = "<emph>I did not experience this change</emph>"; 5 = "<emph>I experienced this change to a very great degree</emph>"). The PTGI is one of the most common instruments to measure positive changes after adversity (Ho, Chan, & Ho, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]). This questionnaire was developed for college students and therefore was particularly apt for the sample population of this study. In our study, we asked participants to report any positive changes they had experienced that were related to the bereavement experience.</p> <p>Five subscales were used to indicate different dimensions of growth: relating to others (RO, 7 items), new possibilities (NP, 5 items), personal strengths (PS, 4 items), spiritual change (SC, 2 items), and appreciation of life (AL, 3 items). Cronbach's alphas of the subscales were all satisfactory according to our sample: RO (α = .89), NP (α = .89), PS (α = .84), SC (α = .72), and AL (α = .79). A total score (PTGI total) was obtained by summing up the responses of the 21 items in the inventory (α = .96).</p> <hd id="AN0031730269-8">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0031730269-9">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviations of the explanatory style and posttraumatic growth subscale scores by gender. Independent sample <emph>t</emph> tests showed no significant differences in all the scores. Independent sample <emph>t</emph> tests were also conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in the subscale scores in terms of religion (religious belief vs. no religious belief) and university major (psychology vs. non-psychology major). No significant differences were found.</p> <p>TABLE 1 Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Explanatory Style and Posttraumatic Growth by Gender</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td>Gender</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Outcome measure</td><td>Total</td><td>Male (<italic>n</italic> = 30)</td><td>Female (<italic>n</italic> = 75)</td><td><italic>t</italic> value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Explanatory style (ASQ)</td></tr><tr><td> Composite positive</td><td char="." charoff="50">14.34 (1.73)</td><td char="." charoff="50">14.21 (2.11)</td><td char="." charoff="50">14.39 (1.59)</td><td>−.474</td></tr><tr><td> Composite negative</td><td char="." charoff="50">12.92 (1.90)</td><td char="." charoff="50">13.07 (2.12)</td><td char="." charoff="50">12.86 (1.81)</td><td>.508</td></tr><tr><td>Posttraumatic Growth Inventory</td></tr><tr><td> PTGI Total</td><td char="." charoff="50">45.02 (25.03)</td><td char="." charoff="50">41.60 (25.09)</td><td char="." charoff="50">46.46 (25.03)</td><td>−.892</td></tr><tr><td> Relating to others</td><td char="." charoff="50">14.33 (8.59)</td><td char="." charoff="50">12.43 (8.05)</td><td char="." charoff="50">15.09 (8.73)</td><td>−1.44</td></tr><tr><td> New possibilities</td><td char="." charoff="50">11.66 (6.30)</td><td char="." charoff="50">11.07 (6.56)</td><td char="." charoff="50">11.90 (6.22)</td><td>−.611</td></tr><tr><td> Personal strengths</td><td char="." charoff="50">8.74 (5.12)</td><td char="." charoff="50">8.60 (5.31)</td><td char="." charoff="50">8.80 (5.08)</td><td>−.180</td></tr><tr><td> Spiritual change</td><td char="." charoff="50">4.85 (2.79)</td><td char="." charoff="50">4.03 (2.85)</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.18 (2.72)</td><td>−1.916</td></tr><tr><td> Appreciation of life</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.77 (3.81)</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.47 (3.89)</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.89 (3.79)</td><td>−.514</td></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Over half (54.3%) of the participants had lost a significant other through natural and anticipated causes. Those who experienced unanticipated bereavement had lost their significant others through sudden, natural death (n = 30, 28.6%), accident (<emph>n</emph> = 9; 8.6%), suicide (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 1.9%), homicide (<emph>n</emph> = 1, 1.0%), or other (<emph>n</emph> = 6, 5.7%). The relationship of the decedent to the participant was grandparent (<emph>n</emph> = 56, 53.3%), parent (<emph>n</emph> = 9, 8.6%), other relative (<emph>n</emph> = 29, 27.6%), friend (<emph>n</emph> = 8, 7.6%), or teacher (<emph>n</emph> = 3, 2.9%). The mean age of the person who had passed away was 67.3 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 19.4 years, range = 5–93 years) and the mean duration of the bereavement was 25.0 months (<emph>SD</emph> = 18.4, range = less than one month–72 months).</p> <p>Independent sample <emph>t</emph> tests indicated that there was no significant difference in the explanatory style and posttraumatic growth subscales between participants who experienced an anticipated bereavement and participants who experienced an unanticipated bereavement. Pearson product moment analyses showed that older participants had a lower explanatory style composite negative (CN) score (<emph>r</emph> = − .22, <emph>p</emph> < .05) and participants whose significant other had died at an older age tended to report a lower posttraumatic growth new possibilities (NP) score (<emph>r</emph> = − .24, <emph>p</emph> < .05; see Table 2).</p> <p>TABLE 2 Correlations of Age of Participants, Age of Decedent, and Duration of Bereavement with Explanatory Style and Posttraumatic Growth Scores</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Outcome measure</td><td>Age of participants</td><td>Age of significant others died</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Composite negative</td><td>−.22*</td><td>.06</td></tr><tr><td>2. Composite positive</td><td>−.14</td><td>.09</td></tr><tr><td>3. Total Posttraumatic Growth Score</td><td>−.17</td><td>−.19</td></tr><tr><td>4. Relating to others</td><td>−.17</td><td>−.18</td></tr><tr><td>5. Personal strengths</td><td>−.16</td><td>−.17</td></tr><tr><td>6. Spiritual change</td><td>−.19</td><td>−.09</td></tr><tr><td>7. Appreciation of life</td><td>−.12</td><td>−.15</td></tr><tr><td>8. New possibilities</td><td>−.16</td><td>−.24*</td></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0031730269-10">Relationship between Explanatory Style and Benefit Finding after Bereavement</hd> <p>Because the age of the participant and the age of the person who had died were modestly correlated with some of the psychological subscales, partial correlations that controlled for these two variables were conducted first[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>]. The results are shown in Table 3.</p> <p>TABLE 3 Correlation Coefficients of Explanatory Styles and Posttraumatic Growth Scores</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Outcome measure</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Composite negative</td><td>—</td><td><bold>.25*</bold></td><td><bold> − .04</bold></td><td><bold> − .04</bold></td><td><bold>.04</bold></td><td><bold> − .12</bold></td><td><bold> − .01</bold></td><td><bold> − .06</bold></td></tr><tr><td>2. Composite positive</td><td>.28**</td><td>—</td><td><bold>.26*</bold></td><td><bold>.26*</bold></td><td><bold>.24*</bold></td><td><bold>.23*</bold></td><td><bold>.13</bold></td><td><bold>.27*</bold></td></tr><tr><td>3. Total Posttraumatic Growth Score</td><td>−.00</td><td>.25*</td><td>—</td><td><bold>.97+++</bold></td><td><bold>.94+++</bold></td><td><bold>.87+++</bold></td><td><bold>.89+++</bold></td><td><bold>.93+++</bold></td></tr><tr><td>4. Relating to others</td><td>−.01</td><td>.27**</td><td>.97**</td><td>—ļľ</td><td><bold>.88+++</bold></td><td><bold>.85+++</bold></td><td><bold>.84+++</bold></td><td><bold>.85+++</bold></td></tr><tr><td>5. Personal strengths</td><td>.07</td><td>.25*</td><td>.94**</td><td>.89**</td><td>—</td><td><bold>.76+++</bold></td><td><bold>.84+++</bold></td><td><bold>.83+++</bold></td></tr><tr><td>6. Spiritual change</td><td>−.05</td><td>.26**</td><td>.87**</td><td>.86**</td><td>.77**</td><td>—</td><td><bold>.69+++</bold></td><td><bold>.77+++</bold></td></tr><tr><td>7. Appreciation of life</td><td>−.00</td><td>.12</td><td>.89**</td><td>.84**</td><td>.84**</td><td>.69**</td><td>—</td><td><bold>.77+++</bold></td></tr><tr><td>8. New possibilities</td><td>−.03</td><td>.27**</td><td>.93**</td><td>.86**</td><td>.85**</td><td>.78**</td><td>.78**</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The results showed that the CN score was not correlated to the PTG total or to any of the PTG subscales; that is, participants' explanatory style for negative events was not associated with any of the posttraumatic growth subscales or to the posttraumatic growth total score. The CP score, on the other hand, was positively related to the posttraumatic growth total score. Thus, participants with a more optimistic explanatory style for positive events reported more benefit finding after bereavement. In terms of the different domains of benefit finding, our data revealed that the CP score was significantly and positively correlated with all posttraumatic growth subscales except the appreciation of life (AL) score (<emph>r</emph> = .13, <emph>p</emph> > .1). Finally, the CN and CP scores were moderately and positively correlated with each other, which indicates that participants tend to apply the same explanatory style to both positive and negative events (r = .25, p < .05).</p> <hd id="AN0031730269-11">Self-Serving Bias and Posttraumatic Growth</hd> <p>The above correlations treated CP and CN as univariate constructs. To further investigate if CN combined with CP to produce a different effect on benefit findings, we categorized participants into four patterns of explanatory style according to the sample mean of the CP and CN scores: (a) low CP and low CN scores (<emph>n</emph> = 28, 26.9%), that is, a pessimistic explanatory style for good events and an optimistic style for bad events; (b) high CP and low CN scores (<emph>n</emph> = 23, 22,1%), that is, an optimistic explanatory style for both good and bad events; (b) low CP and high CN scores (<emph>n</emph> = 22, 21.2%), that is, a pessimistic explanatory style for both good and bad events; and (d) high CP and high CN scores (<emph>n</emph> = 31, 29.8%)[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>], that is, an optimistic explanatory style for good events and a pessimistic explanatory style for bad events. Amongst them, the high CP and low CN group represented a self-serving bias that was found to be negatively related to psychopathology (Jolley et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]). There were about equal number of participants in each of the four patterns of explanatory style, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>) = .17, <emph>p</emph> > .1. Subsequent one-way analysis of variances showed no significant difference in posttraumatic growth scores among the four patterns of explanatory style (Table 4).</p> <p>TABLE 4 Mean (and Standard Deviations) of the Posttraumatic Growth Scores by Patterns of Explanatory Styles</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Outcome measure</td><td>Low CP–low CN</td><td>High CP–low CN</td><td>Low CP–high CN</td><td>High CP–high CN</td><td><italic>F</italic> value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total Posttraumatic Growth Score</td><td char="." charoff="50">43.84 (23.46)</td><td char="." charoff="50">42.65 (21.93)</td><td char="." charoff="50">39.77 (24.52)</td><td char="." charoff="50">52.17 (28.58)</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.22</td></tr><tr><td>Relating to others</td><td char="." charoff="50">13.86 (7.72)</td><td char="." charoff="50">13.61 (8.12)</td><td char="." charoff="50">12.23 (8.29)</td><td char="." charoff="50">17.03 (9.62)</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.56</td></tr><tr><td>Personal strengths</td><td char="." charoff="50">8.29 (4.81)</td><td char="." charoff="50">8.00 (4.37)</td><td char="." charoff="50">7.91 (4.98)</td><td char="." charoff="50">10.35 (5.90)</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.46</td></tr><tr><td>Spiritual change</td><td char="." charoff="50">4.56 (2.55)</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.00 (2.45)</td><td char="." charoff="50">4.27 (2.73)</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.45 (3.26)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.91</td></tr><tr><td>Appreciation of life</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.57 (3.59)</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.26 (3.41)</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.82 (4.11)</td><td char="." charoff="50">6.40 (4.17)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.43</td></tr><tr><td>New possibilities</td><td char="." charoff="50">12.00 (5.97)</td><td char="." charoff="50">10.78 (5.85)</td><td char="." charoff="50">9.55 (6.06)</td><td char="." charoff="50">13.58 (6.83)</td><td char="." charoff="50">2.00</td></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0031730269-12">Discussion</hd> <p>Our main objective is to examine the relationship between explanatory style and PTG after a bereavement experience. The explanatory style theory can be considered as a model of optimism in which an optimistic person is defined as someone who tends to view the causes of bad events as external, specific, and unstable (Seligman, Reivich, Jaycox, & Gillham, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref59">48</reflink>]). In PTG literature, it has been established that optimism is positively associated with PTG after adversity (Gillies & Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>]; Milam, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref61">30</reflink>]; Tedeschi & Calhoun, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref62">50</reflink>]). However, all existing studies used the expectancy model of optimism (Scheier & Carver, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref63">44</reflink>]) in their investigations. We now know that an individual's tendency to expect positive things to happen in the future is positively related to his/her self-perceived PTG after bereavement. However, we know less about how an individual's habitual tendency to explain the causes of events will affect his/her self-perceived PTG after bereavement, although there is an important linkage between an optimistic expectation and an optimistic explanatory style (Seligman, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref64">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is natural to expect, based on the findings of other researchers, that an individual with an optimistic explanatory style for negative events (i.e., a tendency to explain negative events as specific, external, and unstable) will report more positive changes after bereavement. However, we found that the composite positive score (CP), not the composite negative score (CN), is related to benefit finding after bereavement. In other words, we found that an individual with a greater tendency to explain positive events as internal, stable, and global tends to report more positive changes after bereavement, whereas his/her explanatory style for negative events is not related to PTG. Our findings converged with the results of Kivimaki et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>]) that optimism but not pessimism predicted resilience among people with death or onset of severe illness in a family.</p> <p>Although previous studies have shown that a self-serving bias can protect one from developing psychopathology (e.g., Jolley et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref66">20</reflink>]), our bereaved participants with a self-serving bias did not report more positive changes as compared to other patterns of explanatory style. In summary, CN is not related to self-perceived benefit finding, whether as an individual variable or in combination with CP. Our results support the proposition that PTG is different from resilience (or lack of pathology). The former represents a bounce back beyond the pre-trauma baseline to a level of higher functioning after the trauma, whereas the latter refers either to a return to the pre-trauma level of functioning (Carver, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>]) or the ability to maintain relatively stable and healthy levels of functioning despite extreme adversity (Bonanno, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>]; Bonanno, Galea, Bucciarelli, & Vlahov, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>]; Bonanno, Rennicke, & Dekel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]; Deshields, Tibbs, Fan, & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>]). Because PTG and resilience are separate entities, it is not surprising to find out that they have different association with explanatory styles for positive and negative events.</p> <p>It is possible that individuals with an optimistic explanatory style for negative events will view the causes of bereavement as external ("The death of my wife is not my fault but is due to external factors"), specific ("That I lost my wife does not mean that I will lose everything"), and unstable ("I will feel better in time"). This explanatory style reduces the chance of developing chronic grief reaction. However, it may not have much to do with self-perceived positive change, which is a positive outcome itself. Nevertheless, individuals with an optimistic explanatory style for positive events will probably have the following perspective after the initial positive changes: "The positive changes are due to my effort" (internal), "Positive things have happened to me before, and it is possible that I will have positive changes after my wife passes away" (global), and "The positive changes I experience will be long lasting" (stable). It is logical to expect that individuals with an optimistic explanatory style for positive events will subsequently report more PTG than individuals with a pessimistic explanatory style for positive events. Of course, the positive perspective that is outlined requires at least some self-perceived positive changes to have already occurred before the mechanism of explanatory style for positive events can take place that will generate greater self-perceived PTG. In addition, it may be possible that one's explanatory style for positive events will influence one's cognitive processing after bereavement, such as rumination (Tedeschi et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref72">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref73">53</reflink>]) and meaning making (Gillies & Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref74">16</reflink>]; Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref76">33</reflink>]). For example, individuals with an optimistic explanatory style for positive events might tend to construct a more positive meaning about the bereavement experience and have more positive ruminations about the event, which in turn might lead to more self-reported positive changes. This possibility could be examined in future studies.</p> <p>There are two implications for our findings. First, clinicians should be aware of the possible differential impact of explanatory styles for positive and negative events on adjustment after bereavement. Changing one's attributional style for a negative event may protect one from developing psychopathology after a bereavement experience (Joseph et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref77">23</reflink>]; Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref78">29</reflink>]). However, our current findings show that helping an individual to develop a more optimistic explanatory style for positive events may facilitate post-bereavement benefit findings that may enhance long-term post-bereavement adjustment (Linley & Joseph, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref79">27</reflink>]; Woodward & Joseph, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref80">54</reflink>]). Recently, Gillham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>]) reported the efficacy of the Penn Resiliency Program, which included educating and developing an optimistic explanatory style, to prevent depression among adolescents. Hilt ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref82">17</reflink>]) also provided a detailed review on current explanatory style retraining intervention programs for therapeutic change. The above literature provides support to the proposition that one's explanatory style is amendable to clinical intervention. Second, our findings suggest the importance of explanatory style for positive events in affecting positive outcomes such as PTG after stress-related events. More recent versions of the ASQ (Dykema, Bergbower, Doctora, & Peterson, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref83">11</reflink>]; Peterson & Villanova, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref84">39</reflink>]) have excluded positive events. With the growth of positive psychology (Park & Helgeson, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref85">36</reflink>]), it may be necessary to consider putting positive events back into the equation when assessing explanatory styles.</p> <p>Other findings of this study, although not directly related to our primary objective, are worth mentioning. Some studies have shown that adolescent boys are more pessimistic than adolescent girls in their explanations of negative events (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref86">35</reflink>]). Nevertheless, our college sample shows no significant gender differences in terms of explanatory style. One possible explanation is that the gender differences in explanatory style may attenuate with age (Ruble, Eisenberg, & Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref87">42</reflink>]). Mezulis et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>]) meta-analysis of 266 studies on self-serving attributional bias, which is a concept directly related to explanatory style, provides indirect support for the findings of this study. Their study showed that self-serving bias, that is, a person's tendency to give a more internal, stable, and global explanation for positive events than for negative events, had no gender differences.</p> <p>We find that age is negatively related to the CN score, that is, older college students have a greater tendency to appraise negative events as specific, external, and unstable than do younger college students. Though the age range of our sample (18–23 years) may be too narrow to justify a conclusion related to developmental change and explanatory style, our finding concurs with the findings of other studies which reveal that attribution styles do vary with age (Isaacowitz, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>]; Mezulis et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref90">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some limitations of this study include the wide range of the post-bereavement period (the mean duration of the bereavement = 25.0 months; <emph>SD</emph> = 18.4), the cross-sectional design, and the reliance on self-reporting in the questionnaires. Future studies could investigate whether the same results are found in samples of other populations. It is also known that the nature of a stressful event affects subsequent benefit findings (Fraser & Richman, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref91">13</reflink>]; Linley & Joseph, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref92">28</reflink>]). Future studies could examine whether the present findings could be generalized to other traumatic events.</p> <ref id="AN0031730269-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience. Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events?American Psychologist, 59, 20–28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref69" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2006). Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attack. Psychological Science, 17, 181–186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bonanno, G. A. & Kaltman, S. (2001). The varieties of grief experience. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 1–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref70" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bonanno, G. A., Rennicke, C., & Dekel, S. (2005). Self-enhancement among high-exposive survivors of the September 11th terrorist attack: Resilience or social maladjustment?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 984–998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., Lehman, D. R., Tweed, R. G., Sonnega, J., Carr, D., & Nesse, R. M. (2002). Resilience to loss and chronic grief: A prospective study from preloss to 18-months postloss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1150–1164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Calhoun, L. G. & Tedeschi, R. G. (1989). Positive aspects of critical life problems: Recollections of grief. Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying, 20, 265–272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref67" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilence and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 245–266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref42" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, L. H., Cimbolic, K., Armeli, S. R., & Hettler, T. R. (1998). Quantitative assessment of thriving. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 323–335.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Davis, C. G., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Larson, J. (1998). Making sense of loss and benefiting from the experience: Two construals of meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 561–574.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deshields, T., Tibbs, T., Fan, M. Y., & Taylor, M. (2006). Differences in patterns of depression after treatment for breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 398–406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dykema, K., Bergbower, K., Doctora, J. D., & Peterson, C. (1996). An Attributional Style Questionnaire for general use. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 100–108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Folkman, S. & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55, 647–654.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser, M. W. & Richman, J. M. (2001). Resilience: Implications for evidence based practice. In J. M.Richman & M. W.Fraser (Eds.), The context of youth violence: Resilience, risk, and protection (pp. 187–198). Westport, CT: Praeger.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frazier, P., Conlon, A., & Glaser, T. (2001). Positive and negative life changes following sexual assault. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 69, 1048–1055.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Freres, D. R., Chaplin, T. M., Shatte, A. J., Samuels, B., Elkon, A. G., Litzinger, S., Lascher, M., Gallop, R., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). School-based prevention of depressive symptoms: A randomized controlled study of the effectiveness and specificity of the Penn Resiliency Program. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 75, 9–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillies, J. & Neimeyer, R. A. (2006). Loss, grief, and the search for significance: Toward a model of meaning reconstruction in bereavement. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 19, 31–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hilt, L. M. (2004). Attributional retraining for therapeutic change: Theory, practice, and future direction. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 23, 289–307.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, S. M. Y., Chan, C. L. W., & Ho, R. T. H. (2004). Post-traumatic growth in Chinese cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 377–389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Isaacowitz, D. M. (2005). Correlates of well-being in adulthood and old age: A tale of two optimisms. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 224–244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jolley, S., Garety, P., Bebbington, P., Dunn, G., Freeman, D., Kuipers, E., Fowler, D., & Hemsley, D. (2006). Attributional style in psychosis—the role of affect and belief type. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1597–1607.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph, S. & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph, S., Linley, P. A., Andrews, L., Harris, G., Howle, B., Woodward, C., & Shevlin, M. (2005). Assessing positive and negative changes in the aftermath of adversity: Psychometric evaluation of the changes in outlook questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 17, 70–80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph, S., Yule, W., & Williams, R. (1993). Post-traumatic stress: Attributional aspects. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 501–513.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kivimaki, M., Vahtera, J., Elovainio, M., Helenius, H., Singh-Manoux, A., & Pentti, J. (2005). Optimism and pessimism as predictors of change in health after death or onset of severe illness in family. Health Psychology, 24, 413–421.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, P. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehman, D. R., Davis, C. G., DeLongis, A., Wortman, C., Bluck, S., Mandel, D. R., & Ellard, J. H. (1993). Positive and negative life changes following bereavment and their relations to adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 90–112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linley, P. A. & Joseph, S. (2003). Trauma and personal growth. Psychologist, 16, 135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linley, P. A. & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 11–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711–747.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milam, J. (2006). Posttraumatic growth and HIV disease progression. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 74, 817–827.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mineka, S., Pury, C. L., & Luten, A. G. (1995). Explanatory style in anxiety and depression. In G. M.Buchanan & M. E. P.Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style (pp. 135–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neimeyer, R. A. (2000). Searching for the meaning of meaning: Grief therapy and the process of reconstruction. Death Studies, 24, 541–558.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neimeyer, R. A., (Ed.). (2001). Meaning reconstruction & the experience of loss. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nerken, I. R. (1993). Grief and the reflective self: Toward a clearer model of loss and growth. Death Studies, 17, 1–26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Girgus, J. S. (1995). Explanatory style and achievement, depression, and gender differences in childhood and early adolescence. In G. M.Buchanan & M. E. P.Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style (pp. 57–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, C. L. & Helgeson, V. S. (2006). Introduction to the special section: Growth following highly stressful life events—current status and future directions. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 74, 791–796.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, C., Buchanan, G. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). Explanatory style: History and evoluation of the field. In G. M.Buchanan & M. E. P.Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style (pp. 1–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C. L., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 287–299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, C. & Villanova, P. (1988). An expanded attributional style questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 87–89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reivich, K. (1995). The measurement of explanatory style. In G. M.Buchanan & M. E. P.Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style (pp. 21–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robins, C. J. & Hayes, A. M. (1995). The role of causal attributions in the prediction of depression. In G. M.Buchanan & M. E. P.Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style (pp. 71–97). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruble, D. N., Eisenberg, R., & Higgins, E. T. (1994). Developmental changes in achievement evaluation: Motivational implications of self-other differences. Child Development, 65, 1095–1110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaefer, J. A. & Moos, R. H. (2001). Bereavement experiences and personal growth. In M. S.Stroebe, R. O.Hansson, W.Stroebe, & H.Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research. Consequences, coping, and care (pp. 145–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartzberg, S. S. & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1991). Grief and the search for meaning: Exploring the assumptive worlds of bereaved college students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 270–288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. Sydney: Random House Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seligman, M. E. P., Peterson, C., Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Attributional style and depressive symptoms among children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 235–238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seligman, M. E. P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., & Gillham, J. (1995). The optimistic child. A proven program to safeguard children against depression and build lifelong resilience. New York: Harper Collins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shuchter, S. R. & Zisook, S. (1993). The course of normal grief. In M. S.Stroebe, W.Stroebe, & M.Hansson (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 23–43). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Postraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tedeschi, R. G., Park, C. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (1998a). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual issues. In R. G.Tedeschi, C. L.Park, & L. G.Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tedeschi, R. G., Park, C. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (Eds.). (1998b). Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodward, C. & Joseph, S. (2003). Positive change processes and post-traumatic growth in people who have experienced childhood abuse: Understanding vehicles of change. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 76, 267–283.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0031730269-14"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> <emph>Note</emph>. ASQ = Attributional Style Questionnaire.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> <sups>1</sups>Because of our modest sample size (<emph>n</emph> = 105), zero-order correlations (i.e., with no covariates) were also conducted to examine if the pattern of correlations would be differ at zero-order level (see Table 3). It was noted that the patterns of correlations were identical with and without the two covariates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> <emph>Note</emph>. Partial correlation coefficients with age of participants and age of significant others died as covariates are presented in the upper triangle (in bold) and zero-order correlation coefficients (i.e., with no covariates) are presented in the lower triangle of the correlation matrix.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; +++<emph>p</emph> < .001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> <sups>2</sups>One participant had a missing CP score and was excluded from this categorization.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> <emph>Note</emph>. CP = Composive positive; CN = composite negative.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By SamuelM. Y. Ho; KwungWing Chu and Jessie Yiu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref92"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ791787
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Relationship between Explanatory Style and Posttraumatic Growth after Bereavement in a Non-Clinical Sample
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ho%2C+Samuel+M%2E+Y%2E%22">Ho, Samuel M. Y.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chu%2C+Kwung+Wing%22">Chu, Kwung Wing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yiu%2C+Jessie%22">Yiu, Jessie</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Death+Studies%22"><i>Death Studies</i></searchLink>. May 2008 32(5):461-478.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Futures+%28of+Society%29%22">Futures (of Society)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grief%22">Grief</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attachment+Behavior%22">Attachment Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Posttraumatic+Stress+Disorder%22">Posttraumatic Stress Disorder</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Death%22">Death</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hong+Kong%22">Hong Kong</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07481180801974760
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-1187
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The relationship between explanatory style and self-perceived posttraumatic growth was examined among 105 undergraduates in Hong Kong who had experienced bereavement in the past 6 years. Individuals who tended to attribute positive events to internal, global, and stable factors reported more posttraumatic growth than individuals who tended to attribute positive events to external, specific, and unstable factors. The explanatory style for positive events might affect later cognitive processing, such as meaning making after bereavement, which will affect self-perceived posttraumatic growth. One's explanatory style for negative events is not related to posttraumatic growth after bereavement. Directions for future study are described. (Contains 4 tables and 2 footnotes.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 54
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ791787
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ791787
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07481180801974760
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 461
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Futures (of Society)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grief
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attachment Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Death
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hong Kong
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Relationship between Explanatory Style and Posttraumatic Growth after Bereavement in a Non-Clinical Sample
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ho, Samuel M. Y.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chu, Kwung Wing
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yiu, Jessie
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2008
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-1187
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 32
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Death Studies
              Type: main
ResultId 1