Posttraumatic Growth as a Cognitive Process with Behavioral Components: A Commentary on.
Saved in:
| Title: | Posttraumatic Growth as a Cognitive Process with Behavioral Components: A Commentary on. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Wagner, Birgit (AUTHOR), Forstmeier, Simon (AUTHOR), Maercker, Andreas (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Applied Psychology: An International Review. Jul2007, Vol. 56 Issue 3, p407-416. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Emotional trauma, Victims of terrorism, Cognitive ability, Post-traumatic stress disorder, Maturation (Psychology), Human behavior, Crisis management, Psychological distress, Mental health, Attitude (Psychology), Hobfoll, Stevan, Psychology |
| Abstract: | The commentary highlights some of the key points to emerge from the paper by Hobfoll, Hall, Canetti-Nisim, Galea, Johnson, and Palmieri (2007 , in this issue) about the relationship between posttraumatic growth and action, psychological functioning, and cognitive processing. In our commentary, we question the sequence of steps that Hobfoll et al. took to critique current theoretical cognitive models of posttraumatic growth. On the basis of the Janus-face model ( Maercker & Zöllner, 2004 ) of posttraumatic growth, we argue that, in addition to a cognitive core, posttraumatic growth may, but does not necessarily, involve an action component. Ce commentaire souligne quelques-unes des idées maîtresses de l’article de Hobfoll & al. concernant la relation existant entre le développement post-traumatique et l’action, le fonctionnement psychologique et les processus cognitifs. Nous nous interrogeons sur les étapes que les auteurs retiennent pour critiquer les modèles cognitifs théoriques actuels du développement post-traumatique. A partir du modèle bifacial de Maercker & Zöllner, nous défendons l’idée qu’en plus d’un noyau cognitif le développement post-traumatique peut s’accompagner d’une composante action, mais que ce n’est pas nécessaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Applied Psychology: An International Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The commentary highlights some of the key points to emerge from the paper by Hobfoll, Hall, Canetti-Nisim, Galea, Johnson, and Palmieri (2007 , in this issue) about the relationship between posttraumatic growth and action, psychological functioning, and cognitive processing. In our commentary, we question the sequence of steps that Hobfoll et al. took to critique current theoretical cognitive models of posttraumatic growth. On the basis of the Janus-face model ( Maercker & Zöllner, 2004 ) of posttraumatic growth, we argue that, in addition to a cognitive core, posttraumatic growth may, but does not necessarily, involve an action component. Ce commentaire souligne quelques-unes des idées maîtresses de l’article de Hobfoll & al. concernant la relation existant entre le développement post-traumatique et l’action, le fonctionnement psychologique et les processus cognitifs. Nous nous interrogeons sur les étapes que les auteurs retiennent pour critiquer les modèles cognitifs théoriques actuels du développement post-traumatique. A partir du modèle bifacial de Maercker & Zöllner, nous défendons l’idée qu’en plus d’un noyau cognitif le développement post-traumatique peut s’accompagner d’une composante action, mais que ce n’est pas nécessaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0269994X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00295.x |
