Relations Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms and Positive Memory Characteristics Among Women Reporting Intimate Partner Violence: A Micro-Longitudinal Study

Abstract

Evidence links posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms to positive autobiographical memory characteristics. To extend this research, we uniquely utilized micro-longitudinal data to examine (1) the trajectory of PTSD symptom count across 30 days; and (2) if more vividness and accessibility of retrieved positive memories at the daily level predicted decreases in the trajectory of PTSD symptom count across 30 days. The current study was a secondary data analysis of a larger study. The sample included 74 women who reported physical or sexual victimization in the past 30 days by their current male partner and reported the use of alcohol and/or drugs during that time (M_age = 39.68 years; 37.80% with diagnostic PTSD; 43.2% White; 37.8% Black or African American). They completed thrice daily measures of PTSD symptoms and positive memory characteristics (vividness and accessibility) across 30 days. Results of the random effects longitudinal multilevel model indicated that, on average, the relation between PTSD symptom count and positive memory vividness was positive and statistically significant (0.19, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] [0.2, 0.35]); and the relation between PTSD symptom count and positive memory accessibility was positive and statistically significant (0.31, 95% CI [0.15, 0.47]). The relationship between PTSD symptom count and positive memory vividness/accessibility (i.e., slopes) varied significantly across participants, with a wide range of positive and negative regression coefficients. Future research needs to investigate why and how positive memory vividness and accessibility may relate to trajectories of PTSD symptoms over time, with potential clinical implications for positive memory interventions addressing PTSD.

Keywords

posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms positive memory vividness positive memory accessibility intimate partner violence micro-longitudinal study

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a psychological condition experienced by some individuals after trauma, with lifetime prevalence estimates of ~8% in the general United States population (Kilpatrick et al., 2013). PTSD is characterized by intrusive thoughts, avoidance of trauma reminders, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and arousal symptoms (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Individuals vary in how PTSD symptoms unfold over time (i.e., heterogeneity in PTSD symptom trajectories), with evidence for subgroups of individuals characterized by chronic dysfunction (more symptoms over time), gradual recovery (increase followed by decrease in symptoms), delayed reaction (subsyndromal response followed by an abrupt increase in symptoms), and healthy functioning (e.g., Bonanno, 2004; Pietrzak et al., 2014). Such findings reflect the diversity in theoretical models linking trauma and posttrauma symptoms, including the dose-response theory, which suggests a positive relation between multiple traumas and distress (Gerber et al., 2018; Turner & Lloyd, 1995), and the stress inoculation theory, which indicates that experiencing a certain amount of stress can foster resilience (Meichenbaum & Novaco, 1985).

Together, PTSD symptoms are dynamic over time (Chun, 2016). A potential factor contributing to the dynamic nature of PTSD symptoms is memory processes. Indeed, PTSD is linked to processes associated with trauma memories, such as re-experiencing vivid trauma memories while intentionally avoiding them, experiencing trauma-related flashbacks, and/or difficulties retrieving aspects of the trauma (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Ehlers & Clark, 2000). Emerging research has highlighted that PTSD symptoms may also relate to processes associated with positive memories, as elaborated next. Examining the associations between PTSD symptom trajectories and positive memory characteristics are the focus of the current study, given the under-studied yet clinically important nature of this research.

Positive memories are central to an individual’s identity and belief structures (Foley, 2018), are highly accessible and come to one’s mind frequently (Walker et al., 2003; S. E. Williams et al., 2022), and are favored over time (Matlin & Stang, 1978). Further, retrieval of one positive memory increases the likelihood of retrieving other positive memories (S. E. Williams et al., 2022), and the affect associated with positive memory retrieval tends to remain for a longer duration of time (Ritchie et al., 2009; S. E. Williams et al., 2022). In the context of trauma/PTSD, the scarring hypothesis and related evidence suggest that individuals have difficulties retrieving specific and detailed positive memories after experiencing a trauma and posttrauma distress (Contractor, Caldas, Dolan, & Weiss, 2022; J. M. G. Williams et al., 2007). When trauma memories and associated negative beliefs/emotions become central to one’s identity for trauma-exposed individuals (Berntsen et al., 2011), they may find it difficult to retrieve positive memories (Brewin et al., 2010; Brewin & Holmes, 2003), to integrate positive memories with other autobiographical memories (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006, 2007), and/or to form new positive memories due to a reduced focus on positive situations and aspects (Kangas et al., 2005; Paunovic et al., 2002). Also, these individuals may experience a wide range of negative emotions and less positive affect when reflecting on memories (Clifford et al., 2020), and may not be able to effectively regulate positive emotions that are experienced when retrieving positive memories (Contractor, Weiss, & Forkus, 2022). Such patterns may also contribute to less retrieval of positive memories. Further, these individuals may retrieve overgeneral versus specific memories of past events to cope with posttrauma distress (affect regulation hypothesis; Hermans et al., 2008; Moore & Zoellner, 2007). Conversely, the vulnerability hypothesis suggests that difficulties retrieving specific positive memories may increase the likelihood of experiencing distress after a trauma (J. M. G. Williams et al., 2007). Examples of such vulnerability factors include fewer pre-trauma positive experiences and associated memories (Hauer et al., 2009), and difficulties accessing pre-trauma positive memories (Bryant et al., 2007).

Limited longitudinal studies suggest that positive memory characteristics may influence PTSD symptoms across time. For instance, Bryant et al. (2007) and Hauer et al. (2009) found that fewer specific positive memories pre-trauma related to greater PTSD severity experienced after a trauma in samples of firefighters and of women with pregnancy complications, respectively. Most relevant, a recent 10-day diary study indicated that more PTSD symptom severity was associated with less positive memory vividness and accessibility at a daily level and vice versa among trauma-exposed students (Contractor, Messman, et al., 2023a). In addition to these non-clinical observational studies, Moradi et al. (2014) found that individuals receiving Memory Specificity Training (an intervention that targets one’s ability to retrieve specific memories) reported decreases in PTSD severity from baseline to post-intervention. Sutherland and Bryant (2007) found that retrieving more specific positive memories related to less PTSD symptom severity among individuals receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy. Moradi et al. (2021) found that Iranian trauma survivors with PTSD who received an 8-week Autobiographical Memory Flexibility Intervention (e.g., completing tasks to retrieve positive and emotionally benign memories) reported less PTSD symptom severity compared to those in the control group. Finally, Contractor, Jin, & Weiss (2022) found that 75% of participants receiving the Processing of Positive Memories Technique (targeting enhanced retrieval of specific positive memories) reported decreases in PTSD severity over time. Broadly, evidence supports beneficial impacts of positive memory retrieval on well-being, including improved mood (Rusting & DeHart, 2000), less depression (Ramirez et al., 2015), more resilience (Speer et al., 2014), better ability to retrieve (positive) memories (Arditte Hall et al., 2018), more adaptive beliefs (Fredrickson, 2001), and less posttrauma severity (Contractor, Banducci, et al., 2020). As such, it is important to elucidate the relation of positive memory characteristics to PTSD symptom changes across time.

Notably, the aforementioned knowledge base has some critical gaps. First, there is comparatively more emphasis on trauma memories versus positive memories in PTSD treatments (Contractor, Weiss, Forkus, & Keegan, 2020), including among memory (re)-consolidation therapies (Astill Wright et al., 2021). Second, more studies examining PTSD and positive memory characteristics with micro-longitudinal designs (e.g., experience sampling methodology [ESM]) are needed. ESM studies provide an opportunity to obtain real-time and repeated assessments of behaviors/symptoms (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013), have more ecological validity, capturing phenomena as they naturally occur (Shiffman et al., 2008), and are relatively less vulnerable to retrieval bias (Myin-Germeys et al., 2009). Finally, despite evidence that PTSD symptoms (Chun, 2016), autobiographical memories (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000), and positive memory characteristics (Contractor, Messman et al., 2023a; Niziurski et al., 2018) fluctuate over time, only one study has examined daily-level relations between positive memory characteristics and PTSD symptoms (Contractor, Messman et al., 2023a). This study was conducted among trauma-exposed students endorsing low-average PTSD symptom severity.

Uniquely, in the current study, we focused on a different sample—community women currently experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) and using alcohol and/or drugs. Research suggests that women who have experienced IPV report a substantial health burden, including more PTSD symptom severity (Dutton et al., 2006). Further, they demonstrate greater memory retrieval difficulties (Billoux et al., 2016), report more incoherent and less organized structures of autobiographical memories (Tani et al., 2016), report fewer positive feelings and more negative feelings in their memory narratives (Tani et al., 2016), and may include the perpetrator (who may also be an attachment figure) in their positive memory narratives (Kaehler et al., 2013), which may complicate accessibility of and reactions to positive memories. Further, research suggests that individuals who use substances report more PTSD symptoms (Contractor, Weiss, et al., 2019). Indeed, substantial evidence suggests that there is a functional relationship between substance use and PTSD-related distress (Leeies et al., 2010; Sullivan et al., 2018), and PTSD symptoms and substance use can exacerbate each other over time (Jacobson et al., 2001; Read et al., 2004). Also, substance use may influence positive memory processes (e.g., result in less specific and integrated memories; Wright et al., 2022). Additionally, retrieving detailed positive memories may increase cravings for or engagement in substance use in certain instances, such as when the content of positive memories highlights beneficial impacts of substance use or when individuals use substances to regulate intense emotions that are experienced when retrieving positive memories (Compton et al., in review; Contractor, Banducci, & Jin, 2022; Gisquet-Verrier & Le Dorze, 2019). Together, the current study findings were contextualized in regard to these sample characteristics.

Addressing these gaps, we used an ESM (i.e., micro-longitudinal) design to examine daily-level associations between PTSD symptoms and positive memory characteristics of vividness (visual clarity) and accessibility (ease of retrieval) among community women currently experiencing physical and/or sexual victimization and using alcohol and/or drugs. We focally examined positive memory vividness and accessibility based on existing literature and clinical observations linking difficulties in easily accessing vivid positive memories to more PTSD symptom severity (Contractor, Banducci, et al., 2019; Contractor, Greene, et al., 2020; Contractor, Messman, et al., 2023a; Fondren et al., 2022). Specifically, we examined (1) the trajectory of PTSD symptom count across 30 days; and (2) if positive memory vividness and accessibility predicted the trajectory of PTSD symptom count across 30 days. We expected that more positive memory vividness and accessibility would predict a decline in PTSD symptom count over time (e.g., Bryant et al., 2007; Contractor, Banducci, et al., 2019; Sutherland & Bryant, 2007).

Methods

Procedure and Participants

All procedures were approved by the University of Rhode Island Institutional Review Board. This is a secondary data analysis from a larger study examining the proximal role and temporal ordering of emotion dysregulation in substance use and HIV/sexual risk—and the role of PTSD—among women experiencing IPV. Recruitment materials were posted in community establishments throughout Providence County, Rhode Island such as grocery stores, laundromats, and shops; selected state offices such as the Office of Housing and Community Development; waiting rooms, bathrooms, and exam rooms of urban-area primary care clinics; and on websites. All participants identified as women; this includes transgender individuals. Further, all participants reported having a current male partner; this includes participants who also have (primarily) women partners. All participants reported experiences of physical and/or sexual victimization in the past 30 days by their current male partner and used alcohol and/or drugs during that time. To assess physical victimization, women were asked, “In the past 30 days, did your partner do anything to physically hurt you, such as push or shove you, grab you, or punch or hit you?” To assess sexual victimization, women were asked, “In the past 30 days, did your partner make you do something sexual that you didn’t want to do, such as pressuring or forcing you to do something sexual when you didn’t want to?” To assess substance use, women were asked if, in the past 30 days, they “had beer, wine, or liquor,” “used drugs like weed,” and/or “used prescription drugs (like Xanax, sleeping pills, or painkillers) that were not prescribed to them or used prescription drugs not as prescribed in order to feel the effects? (e.g., they took more than prescribed or took them for a longer time than prescribed).” The larger study aimed to capture the variability in substance use, hence, problematic substance use was not an inclusion criterion (e.g., binge/heavy drinking).

Inclusion criteria were: (a) ≥18 years, (b) fluent in English, and (c) currently in a relationship of at least 6 months’ duration (contact at least twice a week with partner). Exclusion criteria were (a) current mania/psychosis (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 [SCID-5]; First & Williams, 2016), (b) current impairment in cognitive functioning (Mini-Mental Status Exam; Folstein et al., 1975), (c) current pregnancy, (d) colorblindness, (e) cardiovascular disease, and (f) residence in a shelter/group home. The parent study had a Baseline Session, an Experimental Session, an ESM Phase, and a Follow-up Session. We used data from the Baseline Session and the ESM (micro-longitudinal) Phase.

The Baseline Session was conducted by female bachelors- or masters-level clinical psychology doctoral students who were trained by the Principal Investigator of the larger study. After providing informed consent, participants were interviewed using a structured diagnostic assessment (SCID-5; First & Williams, 2016) and answered self-report measures on a computer. Participants were compensated $40 for completing this session. During the ESM Phase, participants completed surveys on psychological symptoms and affect/cognitive processes through the interactive voice recording (IVR) telephone system three times a day for 30 days. Surveys took place between 4:00 a.m. and 11:59 a.m., 12:00 p.m. and 5:59 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. and 3:59 a.m. For each survey, the timeframe for measures referenced “since the previous reporting period.” Participants were trained to use the IVR telephone system to record their information daily; training procedures were adapted from Stone and Shiffman (2002). Calls could be initiated by the participant or the participant could have elected to have the IVR system initiate a reminder call. Participants were compensated $1 for each completed survey and weekly bonuses of $5 if ≥80% of the surveys were completed.

Exclusions and Missing Data

A total of 839 participants were interested in the study and screened by research personnel. Among the 234 individuals who met all screening criteria, 217 individuals were scheduled for the Baseline Session. Of those, 174 individuals participated in the Baseline Session (one individual was excluded during this stage of the study for mania/psychosis). From 173 participants, we excluded data from 28 participants who did not attempt any ESM Phase survey. Next, we excluded data from 71 participants who were not administered the positive memory questions (these questions were included mid-way during the study), resulting in a final sample size of 74 individuals (M_age = 39.80 years; SD = 10.70). In this sample, participants who had completed the 1st daily survey completed all other daily surveys. Table 1 has demographic information. In the final sample, there were no missing data for the PTSD symptom count variable; ~49% of the positive memory accessibility observations and ~51% of the positive memory vividness observations were missing for 90 measurements. When the data were averaged within each day ignoring missing data, no data were missing for the primary variables.

Table 1.

Sample Demographic and Descriptive Characteristics.

	M (SD)	Range	n (%)
Age (n = 74)	39.68 (10.70)	21–64
Past-Month Hazardous Drug Use (n = 69)	5.01 (3.07)	0–10
Past-Year Hazardous Drug Use (n = 67)	5.46 (3.12)	0–10
Hazardous Alcohol Use (n = 51)	15.10 (11.07)	1–39
PTSD Symptom Severity (n = 67)	39.79 (24.34)	0–80
Experience of Physical IPV (n = 74)	12.99 (14.35)	0–55
Experience of Sexual IPV (n = 64)	9.06 (13.06)	0–54
Experience of Psychological IPV (n = 65)	40.02 (16.16)	14–70
Years of Education Completed (n = 69)	12.43 (1.91)	8–18
Monthly Household Income (n = 41)	$1,091.51 ($1,619.58)	$0–$10,000
Relationship Length (in months; n = 72)	63.76 (67.32)	6–365
Days with Partner Per Week (n = 68)	5.97 (1.65)	0–7
Gender (n = 74)
Female			70 (94.60%)
Female to Male Transgender			1 (1.40%)
Male to Female Transgender			2 (2.70%)
Other			1 (1.40%)
Sexual Identity (n = 74)
Straight			59 (79.70%)
Bisexual			12 (16.20%)
Lesbian or Gay			1 (1.40%)
Other			1 (1.40%)
Prefer Not to Respond			1 (1.40%)
Race/Ethnicity (n = 74)
American Indian/Alaska Native			4 (5.40%)
Black or African American			28 (37.80%)
Hispanic or Latina			7 (9.50%)
White			32 (43.20%)
Other			2 (2.70%)
Prefer Not to Respond			1 (1.40%)
Religion (n = 74)
Buddhist			1 (1.40%)
Christian			41 (55.40%)
Jewish			1 (1.40%)
Muslim			1 (1.40%)
None			16 (21.60%)
Other			10 (13.50%)
Prefer Not to Respond			4 (5.40%)
Employment Status (n = 74)
Full time (35+ hr/Week)			3 (4.10%)
Part time (<35 hr/Week or Sporadic Employment)			9 (12.20%)
Unemployed			53 (71.60%)
Not in Labor Force (e.g., Student, Homemaker)			7 (9.50%)
Prefer Not to Respond			2 (2.70%)
Relationship Status (n = 74)
Married			5 (6.80%)
Unmarried			60 (81.10%)
Separated or Divorced			4 (5.40%)
Prefer Not to Respond			5 (6.80%)
Cohabiting with Partner (n = 74)
Yes			33 (44.60%)
No			37 (50%)
Prefer Not to Respond			4 (5.40%)
Current PTSD Diagnosis determined by SCID-5 (n = 74)			28 (37.8%)

Note. PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder; percentages presented are valid percentages accounting for missing data; SCID-5 = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5; IPV = Intimate partner violence.

Measures Relevant to the Current Study

PTSD symptom severity

At the Baseline Session, a 20-item PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; Weathers et al., 2013) was administered to assess past-month PTSD symptom severity. Referencing their most traumatic event, participants are instructed to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). The PCL-5 scores have good psychometrics (Forkus et al., 2022). In the current study, internal consistency for the PCL-5 total scale score was excellent (McDonald’s ω = .98).

Count of endorsed PTSD symptoms

For the ESM Phase, a 7-item modified version of the original 20-item PCL-5 (Weathers et al., 2013) was administered to assess momentary PTSD symptoms. This 7-item modified version included seven dichotomized (i.e., yes/no) items that corresponded to the seven factor-analytical structure of PTSD (Armour et al., 2016). Participants responded to these PCL-5 items based on their worst trauma and indicated whether or not they experienced each symptom cluster since the previous survey (i.e., intrusions, avoidance, negative affect, anhedonia, externalizing behaviors, anxious arousal, dysphoric arousal). In the current study, internal consistency for the PCL-5 count scores across the ESM Phase was excellent (McDonald’s ω = .98).

Positive memory characteristics

The Memory Experiences Questionnaire–Short Form (MEQ-SF; Luchetti & Sutin, 2016) is a 31-item self-report measure evaluating 10 memory phenomenological domains of retrieved positive memories (e.g., valence, vividness, coherence, accessibility). For the current study’s ESM Phase, we developed two items adapted from the MEQ-SF to examine vividness and accessibility of the retrieved positive memory at the daily level (Contractor, Messman, et al., 2023a). The adapted items were: (1) my memory for the event was very vivid and detailed; and (2) my memory was easy for me to recall. The adapted items were cued to the most important positive memory retrieved since the last time participants completed the questionnaire. Participants rated the retrieved positive memory using the two adapted items on a 1 (not true at all) to 4 (very true) Likert scale. The original MEQ-SF has acceptable psychometric properties (Luchetti & Sutin, 2016). In a prior longitudinal study, these daily measures of positive memory vividness and accessibility significantly correlated with the MEQ-SF vividness subscale and the MEQ-SF accessibility subscale, respectively (Contractor, Messman, et al., 2023a). In the current study, internal consistency for the positive memory vividness and accessibility scores across the ESM Phase was excellent (McDonald’s ω = .98).

Hazardous drug use

At the Baseline Session, a 10-item Drug Abuse Screening Test-10 (DAST-10; Skinner, 1982) was administered to assess hazardous drug use, excluding alcohol and tobacco. Participants responded 1 (yes) or 0 (no) to the questions assessing hazardous drug use, including occupational/relational problems, illegal activities, or regret that occurred in the past year. The DAST-10 scores have good psychometrics (Yudko et al., 2007). In the current study, computation of internal consistency for the DAST-10 total score resulted in Heywood cases.

Hazardous alcohol use

At the Baseline Session, a 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al., 1993) was administered to assess hazardous and harmful drinking use in the past 12 months. Each AUDIT item contains a set of possible responses; each response has scores ranging from 0 to 4 (“never” to “4 or more times a week,” “1 or 2” to “10 or more,” “never” to “daily or almost daily”) for items 1 through 8, and scores of 0, 2 or 4 (“no” to “yes, during the last year”) for items 9 and 10. The AUDIT total score has good reliability and validity (Saunders et al., 1993). In the current study, McDonald’s ω for the AUDIT total score could not computed because the AUDIT items used different response options. The Cronbach’s α was .93 for the AUDIT total score, indicating excellent internal consistency.

Physical IPV

At the Baseline Session, a 12-item Revised Conflicts Tactics Scale (CTS2) Physical Victimization Scale (Straus & Douglas, 2004; Straus et al., 1996) was administered to assess the extent of physical victimization by an intimate partner in the past 30 days. Participants responded to each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never or not in the past 30 days, but it’s happened before) to 6 (more than 20 times). The CTS2 subscale scores have good psychometric properties (Straus et al., 1996). In the current study, computation of internal consistency for the Physical Victimization Scale score resulted in Heywood cases.

Sexual IPV

At the Baseline Session, a 10-item Sexual Experiences Survey—Short Form Victimization (SES—SFV) Scale (Koss & Oros, 1982) was administered to assess the extent of sexual victimization by an intimate partner in the preceding 30 days. Participants responded to each item using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never or not in the past 30 days, but it’s happened before) to 6 (more than 20 times). The SES—SFV score has good psychometric properties (Johnson et al., 2017). In the current study, computation of internal consistency for the SES—SFV total scale score resulted in Heywood cases.

Psychological IPV

At the Baseline Session, a 14-item Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI) Victimization Scale (Tolman, 1989) was administered to assess the extent of psychological victimization by an intimate partner (e.g., being called names, interference in relationships with other family members) in the preceding 30 days. Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently). The PMWI score has good psychometric properties (Tolman, 1989, 1999). In the current study, internal consistency for the PMWI Victimization Scale score was excellent (McDonald’s ω = .97).

Data Analytical Plan

Across 30 days, we used daily averaged scores of PTSD symptom count and positive memory vividness/accessibility as our dependent and independent variables, respectively. This resulted in 30 PTSD symptom count, 30 positive memory vividness, and 30 positive memory accessibility observations per participant. We used daily averages instead of the three measures per day because the models using all 90 timepoints did not converge. To examine study hypotheses, we fit three models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation in the R package nlme (Pinheiro et al., 2022). These three models included: (1) Model 0—a fixed effects longitudinal multilevel model or unconditional growth model with random intercepts (i.e., 1st timepoint score varied across participants) and fixed slopes (i.e., same rate of change across participants) for PTSD symptom count; (2) Model 1—a random effects unconditional growth curve model with random intercepts and random slopes for PTSD symptom count; and (3) Model 2—a conditional growth model or a random effects autoregressive longitudinal multilevel model with random intercepts and random slopes for PTSD symptom count and with positive memory vividness/accessibility as time-varying covariates. In this model, both intercepts and slopes for PTSD symptom count varied across participants along with different effects of positive memory vividness/accessibility across participants. All models were compared using an ANOVA. The model with the lowest Akaike Information Criterion and Bayesian Information Criterion values, and statistical significance based on the chi-square value was termed as optimal.

In all models, PTSD symptom count ( ${ptsd}_{t i}$ ) was autocorrelated with lag-1 PTSD symptom count. In other words, PTSD symptom count at time n was correlated with PTSD symptom count at time n − 1. Modeling autocorrelations in such cases allows the standard errors and the parameter estimates themselves to be estimated with efficiency and with more accuracy (Scott et al., 2013). The intraclass correlation (Graham et al., 1994) was .58 indicating that the PTSD symptom count trajectory was different across participants. The autocorrelation in daily average PTSD symptom count was estimated as .178 (95% Confidence interval [CI] [0.13, 0.23]). The error covariance matrix took the following form:

covar (e_{t i}, e_{t^{'} i^{'}}) = [\begin{matrix} σ^{2} & ϕ σ^{2} & \dots & ϕ^{T - 1} σ^{2} \\ ϕ σ^{2} & σ^{2} & \dots & ϕ^{T - 2} σ^{2} \\ ⋮ & ⋮ & ⋱ & ⋮ \\ ϕ^{T - 1} σ^{2} & ϕ^{T - 2} σ^{2} & \dots & σ^{2} \end{matrix}] .

In longitudinal multilevel models, Level-1 is the time level where observations vary within participants who form Level-2. The Level-1 equation for Model 2 is given as: ${ptsd}_{t i} = π_{0 i} + π_{1 i} t_{t i} + π_{2 i} {memaccess}_{t i} + π_{3 i} {memvivid}_{t i} + e_{t i}$ . Memaccess refers to positive memory accessibility and memvivid refers to positive memory vividness. The Level-2 equations are: (1) $π_{0 i} = β_{00} + r_{0 i}$ ; (2) $π_{1 i} = β_{10} + r_{1 i}$ ; (3) $π_{2 i} = β_{20} + r_{2 i}$ ; and (4) $π_{3 i} = β_{30} + r_{3 i}$ .

Results

Women ranged in age from 21 to 64 years (M = 39.68, SD = 10.70). In terms of racial/ethnic background, 37.80% (n = 28) of the women identified as Black or African American, 43.20% (n = 32) identified as White, 9.5% (n = 7) identified as Hispanic or Latina, and 5.4% (n = 4) identified as American Indian/Alaska Native. Most women were unemployed (n = 53; 71.60%), and the monthly household income ranged from $0 to $10,000 (M = $1,091.51; SD = $1,619.58). The mean level of education was 12.43 years (SD = 1.91). Most women were unmarried (n = 60; 81.10%). Women reported being in a relationship for an average of 63.76 months (SD = 67.32). On average, women spent 5.97 (SD = 1.65) days per week with their partner. Thirty-three women (44.60%) reported cohabitating with their partner. Further, 37.80% (n = 28) of women had a current diagnosis of PTSD, with average scores on the past-month DAST-10 scale, past-year DAST-10 scale, and AUDIT scale being 5.01 (SD = 3.07), 5.46 (SD = 3.12), and 15.10 (SD = 11.07) respectively.

Supplemental Table 1 indicates fit estimates of the models. An ANOVA of the three models indicated that Model 2 was optimal. Results indicated that, on average, there was a statistically significant decline in PTSD symptom count over time (−0.05, 95% CI [−0.09, −0.02]). Of these, for 16 participants, PTSD symptom count growth was in the positive direction and ranged from 0.003 to 0.18. In other words, for these participants, there was an increase in the count of endorsed PTSD symptoms over time.

See Table 2 for results on the random effects autoregressive longitudinal multilevel model. On average, the relationship between PTSD symptom count and positive memory vividness was positive and statistically significant (0.19, 95% CI [0.2, 0.35]), and the relationship between PTSD symptom count and positive memory accessibility was positive and statistically significant (0.31, 95% CI [0.15, 0.47]). Said differently, on average, a greater count of endorsed PTSD symptoms was related to more positive memory vividness/accessibility over time. Although the averaged results presented this specific pattern, there was greater variability in the unaveraged results. Unaveraged results suggested that the relationship between PTSD symptom count and positive memory vividness/accessibility was different (ranging from negative to positive) across participants (see Supplemental Figure 1). For 36 participants, the relationship between PTSD symptom count and positive memory vividness was negative and ranged from −0.73 to −0.011; for 38 participants, this relationship was positive and ranged from 0.003 to 0.96. Similarly, for 38 participants, the relationship between PTSD symptom count and positive memory accessibility was negative and ranged from −0.87 to −0.004; for 36 participants, this relationship was positive and ranged from 0.001 to 0.91. For about 50% of the participants, a greater count of endorsed PTSD symptoms was related to more positive memory vividness/accessibility over time, whereas for about ~50% of the participants, a greater count of endorsed PTSD symptoms was related to less positive memory vividness/accessibility over time. Thus, positive memory vividness/accessibility had varying relationships with PTSD symptom count over time across the participants.

Table 2.

Fixed and Random Effects Estimates From Model 2.

Fixed Effects	Value	Std. Error	df	t-Value	p-Value
Intercept $(β_{00})$	6.00	0.62	2,143	9.60	.00
Time $(β_{10})$	−0.05	0.02	2,143	−3.25	.00
Memaccess $(β_{20})$	0.31	0.08	2,143	3.83	.00
Memvivid $(β_{30})$	0.19	0.08	2,143	2.28	.02
Random Effects Components	Variance	Correlation	Memaccess	Memvivid
Random Effects Components	Variance	Intercept	Memaccess	Memvivid
Intercepts $(r_{0 i})$	24.70
Memaccess $(r_{2 i})$	0.18	−.33
Memvivid $(r_{3 i})$	0.19	−.37	.17
Time $(r_{1 i})$	0.01	−.44	.03	−.09
Variance within subjects (var(e))	11.22

Note. Memaccess is positive memory accessibility; Memvivid is positive memory vividness.

Correlations between PTSD symptom count intercept and positive memory vividness/accessibility were not statistically significant (−0.32, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.19] and −0.37, 95% CI [−0.8, 0.3], respectively). Correlations between PTSD symptom count slope and positive memory vividness/accessibility were not statistically significant (0.027, [−0.30, 0.35], and −0.89, [−0.97, 0.96], respectively). Also, the correlation between the PTSD symptom count intercept and slope was not statistically significant (−0.44, 95% CI [−0.81, 0.19]). Confidence intervals were computed for the predicted values of PTSD symptom count for each participant using the predictInterval function (see Supplemental Figure 2). The largest and smallest slopes and intercepts are shown in Supplemental Figure 3. Again, this shows how varied the slopes were across the participants.

Discussion

Memory research in the area of PTSD using micro-longitudinal designs, although limited, has primarily focused on intrusive traumatic and negatively-valenced memories (Kleim et al., 2013; Kleindienst et al., 2017; Massazza et al., 2022; Schönfeld & Ehlers, 2017). Uniquely, we examined if positive memory characteristics of vividness and accessibility were associated with changes in the count of endorsed PTSD symptoms across 30 days. To contextualize results, we acknowledge that both factors that characterize the sample—experiencing IPV and using substances—relate to more PTSD symptoms (Dutton et al., 2006; Jacobson et al., 2001) as well as to deficits or changes in the ways positive memories are encoded and retrieved (Billoux et al., 2016; Contractor, Banducci, & Jin, 2022; Contractor, Kearns, et al., 2021). Broadly, our study provides a methodological and statistical framework to examine micro-longitudinal relations between PTSD symptoms and positive memories, with implications as outlined below.

We found that the count of endorsed PTSD symptoms, as observed naturally, decreased over 30 days. These results are consistent with prior observational research using an ESM design over varied periods of time, including 10 days in a student sample (Contractor, Messman, et al., 2023a), 28 days in a veteran sample (Possemato et al., 2012), and 15 days in a sample of service members (Biggs et al., 2019). Our results may indicate unintended effects of retrieving positive memories daily on PTSD symptoms, consistent with literature suggesting that the retrieval and processing of positive memories repeatedly may improve posttrauma well-being (Contractor, Banducci, et al., 2020; Contractor, Slavish, et al., 2023b; Contractor, Weiss, et al., 2022; Miguel-Alvaro et al., 2021). Results may also reflect more accurate reporting of daily PTSD symptoms within an ESM framework compared to what we see with retrospective reports (Schuler et al., 2021). Further, our results support research indicating that PTSD symptoms are responsive to several daily-level factors such as use of coping behaviors (e.g., alcohol use; Kaysen et al., 2014), experience of trauma triggers (Chun, 2016), presence and levels of social support (Dworkin et al., 2018), and nature of affect processes (Dornbach-Bender et al., 2020). Finally, some PTSD symptoms, such as avoidance of trauma tiggers, may be more vulnerable to contextual and situational factors, which may have contributed to study findings (Naragon-Gainey et al., 2012). Overall, acknowledging fluctuations in PTSD symptoms over time may better inform PTSD assessment and interventions.

Central to the current study, we found variability in how positive memory vividness/accessibility related to changes in PTSD symptom count over time. For 50% of the participants, we found that both positive memory characteristics—how vivid the retrieved positive memories are and how easily one can access positive memories on a daily basis—predicted a decrease in the count of endorsed PTSD symptoms over 30 days. These results are consistent with the vulnerability hypothesis and supporting research (e.g., Bryant et al., 2007; Hauer et al., 2009; J. M. G. Williams et al., 2007) as well as with micro-longitudinal studies on positive memory processes and PTSD symptoms (Contractor, Messman, et al., 2023a). Trauma-exposed individuals, including individuals who report interpersonal traumas (e.g., IPV), have difficulty retrieving positive autobiographical memories (Contractor, Caldas, Dolan, & Weiss, 2022; Contractor, Kearns, et al., 2021), especially those reflecting experiences before the trauma (Schönfeld & Ehlers, 2017), rarely have positive content in intrusive trauma-related memories (Massazza et al., 2022), and report several trauma-related intrusive memories (Kleindienst et al., 2017). When these individuals repeatedly and easily retrieve positive memories vividly, they may experience more positive thoughts, affect, and behaviors (Contractor, Banducci, et al., 2020; Contractor et al., 2018). Such positive experiences may associate with less PTSD symptoms severity over time via a few mechanisms: positive memories may begin to replace trauma memories as a reference point to guide self-concept and the interpretation of experiences (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006, 2007; Janoff-Bulman, 1992); positive states/experiences consequent to remembering positive memories (particularly memories involving important interpersonal relationships) may propel adaptive coping strategies and adaptive stress responses (Folkman, 1997; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Speer & Delgado, 2017); experienced positive affect may influence biopsychosocial health in a beneficial manner (e.g., less cortisol, more social connectedness; Steptoe et al., 2009); and/or positive memories may reduce avoidance of trauma memories/triggers (Caldas et al., 2022) aiding habituation and extinction processes for trauma memories. Further, activity in the neural circuitry underlying the retrieval of positive memories (e.g., more activity in the striatum and in the medial prefrontal cortex) suggests that retrieving positive memories is intrinsically valuable and perceived as rewarding (Speer et al., 2014).

For about 50% of the participants, positive memory vividness/accessibility predicted an increase in the count of PTSD symptoms over 30 days. As indicated by prior research, some trauma-exposed individuals experience difficulties accepting and/or regulating positive emotions (Weiss, Contractor, Forkus, et al., 2020; Weiss, Contractor, Raudales, et al., 2020), including those elicited following retrieval of positive memories (Contractor, Weiss, & Forkus, 2022; M. Dolan et al., 2020). Also, some trauma-exposed individuals may not experience sustained positive emotions after retrieving positive memories (reviewed in Contractor, Banducci, & Weiss, 2022). These findings suggest that the potentially protective effects of positive memory vividness/accessibility may not extend to all individuals. Future research is needed to better understand factors that influence the strength and direction of relations between positive memory vividness/accessibility and PTSD symptoms over time, including the potential moderating role of positive emotion dysregulation.

We note some study limitations. First, we used self-report measures of the primary variables, which may be subject to response biases. Supplementing self-report measures with objective (e.g., psychophysiological indicators) and/or clinician-administered measures is a worthwhile area of future research. Second, to reduce participant burden, we did not ask participants to report on the content and other phenomenological characteristics of positive memories as well as on their reactions to the process of retrieving positive memories on a daily basis. This is an area of future research given findings that intrusive trauma memories among individuals reporting PTSD symptoms are salient on some sensory components (Massazza et al., 2022), retrieval of positive memories among trauma-exposed individuals relates to emotion dysregulation (Contractor, Weiss, & Forkus, 2022), individuals who endorse interpersonal traumas retrieve fewer positive memories with limited sensory details (Contractor, Kearns, et al., 2021), and individuals who have lost someone and are grieving report positive intrusive memories (Boelen & Huntjens, 2008). Third, future research could benefit from using a different ESM strategy, such as event-based sampling, wherein participants would report on positive memories that are voluntarily or involuntarily retrieved in the day. This approach is important to ascertain generalizability of study findings, given that ESM methodology has shown to matter in the context of daily intrusive memories among individuals reporting interpersonal violence (Kleindienst et al., 2017). Fourth, we used single-item measures of positive memory vividness and accessibility that were adapted from the MEQ-SF following recommendations for intensive longitudinal designs (Palmier-Claus et al., 2011). Single-item measures are widely used in ESM studies (Fisher et al., 2022), with advantages such as more feasibility, more cost-effectiveness, less participant burden, and more face validity; however, they yield less information and may provide unreliable estimates of measured constructs (E. D. Dolan et al., 2015; Konrath et al., 2014; Loo, 2002; Mark et al., 2013). Future research needs to validate these single-item measures of positive memory vividness and accessibility.

Fifth, our study results are specific to the characteristics of this sample; replications of this study are required with different samples, including men and individuals who report being in same-sex relationships. Sixth, the different PTSD symptom clusters (e.g., intrusions, avoidance) have differential relations with health outcomes (Contractor, Weiss, Dolan, & Mota, 2020; Contractor et al., 2014) as well as with positive memory characteristics (Contractor, Greene, et al., 2020). For the current study, to reduce participant burden, we collapsed DSM-5 PTSD symptoms assessed by the PCL-5 across seven items that align with the empirically superior 7-factor structure of PTSD (Armour et al., 2016). This approach limited our ability to examine PTSD-positive memory relations for DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters. Seventh, while all participants endorsed an index (i.e., most distressing) traumatic experience that occurred more than 30 days prior to study participation, many participants had experiences of IPV during the study period. Future research is needed to parse out if and how the relations between PTSD symptoms and positive memory characteristics differ across participants with divergent trauma characteristics (including on-going and/or co-occurring traumas). Lastly, substance use was frequently reported during the ESM period and our sample was characterized by ongoing IPV. In this regard, we examined substance use and IPV as covariates in the optimal model to determine their influence on relations between PTSD symptoms and positive memory characteristics; this model had poor fit. Further, we were not able to examine the moderating effects of substance use and IPV types/patterns/characteristics on relations between PTSD symptoms and positive memory characteristics because our study was underpowered to run such analyses; this is an avenue for future research. Such information can help to tailor future PTSD interventions.

Despite these limitations, study results have critical theoretical and clinical implications. Study results inform our understanding of PTSD theories, phenomenology, and interventions. For instance, Ehlers and Clark’s cognitive theory of PTSD posits that PTSD symptoms are maintained, in part, via negative appraisals of the trauma/trauma consequences and via poor integration/contextualization of the trauma memory in reference to other autobiographical memories (Ehlers & Clark, 2000). The retrieval of positive autobiographical memories may facilitate adaptive countering of trauma-related negative appraisals by priming positive beliefs, and may help the integration of trauma memories with other autobiographical memories. Also, the Emotional Processing Theory of PTSD (Foa & Kozak, 1986) suggests that activation of the fear network by trauma reminders contributes to PTSD symptoms; such activation causes threat-related information to enter consciousness (PTSD intrusion symptoms) and attempts to suppress such activation characterize PTSD avoidance symptoms (Dalgleish, 2004). Perhaps, the retrieval of positive memories may weaken such fear networks by priming positive experiences. Study findings also suggest that PTSD may be characterized by an inability to retrieve positive memories easily and vividly, rather than characterized by only trauma memory-related processes.

Clinically, study findings highlight the potential of targeting positive memory characteristics in PTSD interventions for certain women reporting IPV experiences to improve their well-being, consistent with some PTSD interventions (Contractor, Weiss, et al., 2022; Miguel-Alvaro et al., 2021; Moradi et al., 2021), conceptual models (Contractor, Banducci, & Weiss, 2022; Contractor et al., 2018), and empirical evidence (Contractor, Banducci, et al., 2020; Contractor, Caldas, Banducci, & Armour, 2022). Positive memory interventions for PTSD may target an increase in accessibility to and vividness of positive memories on a daily level to improve PTSD symptoms. There is a need for novel PTSD interventions with varied therapeutic targets to overcome concerns that current trauma-focused interventions do not result in outcome improvements for everyone and have substantial treatment non-response/dropout (Imel et al., 2013; Kehle-Forbes et al., 2016; Resick et al., 2002). Also relevant to the sample of the current study, research suggests that repeated trauma associated with IPV might affect autobiographical memories and narratives of those memories for women who have experienced IPV (Tani et al., 2016). Notably, future research is needed to examine why retrieving vivid positive memories easily may lead to beneficial versus detrimental impacts on PTSD symptoms for different individuals. Lastly, our study results highlight that the count of endorsed PTSD symptoms can fluctuate over time, which supports research on PTSD ecological momentary interventions. Such interventions could therapeutically address micro-level and real-time targets (McDevitt-Murphy et al., 2018), such as positive memory characteristics that may influence PTSD symptoms (e.g., improving access to and vividness of positive memories).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605221143200 – Supplemental material for Relations Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms and Positive Memory Characteristics Among Women Reporting Intimate Partner Violence: A Micro-Longitudinal Study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605221143200 for Relations Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms and Positive Memory Characteristics Among Women Reporting Intimate Partner Violence: A Micro-Longitudinal Study by Ateka A. Contractor, Prathiba Natesan Batley, Sidonia E. Compton and Nicole H. Weiss in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, NHW, upon reasonable request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant K23 DA039327, awarded to NHW. NHW also acknowledges the support from the Center for Biomedical Research and Excellence (COBRE) on Opioids and Overdose funded by the National Institute on General Medical Sciences (P20 GM125507).

ORCID iDs

Ateka A. Contractor

Nicole H. Weiss

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Ateka A. Contractor, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology, University of North Texas. Her program of research examines heterogeneity/diversity in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, heterogeneity (pattern and types) of traumatic experiences, transdiagnostic constructs/mechanisms driving PTSD’s relationship with depression and reckless behaviors (including positive memory processes and emotional dysregulation), and the intersection between cultural factors and PTSD symptoms.

Prathiba Natesan Batley, PhD, specializes in statistical simulation, Bayesian methods, single case designs, and latent variable modeling. Her interests are in the development and application of statistical methods for the social, medical, business, and biological sciences. She is co-PI and senior investigator on grants funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, NSF, and NIH.

Sidonia E. Compton, MS, is a clinical psychology doctoral student at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include dissemination and implementation of trauma-informed practices in underserved community settings, examining the relations between PTSD symptoms and risky behavior engagement, and broadly, the assessment and treatment of posttrauma symptoms.

Nicole H. Weiss, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Rhode Island and Director of the Study of Trauma, Risk-taking, Emotions, and Stress Symptoms (STRESS) Lab. Her research program examines the influence of emotion dysregulation in the co-occurrence of posttraumatic stress disorder and risky, self-destructive, and health-compromising behaviors, most notably substance use disorder.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

Arditte Hall

K. A.

De Raedt

Timpano

K. R.

Joormann

. (2018). Positive memory enhancement training for individuals with major depressive disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 47, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2017.136429

Armour

Mullerova

Elhai

J. D.

(2016). A systematic literature review of PTSD’s latent structure in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV to DSM-5. Clinical Psychology Review, 44, 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.12.003

Astill Wright

Horstmann

Holmes

E. A.

Bisson

J. I

. (2021). Consolidation/reconsolidation therapies for the prevention and treatment of PTSD and re-experiencing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Translational Psychiatry, 11, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01570-w

Berntsen

Rubin

D. C.

(2006). The centrality of event scale: A measure of integrating a trauma into one’s identity and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.01.009

Berntsen

Rubin

D. C.

(2007). When a trauma becomes a key to identity: Enhanced integration of trauma memories predicts posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1290

Berntsen

Rubin

D. C.

Siegler

I. C.

(2011). Two versions of life: Emotionally negative and positive life events have different roles in the organization of life story and identity. Emotion, 11, 1190–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024940

Biggs

Q. M.

Ursano

R. J.

Wang

Krantz

D. S.

Carr

R. B.

Wynn

G. H.

Adams

D. P.

Dacuyan

N. M.

Fullerton

C. S.

(2019). Daily variation in post traumatic stress symptoms in individuals with and without probable post traumatic stress disorder. BMC Psychiatry, 19, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2041-7

Billoux

Arbus

Telmon

Voltzenlogel

(2016). Autobiographical memory impairment in female victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 897–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9838-7

10.

Boelen

P. A.

Huntjens

R. J. C.

(2008). Intrusive images in grief: An exploratory study. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15, 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.568

11.

Bolger

Laurenceau

J.-P.

(2013). An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.

12.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20

13.

Brewin

C. R.

Gregory

J. D.

Lipton

Burgess

(2010). Intrusive images in psychological disorders: Characteristics, neural mechanisms, and treatment implications. Psychological Review, 117, 210–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018113

14.

Brewin

C. R.

Holmes

E. A.

(2003). Psychological theories of posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 339–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(03)00033-3

15.

Bryant

R. A.

Sutherland

Guthrie

R. M.

(2007). Impaired specific autobiographical memory as a risk factor for posttraumatic stress after trauma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 837–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.837

16.

Caldas

S. V.

Fondren

Natesan Batley

Contractor

A. A.

(2022). Longitudinal relationships between posttraumatic stress disorder symptom clusters in response to positive memory processing. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 76, 101752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2022.101752

17.

Chun

C. A.

(2016). The expression of posttraumatic stress symptoms in daily life: A review of experience sampling methodology and daily diary studies. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38, 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-016-9540-3

18.

Clifford

Hitchcock

Dalgleish

(2020). Negative and positive emotional complexity in the autobiographical representations of sexual trauma survivors. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 126, 103551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103551

19.

Compton

S. E.

Slavish

D. C.

Weiss

N. H.

Contractor

A. A

. (in review). Associations between positive memory count and hazardous substance use in a trauma-exposed sample: Examining the moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Manuscript submitted for publication.

20.

Contractor

A. A.

Banducci

A. N.

Dolan

Keegan

Weiss

N. H.

(2019). Relation of positive memory recall count and accessibility with posttrauma mental health. Memory, 27, 1130–1143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1628994

21.

Contractor

A. A.

Banducci

A. N.

Jin

(2022). The relationship between positive memory phenomenology and alcohol use among trauma-exposed individuals. Substance Use & Misuse, 57, 929–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2022.2052099

22.

Contractor

A. A.

Banducci

A. N.

Jin

Keegan

Weiss

N. H.

(2020). Effects of processing positive memories on posttrauma mental health: A preliminary study in a non-clinical student sample. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 66, 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2019.101516

23.

Contractor

A. A.

Banducci

A. N.

Weiss

N. H.

(2022). Critical considerations for the positive memory-posttraumatic stress disorder model. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 29(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23142

24.

Contractor

A. A.

Brown

L. A.

Caldas

Banducci

A. N.

Taylor

D. J.

Armour

Shea

M. T.

(2018). Posttraumatic stress disorder and positive memories: Clinical considerations. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 58, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.06.007

25.

Contractor

A. A.

Caldas

S. V.

Banducci

A. N.

Armour

(2022). A pilot study examining roles of cognitions and affect between positive memory processing and posttraumatic stress disorder severity. Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy, 14, 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000625

26.

Contractor

A. A.

Caldas

S. V.

Dolan

Weiss

N. H.

(2022). Factors related to positive memory count among trauma-exposed individuals: A scoping review. Trauma Violence Abuse, 23(5), 1568–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211013130

27.

Contractor

A. A.

Durham

T. A.

Brennan

J. A.

Armour

Wutrick

H. R.

Frueh

C. B.

Elhai

J. D.

(2014). DSM-5 PTSD’s symptom dimensions and relations with major depression’s symptom dimensions in a primary care sample. Psychiatry Research, 215, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.10.015

28.

Contractor

A. A.

Greene

Dolan

Weiss

N. H.

Armour

(2020). Relation between PTSD clusters and positive memory characteristics: A network perspective. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 69, 102157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.102157

29.

Contractor

A. A.

Jin

Weiss

N. H.

(2022). Open label pilot study on posttrauma health impacts of the processing of positive memories technique (PPMT). Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000290

30.

Contractor

A. A.

Kearns

Weiss

N. H.

Blumenthal

(2021). Examining relations of polytraumatization typologies with positive memory count and phenomenology. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 34, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1795644

31.

Contractor

A. A.

Messman

B. A.

Slavish

D. C.

Weiss

N. H.

(2023a). Do positive memory characteristics influence daily-level trajectories of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms? An exploratory daily diary study. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 36(3), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2022.2075856

32.

Contractor

A. A.

Slavish

D. C.

Thornton

Weiss

N. H.

(2023b). Positive affect processes and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: Findings from an open label and uncontrolled pilot study using the Positive Memory Processing Technique. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 33(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000292

33.

Contractor

A. A.

Weiss

N. H.

Dixon-Gordon

Blumenthal

(2019). Heterogeneity in the co-occurrence of substance use and posttraumatic stress disorder: A latent class analysis approach. Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 15, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2019.1572258

34.

Contractor

A. A.

Weiss

N. H.

Dolan

Mota

(2020). Examination of the structural relations between PTSD symptoms and reckless/self-destructive behaviors. International Journal of Stress Management, 27, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000133

35.

Contractor

A. A.

Weiss

N. H.

Forkus

S. R.

(2021). Moderating effects of dysregulation and fear of positive emotions on the relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and positive memory count. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77, 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23046

36.

Contractor

A. A.

Weiss

N. H.

Forkus

S. R.

Keegan

(2022). Positive internal experiences in PTSD interventions: A critical review. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 23(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925784

37.

Contractor

A. A.

Weiss

N. H.

Forkus

S. R.

Keegan

(2022). Positive internal experiences in PTSD interventions: A critical review. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 23, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925784

38.

Conway

M. A.

Pleydell-Pearce

C. W.

(2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107, 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261

39.

Dalgleish

(2004). Cognitive approaches to posttraumatic stress disorder: The evolution of multirepresentational theorizing. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 228–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.228

40.

Dolan

E. D.

Mohr

Lempa

Joos

Fihn

S. D.

Nelson

K. M.

Helfrich

C. D.

(2015). Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometric evaluation. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30, 582–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3112-6

41.

Dolan

Contractor

A. A.

Ryals

Weiss

N. H.

(2020). Trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder severity, and positive memories. Memory, 28, 998–1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1809679

42.

Dornbach-Bender

Ruggero

C. J.

Schuler

Contractor

A. A.

Waszczuk

Kleva

C. S.

Bromet

Luft

Kotov

(2020). Positive and negative affect in the daily life of world trade center responders with PTSD: An ecological momentary assessment study. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000429.

43.

Dutton

M. A.

Green

B. L.

Kaltman

S. I.

Roesch

D. M.

Zeffiro

T. A.

Krause

E. D.

(2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506289178

44.

Dworkin

E. R.

Ullman

S. E.

Stappenbeck

Brill

C. D.

Kaysen

(2018). Proximal relationships between social support and PTSD symptom severity: A daily diary study of sexual assault survivors. Depression and Anxiety, 35, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22679

45.

Ehlers

Clark

D. M.

(2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behavior Research and Therapy, 38, 319–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0

46.

First

M. B.

Williams

J. B. W.

(2016). SCID-5-CV: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders: Clinician Version. American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

47.

Fisher

A. J.

Song

Oltmanns

J. R.

Howe

(2022). Examining the concurrent and predictive validity of single items in ecological momentary assessments. Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221113563

48.

Foa

E. B.

Kozak

M. J.

(1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.99.1.20

49.

Foley

M. A.

(2018). Reflecting on how we remember the personal past: Missing components in the study of memory appraisal and theoretical implications. Memory, 26, 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1387667

50.

Folkman

(1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 1207–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00040-3

51.

Folkman

Moskowitz

J. T.

(2000). Stress, positive emotion, and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00073

52.

Folstein

M. F.

Folstein

S. E.

McHugh

P. R.

(1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.

53.

Fondren

Banducci

A. N.

Cox

Contractor

A. A.

(2022). Processing of Positive Memories Technique (PPMT) among clients reporting traumatic experiences: A case series. Clinical Case Studies, 21, 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/15346501211035841

54.

Forkus

S. R.

Raudales

A. M.

Rafiuddin

Weiss

N. H.

Messman

B. A.

Contractor

A. A.

(2022). The PTSD checklist for DSM-5: A systematic review of existing psychometric evidence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1037/cps0000111

55.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

56.

Gerber

Frankfurt

Contractor

A. A.

Oudshoorn

Dranger

Brown

(2018). Influence of multiple traumatic events on mental health outcomes: Does count matter? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 4, 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9682-6

57.

Gisquet-Verrier

Le Dorze

(2019). Post traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder as two pathologies affecting memory reactivation: Implications for new therapeutic approaches. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00026

58.

Graham

J. W.

Hofer

S. M.

Piccinin

A. M.

(1994). Analysis with missing data in drug prevention research. NIDA Research Monograph, 142, 13–13.

59.

Hauer

B. J.

Wessel

Engelhard

I. M.

Peeters

L. L.

Dalgleish

(2009). Prepartum autobiographical memory specificity predicts post-traumatic stress symptoms following complicated pregnancy. Memory, 17, 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210902953836

60.

Hermans

de Decker

de Peuter

Raes

Eelen

Williams

J. M.

(2008). Autobiographical memory specificity and affect regulation: Coping with a negative life event. Depression and Anxiety, 25, 787–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20326

61.

Imel

Z. E.

Laska

Jakcupcak

Simpson

T. L.

(2013). Meta-analysis of dropout in treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 394–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031474

62.

Jacobson

I. G.

Southwick

S. M.

Kosten

T. R.

(2001). Substance use disorders in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder: A review of the literature. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1184–1190. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.8.1184

63.

Janoff-Bulman

(1992). Shattered assumptions: Toward a new psychology of trauma. Free Press.

64.

Johnson

S. M.

Murphy

M. J.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2017). Reliability and validity of the sexual experiences survey–short forms victimization and perpetration. Violence and Victims, 32, 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00110

65.

Kaehler

L. A.

Babcock

DePrince

A. P.

Freyd

J. J.

(2013). Betrayal trauma. In Courtois

C. A.

Ford

J. D.

(Eds.), Treating complex traumatic stress disorders in children and adolescents: Scientific foundations and therapeutic models (pp. 62–78). The Guilford Press.

66.

Kangas

Henry

J. L.

Bryant

R. A.

(2005). A prospective study of autobiographical memory and posttraumatic stress disorder following cancer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.2.293

67.

Kaysen

Atkins

D. C.

Simpson

T. L.

Stappenbeck

C. A.

Blayney

J. A.

Lee

C. M.

Larimer

M. E.

(2014). Proximal relationships between PTSD symptoms and drinking among female college students: Results from a daily monitoring study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033588

68.

Kehle-Forbes

S. M.

Meis

L. A.

Spoont

M. R.

Polusny

M. A.

(2016). Treatment initiation and dropout from prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy in a VA outpatient clinic. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000065

69.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

Milanak

M. E.

Miller

M. W.

Keyes

K. M.

Friedman

M. J.

(2013). National estimates of exposure to traumatic events and PTSD prevalence using DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26, 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21848

70.

Kleim

Graham

Bryant

R. A.

Ehlers

(2013). Capturing intrusive re-experiencing in trauma survivors’ daily lives using ecological momentary assessment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034957

71.

Kleindienst

Priebe

Petri

Hecht

Santangelo

Bohus

Schulte-Herbrüggen

(2017). Trauma-related memories in PTSD after interpersonal violence: An ambulatory assessment study. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8, 1409062. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1409062

72.

Konrath

Meier

B. P.

Bushman

B. J.

(2014). Development and validation of the single item narcissism scale (SINS). PLOS ONE, 9, e103469). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103469

73.

Koss

M. P.

Oros

C. J.

(1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.45510.1037//0022-006x.50.3.455.

74.

Leeies

Pagura

Sareen

Bolton

J. M.

(2010). The use of alcohol and drugs to self-medicate symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 731–736. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20677

75.

Loo

(2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210415933

76.

Luchetti

Sutin

A. R.

(2016). Measuring the phenomenology of autobiographical memory: A short form of the Memory Experiences Questionnaire. Memory, 24, 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1031679

77.

Mark

K. P.

Herbenick

Fortenberry

J. D.

Sanders

Reece

(2013). A psychometric comparison of three scales and a single-item measure to assess sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.816261

78.

Massazza

Joffe

Parrott

Brewin

C. R.

(2022). Remembering the earthquake: Intrusive memories of disaster in a rural Italian community. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 13(1), 2068909. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2022.2068909

79.

Matlin

M. W.

Stang

D. J.

(1978). The Pollyanna principle: Selectivity in language, memory, and thought. Schenkman.

80.

McDevitt-Murphy

M. E.

Luciano

M. T.

Zakarian

R. J.

(2018). Use of ecological momentary assessment and intervention in treatment with adults. Focus, 16, 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20180017

81.

Meichenbaum

Novaco

(1985). Stress inoculation: A preventative approach. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 7, 419–435. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612848509009464

82.

Miguel-Alvaro

Guillén

A. I.

Contractor

A. A.

Crespo

(2021). A scoping review of positive memory intervention techniques and models. Memory, 29(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1937655

83.

Moore

S. A.

Zoellner

L. A.

(2007). Overgeneral autobiographical memory and traumatic events: An evaluative review. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.419

84.

Moradi

A. R.

Moshirpanahi

Parhon

Mirzaei

Dalgleish

Jobson

(2014). A pilot randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of MEmory Specificity Training in improving symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behavior Research and Therapy, 56, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.03.002

85.

Moradi

A. R.

Piltan

Choobin

M. H.

Azadfallah

Watson

Dalgleish

Hitchcock

(2021). Proof-of-concept for the autobiographical Memory Flexibility (MemFlex) intervention for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Clinical Psychological Science, 9, 686–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620982576

86.

Myin-Germeys

Oorschot

Collip

Lataster

Delespaul

van Os

. (2009). Experience sampling research in psychopathology: Opening the black box of daily life. Psychological Medicine, 39(9), 1533–1547.

87.

Naragon-Gainey

Simpson

T. L.

Moore

S. A.

Varra

A. A.

Kaysen

D. L.

(2012). The correspondence of daily and retrospective PTSD reports among female victims of sexual assault. Psychological Assessment, 24, 1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028518

88.

Niziurski

J. A.

Johannessen

K. B.

Berntsen

(2018). Emotional distress and positive and negative memories from military deployment: The influence of PTSD symptoms and time. Memory, 26, 1093–1104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1418380

89.

Palmier-Claus

J. E.

Myin-Germeys

Barkus

Bentley

Udachina

Delespaul

P. A. E. G.

Lewis

S. W.

Dunn

(2011). Experience sampling research in individuals with mental illness: Reflections and guidance. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 123, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01596.x

90.

Paunovic

Lundh

L. G.

Öst

L. G.

(2002). Attentional and memory bias for emotional information in crime victims with acute posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16, 675–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00136-6

91.

Pietrzak

R. H.

Feder

Singh

Schechter

C. B.

Bromet

E. J.

Katz

C. L.

Reissman

D. B.

Ozbay

Sharma

Crane

Harrison

(2014). Trajectories of PTSD risk and resilience in World Trade Center responders: An 8-year prospective cohort study. Psychological Medicine, 44, 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291713000597

92.

Pinheiro

Bates

, & R Core Team (2022). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-160, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.

93.

Possemato

Kaier

Wade

Lantinga

L. J.

Maisto

S. A.

Ouimette

(2012). Assessing daily fluctuations in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and substance use with interactive voice response technology: Protocol compliance and reactions. Psychological Services, 9, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027144

94.

Ramirez

Liu

MacDonald

C. J.

Moffa

Zhou

Redondo

R. L.

Tonegawa

(2015). Activating positive memory engrams suppresses depression-like behaviour. Nature, 522, 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14514

95.

Read

J. P.

Brown

P. J.

Kahler

C. W.

(2004). Substance use and posttraumatic stress disorders: Symptom interplay and effects on outcome. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1665–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.02.061

96.

Resick

P. A.

Nishith

Weaver

T. L.

Astin

M. C.

Feuer

C. A.

(2002). A comparison of cognitive-processing therapy with prolonged exposure and a waiting condition for the treatment of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder in female rape victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.4.867

97.

Ritchie

Skowronski

J. J.

Hartnett

Wells

Walker

W. R.

(2009). The fading affect bias in the context of emotion activation level, mood, and personal theories of emotion change. Memory, 17, 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210902791665

98.

Rusting

C. L.

DeHart

(2000). Retrieving positive memories to regulate negative mood: Consequences for mood-congruent memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 737–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.737

99.

Saunders

J. B.

Aasland

O. G.

Babor

T. F.

De la Fuente

J. R.

Grant

(1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88, 791–804.

100.

Schönfeld

Ehlers

(2017). Posttraumatic stress disorder and autobiographical memories in everyday life. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702616688878

101.

Schuler

Ruggero

C. J.

Mahaffey

Gonzalez

A. L.

Callahan

Boals

Waszczuk

M. A.

Luft

B. J.

Kotov

(2021). When hindsight is not 20/20: Ecological Momentary Assessment of PTSD symptoms versus retrospective report. Assessment, 28, 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119869826

102.

Scott

M. A.

Simonoff

J. S.

Marx

B. D.

(2013). The sage handbook of multilevel modeling (1st ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

103.

Shiffman

Stone

A. A.

Hufford

M. R.

(2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415

104.

Skinner

H. A.

(1982). The drug abuse screening test. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3

105.

Speer

M. E.

Bhanji

J. P.

Delgado

M. R.

(2014). Savoring the past: Positive memories evoke value representations in the striatum. Neuron, 84, 847–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.09.028

106.

Speer

M. E.

Delgado

M. R.

(2017). Reminiscing about positive memories buffers acute stress responses. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0093

107.

Steptoe

Dockray

Wardle

(2009). Positive affect and psychobiological processes relevant to health. Journal of Personality, 77, 1147–1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00599.x

108.

Stone

A. A.

Shiffman

(2002). Capturing momentary, self-report data: A proposal for reporting guidelines. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 236–243.

109.

Straus

M. A.

Douglas

E. M.

(2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.5.507.63686

110.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Buncy-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

111.

Sullivan

T. P.

Weiss

N. H.

Price

Pugh

Hansen

N. B.

(2018). Strategies for coping with individual PTSD symptoms: Experiences of African American victims of intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 10, 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000283

112.

Sutherland

Bryant

R. A.

(2007). Autobiographical memory in posttraumatic stress disorder before and after treatment. Behavior Research and Therapy, 45, 2915–2923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2007.08.009

113.

Tani

Peterson

Smorti

(2016). The words of violence: Autobiographical narratives of abused women. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 885–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9824-0

114.

Tolman

R. M.

(1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159–177.

115.

Tolman

R. M.

(1999). The validation of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory. Violence and Victims, 14, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.14.1.25

116.

Turner

R. J.

Lloyd

D. A.

(1995). Lifetime traumas and mental health: The significance of cumulative adversity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 360–375.

117.

Walker

W. R.

Skowronski

J. J.

Thompson

C. P.

(2003). Life is pleasant–and memory helps to keep it that way!. Review of General Psychology, 7, 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.203

118.

Weathers

F. W.

Litz

B. T.

Keane

T. M.

Palmieri

P. A.

Marx

B. P.

Schnurr

P. P.

(2013). The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). National Center for PTSD. https://www.ptsd.va.gov

119.

Weiss

N. H.

Contractor

A. A.

Forkus

S. R.

Goncharenko

Raudales

A. M.

(2020). Positive emotion dysregulation among community individuals: The role of traumatic exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 33, 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22497

120.

Weiss

N. H.

Contractor

A. A.

Raudales

A. M.

Greene

Short

N. A.

(2020). Extending our understanding of the association between posttraumatic stress disorder and positive emotion dysregulation: A network analysis approach. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 71, 102198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102198

121.

Williams

J. M. G.

Barnhofer

Crane

Hermans

Raes

Watkins

Dalgleish

(2007). Autobiographical memory specificity and emotional disorder. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 122–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.122

122.

Williams

S. E.

Ford

J. H.

Kensinger

E. A.

(2022). The power of negative and positive episodic memories. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 22, 869–903. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-022-01013-z

123.

Wright

A. C.

Moody

Browne

Cather

(2022). Self-defining memories among persons with mental health, substance use, cognitive, and physical health conditions: A systematic review. Memory, 30(7), 823–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2022.2042565

124.

Yudko

Lozhkina

Fouts

(2007). A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the drug abuse screening test. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.08.002

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.23 MB