The field of bereavement and grief has been expanding to recognise the potential for growth following the loss of a loved one. This study sought to examine the effect of the relationship to the deceased and perceptions of the severity of the trauma on dimensions of posttraumatic growth. Participants were 146 people who had lost either: a) a first degree relative, b) a second degree relative, or c) a non-related friend. Results demonstrated that both severity and the relationship to the bereaved differentiate posttraumatic growth outcomes. For example, participants who had lost a first degree relative reported higher levels of growth than those who had lost a second degree relative. Consistent with previous research in general trauma populations, the more severe the loss was rated, the higher the levels of growth. Implications for practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abraido-LanzaA.GuierC., & ColonR. (1998). Psychological thriving among Latinas with chronic illness. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2), 405–424.
2.
American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
3.
BreenL., & O'ConnorM. (2007). The fundamental paradox in the grief literature: A critical reflection. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 55(3), 199–218.
4.
CadellS.RegehrC., & HemsworthD. (2003). Factors contributing to posttraumatic growth: A proposed structural equation model. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73(3), 279–287.
5.
CalhounL., & TedeschiR. (2006). The foundations of posttraumatic growth: An expanded framework. In CalhounL. & TedeschiR. (Eds.), Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
CalhounL., & TedeschiR. (2008). The paradox of struggling with trauma: Guidelines for practice and directions for research. In JosephS. & LinleyP. (Eds.), Trauma, recovery, and growth (pp. 325–337). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
7.
DaviesC.WohlM., & VerbergN. (2007). Profiles of posttraumatic growth following an unjust loss. Death Studies, 31, 693–712.
8.
EngelkemeyerS., & MarwitS. (2008). Posttraumatic growth in bereaved parents. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(3), 344–346.
9.
EpsteinR.KalusC., & BergerM. (2006). The continuing bond of the bereaved towards the deceased and adjustment to loss. Mortality, 11(3), 253–269.
10.
FieldA. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
11.
HollandJ.CurrierJ., & NeimeyerR. (2006). Meaning reconstruction in the first two years of bereavement: The role of sense-making and benefit-finding. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 53(3) 175–191.
12.
JosephS.WilliamsR., & YuleW. (1993). Changes in outlook following disaster: The preliminary development of a measure to assess positive and negative responses. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6(2), 271–279.
13.
LeaverC. (2008). Understanding AIDS-related bereavement and multiple loss among long-term survivors of HIV in Ontario. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 17(1–2), 37–52.
14.
LinleyP., & JosephS. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(1), 11–21.
15.
McMillenJ. C., & FisherR. H. (1998). The Perceived Benefit Scales: Measuring perceived positive life changes after negative events. Social Work Research, 22, 173–186.
16.
MorrisB. A.Shakespeare-FinchJ.RieckM., & NewberyJ. (2005). Multidimensional nature of posttraumatic growth in an Australian population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(5), 575–585.
17.
RodgerM.SherwoodP.O'ConnorM., & LeslieG. (2006–2007). Living beyond the unanticipated sudden death of a partner: A phenomenological study. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 54(2), 107–133.
18.
SchaeferJ., & MoosR. (2001). Bereavement experiences and personal growth. In StrobeM.HanssonR.StrobeW., & SchutH. (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care (pp. 145–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19.
Shakespeare-FinchJ., & ArmstrongD. (2010). Trauma type and post-trauma outcomes: Differences between survivors of motor vehicle accidents, sexual assault and bereavement. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 15(2), 65–82.
20.
Shakespeare-FinchJ., & de DasselT. (2009). Exploring posttraumatic outcomes as a function of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18(6), 623–640.
21.
Shakespeare-FinchJ., & EndersT. (2008). Corroborating evidence of posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(4), 421–424.
22.
Shakespeare-FinchJ., & MorrisB. A. (2010). Posttraumatic growth in Australian populations. In WeissT. & BergerR. (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth and culturally competent practice: Lessons learned from around the glove (pp. 157–186). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
23.
Shakespeare-FinchJ.SmithS.GowK.EmbeltonG., & BairdL. (2003). The prevalence of post-traumatic growth in emergency ambulance personnel. Traumatology, 9(1), 58–71.
24.
SmithS. G., & CookS. L. (2004). Are reports of posttraumatic growth positively biased?Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(4), 353–358.
25.
TedeschiR., & CalhounL. (2008). Beyond the concept of recovery: Growth and the experience of loss. Death Studies, 32, 27–39.
26.
TedeschiR. G., & CalhounL. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
TedeschiR. G., & CalhounL. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–472.
28.
WeissR. (2001). Grief, bonds, and relationships. In StrobeM.HanssonR.StrobeW., & SchutH. (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care (pp. 47–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29.
WeissT. (2002). Posttraumatic growth in women with breast cancer and their husbands: An intersubjective validation study. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 20(2), 65–80.
30.
YoungE. (2007–2008). Figures of grief: Metaphors from a bereavement writing group. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 56(4), 359–367.
