The proposed research will be an effort to construct a test instrument that can be used in future research to assess the relationship between perceived probabilities of traumatic events occurring and measures of adjustment after experiencing the events used in the test instrument. There has been no research assessing the relationship between perceived (or actual) probabilities of events and any measures of adjustment following events.
Research assessing adjustment to traumatic events has been limited to events that do not defy expectations. For example, several studies have provided evidence that most widows are well adjusted following bereavement. Lucas (2007) reported studies using a greater variety of traumatic events, where subjective well being (SWB) was measured prior to the events and at intervals following the events.
He found that when measured 7 years after bereavement, most widows and widowers had returned to their SWB levels, most of those who became divorced or unemployed were close to their previous SWB levels, and after becoming disabled and becoming seriously disabled, most suffered enduring moderate and large declines in SWB, though they were not at pathological levels.
Because becoming disabled is less probable than experiencing the other events, the rationale for creating a test instrument measuring perceived likelihood of experiencing events is to allow assessing the relationship between the probabilities of experiencing events and measures of adjustment following the events. Perceived Probabilities of Experiencing Traumatic Events Contrary to beliefs and theories that are not based on knowledge of empirical findings, following events of a traumatic nature, most individuals are at least reasonably well-adjusted and
happy (reviewed in Bonanno, 2004). However, most of the findings have been limited to events that do not defy expectations. The current research will create a test instrument measuring perceived probabilities of different kinds of traumatic events occurring. The instrument will be intended for use in future research so that the relationship between perceived probabilities and occurrence of events can be assessed. The belief that pathological symptoms following traumatic events are common has not been supported by empirical evidence.
One reason for this mistaken belief is that there are so-called professionals who are not familiar with empirical findings who encourage the belief that following trauma there must be clinical depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and those who do not experience these conditions must be repressing their feelings which will later emerge, and, in effect, following trauma, all individuals are in need of some form of “grief work” (e. g. , Santrock, 2007). However, there is evidence that therapies rooted in this view actually can be harmful.
Based on meta-analytic studies, as many as 38% of those receiving such therapies have been harmed, most have neither been harmed nor helped, and few have been helped (Bonano, 2004, pp. 21-22). What so-called experts fail to recognize is that the human brain is kind to us regarding memory. Most people have poorer memories for negative than for positive emotions and experiences (Walker, Vogl, & Thompson, 1997), and there is a negative relationship between memory for negative emotions and experiences and well-being (Boden & Baumaster, 1997; Cutler, Larsen, & Bunce, 1996).
Lucas (2007) used a variety of traumatic events, where measures of subjective well-being (SWB) were obtained prior to and following the events. When measured 7 years after the events occurred, most widows and widowers had returned to their prior levels of SWB, those who became divorced or unemployed were close to their prior levels, and those who were disabled and severely disabled remained at moderate or considerably lower levels, though they were not at pathological levels.
The research reported above raises the question of whether returning to one’s prior level of adjustment is related to perceptions of the likelihood of the event occurring. In the proposed research, a large sample of university students will be asked to provide ratings of their perceptions of the likelihood of a typical 70-year-old having experienced different kinds of traumatic events (the method of using a typical 70-year-old was used in Rubin & Berntsen, 2003). The main hypothesis will be that different traumatic events will result in differences in perceived likelihood of the event occurring.
The purpose will be to develop an instrument that then could be validated by comparing actual adjustment ratings with perceived probabilities of the events occurring. It is expected that perceived probabilities will be associated with measures of adjustment, where those who experience high-probability events will be better adjusted after experiencing the event than those who have experienced low-probability events. Method Participants. The participants will be 1,000 university students, volunteering in order to fulfill requirements in introductory psychology courses.
They will be randomly assigned to receive one of ten different versions of the test instrument (described below). A demographics questionnaire will be used to provide the numbers of males and females, age range and mean, racial composition, and socioeconomic status of the participants. Materials. Participants will sign an informed consent form, which will be collected prior to distributing the test instrument and demographics questionnaire (participants’ names will be used only on the consent form so they will know that their responses to the latter two forms will be anonymous).
The consent form will include information about how to make an appointment to learn more about the purpose of the research. Participants then will receive one of ten different versions of the test instrument. Eight of the ten versions will have the following instructions: “Consider a typical 70-year-old. Will you please provide an approximation of your belief about the likelihood (or probability) that the person has or will experience (an event corresponding with the participant’s version) by circling the ONE response below that best corresponds with your belief.
” Eight of the ten events that will be used in this sentence are either “the death of a child under the age of 19 years” (i. e. , where the child probably still was living at home), “the death of a parent when the person was older than 40 years,” “becoming severely disabled,” “suffering a life-threatening illness,” “becoming divorced,” “losing a job,” “being kidnapped or held hostage,” or “being robbed by someone pointing a gun.
” On the remaining two versions, “70-year-old person” will be replaced by “70-year-old woman” or “70-year-old man” to correspond with two of the events that will be used in the instruction sentence: “the death of her husband when she was older than 50 years,” and “the death of his wife when he was older than 50 years. ” Perceived probability will be measured by participants circling one of the following percentages of 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 99. Procedure.
Testing will take place in groups, with two sessions separated by two weeks. For each session, there will be group-testing of at least 20 participants, depending on the size of available rooms and numbers of participants who fail to keep their appointments. Participants first will receive instructions for completing the informed consent form. After all participants have completed the forms, they will receive instructions for completing the test instrument and, at each participant’s first session, a demographics questionnaire (described above).
So participants rate the same event at each session, at the first one, the test instrument will have an identification number and a slip of paper with the same number to bring to the second session. The first digits (1-10) will refer to the event rated and the remaining digits (1-100) will correspond with the participants receiving the particular events. Design. The design is experimental, with one between-subjects independent variable, event (with participants randomly assigned to rate perceived probabilities of each of 10 events), one repeated measure, test session, and one dependent variable, ratings at each of the sessions.
Results and Discussion After obtaining the demographic information required for the Participant section (above), a statistical test will be used to compare mean probabilities at each session. A significant difference would indicate that the measure lacks test-retest reliability. Despite limitations in interpreting differences that are not significant, because of the large sample size, 1,000 participants at each session, lack of significance would suggest test-retest reliability.
Next, statistical tests will be conducted to compare all possible pairs of means for each of the ten events. Events then will be ordered based on perceived probabilities, with events that are significantly different from all of the others used alone and events that are not significantly different from each other used as groupings. Finally, note that the proposed research will adhere to all ethical standards. Informed consent will be obtained, data will be provided anonymously, and participants will be able to learn about the purposes of the research. Conclusion.
Although further research is needed, the proposed research, depending upon statistical significance, will provide evidence suggesting that trauma theories need to incorporate perceived probabilities, as theories currently incorporate memory for negative events.
References
Boden, J. , & Baumaster, R. F. (1997). Repressive coping: Distraction using pleasant thoughts and memories. Journal of Personality, 64, 379-405. Bonnano, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience. American Psychologist, 59, 20-28. Cutler, S. , Larsen, R. , & Bunce, C. (1996). Repressive coping style and the recall of emotion.Journal of Personality, 64, 45-67. Lucas, R. E. (2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 75-79. Rubin, D. C. , & Berntsen, D. (2003). Life scripts help to maintain memories of highly positive, but not highly negative events. Memory & Cognition, 26, 116-125. Santrock, J. W. (2007). A topical approach to life-span development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Walker, W. , Vogl, J. , & Thompson, C. P. (1997). Unpleasantness fades faster than pleasantness over time. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 399-413.