CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 284Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 209 of the 209 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive vulnerabilities to the development of PTSD: A review of four vulnerabilities and the proposal of an integrative vulnerability model

Elwood, Lisa S., Hahn, Kathryn S., Olatunji, Bunmi O., Williams, Nathan L.·2009·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While some individuals develop PTSD subsequent to traumatic experiences, many individuals resume prior functioning naturally. Diathesis-stress models suggest that stable individual differences present in individuals prior to trauma may serve as vulnerability factors to symptom development. The high levels of comorbidity and symptom similarity suggest that established vulnerability factors for anxiety and depression may also serve as vulnerability factors for PTSD. The examination of multiple vulnerability factors simultaneously may increase understanding of the etiology of PTSD and comorbid post-trauma symptomatology and account for a greater percentage of variance in PTSD symptoms. In addition, the vulnerability factors may be related to distinct sets of symptoms, with vulnerabilities predicting the PTSD symptoms most similar to their associated disorders. Research examining the relations between attributional style, rumination, anxiety sensitivity, and the looming cognitive style and the development of PTSD after trauma exposure is reviewed and suggestions for future research are provided.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.002

Cites

209 of 209 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 200 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Foa, 1993, Posttraumatic stress disorder in rape victims, Vol. 12, 273

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 284

Related

Metadata

Authors
Elwood, L. S., Hahn, K. S., Olatunji, B. O., & Williams, N. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri–St. Louis (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
Corresponding author
Elwood, Lisa S.
ORCID
Olatunji, Bunmi O.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
87-100
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.002
OpenAlex
W2032402223
Cited by
284
References
200
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 15
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive vulnerability, diathesis-stress model, vulnerability factors, attributional style, rumination, anxiety sensitivity, comorbidities, PTSD etiology, trauma exposure
MeSH terms
Affect, Cognition, Humans, Risk Factors, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Comorbidity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review