CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchResilience and Mental HealthCancer survivorship and care

Are reports of posttraumatic growth positively biased?

Smith, Sharon G., Cook, Sarah L.·2004·Journal of Traumatic Stress
DOI 10.1023/b:jots.0000038485.38771.c6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examines positivity bias in reports of growth following exposure to traumatic events. Participants (N = 276) from an urban university and a superior court jury pool were randomly assigned to one of two methodological groups. In one, participants responded to the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) in relation to a specific stressful event. In the other, PTGI questions were not linked to specific events. Findings indicate that current methods for assessing posttraumatic growth (PTG) may actually underestimate growth. That is, linking questions about growth to specific stressors may have led participants to be cautious about attributing their growth experiences to a traumatic event. These findings contradict notions that current methods of measuring PTG create a positivity bias. Suggestions for future research include the use of prospective designs and corroborating reports of growth.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/b:jots.0000038485.38771.c6

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The study relied on self-reported measures, which may introduce response biases such as retrospective recall inaccuracies or positivity bias regarding post-traumatic growth.

    “The study also relied on self-reported measures, which may introduce response biases such as retrospective recall inaccuracies or positivity bias regarding posttraumatic growth (Smith and Cook, 2004).”

    From Exploring the relationship between post-earthquake trauma, post-traumatic growth, and self-compassion (2026) · cites this paper as Smith and Cook, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Smith, S. G., & Cook, S. L.
Affiliations
Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Sharon G.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-08
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
353-358
ISSN
  • 0894-9867 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6598
DOI
10.1023/b:jots.0000038485.38771.c6
OpenAlex
W2100737133
Cited by
67
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 333 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Traumatic Stress (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
posttraumatic growth, positivity bias, measurement bias, Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, traumatic events, self-report measures
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, False Negative Reactions, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Stress, Psychological, Urban Population, Bias, Disease Progression

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