Analysis reveals that cognitive trauma processing predicts secondary posttraumatic growth in professionals, suggesting strategies for improving resilience.
Aim of the study The aim of the study was to determine the relationship between cognitive trauma processing and secondary posttraumatic growth (SPTG) in professionals helping people after traumatic experiences. Subject or material and methods The study included 580 respondents exposed to indirect trauma. The analysis was conducted on 500 participants, mostly women (76.4%) representing five professional groups (therapists, medical rescuers, nursing staff, social workers and probation officers). The mean age of the participants was 44.09 years (SD=9.85). Data was collected using the Secondary Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (SPTGI), the Cognitive Processing of Trauma Scale (CPOTS) and a survey created for the study. Results SPTG (total SPTGI score) was positively related with four cognitive coping strategies: positive cognitive restructuring, resolution/acceptance, downward comparison and, to a lesser extent, with regret. SPTG was found was found to be positively correlated with cognitive restructuring and resolution/acceptance in all five groups of professionals. These two strategies appeared to be the main predictors of SPTG, although their contributions varied. Discussion Cognitive restructuring and resolution/acceptance were found to play a predictive role for SPTG, primarily among therapists and social workers. In the group of social workers, cognitive restructuring was also a positive predictor of the negative effects of indirect exposure to trauma. This suggests that this strategy may have a significant role in the occurrence of consequences of indirect exposure to trauma, regardless of whether they are negative or positive. Conclusions It is worth expanding the competences of professionals in dealing with trauma experienced by others, especially among social workers; particularly by encouraging greater use of positive coping strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nina Ogińska-Bulik (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: