Talk:Post-traumatic growth

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): InduniWickramasinghe.

Above undated message substituted from

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JuliaWeinman.

Above undated message substituted from

Considering other articles on the same topic of psychological trauma and its effects, this article seems biased in portraying growth as a certain result from traumatic experiences, in an apologetic manner, what seems to be a point of view biased to one perspective and not complete or balanced. It also in its present form has many weasel words and unverifiable claims. JonatasM (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find this article to present post-traumatic growth "as a certain result from traumatic experiences", rather the opposite. "Growth does not occur as a direct result of trauma, rather it is the individual's struggle with the new reality in the aftermath of trauma that is crucial in determining the extent to which posttraumatic growth occurs.[1]" Furthermore, JonatasM's "apologetic" claim seems more unsubstantiated than anything in the article, and I am not sure how it even applies other than as the last-ditch effort to discredit something that somehow does not fit into one's particular worldview. I am also not even sure what two perspectives (s)he believes are at play on this topic that would prohibit someone from being "complete or balanced" by omitting one. People react to trauma in different ways. Here is an examination of one the ways that does not receive such treatment very often. The biased agenda would seem to be to immediately discredit a particular route of examination without reason or support.Ellenstein2003 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I feel like this article provides a lot of basic information regarding post-traumatic growth, I feel like it would benefit to share the impact this concept/phenomena has on the mental health field. I understand that there is arguments on both side supporting and refuting it and it would merit a lot to show that this is prevalent in the field.GCorpusPAU (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GCorpusPAU. Did you put the citation in for the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory? While it pertains to the actual authors who came up with the inventory (thank you), it seems you left in the part about Meichenbaum as the creator. Again, this is misleading and inaccurate. I'm going to edit the article, and if you can find info that states Meichenbaum as the creator of the PTGI, please cite and undo. PeterLouras3 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the section discussing the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. The authors are claiming Meichenbaum as the person who "composed the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory." This seems misleading. I believe Tedeshi & Calhoun came up with the PTGI in 1996, and are actually cited on this Wiki page for their other contributions to posttraumatic growth. It is my understanding that Meichenbaum was not a part of the initial creation of the PTGI or the PTGI short form. I could be wrong, so please let me know, and at the very least provide a source citation to back up this claim. I've added a "Citation Needed" in the proper section. Thank you, PeterLouras3 (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Positive outcomes from trauma may be possible in the adult, and intelligent, and insightful, but I suspect it is MOST unlikely to occur for the other 99% of humanity.

What's the likelihood a grossly emotionally neglected infant will harness their interest in 'spirituality' to heal their monstrously disfigured psyche, and improve their mental well-being?

In my experience - and a reading of the literature supports the view that - such abuse instils lifelong trauma, so the 'post' aspect occurs when, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What’s your goal with this comment specifically? Because to me, it reads as debating the theory itself/sharing a personal critique of the theory after reading the article.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It’s a repository of sourced information, and as far as I can tell this article is simply describing a psychological theory, not saying “this is 100% proven to happen to everyone.”

If you have an issue with how the article is written, it would help to specify and perhaps offer suggestions on how to improve it.

If there are relevant critiques of this theory by people in the field of psychology which you don’t see mentioned in the article, you could add those critiques (and the sources for the info) but if this is just your personal opinion, I’m not sure this is really the place to debate it? Just as you wouldn’t go to the talk page of a religion or political party I don’t belong to and start debating the idea itself (rather than the accuracy or neutrality of the article).

Personally I don’t feel like this article has a neutrality issue but I am definitely not an expert in this field. I will say, in reading it as a non-expert, I didn’t once feel like it was saying “this applies to/happens to everyone.” In fact it pretty clearly states that it doesn’t if I’m not mistaken. Catfrost (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the standard protocol for adding an “In popular culture” section on a topic like this? Even as a person with a history of trauma, I’d never heard of this theory before and learned about it while watching a show (Star Trek: Discovery) and came here to see if it was a real thing and learn more about it.

Would it be relevant to add the Star Trek mention and other uses of the term (if there are any) in pop culture? Since if it’s not a well-known theory to the general public, that might be a way they’re learning about it, or people might be curious to see how it’s portrayed in media, especially if there are very few examples of this. Catfrost (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfrost, usually, you want to find one or two sources (not the show, but something like a magazine) that says something about this subject (post-traumatic growth) being featured in the show. It needs to say something more than just being mentioned in a routine plot summary. A particularly good source will say something about why it was important (e.g., major plot point, or they partnered with a non-profit to promote awareness, or something like that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): P. Oncology, Freebeast24, Loyola2024 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dandelions-love-to-fly.

— Assignment last updated by Dandelions-love-to-fly (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well written and well sourced. However, the article is unbalanced and spends most of its space discussing the connection between PTG and positive psychology and with personality psychology. While these intersections are relevant, PTG is also closely tied to other disciplines in psychology including cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, health psychology, narrative psychology, trauma psychology, social psychology, clinical psychology, and others. [1] This Spending less time on personality and positive psychology will facilitate a reduction of information into what has the highest consensus in each area. Adding information on other psychology disciples will give a more informed and accurate overview of this topic.

Two other areas which the current article is currently lacks are an explanation of the theoretical model of PTG and a more organized set of information on which characteristics or behaviors are associated with greater or less PTG. For later, I am considering compiling a table [2] Loyola2024 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of positive psychology may be a bit redundant to this article, as Positive Psychology exists as its own Wikipedia topic. There is also a short "Conclusion" section that supposedly summarizes how positive psychology is related to PTG, which really provided no additional insight. Charlottercrane (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues within how this article is constructed. "Aspects" is listed as a subheading under "Theories and Findings," and it appears to reference domains of the PTGI, which are referenced later in the article. The existence of this section is a little confusing in general. Charlottercrane (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To provide some additional details about my recent edit to remove content from this page: these edits I removed were contributed by a student in my WikiEdu course, and the student's edits needed to be removed because the information presented in the edits were not aligned with or supported by the data in the sources used. Visiting the sources directly revealed information that was highly inconsistent with the edits that the student published. I chose to remove the edits directly rather than begin a discussion on the Talk page because of the potential risks of misinformation. Tjwilliamson91 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]