Investigating the Impact of a Psychoeducational Program on Self-Disclosure, Posttraumatic Growth and Resilience for Adolescents.

Investigating the Impact of a Psychoeducational Program on Self-Disclosure, Posttraumatic Growth and Resilience for Adolescents - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice J Child Adolesc Trauma . 2025 Feb 19;18(2):365–375. doi: 10.1007/s40653-025-00694-1 Investigating the Impact of a Psychoeducational Program on Self-Disclosure, Posttraumatic Growth and Resilience for Adolescents Amber Efthemiou 1 , Taylor Elam 1 , Paxton Hicks 1 , Kanako Taku 1, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Psychology, Oakland University, 654 Pioneer Drive, 123 Pryale Hall, Rochester, MI 48309 USA ✉ Corresponding author. Accepted 2025 Jan 29; Collection date 2025 Jun. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC12130393  PMID: 40469796 Abstract Adolescents experience various life events. Among them, some negative life events may give an opportunity for adolescents to experience personal growth, potentially known as posttraumatic growth (PTG), through processes such as receiving psychological education or sharing one’s experiences with someone. The current study aimed to examine the short-term effects of a psychoeducational program and the role of self-disclosure in PTG and resilience. Adolescents ( M age = 16.91, SD = 0.73) were randomly assigned into one of two conditions. Participants in the psychoeducational condition discussed various examples and key factors of PTG whereas participants in the control group discussed the general topics of psychology. Three weeks later, they completed questions assessing self-disclosure (i.e., if they had spoken to anyone about the event they experienced), PTG, and resilience, if they reported that they experienced an impactful, negative life event (e.g., verbal aggression) that involved hurting someone, during the past three weeks ( N = 194; 138 females, 56 males). Results indicated that neither PTG nor resilience differed by conditions. Additionally, regardless of conditions, those who spoke about the event reported higher PTG but not resilience than those who did not. Our findings demonstrate that while the psychoeducational program did not have an immediate effect on PTG or resilience, speaking to someone about their event was associated with higher PTG. The lack of intervention effects could be due to the brevity of the program as well as the unique focus of negative life event (i.e., the idea of hurting others could lead to an opportunity for self-reflection and personal growth). The current research has implications for adolescent trauma-informed care for clinicians and educators, highlighting the important role of self-disclosure, as well as the limited impact of brief psychoeducational programs when the outcome was centered on PTG and resilience. Future studies should refine both program assessments and interventions for adolescents who intentionally or unintentionally have hurt others and consider the mechanisms behind the significant roles of self-disclosure on PTG and resilience within trauma-informed care for adolescents. Keywords: Trauma, Adolescents, Self-disclosure, Posttraumatic growth, Resilience Introduction Psychological development in adolescence may be triggered by various life challenges such as experiencing highly stressful and traumatic life events. Although undesirable, these events sometimes serve as opportunities for psychological growth. The personal growth an individual may experience following a struggle with stressful life events is known as posttraumatic growth or PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996 ). Literature suggests that adolescents have the capacity to experience PTG (Fung & Browne, in press; Harmon & Venta, 2021 ). They experience a unique variety of adverse events including demands from parents, school, and society as well as developmental concerns (Hellström et al., 2024 ). Adverse experiences may negatively affect well-being (Ponnamperuma & Nicolson, 2018 ) but may also foster positive psychological growth (Fraus et al., 2023 ). Adverse events that lead to PTG can include death of a family member (Arslan et al., 2022 ), natural disaster (Turan et al., 2022 ), physical and verbal aggression, familial discord, friendship conflict, and academic performance problems (e.g., Ickovics et al., 2006 ; Milam, 2004 ). During the process initiated by such adversities, an individual may experience psychological struggle that involves reexamining one’s core values, ruminating, and coping, depicted in the PTG theoretical model (Tedeschi et al., 2018 ). They may then gain a greater appreciation for life, an increased sense of personal strength, realize new possibilities, experience a spiritual and existential change, or relate to others more, known as the five domains of PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996 ). Research has shown the typical progression of PTG depicted in the theoretical model (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004 ; Tedeschi et al., 2018 ) to be applicable to adolescents (Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010 ; Meyerson et al., 2011 ; Vloet et al., 2017 ). Two key factors that may further highlight PTG are resilience and self-disclosure. Resilience is defined as the ability to bounce back, or recover, from adversity (Rutter, 2007 ). Resilient individuals may better regulate emotions, hold cognitive flexibility, and hold optimistic attitudes, which can lead to better outcomes following adversity (Bonanno et al., 2015 ; Dhungana et al., 2022 ). The findings remain equivocal about the relationship between PTG and resilience (Elam et al., 2023 ). Some studies show that they are positively associated (Chen et al., 2022 ; Elam & Taku, 2022 ; Xu et al., 2024 ), suggesting that more resilient people may experience more PTG or people who experience PTG are more likely to perceive themselves as highly resilient (or other characteristics such as optimism or extroversion may explain each construct). However, other studies show that they are negatively associated or not systematically associated, suggesting that resilient people are less impacted by traumatic experiences or less likely to experience psychological struggle, which in turn may minimize the recognition of PTG (Levine et al., 2009 ; Zerach et al., 2013 ). Although resilience and PTG both share some basic ideas (e.g., positive process resulting from experiencing negative events), due to their distinctive characteristics, looking at resilience holds importance in PTG research. Self-disclosure is theorized as one of the main factors that foster PTG (Tedeschi et al., 2018 ). Self-disclosure is generally referred to as sharing unknown knowledge with others in a way that makes oneself known (Jourard & Lasakow, 1958 ). Individuals who have experienced adversity may find it useful to talk to others about their experiences, especially when they were not pressured to disclose (Kimbley et al., 2023 ). Multiple studies have revealed that self-disclosure is positively associated with PTG (Hassija & Turchik, 2016 ; Taku et al., 2009 , 2021), however, less is known about the association between self-disclosure and resilience. It may be because highly resilient individuals are either less likely to find the need for self-disclosure due to their effective coping skills and ability to bounce back quickly or, although seemingly opposite, they may be more likely to engage in self-disclosure due to their open and flexible attitudes. Resilience is highly important in the well-being of adolescents (Mesman et al., 2021 ), and during one’s adolescent years, self-disclosure plays an important part in their relationship development, identity formation, and overall well-being (Vijayakumar & Pfeifer, 2020 ). Thus, the role of self-disclosure in resilience, not just PTG, must be further examined. One important notion in the research field of PTG is that most studies centered around the experiences of “victims” and those who were suffering or hurt by passively experiencing stressful life events. Little research has focused on the processes in those who inflict or cause harm to others. Intentionally or unintentionally hurting others may elicit negative emotions, such as a sense of guilt, and promote a psychological struggle to grapple with the awareness of the event as well as cope with the negative effects– perhaps a cognitive process somewhat similar to that of victims (Seyburn et al., 2020 ). Wrongdoing is associated with self-resentment and self-blame, which generally yield negative consequences on one’s mental health (Pugh et al., 2015 ). MacNair ( 2015 ) suggested that perpetrators may suffer from a unique phenomenon of perpetration-induced traumatic stress which is similar to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) experienced by a victim. Because not all individuals play a sole role of victim in life, known as victim-offender overlap or victim-perpetrator overlap (Zimmerman et al., 2017 ), it is important to study the possibility of PTG and the levels of resilience among those who play the opposite side of stressful life event. When considering the developmental stage of adolescence, a time that involves cognitive and emotional development, there very likely have been times for them to have intentionally or unintentionally hurt other people. Therefore, the implication of such experiences on personal growth is an important topic for research. Psychoeducational Intervention Programs Psychoeducational programs have been utilized in research to foster a variety of cognitive processes. With a focus on resilience, some psychoeducational programs have proven effectiveness. For example, Steinhardt and Dolbier ( 2008 ) found that four weeks of two-hour classroom interventions including psychoeducational programming increased resilience in college students. Additionally, self-disclosure interventions may prove effectiveness for psychological well-being (Gonsalves et al., 2023 ). Similarly, studies have revealed that PTG is also fostered through psychosocial interventions such as group sessions, cognitive behavioral therapy, and prospective writing (Knaevelsrud et al., 2010 ; Ramos et al., 2018 ; Roepke et al., 2017 ). Interventions that were designed to assist individuals with cognitively and emotionally processing their traumatic life experiences showed that stress symptoms decreased and PTG increased overall. A PTG specific program has also been developed with promising results for combat veterans and first responders (Moore et al., 2021 ). Roepke ( 2015 ) suggested that psychosocial intervention programs for adults (e.g., cancer survivors, bereaved parents, sexual abuse victims) modestly increase PTG. In adult cancer patients, for example, a PTG psychoeducational program which provided six sessions of training for 90 min twice a week on topics such as health education and coping skills found that the intervention significantly improved PTG as well as subjective well-being and treatment adherence (Masoum Abadi et al., 2019 ). Additionally, in university students who reported experiencing a traumatic event, biweekly, ten 90-minute sessions of a psychoeducational program focusing on topics such as PTG also revealed effectiveness in fostering PTG (Doğru Çabuker & Balci Çelik, 2020 ). Such programs have suggested positive psychological benefits from psychoeducational programs in adult populations who have experienced trauma. In adolescents particularly, Steele and colleagues ( 2009 ) developed a school-based trauma intervention program called “I Feel Better Now!” where traumatized children participated in a sensory-based program designed to lessen the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral effects of trauma. The intervention provided qualitative evidence of PTG and revealed a significant reduction in trauma symptoms by the conclusion of the program as well as at the 3- and 6-month follow-up periods (Steele et al., 2009 ). Another study assessed the effectiveness of a telephone-delivered coping skills training intervention among adolescent and young-adult survivors of childhood cancer, leading to higher levels of benefit finding (Santacroce et al., 2010 ). On the other hand, Taku and colleagues ( 2017 ) conducted a study that investigated the effects of a brief psychoeducational program focusing on PTG for high school students in Japan. Unlike other studies, they provided educational opportunity to teens in general, assessing whether they experienced a trauma or not, as a part of mental health education. They compared the effects of 20 to 25-minute interactive psychoeducational programs, one focusing on PTG, one focusing on PTSD, and control group. Their program focusing on PTG included several topics such as the process and examples of PTG, whereas their program focusing on PTSD included several topics such as examples of and coping mechanisms for PTSD. Their findings revealed that there were no differences in PTG between the PTG focused intervention group and the control group, whereas PTG was suppressed among PTSD focused group. Their results suggested that there may not be an immediate gain among teenagers by receiving an opportunity to learn about and discuss PTG, and that there may be a negative impact by receiving a psychoeducational program focusing on the ways to cope with and understand PTSD only (Taku et al., 2017 ). Although most people are familiar with PTSD, PTG is not yet widely recognized by general population. Given the amount of research that has been conducted in the field of PTG and its implications (Tedeschi et al., 2018 ), it is vital to integrate PTG in a general educational system, beyond specialized psychotherapy for those who experienced a trauma. The above-mentioned study (Taku et al., 2017 ) was designed to foster discussion of PTG among teenagers in Japan. However, the effects of such programs must be further studied in different contexts to understand what factors influence effectiveness. Each study providing intervention for PTG has its own strengths and challenges. Some may include a small sample size or target only specific populations (e.g., childhood cancer survivors), without having a control group, and others may fail to control the impact of additional life events that might happen after the intervention. In this study, we prioritize reaching out to a large number of adolescents in general, investigating the educational effects on both PTG and resilience, and minimizing the effects of additional life events that are beyond researchers’ control, with the unique focus of adolescents who may cause harm rather than experience it. In other words, this study was designed to implement a psychoeducational program that is as brief as possible for any school system to easily integrate that may provide adolescents a practical, class-based discussion opportunity to reflect on their experiences from the perspectives of PTG. Current Study The purpose of the current study was to examine the levels of PTG and resilience in adolescents who reported that they have hurt others between the researchers’ two visits, through a brief 25-30-minute interactive psychoeducational program discussing eight key components of PTG (e.g., individual differences in perceptions of stressful experiences) as well as to examine how self-disclosure may facilitate the PTG process and resilience. First, we hypothesized that adolescents who participate in a psychoeducational program that involves PTG would report higher PTG but not resilience than adolescents who did not participate in such a program. This would help to understand if such programs may increase immediate PTG when compared to a control condition. It is important to note that the current study considers resilience as a comparison concept against PTG; thus, we did not expect resilience to be increased as a result of experiencing a negative life event even after they learned about PTG. It is because PTG cannot occur without specific context (i.e., experiencing an impactful negative life event), whereas resilience can exist with or without such incident. Second, we hypothesized that self-disclosure would increase PTG, but not resilience, among adolescents who recently hurt others, based on the PTG theoretical model (Tedeschi et al., 2018 ). It is also because resilience is less context-dependent than PTG, therefore, whether or not disclosing a particular event may not have much impact on one’s level of resilience in comparison to PTG. Method Participants A total of 431 adolescents, 273 females and 158 males, were recruited from five high schools in the Midwestern region of the United States to participate in this study. Their mean age was approximately 16.91 ( SD = 0.73) years old. Approximately 71.3% identified as White, 8% identified as African American, 8% identified as Asian, 5.7% identified as mixed race, 4.6% identified as Middle Eastern, and 2.3% identified as Latino/a, Hispanic, or Latin American. Among them, 194 adolescents (138 females and 56 males) reported that they intentionally or unintentionally hurt others between the researchers’ first session (Time 1) and second session that occurred three weeks later (Time 2). The adolescents completed inventories measuring their self-disclosure, level of PTG, and resilience, in addition to a question asking if they experienced any adversarial event since the researcher’s first visit (psychoeducational intervention program was provided during the first visit). See Table 1 for complete demographics. Table 1. Comparisons of demographics between conditions Psychoeducational condition ( n = 87) Control Condition ( n = 107) n % n % Gender Female 59 67.8 79 73.8 Male 28 32.2 28 26.2 Race White 62 71.3 66 61.7 African- American 7 8.0 18 16.8 Asian 7 8.0 11 10.3 Middle Eastern 4 4.6 7 6.5 Mixed 5 5.7 4 3.7 Latino/a, Hispanic, or 2 2.3 1 0.9 Latin American Heritage Religion Catholic 25 30 23 21.5 Protestant 1 1.2 3 2.8 Lutheran 1 1.2 5 4.7 Christian 18 21.7 31 29.0 Judaism 16 19.2 12 11.2 Islamic 3 3.6 5 4.7 Hindu 1 1.2 4 3.7 Buddhist 1 1.2 0 0 Agnostic 7 8.4 12 11.2 Unsure 4 4.8 5 4.7 Other 6 7.2 7 6.5 Self-Disclosure Yes 69 79.3 89 83.2 No 17 19.5 15 14 Continuous Variable M SD M SD Age (years) 16.93 0.80 16.95 0.50 Open in a new tab Measures Adversarial Events . Participants indicated at Time 2 whether or not they had experienced any of ten negative life events that involve hurting others (e.g., physical aggression, verbal aggression, etc.) since the researchers’ first visit after being instructed of following, “We would like to hear about if you have experienced these events since our last visit. These events refer to things you might have directly or indirectly done to hurt another person.” Participants then indicated which event was most impactful for them. Self-Disclosure . After indicating their single most impactful event, participants were asked, “Have you spoken to anyone about this event since our last visit?” to which they could answer “yes” or “no.” Posttraumatic Growth . The short-form of Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI-SF; Cann et al., 2010 ) was used to measure the participants’ level of perceived PTG as a result of the most impactful event they reported (e.g., “I changed my priorities about what is important in life”). For 10 items (α = 0.89 with the current sample), the participants were asked to indicate the degree to which each change had occurred for them on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0, “not at all,” to 5, “very great degree.” Resilience. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 (CD-RISC 10: Connor & Davidson, 2003 ) was used to measure the participants’ level of resilience (e.g., “I am able to adapt when changes occur”). For 10 items (α = 0.85 with the current sample), the participants were asked to indicate the degree to which each item was true for them on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0, “not true at all” to 4 “true nearly all the time.” Procedure After receiving ethical approval to conduct the study from the university’s internal review board, we visited high schools in the Midwestern region of the United States and provided consent and assent forms to high school students enrolled in psychology courses. The study’s purpose and directions were explained to the participants. They were then randomly split into two groups: a psychoeducational program group and a control group. Both groups discussed their respective topics for approximately 25–30 min. Those in the control group at Time 1 received the same psychoeducational program after completing the survey at Time 2; thus, can be considered as a waitlist condition (the details are explained below). The psychoeducational program group received an interactive slideshow presentation regarding various examples and key factors that are associated with PTG. The program started with a presentation of inverse figure (e.g., duck or rabbit) as a part of icebreaker but also encouraged the teenagers to participate in the discussion of seeing both sides in one picture. Then, they were asked to raise different types of stressful experiences that high school students may generally experience (e.g., parental divorce, fighting) based on personal experience as well as others’ experiences. After this, researchers asked participants to come up with any changes that they may have observed when people experience such events, ranging from biological changes to personality changes. Researchers then asked participants to identify specifically positive changes that they may observe when people experience such events. The participants were encouraged to reflect on and discuss various examples. Following this, the five key domains of the PTG (i.e., personal strength, relating to others, appreciation of life, new possibilities, and spiritual change) were introduced and matched to the changes the participants shared with researchers. They also discussed some of the factors that help people to experience such changes. During the discussion, researchers used a white board to list the examples and factors that were raised by participants to display the PTG processes. Also during the discussion, participants engaged in an imagery-based portion of the presentation in which they were shown abstract images where the various aspects of PTG could be applied, including another image of inverse figure, and they were asked to discuss their perceptions of these images. Finally, participants were given a “take-home” summary message, highlighting the broader themes of the program (e.g., a phenomenon, such as posttraumatic growth, does not mean the absence of stress), and they were asked to think about the PTG process over the next three weeks. See Table 2 for the complete list of the psychoeducational program discussion topics. Table 2. Topics covered in psychoeducational program Questions to encourage students to discuss in a small group setting Intention behind the questions 1 Showing them a duck-rabbit illusion image and ask them help each other to share what they see Awareness of seeing one picture from different angles while experiencing cognitive shift 2 Asking them to think about stressful life events they have seen someone else experienced Awareness of individual differences in perceptions of stressful experiences 3 Asking them to think about what kind of changes they see in people who experience stressful life events Awareness of various psychological, emotional, cognitive and behavioral immediate reactions 4 If all reactions shared were negative, encouraging them to think about potentially positive changes Leading to presenting the term, posttraumatic growth 5 Asking them to discuss examples for each of the five PTG domains such as Personal Strength Awareness of five PTG domains 6 Encouraging them to discuss what could help people to experience these positive changes Awareness of predictors and mechanisms of PTG, such as the importance of social support and self-disclosure 7 Encouraging them to discuss exceptions and individual differences Reassurance that PTG is not for everyone and it is not something that should not be expected either 8 Showing them the duck-rabbit illusion image again and warp-up the program by taking questions Awareness of two different sides can co-exist, reminding them that stress and growth coexist. Open in a new tab Note. The Control Group participated in a 25 to 30-minute interactive presentation about psychology in general, such as different branches of psychology, careers in psychology, and brief history of psychology The control group also received an interactive slideshow presentation with the similar length of time and structure in order to control the mere effects of interactions with researchers. The topic focused on several areas of psychology and career paths related to psychology. First, participants discussed what psychology is, providing individual definitions and ideas. Then, participants discussed the roles of a psychologist and the work they do in society. Following this, an outline of a bachelor’s degree in psychology was provided along with different course options to complete the degree, encouraging them to discuss different career paths after learning about psychology. Finally, participants were further provided various career paths as a psychologist and were encouraged to ask questions about the various fields of psychology. Three weeks later, participants underwent a second session in which they were asked to indicate if they had experienced any negative life event since the first session. Those who reported at least one adversarial event responded if they had spoken to someone about the event as well as completed the PTGI-SF for PTG and CD-RISC 10 for resilience. After completing the survey, participants were divided into the same groups as they were during the first session but those who were assigned into the control group initially, participated in a psychoeducational program at the second session, whereas those who were assigned into the psychoeducational program initially, discussed the areas and career paths of psychology at the second session. We did this so all students received the same educational opportunities. Data Analysis First, we examined descriptive information regarding demographics and frequencies of adversarial events experienced, self-disclosure, the level of PTG, and the level of resilience. Baseline levels of PTG and resilience were collected at the first session to aid in understanding their role in the current study and if they may have been potential confounders. To test our hypotheses, a 2 (psychoeducational group– control group) × 2 (disclosed– not disclosed) two-way factorial ANOVA was conducted for PTG and resilience. The data were analyzed using SPSS 28. Results Overall, 67.5% of adolescents ( n = 131 of 194) who experienced an adversarial event between the intervention (Time 1) and the second session disclosed their event to someone. See Table 3 for a complete list of the most impactful negative life events experienced among the adolescents. On average, by combining both conditions, a low level of PTG was observed ( M = 17.37, SD = 11.80, ranging from 0 to 5) with a moderate level of resilience ( M = 2.65, SD = 0.64, ranging from 0 to 4). PTG and resilience showed a weak positive correlation, r =.21, CI 95% [0.07, 0.35], p =.003. Table 3. List of events disclosed for those included n % Included in the current study Physical aggression 102 9.2 Verbal aggression Romantic relationship problems Betrayed someone Discriminated against someone Stood by while others were hurt Cause others stress or worry Letting others down Poor work ethic Being environmentally inconsiderate Other Total 172 54 113 35 66 157 133 145 117 5 1099 15.6 4.9 10.2 3.1 2.1 14.2 12.1 13.1 10.6 0.5 100 Open in a new tab A two-way factorial ANOVA for PTG (Table 4 ) revealed that the main effect of the PTG psychoeducational program was not significant. There were no significant differences in PTGI-SF scores between those who received the psychoeducational intervention ( M = 16.02, SD = 11.41, CI 95% [13.58, 18.47]) and those in the control group ( M = 18.48, SD = 12.06, CI 95% [16.14, 20.83]), F (1, 186) = 1.31, n.s. The main effect assessing the impact of self-disclosure was significant. We found that people who spoke about their event ( M = 19.31, SD = 11.66, CI 95% [17.27,21.35]) showed higher PTGI-SF scores compared to those who did not ( M = 13.35, SD = 11.15 CI 95% [10.52,16.19]), F (1, 186) = 10.65, p =.001, partial eta squared = 0.05. The interaction was not significant F (1, 186) = 0.08, n.s . Table 4. Two-way factorial ANOVA for posttraumatic growth Psychoeducational condition ( n = 86) Control condition ( n = 104) Total ( n = 190) M SD M SD M SD Spoken to Someone ( n = 128) 17.88 95%CI[14.87,20.88] 11.23 20.43 95%CI[17.63,23.24] 11.94 19.31 95%CI[17.27,21.35] 11.66 Did not speak to someone ( n = 62) 12.57 95%CI[8.42,16.72] 11.11 14.09 95%CI[10.02,18.17] 11.31 13.35 95%CI[10.52,16.19] 11.15 Total ( n = 190) 16.02 95%CI[13.58,18.47] 11.41 18.48 95%CI[16.14,20.83] 12.06 17.37 95%CI[15.68,19.06] 11.80 Open in a new tab A two-way factorial ANOVA for resilience (Table 5 ) revealed that the main effect for the program was not significant, F (1, 190) = 1.19, n.s ., indicating there was no significant difference in resilience for the psychoeducational program compared the control group. Similarly, the main effect of self-disclosure was also not significant, F (1, 190) = 1.35, n.s . No significant interaction was found either, F (1, 190) = 1.54, n.s . Table 5. Two-way factorial ANOVA for resilience Psychoeducational condition ( n = 87) Control condition ( n = 107) Total ( n = 194) M SD M SD M SD Spoken to Someone ( n = 131) 2.62 95%CI[2.45,2.79] 0.64 2.60 95%CI[2.45,2.76] 0.67 2.61 95%CI[2.50,2.72] 0.66 Did not speak to someone ( n = 63) 2.61 95%CI[2.35,2.87] 0.70 2.84 95%CI[2.66,3.01] 0.49 2.73 95%CI[2.58,2.88] 0.61 Total ( n = 194) 2.61 95%CI[2.47,2.76] 0.66 2.68 95%CI[2.56,2.80] 0.63 2.65 95%CI[2.56,2.74] 0.64 Open in a new tab Discussion The purpose of the current study was to design, implement, and examine the effectiveness of a psychoeducational program that is centered around the concept of PTG for adolescents who have recently hurt others. We examined the impact of self-disclosure on PTG compared to resilience in adolescents as well, as literature has established the key role of self-disclosure in PTG (Tedeschi et al., 2018 ). Effectiveness of Intervention Program We first tested if the psychoeducational program had an immediate impact on PTG among adolescents who recently hurt others. The results did not demonstrate significant effects of the intervention. This result may be due to several reasons. First, simply having an opportunity to learn about and discuss PTG may not be enough to facilitate a sense of growth, which could be interpreted as reasonable, especially knowing that there are only three weeks between the intervention and the follow-up session. Consistent with the results of Taku and colleagues ( 2017 ), a psychoeducational program for adolescents that is relatively shorter in length (i.e., 25–30 min, roughly four minutes per topic, and 3 weeks between pre- and post- intervention) may not be the effective route to foster PTG. If fostering PTG is the main goal, researchers should consider implementing a PTG psychoeducational program with more extensive time sessions as well as longer and/or multiple time points (e.g., Masoum Abadi et al., 2019 ; Santacroce, 2010; Steele, 2009). Second, with that in mind, a choice of outcome (i.e., PTG or resilience) could be a reason why the intervention effects were not present in the current study. There may be other outcome variables (e.g., spillover effects such as adolescents who learn about PTG may share the idea of PTG with their family members, who in turn, may reflect on their experiences from a lens of PTG) that a concise intervention program for general high school students might indirectly offer. Third, our target was general high school students, unlike specific and more homogeneous populations targeted in previous studies (e.g., Santacroce, 2010; Steele, 2009). We aimed to design this program as school-based and adolescent-friendly, thus a practical, concise, and interactive intervention program, similar to the nature of a discussion-based class in an existing school system. However, because of this choice, unavoidable potential problems may have occurred as indicated previously, when targeting adolescent populations in intervention work (Van Loon et al., 2024 ; Yeager et al., 2018 ). The factors that are associated with social-cognitive development among adolescents pose unique challenges, which in turn could be another reason why the current intervention did not yield significant results. Fourth, our population of adolescents was unique, as they were asked to think about the event where they hurt others rather than the event they experienced as victims. As adolescents develop, their moral judgements also develop (Limone & Toto, 2022 ). As shown in the low scores of the PTGI-SF among the participants in the current study, they may have a hard time associating their adversarial experiences as a wrongdoer and personal growth. It is unclear whether our results were influenced by potential developmental factors (i.e., sensitive to change) and their potential resistant factors (i.e., moral dilemma) because of the limited research on the PTG process for wrongdoers. It is possible that the different results might emerge regarding the PTG process after participating in a psychoeducational program if we target victims rather than wrongdoers in adolescence. In sum, our results did not demonstrate an effect of our brief psychoeducational program on PTG. The educational impact may emerge at a later time point (e.g., when the adolescents experience a highly stressful life event in the future, they may recall the discussion and knowledge they obtained); however, we do not know. Given that nearly 30 years have passed since the concept of PTG has been developed, coupled with the popularity of positive psychology, sooner or later, people will become familiar with PTG just like how they are familiar with PTSD. But until then, a brief intervention program may have its own values, but only when they are followed by substantially longitudinal assessment in various outcomes, beyond PTG. The topic of PTG is a complex mechanism which may differ from recovery process, and its implications may differ by type of adversity experienced, the time elapsed from intervention to assessment, the intensity of the intervention, and the selection of the outcome. Self-Disclosure, PTG, and Resilience We also hypothesized that self-disclosure would increase PTG, but not resilience, among adolescents who recently hurt others. Our hypothesis was supported suggesting that speaking to someone about a recent, impactful, and negative life event can increase PTG but such results were not observed in resilience. These results are consistent with those of Hassija and Turchik ( 2016 ) along with Taku et al. ( 2009 ), yet, now within an adolescent sample of high school students in the United States who had recently hurt someone else. Findings suggest that self-reported PTG can be fostered when adolescents speak to someone about what they have experienced as compared to those who have kept it to themselves. It should be considered that these were relatively new events previously unexperienced in the 3-week gap between sessions; suggesting that speaking about negative life events may be beneficial at early time points, as it is a highly subjective experience. The current study suggests that resilience is rather a stable trait that is not influenced by either self-disclosure or the intervention program. Resilience, especially assessed by a self-report scale such as the CD-RISC 10, reflects a personality trait or self-concept, thus, may serve as a baseline characteristic when designing interventions for PTG, rather than an outcome to concurrently change. Further research is needed to establish the role of resilience with self-disclosure and in PTG psychoeducational programs. Limitations One of the key aspects of PTG is that it is highly subjective and often not an immediate process, which our research also highlights within a population that has not been extensively studied. Our results demonstrated that it is unlikely for PTG to be directly fostered by a brief psychoeducational program. With this knowledge, efforts can now be made toward improving the program itself as well as assessment method. Given that those who have experienced adversity may need some time to process their experiences, the beneficial sides of an educational program may only emerge in the long-term. Thus, instead of measuring the outcome three weeks after the program, a lasting effect might have been observed if the follow-up data collection session was provided at a further point in time (e.g., six months). Also, a few of our variables lacked detail to assess depth and aid in controlling for potential confounds in the effects of intervention programs. First, self-disclosure, that is, talking about the event that involves hurting another person, may have multiple layers (e.g., listener’s reactions, details of self-disclosure, quality of interactive conversation processes). Garnering confessions to wrongdoing from those who perpetrate harm may be especially difficult to capture considering the negative consequences (e.g., post-event distress) that inflicting harm onto others may bring about. The current study failed to assess one’s motivations behind self-disclosure. Because the current study used a single item assessment evaluating self-disclosure, we were not able to address the individual differences systematically and comprehensively in the whole experiences of self-disclosure. In addition, the degree of social support, which often goes hand-in-hand with self-disclosure, was not measured. Perhaps those who self-disclosed immediately after experiencing a negative life event might have greater avenues of social support that encourages them to have important discussions about adversity, which in turn could have affected our results. Additionally, we also did not assess the contents of the self-disclosure itself or the adolescents’ prior adversarial experiences which also may affect the current results. For future studies, assessing details surrounding adversities, or the details from self-disclosure, may be a helpful factor in depth of understanding surrounding PTG intervention studies and its potential impact on resilience that was inconclusive in the current study. Also, this study selected participants who had reported a new, most impactful negative life event during the past three weeks. Examining those who had experienced a new event have provided compelling results how PTG education may foster a sense of growth, here and now. If the analyses included those who did not experience a new event or who experienced an event but not perceived as impactful, any variation caused by the intervention would be indistinguishable from PTG such that the individuals might have already experienced or PTG and might “feel” as a self-concept, without associating with any actual event. Although the impact of elapsed time on PTG remains largely uncertain (Meyerson et al., 2011 ), our studies may have underestimated the effects of time required for growth. PTG is a subjective experience and may manifest differently based on the duration since the adversity. It may be possible that the form of PTG experienced soon after the event may take a different shape from PTG that is experienced long after the event. The meaning and contents of growth may also change as one experiences cognitive and emotional development. Implications The current study has implications for informing future psychoeducational interventions and assessment of outcomes in PTG research. First, our study reinforced the finding that self-disclosure holds the potential to have substantial impacts on the self-reported PTG (Hassija & Turchik, 2016 ; Taku et al., 2009 , 2021). Therefore, it is important to design a psychoeducational PTG program that may integrate and emphasize the role of self-disclosure, by perhaps including a detailed role of self-disclosure or activity to the program itself. Additionally, for educators and professionals working with adolescents, encouraging adolescents to speak about adverse events where they have been the one hurting another may foster positive psychological change after the event, which in turn may benefit the cognitive development during adolescence. Furthermore, we advise cognizance of the match between intervention and assessment, including the duration of interventions or the duration between intervention and assessment. Though external factors such as the qualities of the population being worked with can impact the effectiveness of any psychoeducational program, it is important to keep in mind that each intervention program and the assessment has its own strengths and challenges. If the program is designed to have a longer duration with more frequent sessions, with perhaps follow-ups at multiple, spaced-out time points (e.g., five 90-minute program sessions, checking intervention effects six months apart for three years), the large effects may be observed, but the participants may become more specific, limiting generalizability. On the other hand, a brief program with short period of time, like our study, has its own strength because it is relatively easy to implement for most schools without becoming a burden during the busy school life, but has its own limitations as summarized above. It is, thus, important for researchers to be aware of the match between programs and assessment when they design intervention programs but make them to be as feasible as possible, as there should be a balance between feasibility and thoroughness. Future Directions As of today, little research has focused on the personal growth of individuals after being the wrongdoer in a negative life event, thus, there is ample room for continued discovery of this topic. Further exploration may seek to understand the effects of cognitive processing (e.g., regret), emotional experiences (e.g., sense of shame), previous life experiences, and coping strategies on personal growth after hurting others. For instance, experiencing self-forgiveness for wrongdoing against another may aid in fostering self-compassion for oneself (Cornish et al., 2015 ; Woodyatt et al., 2017 ). Self-forgiveness and self-compassion may have an impact on a sense of growth among perpetrators. Exploring the potential differences in PTG experiences among those who are victims and perpetrators may be an important future direction in this field. Additionally, future research may focus on the role of self-disclosure on PTG within trauma-informed care settings for adolescents. Our results replicated previous findings assessing the significant role of self-disclosure in PTG among trauma victims. Our study now extends this to a new population of individuals who caused harm to others. Therefore, no matter what role one may play in an event, self-disclosure may be important. Future studies may benefit from identifying the quality and closeness of the adolescents’ relationships, especially with those they self-disclose to and confide in because there may be differences in their experiences of growth. Such knowledge about the impact of self-disclosure and PTG may help to aid in trauma-informed care training programs for those working with adolescents, which have shown some effectiveness (Kenny et al., 2017 ). Conclusion The present study revealed that PTG in adolescents who hurt others was unable to be fostered by a psychoeducational program within a three-week period. The reasons behind the ineffectiveness of the program include the elapsed time between the intervention and assessment, the intensity of the psychoeducational program, as well as the unique effect of wrongdoing. This study also reinforced previous studies’ emphasis of an integral predictor of PTG: self-disclosure. Disseminating and sharing the research findings of PTG and applying these teachings to youth can help to create meaningful interventions, even if it does not have an immediate benefit, to improve the difficult time that some adolescents may experience later in their life. Finally, the current study suggested the distinctive characteristics that PTG and resilience may have, as they were only weakly associated with each other, only PTG was fostered by self-disclosure, and the psychoeducational program did not show significant effects on either PTG or resilience. Further research should explain the overlaps as well as unique characteristics among the processes that involve personal growth after hurting others, the process that involves personal growth after being hurt and suffering, the recovery process and the process of becoming more resilient, and the developmental processes that all adolescents experience regardless. Acknowledgements We sincerely thank Whitney Dominick, Leah LaLonde, Maggie Britton, Shelby Seyburn, and Lauren Harrison for their help on the data collection and coding. Author Contributions AE: Conceptualization, Data Analyses, Investigation, Writing – Original. TE: Conceptualization, Data Analyses, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. PH: Conceptualization, Data Analyses, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. KT: Project Administration, Research Design, Conceptualization, Data Collection, Writing – Review & Editing. Funding The authors received no financial support for the current research or publication. Data Availability The data that support the findings of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Declarations Ethical Approval All procedures performed in the current study were approved by the institutional review board (Oakland University IRB Reference Number 565422). All participants and their parents/caregivers provided signed informed consent form prior to the study. Competing Interest All authors declare that there are no competing interests to disclose. Footnotes Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References Arslan, B. Ş., Özer, Z., & Buldukoğlu, K. (2022). Posttraumatic growth in parentally bereaved children and adolescents: A systematic review. Death Studies , 46 (1), 111–123. 10.1080/07481187.2020.1716886 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bonanno, G. A., Romero, S. A., & Klein, S. I. (2015). The temporal elements of psychological resilience: An integrative Framework for the study of individuals, families, and communities. Psychological Inquiry , 26 (2), 139–169. 10.1080/1047840X.2015.992677 [ Google Scholar ] Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., Tedeschi, R. G., Taku, K., Vishnevsky, T., Triplett, K. N., & Danhauer, S. C. (2010). A short form of the posttraumatic growth inventory. Anxiety Stress & Coping , 23 (2), 127–137. 10.1080/10615800903094273 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Chen, X. Y., Liu, X., Shi, X., Chen, H., & Fan, F. (2022). Psychological resilience and posttraumatic growth in adolescent survivors of earthquake: A 10-year cohort study. Journal of Psychiatric Research , 155 , 331–337. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.09.021 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety , 18 , 76–82. 10.1002/da.10113 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Cornish, M. A., & Wade, N. G. (2015). Working through past wrongdoing: Examination of a self-forgiveness counseling intervention. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 62 (3), 521–528. 10.1037/cou0000080 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Dhungana, S., Koirala, R., Ojha, S. P., & Thapa, S. B. (2022). Resilience and its association with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression symptoms in the aftermath of trauma: A cross-sectional study from Nepal. SSM - Mental Health , 2 , 100135. 10.1016/j.ssmmh.2022.100135 [ Google Scholar ] Doğru Çabuker, N., & Balcı Çelik, S. (2020). Examination of the effectiveness of post-traumatic growth psychoeducation program. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty , 39 (1), 174–184. 10.7822/omuefd.676524 [ Google Scholar ] Elam, T., & Taku, K. (2022). Differences between posttraumatic growth and resiliency: Their distinctive relationships with empathy and emotion recognition ability. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 825161. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825161 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Elam, T., O’Brien, C., & Taku, K. (2023). In R. Berger (Ed.), PTG and resilience in relation to racial discrimination, ethnic differences and perceptions toward mental disorders . The Routledge International Handbook of Posttraumatic Growth. Routledge. Fraus, K., Dominick, W., Walenski, A., & Taku, K. (2023). The impact of multiple stressful life events on posttraumatic growth in adolescence. Psychological Trauma: Theory Research Practice and Policy , 15 (1), 10–17. 10.1037/tra0001181 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Fung, A. O. L., & Browne, W. V. (in press). Posttraumatic growth following bereavement among children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Loss and Trauma . 10.1080/15325024.2024.2430238 Gonsalves, P. P., Nair, R., Roy, M., Pal, S., & Michelson, D. (2023). A systematic review and lived experience synthesis of self-disclosure as an active ingredient in interventions for adolescents and young adults with anxiety and depression. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research , 50 (3), 488–505. 10.1007/s10488-023-01253-2 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon, J., & Venta, A. (2021). Adolescent posttraumatic growth: A review. Child Psychiatry & Human Development , 52 , 596–608. 10.1007/s10578-020-01047-9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hassija, C. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2016). An examination of disclosure, mental health treatment use, and posttraumatic growth among college women who experienced sexual victimization. Journal of Loss and Trauma , 21 (2), 124–136. 10.1080/15325024.2015.1011976 [ Google Scholar ] Hellström, L., Sjöman, M., & Enskär, K. (2024). Conceptualizing adolescents’ everyday stressors to underscore areas for support. Frontiers in Education , 9 , 1370791. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1370791 [ Google Scholar ] Ickovics, J. R., Meade, C. S., Kershaw, T. S., Milan, S., Lewis, J. B., & Ethier, K. A. (2006). Urban teens: Trauma, posttraumatic growth, and emotional distress among female adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 74 (5), 841–850. 10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.841 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 56 (1), 91–98. 10.1037/h0043357 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kenny, M. C., Vazquez, A., Long, H., & Thompson, D. (2017). Implementation and program evaluation of trauma-informed care training across state child advocacy centers: An exploratory study. Children and Youth Services Review , 73 , 15–23. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.11.030 [ Google Scholar ] Kilmer, R. P., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2010). Exploring posttraumatic growth in children impacted by Hurricane Katrina: Correlates of the phenomenon and developmental considerations. Child Development , 81 (4), 1211–1227. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01463.x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kimbley, C. T., Cox, D. W., Kahn, J. H., & Renshaw, K. D. (2023). Feeling pressured to talk about trauma: How pressure to disclose alters the association between trauma disclosure and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress , 36 (3), 567–578. 10.1002/jts.22930 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Knaevelsrud, C., Liedl, A., & Maercker, A. (2010). Posttraumatic growth, optimism and openness as outcomes of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for posttraumatic stress reactions. Journal of Health Psychology , 15 (7), 1030–1038. 10.1177/1359105309360073 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Levine, S. Z., Laufer, A., Stein, E., Hamama-Raz, Y., & Solomon, Z. (2009). Examining the relationship between resilience and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress , 22 (4), 282–286. 10.1002/jts.20409 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Limone, P., & Toto, G. A. (2022). Origin and development of moral sense: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 887537. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.887537 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] MacNair, R. M. (2015). Causing trauma as a form of trauma. Peace and conflict. Journal of Peace Psychology , 21 (3), 313–321. 10.1037/pac0000116 [ Google Scholar ] Masoum Abadi, N., Zarei, J., Mortazavi, S. S., & Omranipour, R. (2019). The effectiveness of Psychoeducational Group Intervention on post-traumatic growth: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Iranian Medical Council , 2 (6), 174–183. [ Google Scholar ] Mesman, E., Vreeker, A., & Hillegers, M. (2021). Resilience and mental health in children and adolescents: An update of the recent literature and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychiatry , 34 (6), 586–592. 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000741 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Meyerson, D. A., Grant, K. E., Carter, J. S., & Kilmer, R. P. (2011). Posttraumatic growth among children and adolescents: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review , 31 (6), 949–964. 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.003 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Milam, J. E., Ritt-Olson, A., & Unger, J. B. (2004). Posttraumatic growth among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research , 19 (2), 192–204. 10.1177/0743558403258273 [ Google Scholar ] Moore, B. A., Tedeschi, R. G., & Greene, T. C. (2021). A preliminary examination of a posttraumatic growth-based program for veteran mental health. Practice Innovations , 6 (1), 42–54. 10.1037/pri0000136 [ Google Scholar ] Ponnamperuma, T., & Nicolson, N. A. (2018). The relative impact of traumatic experiences and daily stressors on mental health outcomes in Sri Lankan adolescents. Journal of Traumatic Stress , 31 (4), 487–498. 10.1002/jts.22311 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Pugh, L. R., Taylor, P. J., & Berry, K. (2015). The role of guilt in the development of post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders , 182 , 138–150. 10.1016/j.jad.2015.04.026 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ramos, C., Costa, P. A., Rudnicki, T., Marôco, A. L., Leal, I., Guimarães, R., Fougo, J. L., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2018). The effectiveness of a group intervention to facilitate posttraumatic growth among women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology , 27 (1), 258–264. 10.1002/pon.4501 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Roepke, A. M. (2015). Psychosocial interventions and posttraumatic growth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 83 (1), 129–142. 10.1037/a0036872 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Roepke, A. M., Benson, L., Tsukayama, E., & Yaden, D. B. (2017). Prospective writing: Randomized controlled trial of an intervention for facilitating growth after adversity. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 1–16. 10.1080/17439760.2017.1365161 Rutter, M. (2007). Resilience, competence, and coping. Child Abuse & Neglect , 31 (3), 205–209. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.001 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Santacroce, S. J., Asmus, K., Kadan-Lottick, N., & Grey, M. (2010). Feasibility and preliminary outcomes from a pilot study of coping skills training for adolescent—young adult survivors of childhood cancer and their parents. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing , 27 , 10–20. 10.1177/1043454209340325 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Seyburn, S. J., LaLonde, L., & Taku, K. (2020). A sense of growth among teenagers after hurting others: A potential application of posttraumatic growth theory. Journal of Loss and Trauma , 25 (1), 22–33. 10.1080/15325024.2019.1645449 [ Google Scholar ] Steele, W., Kuban, C., & Raider, M. C. (2009). Connections, continuity, dignity, opportunities model: Follow-up of children who completed the I feel better now! Trauma intervention program. School Social Work Journal , 33 , 89–110. [ Google Scholar ] Steinhardt, M., & Dolbier, C. (2008). Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance coping strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. Journal of American College Health , 56 (4), 445–453. 10.3200/JACH.56.44.445-454 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Taku, K., Tedeschi, R. G., Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. G. (2009). The culture of disclosure: Effects of perceived reactions to disclosure on posttraumatic growth and distress in Japan. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 29 (10), 1226–1243. 10.1521/jscp.2009.28.10.1226 [ Google Scholar ] Taku, K., Cann, A., Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2017). Psychoeducational intervention program about posttraumatic growth for Japanese high school students. Journal of Loss and Trauma , 22 (4), 271–282. 10.1080/15325024.2017.1284504 [ Google Scholar ] Taku, K., Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Krosch, D., David, G., & Kehl, D.… Calhoun L. G. (2021). Posttraumatic growth (PTG) and posttraumatic depreciation (PTD) across ten countries Global validation of the PTG-PTD theoretical model. Personality and Individual Differences 169 , 110222. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110222 Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumtic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress , 9 (3), 455–471. 10.1002/jts.2490090305 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry , 15 (1), 1–18. 10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01 [ Google Scholar ] Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, Research, and applications . NY. Turan, N., Yilmaz, D. Y., & Ertekin, K. (2022). The relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder, posttraumatic growth, and rumination in adolescents after earthquake: A systematic review. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing , 35 (3), 267–276. 10.1111/jcap.12374 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Van Loon, A. W. G., Creemers, H. E., Vogelaar, S., Saab, N., Miers, A. C., Westenberg, P. M., & Asscher, J. J. (2024). Implementation and experimental evaluation of school-based intervention programs promoting adolescent mental health: Lessons learned. School Psychology International , 45 (1), 70–84. 10.1177/01430343231183999 [ Google Scholar ] Vijayakumar, N., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2020). Self-disclosure during adolescence: Exploring the means, targets, and types of personal exchanges. Current Opinion in Psychology , 31 , 135–140. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.005 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Vloet, T. D., Vloet, A., Bürger, A., & Romanos, M. (2017). Post-traumatic growth in children and adolescents. Journal of Traumatic Stress Disorders & Treatment , 6 (4). 10.4172/2324-8947.1000178 Woodyatt, L., Wenzel, M., & Ferber, M. (2017). Two pathways to self-forgiveness: A hedonic path via self‐compassion and a eudaimonic path via the reaffirmation of violated values. British Journal of Social Psychology , 56 (3), 515–536. 10.1111/bjso.12194 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Xu, Y., Ni, Y., Yang, J., Wu, J., Lin, Y., Li, J., Zeng, W., Zeng, Y., Huang, D., Wu, X., Shao, J., Li, Q., & Zhu, Z. (2024). The relationship between the psychological resilience and post-traumatic growth of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A model of conditioned processes mediated by negative emotions and moderated by deliberate rumination. BMC Psychology , 12 (1), 357. 10.1186/s40359-024-01853-z [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Yeager, D. S., Dahl, R. E., & Dweck, C. S. (2018). Why interventions to influence adolescent behavior often fail but could succeed. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 13 (1), 101–122. 10.1177/1745691617722620 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zerach, G., Solomon, Z., Cohen, A., & Ein-Dor, T. (2013). PTSD, resilience and posttraumatic growth among ex-prisoners of war and combat veterans. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences , 50 (2), 91–99. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zimmerman, G. M., Farrell, C., & Posick, C. (2017). Does the strength of the victim-offender overlap depend on the relationship between the victim and perpetrator? Journal of Criminal Justice , 48 , 21–29. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.11.003 [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Articles from Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma are provided here courtesy of Springer ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (930.6 KB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Validation of the Arabic version of the resilience scale for adolescents (READ)#30066
• The Family Check-Up and Youth Suicide: Assessing Indirect Effects of Improving Self-Regulation and Reducing Depression in Promoting Long-Term Resilience.#247511
• Validation of the resilience scale for adolescents in high school in a Spanish population#948889
• Penguatan Peer Counseling bagi Konselor Sebaya di SMA N 6 Semarang#1027528
• A Clinical Study of Online Active Play Program With Adolescents#830053