Benefits of Talking about the College Transition: Exploring Growth through Cognitive Processing

An experimental study was conducted to examine the effects of a cognitive processing manipulation on stress-related growth. Previous work has shown relations between writing about traumatic events and health benefits. In this study, we wanted to examine the effects of cognitive processing on stress-related growth. Thirty college freshmen were randomly assigned to speak about their thoughts and feelings about their transition to college (cognitive processing) or to talk about trivial topics. Each participant spoke into a tape recorder for 15 minutes for three sessions within a 10-day period and completed an electronic questionnaire about benefits and adjustment to college one month later. Cognitive processing was not only manipulated but also measured with a linguistic software program (LIWC) that analyzed the content of the talking sessions. It was hypothesized that students instructed to engage in cognitive processing would report more benefits than those instructed to talk about trivial issues because benefit finding is facilitated by cognitive processing. It also was hypothesized that among students in the cognitive processing condition, those who used the most cognitive processing words would show the most benefits. Results showed college adjustment increased significantly for students in the cognitive processing group compared to the trivial writing group, and benefit finding increased for both groups over time. We found that participants who used more words that expressed anxiety, sadness, insight, and inhibition were more likely to experience benefit finding, while those who used more anger words were less likely to receive benefits from the disclosure. We also found that the cognitive processing manipulation interacted with the perceived stress of adjusting to college to predict several outcomes. Cognitive Processing 3 Benefits of Talking about the College Transition: Exploring Growth through Cognitive Processing When a traumatic event occurs, the world ceases to make sense to a person. This leads to personal distress as the world seems unjust and confusing. In an effort to restore order to the world and to their lives, people try to make sense of the event and understand why the tragedy occurred. Traumatic events are not only associated with psychological distress, however. Positive changes may result as individuals try to adapt and cope with the trauma. This can be done through a process of positive reinterpretation and rebuilding or restructuring (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). The positive changes that result from negative experiences have been referred to as stress-related growth, perceived benefits, positive adjustment, adversarial growth, benefit-finding, and post-traumatic growth (Linley & Joseph, 2004). In this paper, we will use the term benefit-finding to reflect positive changes that result from stressful life events. Benefit finding includes all possible positive consequences from the traumatic event. Research has shown that benefit finding occurs after a wide range of traumatic events, including sexual assault, cancer, heart attacks, bereavement, fires, and combat (Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson, 1998; Dunlap, 2006; Frazier, Conlon, & Glaser, 2001; Holland, Currier, Neimeyer, 2006; Monson et al, 2006; Sears, Stanton, & DanoffBurg, 2003). Common domains of benefit finding are appreciation of life and changed sense of priorities, more intimate relationships with others, greater sense of personal strength, recognition of new possibilities for one’s life, and spiritual development (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Cognitive Processing 4 Benefit finding is different from simply adjusting well to an event. When benefit finding occurs, individuals are in an improved state compared to the state that they were in prior to the event (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). They have not just overcome the distress that the event has caused, but see some aspect of themselves or the world in a more positive way. However, benefit finding does not mean that an individual does not experience any negative implications from the trauma. The benefits and improvement that occur can coexist with the distress from the traumatic life event, suggesting that benefit finding and distress can occur simultaneously (Tomich & Helgeson, 2004). Benefits have been measured in a variety of different ways. Interviews have been conducted in which people who have faced stressful life events are asked open-ended questions, such as “tell me what your life is like these days,” and then positive changes are coded from these responses (Wortman, 2004). Sometimes, more direct question are asked, such as “how did you grow from your experience with cancer? ” (Park & Cohen, 1993). Several close-ended inventories of growth have been developed, including The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGS; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996), the Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS; Park et al, 1996), and the Perceived Benefits Scale (McMillan & Fischer, 1998). Each of these scales list possible benefits, such as “I am less anxious” or “I am more religious,” and each scale measures the different domains of growth on a 5 to 7-point rating scale. Individuals indicate the extent to which these benefits have occurred since the trauma. The PTGS has 21 items which comprise five subscales: relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual change, and appreciation of life (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). The SRGS is a 50-item unidimensional scale (Park et al, Cognitive Processing 5 1996). The PBS has 30 positive change items that comprise 8 subscales and includes 8 negative change items (McMillan & Fischer, 1998). One concern with self-report measures of growth is that reports are not valid. During interviews, people might mention positive life changes or exaggerate benefits to convince others or themselves that they are coping well (McFarland & Alvaro, 2004). Close-ended measures may give people the idea that they are supposed to have benefited from the event. The perception of growth from a traumatic event is not the same as genuine change (Park & Fenster, 2004). Individuals may falsely report growth to buffer themselves from the threat of mortality and to promote the belief that life is indeed meaningful (Davis & McKearney, 2003). Because individuals desire their lives to be significant and worthwhile, growth measures might not measure real growth but reflect a strategy of self-protection to buffer oneself from the negative effects of the trauma. This self protection is a stage of working through the growth process and not the desired end result of true growth (Davis & McKearney, 2003) It is difficult to determine whether reports of growth are valid. One way to examine the validity of growth reports is to see if reports can be corroborated by significant others. A significant other is somebody in an individual’s close social network who was present in the life of the person when the traumatic event occurred. One can ask a significant other how an individual has changed or grown following the trauma and compare these reports with the individual's self-report. Research utilizing significant others thus far has found conflicting results. Some research has shown little correlation between reported growth between individuals and their spouses, family members, or close friends (MaFarland & Alvaro, 2000). On the other hand, Parks and Cognitive Processing 6 Blumberg (2002) found a significant correlation between significant other reports and growth reported by individuals. There are limitations to significant other reports. One limitation is that change within an individual might not be visible to those around them, even significant others. Another limitation is that the relationship between a significant other and the individual might influence the extent of corroboration. Parks and Blumberg (2002) found that the correlation between significant other reports and reports by the person who had undergone the stressor was stronger when their relationship was closer. Furthermore, significant others also might be likely to exaggerate growth reports because they want to believe the trauma occurred for a purpose. A second way to examine the validity of growth reports is to compare changes in a domain over time that is likely to represent growth. This is done by measuring an individual's status on a dimension before the event and after the event to see if the person has changed on that dimension. For example, measuring how religious a person is prior to a trauma and then measuring their religiosity following the trauma allows real growth of religiosity to be assessed. This kind of comparison necessitates a longitudinal design, as the domain must be measured either prior to the event and after the event or over some time frame so that change is likely to occur. In this way, one can compare reports of growth to objective changes in a domain in which one is likely to report growth. Finally, a third way to address the validity of growth reports is to focus on a mechanism by which growth is likely to occur. One such mechanism is cognitive processing (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). True benefit finding, as opposed to illusory benefit finding, should result from serious reflection on the traumatic event. The process Cognitive Processing 7 of actively engaging in reflection on thoughts and feelings about a traumatic event is referred to as cognitive processing. This is a way for individuals to develop their own narratives for understanding and coming to terms with the trauma. It also helps individuals form insights to make sense of the traumatic event and restore order into their lives. Thus, one way to examine whether growth reports are valid is to determine whether they were preceded by cognitive processing. Cognitive processing of traumatic events has most often been studied in the context of a writing paradigm. In one of the first studies in this area, Pennebaker, Kiecolt-Glaser, and Glaser (1988)