Thirty years after the introduction of posttraumatic growth (PTG), research on the concept has expanded dramatically. Novel theoretical perspectives included in this special issue, however, demonstrate that nearly every element of PTG requires revision. "Post" implies a definitive before and after adversity that simply does not exist, either empirically or in the everyday navigation of adversity, especially for marginalized people. "Trauma" is appropriately scaled to the gravity of some forms of adversity, yet the term is often overly pathologizing or flattening of individual experience. And "growth" is often misleading, difficult to operationalize, and always value-laden. Studying PTG requires grappling with these claims in a way that can inspire pessimism. What is left in PTG after we question the P, T, and G? In asking this question, we ultimately encounter the limits of empiricism. Drawing insights from contemporary research in lifespan development, we suggest that it may be impossible to prospectively predict, using individual-level variables, how people grapple with adversity and develop after it. There are limits to our understanding of PTG that may simply be insurmountable. But complementary perspectives in narrative research, especially those espoused in this issue, as well as in the humanities and the arts, offer a way forward. Retrospectively understanding adverse events and taking an idiographic and qualitative perspective on the ways in which people navigate them can both humanize and bolster inclusivity in PTG research. We conclude by suggesting a period of enhanced divergent exploration, one that embraces disciplinary humility and epistemological and methodological pluralism to further understand PTG. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

超越“后”、“创伤”、“成长”和创伤后生长研究中的预测。


在引入创伤后生长 （PTG） 30 年后，对这一概念的研究得到了极大的扩展。然而，本期特刊中包含的新颖理论观点表明，PTG 的几乎每个元素都需要修订。“后”意味着一个确定的逆境前后，无论是在经验上还是在逆境的日常导航中，它根本不存在，特别是对于边缘化人群。“创伤”被适当地衡量为某些形式的逆境的严重性，但这个词往往过于病态化或扁平化个人经历。“增长”往往具有误导性，难以实施，而且总是充满价值。研究 PTG 需要以一种可能激发悲观主义的方式与这些说法作斗争。在我们质疑 P、T 和 G 之后，PTG 中还剩下什么？在提出这个问题时，我们最终会遇到经验主义的局限性。从当代寿命发展研究中汲取见解，我们认为可能无法使用个人层面的变量前瞻性地预测人们如何应对逆境并在逆境后发展。我们对 PTG 的理解存在着无法克服的局限性。但是，叙事研究中的互补观点，尤其是本期所倡导的那些观点，以及人文和艺术的观点，提供了一条前进的道路。回顾性地了解不良事件，并对人们驾驭不良事件的方式采取独特的和定性的观点，既可以使 PTG 研究的人性化，也可以增强 PTG 研究的包容性。最后，我们提出了一个加强发散性探索的时期，一个拥抱学科谦逊以及认识论和方法论多元主义以进一步理解 PTG 的时期。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。