A longitudinal investigation of the meaning‐making model in midlife adults who have experienced trauma

Abstract

Introduction Park and Folkman's (1997) meaning‐making model posits that distress from traumatic events stems from discrepancies between one's global meaning framework and appraised situational meaning of the traumatic event, with meaning making diminishing these discrepancies and thus bolstering well‐being. The current study investigates this supposition over a 19‐year span in mid‐life adults. Methods We selected participants from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study who had indicated the experience of a negatively impactful traumatic event (N = 1687). We hypothesized that increased positive reappraisal (a type of meaning making) would have an indirect effect on positive and negative affect through the three dimensions of meaning in life (significance, coherence, and purpose). Results All direct and indirect effects were significant and supported hypotheses. Conclusion Results suggest that the assertions of the meaning‐making model hold true over a period of nearly two decades among mid‐life adults who have experienced traumatic events.

Meaning Making Following Trauma

“…Severe trauma can disrupt a person’s global meaning ( Janoff-Bulman, 1989 ). Making meaning typically involves cognitive processing of appraised and global meanings to change or reframe them and make them more consistent ( Fitzke et al, 2021 ; Huang et al, 2021 ). People can change situational appraisals to better integrate them into their global meaning system (assimilation), such as coming to see the event as less damaging or, perhaps, even positive in its consequences ( Paquin et al, 2021 ; Park and Boals, 2021 ).…”

“…Positive reappraisal, looking for ways to view the situation in a more positive light, or focusing on identifying positive attributes of an event and reminding oneself of those benefits, are very common meaning-making strategies ( Park, 2010 ). A longitudinal study of a national sample of Americans (the Midlife in the United States Series Study) found that attempting to making meaning of a highly stressful or traumatic life event through positive reappraisal was associated with subsequent higher levels of positive mood and lower levels of negative mood years later ( Fitzke et al, 2021 ). Other meaning making strategies include seeking more benign explanations for the situation and making downward comparisons with real or hypothetical others in relatively poorer straits ( Gerber et al, 2018 ).…”

“…To adequately study these linkages would require longitudinal studies assessing initial situational appraisals, violations and distress, meaning making efforts, meanings made, changes in violations and subsequent adjustment. Instead, most of the work on meaning making is cross-sectional and retrospective (e.g., Huang et al, 2021 ), with only a few multiple-time point studies examining these issues (e.g., Fitzke et al, 2021 ). While this growing body of work suggests that discrepancy reductions mediate effects of meaning making and meanings made on adjustment, much remains to be learned about meaning making and its relations to managing and overcoming trauma.…”

“…The model of meaning making described here is based on a growing body of research regarding responses to adversity, such as serious illness, bereavement, sexual assault, incest, the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks [ Fitzke et al, 2021 ; see Park et al (2017) and Park and Blake (2020) , for reviews]. This model distinguishes two levels of meaning: global (people’s fundamental and overarching beliefs and their hierarchies of goals and values; Park, 2010 ) and situational (how global meaning, in conjunction with a given particular context, influences assigning meaning and responding to a particular situation; Park, 2017 ; Figure 1 ).…”

Leveraging the Experience Sampling Method to Study Meaning in Everyday Life

“…As a dynamic process leading to changes in meaning in life, and other outcomes over time, meaning making is necessarily studied with repeated measures designs. Some research has employed longitudinal data to examine meaning making processes, assessing meaning-making strategies and meaning in life only a few times with measurements timepoints spaced apart widely, for instance three measurements spaced nine years apart each (Fitzke et al, 2021) or two measurements spaced one year apart (Park et al, 2008). While these research designs provide useful insights regarding the resulting outcomes of meaning making processes, the ESM could offer more finegrained information about shifts in meaning in life over the course of meaning making, rather than simply before and after snapshots, to foster a deeper understanding of these cognitive and emotional efforts as they unfold in real time.…”