Social Acknowledgment, Individual Posttraumatic Cognitions, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and their associations following Trauma Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of social acknowledgment for one’s experience as a trauma survivor, including perceptions of disapproval from society and family and friends, has consistently been found to be associated with PTSD severity. However, the directionality of this relationship (whether lack of social acknowledgment contributes to PTSD severity or vice versa) and mediators of this relationship have yet to be studied. Theory holds that negative social interactions may influence posttraumatic cognitions that may in turn, influence PTSD severity. This theory has yet to be examined empirically. The aim of the current study was to examine the dynamic relationships among perceived lack of social acknowledgment, PTSD severity, and posttraumatic cognitions over 12 months in adults (N = 153) recently exposed to a traumatic event. Every 4 months for 1 year participants were assessed with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, Social Acknowledgment as a Victim Questionnaire, and Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory. Bivariate latent difference score modelling indicated that PTSD severity decreased over time and greater endorsement of perceived general disapproval at earlier time points predicted diminished reductions in PTSD severity between each assessment. Similarly, greater endorsement of dysfunctional posttraumatic cognitions predicted diminished reduction in PTSD severity across each assessment. Contrary to hypothesis, greater endorsement of posttraumatic cognitions predicted diminished reduction in general disapproval and family/friends’ disapproval but not vice versa. Thus, the hypothesis that posttraumatic cognitions mediate the relationship between perceived lack of social acknowledgment and PTSD severity was not supported. Findings suggest that perceived general disapproval and dysfunctional posttraumatic cognitions may impede trauma recovery. Future research is needed to better understand the constructs of perceived lack of social acknowledgment and dysfunctional posttraumatic cognitions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".