Changes in Basic Beliefs

and Post-Stress Growth:

a cross-sectional study on the strong impact

of positive events on well-being

Gonzalo Martnez-Zelaya, Silvia da Costa,

Daro Pez & M. ngeles Bilbao
e-mail: gmartinez041@ikasle.ehu.es

Measure

Introduction
Negative events have a stronger and more durable impact on people than positive events on
hedonic wellbeing, despite the fact that the latter are more common (Baumeister et al., 2001).

Traumatic Events (Norris, 1990; adapted by Pez, Arroyo, & Fernndez, 1994). Norriss
scale measures the experience of seven traumatic or extreme events.

Good social contact is more weakly associated with wellbeing, whilst marital and family conflict
has a stronger effect on distress (Baumeister et al., 2001).

Life-Changing Events List (Lista de Hechos de Cambio) (Pez et al., 2004). An ad hoc list
was drawn up to enquire about change events throughout ones life, and which included
20 events selected from the Holmes and Rahe (1967) stressors scale, the study by
Headey and Wearing (1989), and the work by Suh, Diener and Fujita (1996)..

However, at the opposite. some studies shown that positive events have a more profound impact
than negative events on psychological wellbeing (i.e the perception of subjective social support)
(Bilbao, 2009)
Corsini (2004) show that the impact on social beliefs of positive emotional episodes was greater
than that of negative events (Corsini, 2004).
Studies of post-stress growth in relation to negative events have shown that people usually
improve their vision of self and others after traumatic events. (Pez, Vzquez, et al., 2011).
We can assume that extreme positive life-changing events will also have this effect, since these
positive experiences will help us to extend our psychological and social resources (Fredrickson,
2009).
This study aims to:
Examine how life events affect Basic Beliefs about the world, the self and others.
Test the hypothesis that extreme positive change events generate post-traumatic growth in
a similar way to negative ones.

Impact on Beliefs Questionnaire (IBQ, 2004; translated and adapted by Pez, 2004).
Corsinis 15-item scale for assessing the impact of everyday emotional events on basic
beliefs. The scale was modified by Pez (2004) simplifying it to 12 items, six of
vulnerability or reduction of positive basic beliefs (odd negatives) and six of invulnerability
or increase of positive basic beliefs (even positives). Furthermore, two items represent
each one of the following dimensions: Respectable and dignified view of the self,
Increase in motivation and efficacy, Benevolent view of the social world and others, Social
integration, Benevolent view of the world, and Meaningful world
Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1999;). This instrument rates the
positive changes people perceive in the face of an impactful event, changes which would
result from the emotional and cognitive processes that emerge in that situation.

Method

Participants. Participants in this study were 206 students at the UPV, who all responded to a series of scales as part of their practical courses in Psychology. The sample was made up of
81.8% women and 18.2% men, with an age range of 20 to 46 (M = 22.1 years, SD = 3.4). All participants mentioned one positive life event and one negative life event for respond the scales.

Results

Descriptive differences of means in IBQ dimensions by valence of event

Event reported
N
M
SD
Reinforce Beliefs
Erodes Beliefs

Negative event
Positive event
Negative event
Positive event

150
150
151
151

3.01
5.58
3.28
1.39

1.1
.9
1.3
.7

sig.

-22.797

.000

17.765

.000

Note. Difference of means traumatic events versus negative events versus positive events. Positive and Negative IBQ
subscale responses of range: (1) negative to (7) positive, theoretical mean 4.

The differences of means observed

between positive and negative events
in the impact on basics beliefs support
what was hypothesized about the
reinforcing effect on Basic Beliefs of
positive events and the way they are
undermined by negative events.

The differences of means observed between positive and negative events in the impact on basics beliefs
support what was hypothesized about the reinforcing effect on Basic Beliefs of positive events and the way
they are undermined by negative events.

Descriptive differences of means in IBQ dimensions by valence of event

Event reported
N
M
SD
Respectable and dignified
view of the self
Benevolent view of the
social world and others
Benevolent view of the
world
Meaningful world
Social integration

Descriptive differences of means in PTG Dimensions Scale by valence of event

Event reported N
M
SD
t
Negative event 191
2.71
1.3
-3.852
Relating to Others
Positive event
191
3.01
1.2
Negative event 190
2.66
1.3
-5.438
New Possibilities
Positive event
190
3.08
1.3
Negative event 191
2.93
1.2
-2.339
Personal Strength
Positive event
191
3.11
1.3
Negative event 191
2.94
1.2
-.763
Appreciation of Life
Positive event
191
3.01
1.3
Negative event 191
.91
1.0
1.612
Spiritual Change
Positive event
191
.83
1.0
Post-Traumatic Growth
Negative event 187
2.43
1.0
-3.140
Inventory
Positive event
187
2.61
1.0

Increase in motivation
and efficacy

sig.
.000
.000
.020
.446

Negative event
Positive event
Negative event
Positive event
Negative event
Positive event
Negative event
Positive event
Negative event
Positive event
Negative event
Positive event

151
151
151
151
151
151
150
150
151
151
151
151

3.83
6.18
3.89
6.00
3.61
6.22
4.55
5.63
4.14
6.17
2.78
6.50

4.5
.8
1.5
.9
1.4
.7
1.2
.9
1.6
.8
1.4
.7

sig.

-17.129

.000

-15.058

.000

-21.554

.000

-9.277

.000

-14.816

.000

-28.161

.000

Note. Difference of means negative events versus positive events. Positive and Negative IBQ subscale responses of range: (1)
negative to (7) positive, theoretical mean 4.

The results regarding mean change in general show that people refer moderate growth when evaluating
both positive and negative events. However, the change in positive events is significantly greater than the
negative. (t(187)= -3.140, p.= .002).
Regarding the differences shown in the different dimensions of growth, there were significant differences in
Relations with Others, New Possibilities and Personal Strength. The mean for positive events were higher
in the 3 dimensions, which shows us that the increased growth caused positive events in these dimensions.

.109
.002

Note. Difference of means traumatic events versus negative events versus positive events. Positive and Negative IBQ subscale
responses of range: (1) negative to (7) positive, theoretical mean 4.

There is a positive relationship between Posttraumatic Growth and Reinforce of Basic Beliefs
for positive events, but not for negative events. Regarding the erodes of basic beliefs, we found
a relation to positive events and a trend towards association for negative events.
For the relationship between dimensions of posttraumatic growth and erodes of the basic
beliefs in positive events, significant relationships were found in three dimensions: Relating
with Others, New Possibilities and Appreciation of Life. Meanwhile for negative events, found
relationship in New possibilities and Appreciation of Life.
For the relationship between the dimensions of posttraumatic growth and reinforce of the basic
beliefs in positive events, significant relationships were found in four dimensions: Relating with
others, New Possibilities, Personal Strength and Appreciation of Life. Meanwhile for negative
events, only found relationship in Spiritual Change.

Pearson correlations between IBQ dimensions and Psychological Growth Dimensions

Reinforce Beliefs /
Erodes Beliefs /
Event reported
Positive IBQ Subscale
Negative IBQ Subscale
Negative event
.149
.078
Relating to Others
Positive event
.427***
.152*
Negative event
-.021
.184*
New Possibilities
Positive event
.336***
.156*
Negative event
.101
.086
Personal Strength
Positive event
.365***
.142
Negative event
.070
.149*
Appreciation of Life
Positive event
.338***
.166*
Negative event
.263***
-.068
Spiritual Change
Positive event
.133
.099
Negative event
.126
.103
Post Traumatic Growth Scale
Positive event
.366***
.174*
Note. * Significant correlation at p < .05 level (unilateral); ** at p < .01 level; *** at p < .001 level. Trend toward significance at p < .10 level.
Analysis with Negative Event n= 753, Positive Event n= 140

Conclusions.

This confirms the hypotheses proposed, and all is coherent with the findings of King and cols. (2006) on the central role of positive affectivity for increasing a
sense of meaning in life. The results are very important, since they confirm that positive events are associated more strongly with eudaimonic wellbeing, because they reinforce basic
beliefs more than negative events call them into question. That is to say, wellbeing is not maintained only because there are more positive than negative events to maintain it, but
also because the greater frequency of positive events means that social beliefs are more frequently reinforced than they are neutralized by negative events which in addition to
being less frequent, undermine beliefs less.

References

Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness, Methuen: London. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. Bilbao, M. (2008). Creencias sociales y bienestar: Valores,
creencias bsicas, impacto de los hechos vitales y crecimiento psicolgico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidad Del Pas Vasco - Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. San Sebastin: University of Basque Country. Corsini, S. (2004). Everyday Emotional Events and
Basic Beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Louvain la Neuve, Belgium: University of Louvain. Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity. New York: Crown Publishers. Fordyce, M. (1983). A program to increase happiness: further studies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30,
483-498. Helgeson, V. S., Reynolds, K. A., & Tomich, P. L. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Review of Benefit Finding and Growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 797-816. JanoffBulman, R. (1992). Shattered Assumptions: Towards a new psychology of
trauma. New York: The Free Press. King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K. Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 179-196. Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). La Ciencia de la Felicidad. Barcelona:
Ediciones Urano. Norris, F.H. (1990): Screening for Traumatic Stress: A Scale for Use in the General Population. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1704-1718. Pez, D, Vzquez, C., Bosco, S., Gasparre, A., Iraurgui, I., & Sezibera, V. (2011). Crecimiento post-estrs
y post-traumtico. In D.Pez, C.Martn Beristain, J.L.Gonzalez-Castro, N. Basabe & J. De Rivera (Eds.). Superando la violencia colectiva y construyendo cultura de paz (pp.311-342). Madrid: Fundamentos. Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. C. (2009). Social support, optimism and
coping as predictors of post traumatic growth: a meta-analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14:364388. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. Tidsskrift for Norsk
Psykologforening, 42(10), 874-884. Suh, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and Subjective Well-Being: Only Recent Events Matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 1091-1102. Taylor, S. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of Positive and Negative
Events: the Mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455-471. Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K.,
Bayer, M., Stegmller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 36-49. Vazquez, C., & Paez, D. (2011). Posttraumatic Growth in Spain. In T. Weiss & R. Berger (Eds.),
Posttraumatic Growth and Culturally Competent Practice (pp.97-112). New York: Wiley & Sons.