A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder

Translating the Cognitive Model of PTSD to the Treatment of Very Young Children: A Single Case Study of an 8‐Year‐Old Motor Vehicle Accident Survivor

“…Central to the current article, Meiser‐Stedman has advanced the model for youth (Meiser‐Stedman, 2002) using the core elements that Brewin et al. (1996) and Ehlers and Clark (2000) highlight. Subsequently, there has been a growing research interest examining the cognitive model of PTSD in younger populations.…”

“…How can we resolve this discrepancy? Ehlers and Clark (2000) suggest that for PTSD to occur, the individual needs to interpret an element of the traumatic experience as being ongoing––in that way, it represents a current and future threat. For this to happen, they suggest that two key processes need to be present: A distorted representation of the trauma memory and its link to other autobiographical memories; and a pattern of maladaptive appraisals of the trauma or its sequelae .…”

“…The second key process Ehlers and Clarke (2000) identify is the presence of maladaptive appraisals; they suggest that an individual with PTSD is unable to appraise the event and its implications as time‐limited, thus supporting a sense of current threat. These perceived ongoing threats can be external or internal––for example, the world is a more dangerous place, or altered beliefs about one's ability to manage in stressful scenarios.…”

“…Negative appraisal is associated with certain emotional responses, and Ehlers and Clarke (2000) go into detail about how perceived danger may lead to augmented fear, violation of personal rules may lead to anger, and appraisals about responsibility to shame or guilt. It is acknowledged that a number of negative emotions will occur over time because the appraisals will be activated in different situations and times and because personal conviction in their veracity will fluctuate.…”

Prolonged grief symptomatology following violent loss: the mediating role of meaning

“…These unique features of the violent death story may impede meaning making as they challenge particularly core or fundamental orienting beliefs about the world as a safe and fair place where events are somewhat predictable and happen for a reason (Currier, Holland, & Neimeyer, 2009; Janoff-Bulman, 1989; Lichtenthal, Currier, Neimeyer, & Keesee, 2010). As result, there is an ongoing struggle to make meaning of the violent death story, often experienced in terms of intrusive negative thoughts or imagery related to the death event (Baddeley et al, 2015; Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Rheingold, Zinzow, Hawkins, Saunders, & Kilpatrick, 2012; Rynearson & Correa, 2008; Steil & Ehlers, 2000; Zinzow, Rheingold, Byczkiewicz, Saunders, & Kilpatrick, 2011). We propose that incongruence between the violent death story and the perception of the world as fair, predictable, and safe is likely to disrupt meaning associated with the sense of peace subscale of the GMRI.…”