Do savoring beliefs predict posttraumatic stress symptoms following stressful life events?

ABSTRACT

Background and objectives

Savoring beliefs refer to people’s beliefs about their ability to generate, increase, and prolong enjoyment from positive experiences. The role of these beliefs in affecting responses to negative events is largely unexplored. This study aimed to increase knowledge about the role of savoring beliefs in symptoms of posttraumatic stress (PTS) following negative life events and the incremental role of these beliefs beyond the impact of worry, depressive rumination, and neuroticism.

Design

A two-wave longitudinal survey.

Methods

Two-hundred and five students completed the Savoring Beliefs Inventory, measuring one’s ability to generate pleasure from past, present, and anticipated experiences at Time 1 (T1). Six months later (at T2), they rated adverse life-events experienced between T1 and T2 and completed measures of PTS (associated with the most distressing event experienced in this time-frame) and depression.

Results

Savoring beliefs at T1 were correlated with PTS total scores and PTS clusters and depression at T2. Regression analyses indicated that savoring beliefs regarding present and future (but not past) events were associated with some, but not all T2-outcomes, above and beyond worry, depressive rumination, and neuroticism.

Conclusions

This study confirms that increased savoring beliefs could mitigate the impact of confrontation with adverse events.

KEYWORDS:

• Savoring beliefs
• posttraumatic stress
• life-events
• depression

Stressful, negative life experiences that threaten the safety and integrity of someone or someone’s loved ones, but also relatively less threatening events can lead to symptoms of posttraumatic stress (PTS; Anders et al., 2011; Kilpatrick et al., 2013; Rosen & Lilienfeld, 2008). As defined in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013), these include reexperiencing the event, avoidant responses, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and hypervigilance. Both severe and less severe forms of PTS can be treated effectively with psychological interventions (Cusack et al., 2016). However, a significant group benefits insufficiently from regular treatments or has substantial residual symptoms following treatment (Larsen et al., 2019). Notable too is that there is still limited knowledge about effective treatments for adjustment disorder – a conditions characterized by reactions of marked distress connected with an identifiable mild or more severe stressor (O'Donnell et al., 2018). Therefore, there is a continued need to search for psychological processes affecting the maintenance of PTS symptoms and other stress responses, that may be important targets for treatment.

Although negative psychological processes are still central to different theories and treatments for PTS and associated stress responses, it is increasingly recognized that positive psychological processes – and disturbances therein – influence adjustment to negative life experiences. For instance, evidence shows that, alongside the maladaptive regulation of negative affect and memories, dysregulation of positive affect and memories contribute to PTS (e.g., Boelen, 2021; Carl et al., 2013; Contractor et al., 2018). In addition, there is evidence that positive psychological factors such as life satisfaction and gratitude mitigate the impact of negative events (McCanlies et al., 2014) and that wellbeing therapy can be a valuable addition in the treatment of PTS in people experiencing reduced wellbeing (Radstaak et al., 2020).

The present study was concerned with the role of beliefs about one’s ability to savor positive experiences in adjusting to negative life events. Savoring beliefs have been defined as people’s beliefs about their ability to willfully generate, increase, and prolong a sense of enjoyment during positive experiences (Bryant, 2003). These beliefs are typically assessed using the 24-item Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI) developed by Bryant (2003). The SBI assesses savoring beliefs regarding different temporal orientations, including beliefs about one’s ability to generate positive feelings by anticipating future positive experiences, savoring current positive experiences, and reminiscing about past experiences. There is evidence that people with a greater belief in their ability to savor positive experiences generally report less depression and anxiety (Bryant, 2003; Carl et al., 2014). It is conceivable that savoring beliefs confer protection to the adverse effects of negative life events. That is, a greater belief in one’s ability to derive positive affect from positive experiences may strengthen adaptive functioning in the face of adverse events, thereby alleviating the pain and distress caused by these events. Moreover, savoring beliefs may fuel positive emotions which, in turn, broaden a person’s scope of thoughts and actions that are helpful in coping with the event. Also, people high in savoring may appraise potentially adverse events less negatively leading to decreased distress following such events (cf. Sytine et al., 2018).

Indeed, there is some evidence that savoring beliefs mitigate the impact of stressful events. For instance, Hou et al. (2016) found that increased savoring beliefs ameliorated anxiety and depressive symptoms of caregivers of recently diagnosed cancer patients. In a further study, Hou et al. (2017) found that such beliefs were positively associated with physical and psychological functioning among people with cancer. Sytine et al. (2018) found that increased endorsement of savoring beliefs was associated with lower symptom levels of PTS and depression among militaries returning from combat. In addition, elevated savoring moderated the impact of combat exposure on these symptoms.

To our knowledge, no further studies have examined the linkage of savoring beliefs with emotional distress following stressful life events. It is, therefore, among other things, unknown if savoring beliefs prospectively predict responses to such events, whether these are differently related to different psychological symptoms, including different clusters of PTS, and whether prior findings of a linkage between savoring beliefs and consequences of cancer (Hou et al., 2016, 2017) and combat exposure (Sytine et al., 2018) generalize to the impact of more mild forms of adversity. Enhancing knowledge on these matters has theoretical relevance as it adds to a more balanced view on characteristics affecting responses to stressful events; that is, such responses are not only moderated by maladaptive, negative psychological processes but also by adaptive positive ones (Wood & Tarrier, 2010). Further, this knowledge has clinical relevance. If savoring beliefs affect adjustment to adversity, it could be useful to strengthen such beliefs in the treatment of those stuck in adjustment.

Accordingly, this preliminary study aimed to increase our understanding of savoring beliefs in responses to negative events. We studied a sample of students who completed the SBI at baseline (Time 1 (T1)). Six months later (at Time 2 (T2)), they rated life events experienced after baseline and completed a measure of PTS symptoms associated with the most distressing events in those past six months. This allowed us to examine if savoring beliefs (assessed before the occurrence of adverse events) were prospectively associated with PTS symptoms. Because not all students were expected to have experienced events that were traumatizing in the sense of DSM-IV/DSM-5 (APA, 2000, 2013), we focused on the intensity of PTS symptoms in response to a broad range of stressful events, rather than on posttraumatic stress disorder connected with traumatic events, as defined in DSM. To broaden our understanding of the role of savoring beliefs in PTS, we considered all three dimensions of savoring measured by the SBI (Bryant, 2003), measuring one’s perceived ability to generate pleasure from past, present, and anticipated experiences, respectively. Moreover, we examined their linkage with overall PTS as well as with DSM-5 based clusters of reexperiencing, avoidance, negative alternations in cognitions and mood, and hyperarousal. We felt it was relevant to explore whether savoring beliefs were specific to PTS or more broadly associated with negative outcomes. Therefore, we also examined the association of savoring beliefs with depression. Lastly, we aimed to investigate the incremental role of savoring beliefs in predicting PTS beyond negative psychological processes that have been found to be associated with PTS. In so doing, we considered worry and depressive rumination, representing two frequently studied maladaptive regulatory processes associated with PTS (e.g., Moulds et al., 2020; Roussis & Wells, 2008), and neuroticism, an established correlate of PTS (Breslau & Schultz, 2013).

In sum, we consecutively examined the association of three dimensions of savoring beliefs with PTS, DSM-5-based PTS clusters, and depression, first while controlling for the shared variance between the dimensions; second, while also considering worry and depressive rumination; and third, while additionally considering neuroticism. Based on prior, limited, evidence, we anticipated that savoring beliefs at T1 were associated with PTS and depression at T2, even while controlling for worry, depressive rumination, and neuroticism. Because of the lack of research in this area, we had no specific hypotheses about which savoring dimension was most important, nor with which of the clusters of PTS the relationship was strongest.

Method

Participants and procedure

Data were available from students in social sciences from Utrecht University participating in an internet-based survey-study examining cognitive behavioral and emotion regulatory variables and symptoms of mood, anxiety, and stress-related disorders. They were recruited via announcements on university websites and by word of mouth. After applying for participation, students were directed to a secured website with an information letter, informed consent form, and the survey. Students participated in return for course credits, assigned on completion of the questionnaires.¹ Approximately 6 months after baseline (T1) participants were invited to complete a second set of questionnaires (T2). Participants who reported at T2 that they were unable to think of stressful events experienced during the preceding six months (on the Life Events Scale completed at T2) were excluded from the current study. Eventually, data were used from N = 205 participants with complete data at T1 and T2.² Their mean age was 21.2 (SD = 2.2) years and 191 (93.2%) were women. The ethics committee of the faculty of Social Sciences of Utrecht University approved the study (file number FERB-20-211).

Measures

Life Events Scale

At T2, participants completed an adjusted version of the Life Events Scale (Garnefski & Kraaij, 2001). This scale includes negative events commonly reported by community members (e.g., divorce, confrontation with violence, traffic accidents, interpersonal conflict). Participants are instructed to indicate whether they experienced these events in different periods of their life. We modified the scale, such that participants were instructed to rate events experienced during the preceding six months (between T1 and T2). In addition, we added events relevant for students, including relationship breakup, interpersonal conflict, and academic problems. For some events (e.g., experiencing mental or physical health complaints) participants rated whether these had happened to themselves as well as to relatives and friends. After completion of the Life Events Scale, participants selected the most distressing event from the past 6 months, as anchor event for the measure of PTS.³

Posttraumatic Symptom Scale Self Report version (PSS-SR)

At T2, participants rated their PTS symptoms, using the 17-item PSS-SR measuring DSM-IV based PTSD symptoms (Foa et al., 1993). Participants rated the presence of symptoms during the preceding month, on 4-point scales (0 = not at all, to 3 = five or more times per week/almost always) while keeping in mind the most distressing event from the past six months. Both the original English (Foa et al., 1993) and Dutch (Engelhard et al., 2007) versions of the PSS-SR have adequate psychometric properties. We used the summed score as an index of overall PTS. In addition, the 17 items were divided to obtain indices of DSM-5 based symptom clusters of reexperiencing, avoidance, negative cognition/mood, and hyperarousal, based on Rosellini et al.’s (2015) procedure for mapping DSM-IV on DSM-5 based criteria. In this study, the α’s were .79 (reexperiencing), .65 (avoidance), .68 (negative cognition/mood), .82 (hyperarousal), and .88 (total scale).⁴

Ruminative Response Scales (RRS) Brooding Scale

The 5-item Brooding scale from the RRS (administered at T1) was used to measure depressive rumination (or brooding), defined as unconstructive dwelling in response to a sad or depressed mood. This was one of two scales (apart from Reflection) that Treynor et al. (2003) identified, after removing items from the 22-item RRS (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991) that overlapped with depressive symptoms. Respondents rate to what extent they engaged in responses (e.g., “I think ‘Why do I always react this way?”) on 4-point scales (1 = almost never, to 4 = almost always). English (Treynor et al., 2003) and Dutch studies (Schoofs et al., 2010) have supported the scale’s psychometric properties (present sample’s α was .61).

Penn State Worry Questionnaire-Abbreviated (PSWQ-A)

The PSWQ-A (administered at T1) is a measure of worry, instructing respondents to indicate to what extent 8 items (e.g., “I am always worrying about something”) are typical of them on five-point scales (1 = not at all typical of me, to 5 = very typical of me). It was developed by Hopko et al. (2003) who found the measure to have sound psychometric properties (present sample’s α was .92).

Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI)

The SBI (administered at T1) is a 24-item measure, developed by Bryant (2003), assessing three dimensions of savoring: Anticipating (e.g., “Before a good thing happens, I look forward to it in ways that give me pleasure in the present”), Savoring the moment (e.g., “I feel fully able to appreciate good things that happen to me”), and Reminiscing (e.g., “I enjoy looking back on happy times from my past”), measured with eight items each. Participants rate how true each item is, on 7-point scales with anchors 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. Indices of the three dimensions were calculated as the average item scores after reverse scoring negatively worded items. Psychometric properties of the SBI were established in different samples (Bryant, 2003). Cronbach’s alphas of the Anticipating, Savoring the moment, and Reminiscing scales in this sample were .81, .86, and .82, respectively.

Neuroticism Scale of the Short-Scale version of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R-N)

The EPQ-R-N (administered at T1) is a 12-item measure of neuroticism (Eysenck et al., 1985). Participants rate items (e.g., “Does your mood often go up and down?”) on a dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes) scale. Summed item scores indicate neuroticism. English (Eysenck et al., 1985) and Dutch (Sanderman et al., 1995) versions have good psychometric properties. The α was .80 in the present study.

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)

The BDI (administered at T1) is a measure of depressive symptoms. Its 21 items each group four statements representing depressive symptoms at increasing levels of severity. The English (Beck et al., 1996) and Dutch versions (Van der Does, 2002) have adequate psychometric properties. The α in this sample was .93.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to map out events participants had been exposed to during the previous half year and to describe the level of distress in the sample. Then, zero order correlations between the study variables were calculated. Next, we performed a series of regression analyses with the PTS total score, PTS cluster scores, and depression severity considered as dependent variable. Each dependent variable was consecutively regressed on the three SBI scales (Model 1), the three SBI scales plus worry and rumination (Model 2), and the three SBI scales, worry and rumination, plus neuroticism (Model 3). For exploratory reasons, we also regressed all dependent variables on the total score of the SBI, plus worry, rumination, and neuroticism (Model 4).

Results

Descriptive data

Table 1 lists events experienced during the previous half year, as reported on the Life Events Scale. Events rated separately for different close people (e.g., mental illness of parents and mental illness of siblings) were collapsed into one category (i.e., mental illness of others). We added an open-ended question where participants could typewrite down events that were not listed in the scale. Some of these events could actually be categorized as events listed in the Life Events Scale and where divided among these other categories. Some participants reported that multiple events were distressing without selecting one specific events. Table 1 shows that one in five participants (20.5%) did not select one specific event as most distressing. COVID-19-related stressors formed the most frequently rated category after that (10.2%), followed by deaths of close others (8.8%), and relationship breakup (7.3%).

Table 1. Frequency of most distressing negative events (N = 205).

	N (%)
Parental divorce	1 (0.5)
Relationship break-up	15 (7.3)
Physical illness of others	12 (5.9)
Physical illness of self	11 (5.4)
Death of close others	18 (8.8)
Mental illness of others	15 (7.3)
Mental illness of self	11 (5.4)
Suicide attempts of close others	4 (2.0)
Suicide attempts of self	0 (0.0)
Witnessing/experiencing interpersonal violence	2 (1.0)
Alcohol/drug abuse among close others	4 (2.0)
Unwanted pregnancy (self)	0 (0.0)
Serious interpersonal conflict	12 (5.9)
Confrontation with crime	2 (1.0)
Witnessing/experiencing traffic accident	3 (1.5)
Sexual/physical abuse	2 (1.0)
Academic problems	11 (5.4)
Miscellaneous events	16 (7.8)
Corona measures, lockdowns, corona related fears	21 (10.2)
Illness more remote family members	4 (2.0)
No one specific event was selected as most distressing	42 (20.5)

In total, n = 69 (33.7%) scored above the >14 PSS-SR cutoff score for DSM-IV-based PTSD-caseness reported by Coffey et al. (2006) and n = 62 (30.2%) above the >15 cutoff score reported by Wohlfarth et al. (2003). Regarding depression, n = 53 (25.9%) scored above the >13 BDI cutoff for possible depression (Wang & Gorenstein, 2021).

Correlations between variables

Table 2 shows correlations between study variables. These were all statistically significant at p < .01 with the exception of the correlations of Reminiscing (SBI) with PTS Reexperiencing and the correlation of Rumination (RRS) with PTS Reexperiencing, PTS Avoidance, and Anticipating (SBI)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and zero order correlations (N = 205).

Measures	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. PTS total (T2)	11.35	8.52
2. PTS reexperiencing (T2)	3.01	2.85	.80**
3. PTS avoidance (T2)	1.61	1.59	.77**	.61**
4. PTS negative cognition/mood (T2)	3.06	2.82	.82**	.50**	.59**
5. PTS hyperarousal (T2)	3.68	3.21	.82**	.50**	.48**	.57**
6. Depression (T2)	9.48	9.23	.66**	.38**	.35**	.63**	.68**
7. Anticipating (T1)	5.95	0.68	−.35**	−.20**	−.18**	−.32**	−.39**	−.51**
8. Savoring the moment (T1)	5.15	1.02	−.42**	−.19**	−.20**	−.34**	−.54**	−.58**	.65**
9. Reminiscing (T1)	5.83	0.74	−.30**	−.11	−.14*	−.26**	−.40**	−.50**	.71**	.69**
10. SBI total score	16.92	2.18	−.41**	−.19*	−.20*	−.36**	−.51**	−.61**	.86**	.91**	.89**
11. Worry (T1)	24.76	7.58	.37**	.20**	.19**	.29**	.45**	.42**	−.32**	−.55**	−.30**	−.47**
12. Rumination (T1)	11.12	2.79	.23**	.12	.11	.20**	.29**	.30**	−.13	−.23**	−.18**	−.21**	.36**
13. Neuroticism (T1)	5.87	3.15	.53**	.29**	.34**	.42**	.60**	.62**	−.45**	−.66**	−.45**	−.61**	.72**	.42**

Note. PTS = Posttraumatic Stress. SBI = Savoring Beliefs Inventory. T1 = Time 1. T2 = Time 2.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

Regression analyses

Table 3 summarizes the regression models. The regression models including the three dimensions of savoring beliefs, entered simultaneously (Model 1), were all statistically significant. Savoring the moment (but not Anticipating and Reminiscing) predicted PTS Total at T2 and PTS Hypervigilance at T2. Anticipating and Savoring the moment (T1) predicted PTS Negative cognition/mood and Depression at T2. The regression models with the three savoring dimensions plus worry and rumination (Model 2) were also statistically significant. Lower Savoring the moment and higher Worry (T1) predicted higher PTS Total at T2. Lower Anticipating predicted higher PTS Negative cognition/mood at T2. Lower Savoring the moment plus increased Worry and Rumination, predicted higher PTS Hypervigilance at T2. Lower Anticipating and Savoring the moment and increased Rumination predicted higher depression at T2. The regression models with the savoring dimensions, worry, rumination, and neuroticism (Model 3) were also statistically significant. Higher Neuroticism at T1 was the single unique predictor of PTS Total, PTS Reexperiencing, and PTS Avoidance. Lower Anticipating and higher Neuroticism were unique predictors of PTS Negative cognition/mood and Depression at T2. Lower Savoring the moment and higher Neuroticism were unique predictors of PTS Hypervigilance at T2. The regression models in which the dependent variables were regressed on the total score of the SBI and all other variables (Model 4) were also significant. Higher Neuroticism at T1 was the only unique predictor of PTS Total, PTS Reexperiencing, PTS Avoidance, and PTS Negative cognition/mood. The SBI total score and Neuroticism at T1 predicted PTS Hypervigilance and Depression at T2.⁵

Table 3. Summary of regression analyses with savoring beliefs, worry, rumination, and neuroticism predicting posttraumatic stress total scores, cluster scores, and depression.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	B [95% CI]	β	B [95% CI]	β	B [95% CI]	β	B [95% CI]	β
DV = PTS total (T2)
Anticipating (T1)	−2.21 [−4.56; 0.14]	−.18	−2.25 [−4.57; 0.05]	−.18	−2.01 [−4.22; 0.19]	−.16	–	–
Savoring the moment (T1)	−2.98 [−4.52; −1.45]	−.38***	−1.84 [−3.56; −0.11]	−.22*	−0.66 [−2.38; 1.05]	−08	–	–
Reminiscing (T1)	0.83 [−1.46; 3.12]	.07	0.57 [−1.70; 2.85]	.05	−0.79 [−1.38; 2.97]	.07	–	–
SBI total score (T1)	–	–	–	–	–	–	−0.58 [−1.15; 0.003]	−.15
Worry (T1)	–	–	0.18 [0.01; 0.36]	.17*	−0.05 [−0.25; 0.14]	−.05	−0.04 [−0.23; 0.15]	−.04
Rumination (T1)	–	–	0.34 [−0.06; 0.74]	.11	0.10 [−0.29; 0.50]	.03	0.08 [−0.32; 0.48]	.03
Neuroticism (T1)	–	–	–	–	1.23 [0.70; 1.77]	.46***	1.23 [0.71; 1.78]	.46***
F		15.98		12.01		14.45		21.12
DF		3, 204		5, 204		6, 204		4, 204
P		<.001		<.001		<.001		<.001
Adjusted R^2		.180		.213		.283		.283
DV = PTS Reexperiencing (T2)
Anticipating (T1)	−0.83 [−1.68; 0.01]	−.20	−0.84 [−1.69; 0.01]	−.20	−0.78 [−1.62; 0.05]	−.19	–	–
Savoring the moment (T1)	−0.47 [−1.03; 0.07]	−.17	−0.22 [−0.86; 0.41]	−.08	0.02 [−0.63; 0.68]	.01	–	–
Reminiscing (T1)	0.59 [−0.24; 1.42]	.15	0.52 [−0.31; 1.36]	.14	0.57 [−0.25; 1.40]	.15	–	–
SBI total score (T1)	–	–	–	–	–	–	−0.03 [−0.25; 0.19]	−.02
Worry (T1)	–	–	0.04 [−0.02; 0.10]	.12	−0.01 [−0.81; −0.08]	−.02	−0.01 [−0.08; 0.07]	−.02
Rumination (T1)	–	–	0.05 [−0.09; 0.21]	.06	0.01 [−0.14; 0.15]	<.01	−0.002 [−0.15; 0.15]	< −.01
Neuroticism (T1)	–	–		–	0.27 [0.06; 0.47]	.30*	0.26 [0.06; 0.47]	.29*
F		4.05		3.09		3.79		4.73
DF		3, 204		5, 204		6, 204		4, 204
p		.008		.010		<.001		<.001
Adjusted R^2		.043		.049		.076		.068
DV = PTS Avoidance (T2)
Anticipating (T1)	−0.28 [−0.75; 0.19]	−.12	−0.28 [−0.76; 0.19]	−.12	−0.24 [−0.69; 0.22]	−.10	–	–
Savoring the moment (T1)	−0.24 [−0.55; 0.07]	−.16	−0.12 [−0.47; 0.23]	−.08	0.10 [−0.25; 0.46]	.07
Reminiscing (T1)	0.10 [−0.36; 0.75]	.05	0.74 [−0.39; 0.55]	.03	0.11 [−0.33; 0.57]	.05	–	–
SBI total score (T1)	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.01 [−0.11; 0.13]	.01
Worry (T1)	–	–	0.02 [−0.01; 0.05]	.10	−0.02 [−0.07; 0.02]	−.12	−0.03 [−0.07; 0.02]	−.12
Rumination (T1)	–	–	0.02 [−0.05; 0.11]	.05	−0.02 [−0.10; 0.07]	.03	−0.02 [0.12; 0.34]	−.03
Neuroticism (T1)	–	–		–	0.24 [0.12; 0.35]	.47***	0.23 [0.12; 0.34]	.46***
F		3.28		3.45		5.08		7.35
DF		3, 204		5, 204		6, 204		4, 204
P		.022		.035		<.001		<.001
Adjusted R^2		.032		.034		.107		.111
DV = PTS Negative cognition/mood (T2)
Anticipating (T1)	−0.84 [−1.65; −0.04]	−.21*	−0.86 [−1.66; −0.06]	−.21*	−0.80 [−1.58; −0.02]	−.19*	–	–
Savoring the moment (T1)	−0.67 [−1.20; −0.15]	−.24*	−0.38 [−0.97; 0.21]	−.14	−0.08 [−0.69; 0.53]	−.03	–	–
Reminiscing (T1)	0.18 [−0.59; 0.97]	.05	0.13 [−0.65; 0.91]	.03	0.18 [−0.58; 0.95]	.05	–	–
SBI total score (T1)	–	–	–	–	–	–	−0.20 [ −0.40; 0.002]	−.16
Worry (T1)	–	–	0.05 [−0.01; 0.11]	.13	−0.02 [−0.09; 0.05]	−.04	−0.01 [−0.08; 0.05]	−.04
Rumination (T1)	–	–	0.10 [−0.03; 0.24]	.10	0.42 [0.13; 0.51]	.04	0.04 [−0.10; 0.17]	.04
Neuroticism (T1)	–	–		–	0.32 [0.13; 0.50]	.36**	0.31 [0.12; 0.49]	.35**
F		10.76		7.84		8.71		12.42
DF		3, 204		5, 204		6, 204		4, 204
P		<.001		<.001		<.001		<.001
Adjusted R^2		.125		.144		.185		.183
DV = PTS Hypervigilance (T2)
Anticipating (T1)	−0.25 [−1.07; 0.58]	−.05	−0.27 [−1.07; 0.53]	−.06	−0.19 [−0.96; 0.58]	−.04	–	–
Savoring the moment (T1)	−1.59 [−2.12; −1.04]	−.50***	−1.10 [−1.70; −0.51]	−.35***	−0.72 [−1.32; −0.12]	−.23*	–	–
Reminiscing (T1)	−0.05 [−0.86; 0.75]	−.12	−0.16 [−0.95; 0.64]	−.04	−0.08 [−0.84; 0.68]	−.02	–	–
SBI total score T1	–	–	–	–	–	–	−0.35 [−0.55; −0.15]	−.24***
Worry (T1)	–	–	0.08 [0.16; 0.14]	.18*	−0.003 [−0.07; 0.06]	< −.01	0.01 [−0.06; 0.07]	.02
Rumination (T1)	–	–	0.15 [0.01; 0.29]	.13*	0.07 [−0.06;0.21]	.06	0.06 [−0.07; 0.20]	.06
Neuroticism (T1)	–	–		–	0.41; 0.22; 0.60]	.40***	0.43 [0.25; 0.62]	.42***
F		28.61		21.30		22.49		33.39
DF		3, 204		5, 204		6, 204		4, 204
P		<.001		<.001		<.001		<.001
Adjusted R^2		.289		.332		.387		.388
DV = Depression (T2)
Anticipating (T1)	−2.57 [−4.81; −0.33]	−.19*	−2.67 [−4.85; −0.48]	−.20*	−2.41 [−4.47; −0.35]	−.18*	–	–
Savoring the moment (T1)	−3.70 [−5.61; −2.24]	−.41***	−2.76 [−4.39; −1.13]	−.31***	−1.52 [ −3.13; 0.08]	−.17	–	–
Reminiscing (T1)	−0.98 [−3.16; 1.19]	−.08	−1.09 [−3.25; 1.06]	−.09	−0.86 [−2.88; 1.18]	−.07	–	–
SBI total score (T1)	–	–	–	–		–	−1.56 [−2.10; −1.02]	−.37***
Worry (T1)	–	–	0.12 [−0.04; 0.29]	.10	−0.13 [−0.31; 0.06]	−.11	−0.12 [−0.30; 0.05]	−.10
Rumination (T1)	–	–	0.49 [0.11; 0.87]	.15*	0.24 [−0.13; 0.61]	.07	0.22 [−0.14; 0.60]	.07
Neuroticism (T1)	–	–	–	–	1.31 [0.81; 1.81]	.45***	1.30 [0.81; 1.80]	.45***
F		40.75		28.09		30.90		46.44
DF		3, 204		5, 204		6, 204		4, 204
p		<.001		<.001		<.001		<.001
Adjusted R^2		.369		.399		.468		.471

Note. DV = Dependent variable. IV = independent variable. PTS = Posttraumatic Stress. SBI = Savoring Beliefs Inventory.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Discussion

People differ in their beliefs about their capability to derive pleasure from anticipating future positive events, enjoying current positive experiences, and reminiscing about past positive experiences (Bryant, 2003). Arguably, such savoring beliefs are relevant in the context of coping with negative, stressful life events. Considering that very few studies have investigated this notion, the current study sought to enhance knowledge on the role of savoring beliefs in PTS, connected with negative life events, using data from students.

A first main finding was that, in the regression models with all three dimensions of savoring beliefs considered simultaneously, savoring the moment was associated with four of six dependent variables, anticipating with two, and reminiscing with none of the outcomes. Savoring the moment predicted PTS Total and PTS Hypervigilance and both savoring the moment and anticipating predicted PTS Negative cognition/mood. PTS Reexperiencing and PTS Avoidance were unrelated to savoring beliefs. These findings add to prior evidence that savoring beliefs were related to PTS symptomatology in cancer patients (Hou et al., 2017) and military personnel (Sytine et al., 2018) and extend prior work by indicating that distinct dimensions of savoring have different relationships with different dimensions of PTS. A second main finding was that savoring beliefs continued to predict PTS when taking into account worry and depressive rumination. Specifically, beyond the impact of baseline worry and depressive rumination, a stronger belief in one’s ability to savor present positive experiences at baseline predicted lower PTS Total and PTS Hypervigilance scores and a stronger beliefs in one’s ability to anticipate positive experiences predicted lower PTS Negative cognition/mood. This further confirms the importance of positive factors in predicting emotional consequences of stressful events and suggests that negative and positive factors each make a unique contribution to the prediction of these consequences. This is consistent with research and theorizing showing that both positive and negative psychological characteristics independently impact on PTS following adverse events (cf. Wood & Tarrier, 2010). A third main finding was that, above and beyond worry, depressive rumination, and neuroticism, one’s belief in the ability to generate pleasure from anticipating positive events continued to explain variance in PTS Negative cognition/mood and savoring the moment continued to predict PTS Hypervigilance. Neuroticism is a robust and strong predictor of emotional distress experienced in the face of adverse life events (Breslau & Schultz, 2013). Our findings suggest that people’s beliefs in their ability to experience positive feelings about events in the present and future add explanatory value to the prediction of this distress.

Findings of this study provide some further evidence that people’s beliefs in their ability to savor positive events when they occur and, to a lesser extent, to anticipate future events could buffer the impact of emotional distress following adversity. However, several findings lead us to add some caveats to this conclusion. For instance, the SBI subscale Reminiscing was correlated with some of the outcomes (Table 1) but its predictive value disappeared when controlling for the other savoring beliefs. There is prior evidence that reminiscing has weaker predictive validity (Bryant, 2003) indicating that the impact of savoring beliefs on adjustment to adversity depends on the temporal orientation of these beliefs. Further, baseline savoring beliefs were unrelated to PTS Reexperiencing and PTS Avoidance and the linkage of these beliefs with PTS Total were largely due to the association with PTS Negative cognition/mood and PTS Hyperarousal. Phenomenologically, reexperiencing and avoidance are more unique to PTS, while negative alternations in cognition and mood and hyperarousal overlap with generic dysphoria and tension. Also considering that savoring beliefs predicted depression (above and beyond worry, depressive rumination, and neuroticism), it is possible that savoring beliefs may contribute to generic distress and dysphoria more than to typical PTS reactions connected with specific events.

The present study’s limitations should also be considered. First, most participants were confronted with events that did not qualify as PTSD Criterion A traumatic events as per DSM-5 (APA, 2013). Thus, both the theoretical and clinical implications should be limited to people experiencing subclinical stress responses or adjustment disorder. The present study findings cannot simply be generalized to people suffering clinical PTSD following actual Criterion A events. Although evidence shows that mild events may cause severe PTS symptoms in student (e.g., Cusack et al., 2019) and general samples (e.g., Anders et al., 2011; Rosen & Lilienfeld, 2008), prospective research among traumatized samples is needed to examine if savoring beliefs confer protection to DSM-5-based PTSD symptomatology following DSM-5-based Criterion A events. Second, this study relied on data from self-report questionnaires, all administered online. This potentially introduced a threat to the study’s internal validity. Third, findings were based on data from social sciences students, most of whom were female, meaning that caution should be applied in generalizing findings to other groups, including males and older and less well educated people. Fourth, the prospective design of this study and our inclusion of neuroticism and other covariates strongly suggests that savoring beliefs prospectively predict responses to adversity. Yet, future research including repeated measures of both savoring beliefs and PTS is needed to provide a more robust examination of the relation between the two. Fifth, we used a DSM-IV based measure to approximate DSM-5 based symptom clusters of PTS, because data collection was initiated before DSM-5 and associated measures were available in the Dutch language area. Future research should preferably use a true DSM-5 based measure.

Notwithstanding these considerations, the current findings are important in showing that people’s beliefs in their ability to generate, maintain, and strengthen positive feelings by attending to present, future, and past experiences can possibly buffer the impact of negative life events. To some extent, increasing savoring beliefs may even offer significant benefit above the benefit of decreasing worry, depressive rumination, and neuroticism. This study adds to prior research and theorizing that, alongside negative characteristics, positive characteristics (e.g., regulation of positive mood, thoughts, and memories) play a role in people’s responses to negative events. From a clinical perspective, the finding bear relevance to the treatment of PTS as well as adjustment disorder, a condition characterized by a broad range of stress responses following all kinds of (also lower intensity) stressor events. Research on adjustment disorder treatment is scarce (O'Donnell et al., 2018). Encouragingly though, a recent study showed that a combination of psychoeducation, exposure, and strategies from positive psychology (other than those addressing savoring beliefs) significantly improved adjustment disorder and associated symptoms (Quero et al., 2019). Our findings suggest that it may be useful to incorporate interventions to improve savoring beliefs in the treatment of adjustment disorder, PTS, and other relatively mild manifestations of event-related stress. There is evidence that deliberate training to increase focus on present or past positive experiences increases savoring capability (Quoidbach et al., 2015). It is relevant for future research to continue examining the role of positive factors in affecting adjustment to adversity and to evaluate if interventions targeting such factors are useful in fostering adjustment.

Acknowledgments

Hans Pieterse is gratefully acknowledged for his help in the collection of the data.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 No form of compensation other than course credits was given. Course credits could also be obtained with participation in many other studies. Thus, participation in this particular study was not mandatory for potential participants to obtain required course credits.

2 Data at T1 were available from 851 students. At T2, data were provided by 220 students; data from 14 were removed because they reported having experienced no stressful event, data from one because he/she/they did not complete the SBI. The difference in T1 and T2 sample sizes was largely due to the fact that T1 data were gathered at the end of the bachelor education after which many students left the university.

3 Because it was our intention the evaluate the role of pre-existing savoring beliefs in prospectively predicting distress following adversity, we focused on PTS symptoms associated with events happening in the six months between T1 and T2 rather than those associated with negative or traumatic events happening earlier in participant’s lives.

4 We used the PSS-SR, that represents DSM-IV based PTS symptomatology, and not a measure of DSM-5 based PTS symptomatology, because the data collection for this study was initiated before the DSM-5 and DSM-5-based measures were implemented in the Dutch language area. To fit our findings to the DSM-5 conceptualization, we used Rosellini et al.’s (2015) procedure to map DSM-IV-based symptoms onto DSM-5-based symptom clusters.

5 In all Model 1 analyses, variance inflation factors (VIFs) were between 2.15 and 2.54. In all Model 2 analyses, VIFs were between 1.16 and 2.82. In all Model 3 analyses, VIFs were between 1.24 and 3.09. VIFs for all Model 4 analyses ranged between 1.23 and 2.81. These VIFs did not point at problematic collinearity.