| Abstract: | Based on the cognitive processing of posttraumatic growth (PTG) shown when trauma shakes one‘s assumptions of the world, one tends to ruminate to accommodate these highly stressful experiences. Once, new assumptions are re-established, mostly people report PTG. Different study show different result about how different types of rumination play different roles in fostering PTG (Stockton, Hunt, & Joseph, 2011; Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010). Hypothesis: first, constructive rumination mediates relationship between core belief and PTG; second, unconstructive rumination cannot mediate relationship between core belief and PTG. The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of two distinct types of rumination; unconstructive (intrusive and brooding) VS constructive (deliberate and reflective), on shattered core belief and posttraumatic growth. Four hundred thirteen high school students from Aceh Besar district in Aceh- Indonesia take part in this study. Measurements that was used for this research: first, Short-Form of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (Cann, Calhoun, Tedeschi, Taku, et al., 2010); second, Event Related Rumination Inventory (Cann, Calhoun, Tedeschi, Triplett, et al., 2010); third, Ruminative Response Scale (Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003); fourth, Core Belief Inventory (Cann et al., 2010). Factor analyses for each measurement were conducted before examining the hypotheses of the current study, instead of the original subscales; the newly generated factors are used in subsequent analyses. Result showed the goodness fit of statistics for mediating role of constructive rumination was good (χ2 (2) =1.57, p <.01; RMSEA=.000; AGFI= .989; TLI=1.00). Mean while, the outcome for the unconstructive rumination‘s model indicated as non-significant (χ2 (1) =.030, p> .05; RMSEA=.000; AGFI=1.00; TLI=1). As expected, the constructive rumination mediates relationship on assumptive world and PTG but not with unconstructive rumination. The results and implications are discussed. |
