This study examined trajectories of posttraumatic growth or depreciation (i.e., positive or negative life change) in personal strength and relationships after 2 major earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand using group-based trajectory modeling. Participants completed questionnaires regarding posttraumatic growth or depreciation in personal strength and relationship domains 1 month after the first earthquake in September 2010 (N = 185) and 3 months (n = 156) and 12 months (n = 144) after the more severe February 2011 earthquake. Three classes of growth or depreciation patterns were found for both domains. For personal strength, most of the participants were grouped into a "no growth or depreciation" class and smaller proportions were grouped into either a "posttraumatic depreciation" or "posttraumatic growth" class. The 3 classes for relationships all reported posttraumatic growth, differing only in degree. None of the slopes were significant for any of the classes, indicating that levels of growth or depreciation reported after the first earthquake remained stable when assessed at 2 time points after the second earthquake. Multinomial logistic regression analyses examining pre- and postearthquake predictors of trajectory class membership revealed that those in the "posttraumatic growth" personal strength class were significantly younger and had significantly higher pre-earthquake mental health than those in the "posttraumatic depreciation" class. Sex was the only predictor of the relationship classes: No men were assigned to the "high posttraumatic growth" class. Implications and future directions are discussed.
The increase in obesity and the many educational messages prompting us to eat a healthy diet have heightened people’s concerns about the effects of food choice on health and weight. An unintended side effect may be that such awareness fuels feelings of guilt and worry about food. Although guilt has the potential to motivate behaviour change, it may also lead to feelings of helplessness and loss of control. The current study examined the relationship between a default association of either ‘guilt’ or ‘celebration’ with a prototypical forbidden food item (chocolate cake), indicators of healthy eating and choosing food for mood regulation reasons. Following a ‘diathesis-stress’ perspective, the moderating roles of depressive symptoms and stress were examined. Although a default association of guilt was found to be harmless under some circumstances (i.e. under low stress), those who associated chocolate cake with guilt (vs. celebration) reported unhealthier eating habits and lower levels of perceived behavioural control over healthy eating when under stress, rated mood regulation reasons for food choice as important irrespective of their current affective state, and did not have more positive attitudes towards healthy eating. Implications for public health messages and interventions will be discussed.