Transcending Trauma: Treatments’ Caveats, Construal, and Cultural Context

Abstract

We examined evidence for the view that trauma transcendence should be operationally defined as a process rather than an end goal and considered caveats in individual differences of construal and contextual-cultural influences. The focus was on the role of therapy treatments used in trauma transcendence and the extent to which evidence-based information, theory, and generalizability are—can/ should be—involved. Our methodological analysis and theoretical discussion of extant research evidence focused on (a) models of trauma transcendence, (b) the multivariate, scientific nature of evidence-based therapy treatments/outcomes, (c) the need to have tailor-made trauma treatments that allow for individualized patient variability, (d) therapists’ skill-limitations/strengths, and (e) the need for methodical, systematic approaches to trauma transcendence. Our conclusions show that evidence-based approaches are needed, but limits remain in generalizability of findings. We also recognize a need for multipronged approaches to trauma transcendence, from trauma-informed approaches, to reducing the shortage of therapists, increasing methodological-clinical sophistication in the public sphere, and addressing the multivariate nature of trauma. Finally, we suggest that navigating trauma transcendence should be a process that goes beyond the homeostatic state.