Trauma can be conceptualized as a massive, sudden, loss of critical personal, and social resources (Hobfoll, 1991). Such loss challenges existing self-regulatory capabilities often due to the suddenness and novelty of the experience (Benight and Bandura, 2004). Self-regulation is the management of valued personal goals (e.g., feeling normal again after a physical assault) through the ability to self-reflect and project probability of future goal attainment. This unique human attribute sets the stage for on-going coping adjustments as environmental and behavioral information is evaluated in a systemic feedback process (i.e., self-regulation). Positive adjustment is attained as self-regulation attempts gain traction with improvements in environmental conditions through effective coping. For example, a woman challenged with recovery from a sexual assault must manage both internal and external environmental hurdles such as possible intrusions of the attack and hyperarousal, while concurrently navigating the often challenging legal system. Through effective utilization of social, physical, and personal resources (i.e., recovery capital) she is able to manage her inner distress and navigate her legal challenges leading to an increasing sense of coping capability. Indeed, the self-evaluation of effective coping is a crucial personal resource and is often referred to as self-efficacy. We argue that coping self-efficacy (CSE) following trauma is central to ultimate empowerment, growth, and healthy recovery.

Self-efficacy is a critical self-appraisal personal resource that guides coping processes through self-evaluation. Indeed, these appraisals form a central self-belief about being able to handle both internal (e.g., intrusive thoughts) and external demands (social constraints). CSE is predictive of coping across multiple types of trauma (for reviews see Benight and Bandura, 2004; Luszczynska et al., 2009).

The value of a construct is based on its predictive power (i.e., amount of variance it explains). The effect for CSE as a predictor in longitudinal studies on mass trauma for posttraumatic outcomes (e.g., posttraumatic distress, substance use, and positive affect) is stronger than other predictors often evaluated in post-traumatic recovery studies. The effect sizes for CSE r’s ranging from -0.55 to -0.62 (Luszczynska et al., 2009) compared to r’s ranging from ±0.17 to 0.35 (e.g., dissociation, social support, and previous psychopathology) (Ozer et al., 2008).

If the self-regulatory process is central to trauma adaptation and CSE appraisals to manage this unfolding process are crucial, it follows then that CSE judgments should be predictive of outcomes across a multitude of trauma recovery contexts. The science has borne this out.

Coping self-efficacy was a significant predictor of post-trauma recovery outcomes following a wide variety of trauma experiences. These include childhood trauma (Cieslak et al., 2008; Singer et al., 2016), domestic violence (Benight et al., 2004; Lambert et al., 2013), war (Solomon et al., 1991; Smith et al., 2013; Chung et al., 2017), hurricanes (Benight et al., 1999; Hirschel and Schulenberg, 2009; Wadsworth et al., 2009), and terrorist attacks (Benight et al., 2000). Further, longitudinal research on disaster survivors (Benight and Harper, 2002; Bosmans et al., 2013), victims of acute physical injuries (Flatten et al., 2008; Bosmans et al., 2015), and survivors of motor vehicle accidents (Benight et al., 2008) indicated that CSE is a key mechanism through which initial distress influences subsequent post-traumatic symptoms. Most recently a general sense of mastery, which is another term for general self-efficacy, was found to moderate the effect of trauma on all-cause mortality (Elliot et al., 2018). Collectively, these studies strongly suggest that an individual’s sense of agency (i.e., degree of CSE) plays a pivotal role in trauma recovery. Although most of the aforementioned studies focused on negative outcomes following trauma, CSE also predicts positive adaptation.

Research on CSE and positive outcomes following trauma have focused on posttraumatic growth (PTG; Cieslak et al., 2009), making meaning (Blackburn and Owens, 2015), positive affect (Luszczynska et al., 2009), and resilience (deRoon-Cassini et al., 2010). Cieslak et al. (2009), looked at posttraumatic growth (e.g., new appreciation for life, personal empowerment, and spiritual changes) following hurricane Katrina in individuals coping with HIV. They found CSE perceptions were significantly predictive of PTG in individuals with higher levels of posttraumatic distress. This suggests an important role for self-appraisals of capability in development of PTG. Blackburn and Owens (2015) found a significant relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and presence of meaning (i.e., values and feeling of purpose in life) in combat veterans (r = 0.63, p < 0.01). Luszczynska et al. (2009), in their meta-analytic review, found CSE was positively correlated with positive affect (e.g., joy, love, interest, or pride) in two mass trauma studies. deRoon-Cassini et al. (2010) studied the trajectories of distress levels in a sample of hospitalized trauma survivors. Lacks of symptoms were utilized to characterize the “resilient” group. CSE was an important predictor of posttraumatic trajectories with higher acute CSE predicting greater odds of membership in the resilience group versus the chronic trajectory. However, importantly, this effect was qualified by the finding that early high CSE was associated with the delayed PTSD onset group, demonstrating the complexity of adaptation over time. Collectively, the literature on CSE and positive outcomes following trauma has generally shown a strong positive relationship.

The studies on CSE as a predictor of outcomes following trauma, although strongly predictive, have all utilized a linear, somewhat simplistic approach, to explain a very complex dynamic process. Indeed, Cloud and Granfield (2008) suggested that recovery capital is based on the utilization of important environmental, social, and personal resources as an individual attempts to initiate and maintain healthy adaptation over time. This underscores the need for a more refined theoretical and empirical approach to understand how these interactions unfold. The deRoon-Cassini et al. (2010) findings that on one hand CSE perceptions were predictive of membership in the resilient group and also may be linked to a delayed distress group support this point. This complexity in how adaptation evolves across time is central to our argument that recovery resources in trauma adaptation must be viewed in a dynamic way. Indeed, the underlying dynamic process of traumatic stress adaptation remains largely unknown. SRST (Benight et al., 2017) provides a novel approach to understand this dynamic evolving process.

Self-regulation shift theory (SRST) is an extension of SCT (Bandura, 1997) and provides a testable framework related to positive and negative trauma adaptation. SRST draws on a historical tradition in the coping literature that links dynamical systems theory to understand coping adaptation (Neufeld, 1999; Boker, 2001; Levy et al., 2012). According to SRST change across time following trauma may be in a discontinuous manner with threshold shifts (i.e., bifurcations) from one organized state (coherent coping) to another (chaotic coping). Systemic equilibrium is a key driver of behavior and refers to the fact that systems organize around an equilibrium state or steady state. Trauma pushes individuals out of a steady state equilibrium resulting in significant energy (i.e., coping output) being allocated to re-establish a point of equilibrium (i.e., feeling normal again).

The four primary tenets of SRST are: (1) Human beings are self-aware dynamic living systems that require the effective utilization of internal and external resources through feedback mechanisms to self-regulate toward desired goals (Ford, 1987; Bandura, 1997); (2) Under certain conditions, living systems can be pushed into non-linear dynamic shifts from one organized state to another based upon environmental and internal pressures or supports; (3) Coping response output after trauma is comprised of a biopsychosocial action relative to the perceived level of disequilibrium (or distance from a state of normalcy or growth) combined with one’s forecast in being able to effectively manage this discrepancy; and (4) A subset of trauma survivors will reach a critical threshold when they believe it is just not possible to regain a sense of control over their recovery (i.e., self-determination violation effect). It is also predicted that survivors can also reach an important threshold where they believe in their ability to recover (i.e., personal agency resurgence).

The self-determination violation effect has profound implications for perceived autonomy, competence, and connectedness (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Negative consequences include a large increase in negative emotional states (e.g., posttraumatic distress, anger, and despair), impaired coping responses, reduced motivational output, and impaired social interaction. This is a personal agency crisis. SRST is unique, relative to other traumatic stress theories, in that it targets identification of key catalyst variables related to non-linear systemic change across time. Benight et al. (2017) found support for a non-linear negative shift in two samples of motor vehicle accident survivors.

Benight et al. (2017) demonstrated support for the importance of CSE in non-linear shifts in functioning 3 months after a motor vehicle accident. Acute perceived CSE served as a bifurcation factor for the negative non-linear shift in functioning (e.g., posttraumatic symptoms). Importantly, in both samples those who would be considered less affected by the trauma, and therefore less scrutinized for possible psychological challenges, were most at risk for the 3-month negative shift. These results suggest that SRST offers a new lens for understanding critical mechanisms associated with unique trajectories of coping with traumatic stress. The results suggest negative shifts in functioning are interwoven with perceptions of capability to manage the recovery. Positive shifts may also be driven by these same appraisals.

In contrast to the negative self-determination crisis, a personal agency resurgence is also possible. Effective utilization of internal and external resources (i.e., recovery capital) where systemic equilibrium becomes more attainable allows individuals to regain a sense of mastery and perhaps promote personal transformation. Many trauma survivors explain the experience in some way transformed them into a better person. Instead of reaching the negative threshold where the future is seen as bleak and recovery is perceived as out of reach, positive threshold shifts occur when the goal of future resolution is seen as completely attainable. Cognitions such as “I’ve got this” or “It’s going to be alright” sustain coping efforts and foster hope. We argue that self-perceptions of coping capability (i.e., CSE) will be a pivotal factor in this type of upward shift. Other personal characteristics may also be important to consider (e.g., dispositional optimism, hope, attachment style; Bryant, 2016; Weinberg et al., 2016). Social resources are integral to this dynamic process as social support resources (i.e., enabling hypothesis; Schwarzer and Knoll, 2007) boost individual agency following trauma.

Hobfoll (1989) referred to this dynamic process as a gain cycle where invested resources are rewarded with greater resource accumulation (e.g., self-esteem, social support, life meaning, personal mastery, etc.). These improvements are akin to what Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) described this as posttraumatic growth and is suggestive of a transformative process. In essence, this process depicts what we often refer to as resilience.

Montpetit et al. (2010) as well as Pincus and Metten (2010) described the importance of a systemic non-linear approach to understand resilience. They described human beings as self-organizing, complex, adaptive systems. Pincus and Metten (2010) highlighted flexibility, openness, and connectivity of the system as key to resilient functioning. When social and individual resources are invested in a flexible open manner within a supportive embedded environment, new systemic configurations become possible.

It should be noted that many theorists have described this personal resurgence (Frankl, 1963; Yalom and Lieberman, 1991; Park et al., 1996; Joseph and Linley, 2005; Joseph and Williams, 2005). By utilizing dynamic non-linear systems analyses, we can observe the underlying systemic shifts or transformations that many trauma survivors describe.

Self-regulation shift theory predicts that some trauma survivors will demonstrate non-linear dynamic state shifts when they reach critical thresholds resulting in a reorganization into a new biopsychosocial state. The person will now experience the world as a different person. Those who are resilient will often refer to themselves as “different,” “deeper,” “more aware,” “more connected,” “stronger” (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004). Individuals struggling will describe themselves as “damaged,” “ill,” “broken,” “incompetent,” or “sick.” Shifts between states are possible, yet theoretically, we argue that the system drives toward a new equilibrium or steady state.

Trauma clearly challenges personal agency in ways not ever contemplated by the individual. Systemic adaptation maximally challenges the ability of the self-organizing system to remain flexible, open and connected to ever changing internal and external demands. The system’s ability to reach healthy adaptation equilibrium has critical implications on decision making, affect regulation, and social behaviors. Future research that addresses trauma adaptation with a dynamical systems approach is needed to understand the dynamics of effective and ineffective personal transformation.