KSOEM
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Ann Occup Environ Med > Volume 38; 2026 > Article
- Original Article Meaning of work in the association between traumatic events experienced and posttraumatic growth among workers in South Korea: a cross-sectional study
-
Miyoung Kim1,2
, Sang Baek Koh2, Yujin Kim3,* -
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2026;38:e35.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2026.38.e35
Published online: July 27, 2026
1Doctoral Program in Counseling Psychology, Graduate School of Education, Sangji University, Wonju, Korea
2Department of Preventive Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea
3Graduate School of Peace and Security Counseling Psychology, Sangji University, Wonju, Korea
- *Corresponding author: Yujin Kim Graduate School of Peace and Security Counseling Psychology, Sangji University, 83 Sangjidae-gil, Wonju 26339, Korea E-mail: kimyujin10@sangji.ac.kr
• Received: April 27, 2026 • Revised: July 14, 2026 • Accepted: July 15, 2026
© 2026 Korean Society of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 1,152 Views
- 93 Download
Abstract
-
Background Traumatic experiences are associated with posttraumatic stress disorder and posttraumatic growth (PTG). Although meaning-making has been emphasized in PTG, little research has examined whether the meaning of work is involved in cross-sectional indirect associations between traumatic events experienced and PTG. In South Korea, research has focused mainly on events meeting the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), whereas events not meeting DSM criteria among workers remain underexamined.
-
Methods This study measured traumatic events experienced, meaning of work, and PTG in 328 workers aged 20 years or older. Traumatic events experienced were classified as events meeting DSM-5 criteria or events not meeting these criteria. Cross-sectional indirect associations were examined using SPSS 21.0 and the PROCESS Macro.
-
Results In cross-sectional indirect-effect models, meaning of work showed a significant indirect association between the total number of traumatic events experienced and PTG. A significant indirect association through meaning of work was also observed for events not meeting DSM criteria, whereas no significant indirect association was found for events meeting DSM criteria.
-
Conclusions In this worker sample, events not meeting DSM criteria were highly prevalent. Meaning of work may be cross-sectionally associated with how workers interpret and integrate such events. These exploratory findings suggest that meaning-centered approaches may complement workplace mental health interventions, although longitudinal studies are needed to test temporal and causal processes.
BACKGROUND
Human beings experience a variety of traumatic events over the course of their lives.1 Traumatic experiences have been recognized as a significant mental health issue associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), physical symptoms, and impairments in social functioning. Although experiencing traumatic events can be accompanied by psychological distress that is difficult to recover from, it may also be associated with positive psychological changes as meaning in life and value systems are reconstructed.2 This transformation is referred to as posttraumatic growth (PTG). This is understood as a process in which individuals report new adaptation and growth while cognitively and emotionally restructuring distressing traumatic events.3-5
Existing research on traumatic events has primarily focused on events meeting the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Research is relatively insufficient on events not meeting DSM criteria, which are everyday in nature but can still exert a psychological impact on individuals. However, recent studies have reported that events not meeting the criteria, such as interpersonal conflict, financial difficulties, and academic failure, significantly predict PTSD symptoms and are, in fact, experienced at a higher frequency.6-10 Some events not meeting DSM criteria may conceptually overlap with work-related psychosocial hazards, such as workplace bullying and emotional labor; however, in this study, they refer more broadly to life events occurring across both work and non-work domains. These findings highlight the limitations of restricting traumatic events to DSM criteria and raise the need to expand the scope of traumatic events considered in trauma research.9,10
With growing emphasis on trauma-informed care (TIC), studies have increasingly examined the frequency and types of traumatic events experienced in general population samples.11-14 Studies in South Korea likewise report that most adults experience at least one traumatic event over the course of their lifetime and, on average, experience multiple traumatic events.6,12,15 Furthermore, the average number of traumatic events experienced has shown a continuous upward trend. This suggests that the patterns of traumatic events experienced are also evolving amid social and environmental changes.8,12,13,15
Additionally, research on traumatic events has moved beyond whether individuals experienced such events to examine how these events are associated with psychological adjustment and quality of life. Studies on PTG emphasize that PTG is not determined solely by the number of traumatic events experienced; rather, psychological and social processes such as meaning reconstruction, rumination, and social support are considered relevant explanatory processes.16,17
In this context, meaning-making is regarded as an important process related to PTG.17-19 Previous research has examined PTG mainly in relation to meaning in life.20 Individuals with a stronger sense of meaning in life are more likely to reinterpret traumatic experiences positively and transform them into growth.21,22 However, meaning-making occurs within specific life contexts, and work is one of the central domains shaping adult life.23
Work is not merely a means of livelihood but an important psychosocial domain that provides opportunities for identity formation, maintenance of social relationships, and self-realization. In the psychology of working theory, individuals satisfy not only survival needs but also needs for social connectedness and self-determination through work, which is closely related to mental well-being.24 In fact, a growing body of research indicates that a higher perceived meaning of work is associated with greater life satisfaction, psychological flourishing, and mental health.25 By contrast, traumatic experiences can negatively affect occupational identity and role functioning, thereby influencing work adjustment and psychological stability.26
Therefore, in understanding the relationship between traumatic events experienced and PTG among workers, the meaning of work may be an important work-related factor involved in indirect associations.27,28 A positive relationship between occupational calling and PTG has also been identified.29 Furthermore, qualitative research suggests that individuals may report PTG while reinterpreting traumatic experiences through work, including restoring self-efficacy, rebuilding interpersonal trust, and contributing to others.30
Even when traumatic events experienced by workers are not directly work-related, workers may reinterpret and integrate such events through work, as work represents a central domain for adult identity, social roles, and competence. Thus, the meaning of work may be a context-specific meaning-making resource that is related to workers’ sense of self-worth and life continuity following such events.
Nevertheless, research directly analyzing the meaning of work in the relationship between traumatic events experienced and PTG remains very limited. Prior studies have primarily focused on specific occupational groups (e.g., firefighters, healthcare workers) or clinical populations, with relatively few studies targeting general workers. Moreover, research that distinguishes between events meeting DSM criteria and those not meeting DSM criteria when analyzing differences in their effects is also insufficient.
Therefore, this study examined the types and frequency of traumatic events experienced among workers and explored whether the meaning of work was involved in cross-sectional indirect associations between traumatic events experienced and PTG. By distinguishing between events meeting DSM criteria and those not meeting DSM criteria, the study aimed to clarify whether patterns of association with PTG differed by event type.
METHODS
This cross-sectional survey examined indirect associations through meaning of work between traumatic events experienced by workers and PTG. Data were collected from September 4 to 14, 2025, using a self-report questionnaire administered via Google Forms through a professional online survey panel targeting workers aged 20 years or older.
A total of 357 responses were collected, and 328 were included in the final analysis after excluding 29 insincere responses. The final sample comprised 175 males (53.4%) and 153 females (46.6%), with a mean age of 39.3 years (standard deviation [SD]: 10.7).
Traumatic events experienced were assessed using a list of traumatic events classified by Lee and Lee.6 The questionnaire was developed by modifying and supplementing the Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5)31 and the Korean version of the Lifetime Stressor Checklist-Revised (LSC-R-K).32 In this study, only directly experienced events were included in the analysis: 13 events meeting DSM diagnostic criteria and 22 events not meeting DSM criteria from the total list of 35 events.
PTG was measured using the Korean version of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory-Expanded (PTGI-X).33 This scale consists of 25 items across five subfactors, with higher scores indicating higher levels of PTG. In this study, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was 0.98.
The meaning of work was measured using the Korean version of the Work and Meaning Inventory (K-WAMI).34 This scale comprises 10 items that assess workers’ perceived meaning, value, and purpose in their work, with higher scores indicating greater perceived meaning of work. In this study, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was 0.93.
Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Hayes’ PROCESS Macro (v4.2).35 First, frequency analysis was conducted to examine the frequency of traumatic events experienced. Next, means, SD, skewness, kurtosis, and correlation coefficients were calculated for the main variables. The assumption of normality was evaluated using criteria of an absolute skewness value of 2 and an absolute kurtosis value of 7.36
To examine statistical indirect associations through meaning of work, PROCESS Macro Model 4 was employed with 5,000 bootstrap samples and 95% confidence intervals. The analyses were conducted in parallel across three models, with the total number of traumatic events experienced, the number of events meeting DSM criteria, and the number of events not meeting DSM criteria entered as independent variables, respectively.
Model explanatory power was evaluated using R² values. Multicollinearity was assessed using tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF).
The present study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wonju Severance Christian Hospital (IRB No. CR326045). All participants provided electronic informed consent before completing the survey.
RESULTS
The general characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. Among the total of 328 participants, office workers comprised the largest group (n = 178, 54.3%), followed by service (n = 64, 19.5%), production (n = 29, 8.8%), care and welfare (n = 24, 7.3%), education (n = 17, 5.2%), and healthcare (n = 16, 4.9%). Company size was relatively evenly distributed across large enterprises (n = 105, 32.0%), small and medium-sized enterprises (n = 104, 31.7%), and small businesses (n = 119, 36.3%). The mean years of service was 11.5 years (SD: 8.5).
The frequency of traumatic events directly experienced is presented in Table 2. Among events meeting DSM criteria, the most frequently reported were exposure to toxic substances (46.6%), causing serious injury or death to another person (45.1%), fire or explosion (44.2%), serious accidents (43.9%), and transportation accidents (41.2%). Among events not meeting DSM criteria, the most frequently reported were parental divorce or conflict (44.5%), academic failure or difficulties (43.9%), conflict with teachers (43.9%), emotional or physical abuse or neglect (43.6%), and conflict with a romantic partner (43.0%).
Among the participants, four reported no direct experience of any of the 13 events meeting DSM criteria. The mean number of events experienced per participant was 3.79 for events meeting DSM criteria, 7.78 for events not meeting DSM criteria, and 11.58 for the total traumatic events experienced. The number of events not meeting DSM criteria ranged from 3 to 14.
The descriptive statistics and correlation analysis results for the main variables are presented in Table 3. The total number of traumatic events experienced showed significant positive correlations with both the meaning of work and PTG. The meaning of work was significantly positively correlated with the number of events not meeting DSM criteria and with PTG, but was not significantly correlated with the number of events meeting DSM criteria. PTG showed positive correlations with the total number of traumatic events experienced, the number of events meeting DSM criteria, the number of events not meeting DSM criteria, and the meaning of work.
The R² values for the mediator models predicting meaning of work were 0.0632 for the total number of traumatic events experienced, 0.0094 for events meeting DSM criteria, and 0.0620 for events not meeting DSM criteria. Multicollinearity was not indicated, with tolerance values ranging from 0.937 to 0.991 and VIF values ranging from 1.009 to 1.067.
In the model with the total number of traumatic events experienced as the independent variable, this variable was significantly positively associated with meaning of work (β = 0.7295, p < 0.001), and meaning of work was also significantly positively associated with PTG (β = 1.4402, p < 0.001). The direct association between the total number of traumatic events experienced and PTG remained significant after including meaning of work (β = 1.0695, p = 0.036). The 95% confidence interval for the statistical indirect association ranged from 0.5807 to 1.5651 and did not include 0 (Table 4).
In the model with the number of events not meeting DSM criteria as the independent variable, this variable was significantly positively associated with meaning of work (β = 0.8884, p < 0.001), and meaning of work was significantly positively associated with PTG (β = 1.4705, p < 0.001). After including meaning of work, the direct association between the number of events not meeting DSM criteria and PTG was not significant (β = 0.9196, p = 0.148). The 95% confidence interval for the statistical indirect association ranged from 0.7166 to 2.0012 and did not include 0 (Table 5).
In the model with the number of events meeting DSM criteria as the independent variable, neither the association between this variable and meaning of work (β = 0.5001, p = 0.080) nor the association with PTG after including meaning of work (β = 1.4221, p = 0.107) was statistically significant. The 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect ranged from −0.0944 to 1.6916 and included 0, indicating that no significant indirect association through meaning of work was found (Table 6).
DISCUSSION
The mean number of traumatic events experienced in this worker sample was 11.58, higher than the 4.5 reported by Chae (2022)13 and the 9.19 reported by Son et al. (2025)12.
The number of events not meeting DSM criteria was 7.78, which is higher than the mean number of events meeting DSM criteria (3.79), consistent with prior studies suggesting that events not meeting DSM criteria are also important factors related to adaptation among Korean adults.6,8 In terms of event types, the worker sample presented high frequencies not only for events meeting DSM criteria—such as exposure to toxic substances, fire or explosion, and transportation accidents—but also for events not meeting DSM criteria, including parental conflict, academic failure, conflict with teachers, and emotional or physical abuse or neglect. This suggests that restricting trauma assessment to events meeting DSM criteria makes it difficult to adequately capture the cumulative stress-related and relational events that occur in real-life contexts.9,10 It further supports the need for research and policy responses that encompass various traumatic events, particularly the development of TIC, beyond existing approaches centered on events meeting DSM criteria.9,37
The types of traumatic events experienced by workers presented some differences from the findings of Kim et al. (2019)38 and Lee and Lee (2024)6. These differences may be attributable to variations in participant characteristics, timing of the survey, or the criteria used to classify traumatic events. Moreover, the distribution of traumatic events experienced may vary depending on temporal, social, and environmental conditions, rather than being fixed to specific events. However, it is also possible that these differences are influenced by variations in the composition of traumatic event lists; therefore, future studies should conduct comparative research using more standardized measurement instruments.
The cross-sectional indirect-association analysis showed significant indirect associations through meaning of work in the models involving the total number of traumatic events experienced and events not meeting DSM criteria. These findings suggest that the association between the number of traumatic events experienced and PTG may not be understood solely in terms of event frequency; how workers interpret and integrate such events within life and work contexts may also be relevant. In particular, events not meeting DSM criteria may be associated with PTG when such events are interpreted through the meaning of work.17,19,20,25,28,29
By contrast, no significant indirect association through meaning of work was found for events meeting DSM criteria. This result should be interpreted in light of the non-significant association between events meeting DSM criteria and meaning of work (r = 0.097, p > 0.05) and the very low explanatory power of the model predicting meaning of work (R² = 0.0094). Similarly, Kim et al. (2019)38 reported that events meeting DSM criteria did not significantly predict PTG and that the indirect association through problem-focused coping was not significant. Although one possible explanation is that DSM-criterion events may be associated with psychological processes less closely tied to work-related meaning-making, this possibility was not directly tested because the present study did not assess trauma severity, diagnostic status, or time since trauma. Therefore, this interpretation should be regarded as a hypothesis for future research rather than a conclusion of the present study. This finding suggests the need for future research to examine characteristics of traumatic events, such as severity, in understanding not only PTSD but also PTG.9
These findings are consistent with research linking meaning in life and meaningful work to psychological adjustment and growth.23-26 However, because meaning in life was not measured, this study cannot determine whether meaning of work has a unique role beyond global meaning in life.16,21,22 Furthermore, the findings are consistent with theories suggesting that traumatic experiences may be associated with PTG through processes of interpretation and meaning-making.2,4,18 Finally, this study suggests that meaning-making may be relevant not only to meaning in life but also to the work context.19,28-30
In sum, these findings suggest that the association between traumatic events experienced and PTG may differ by event type. In particular, meaning of work was involved in significant cross-sectional indirect associations between events not meeting DSM criteria and PTG, suggesting that work-related meaning may be relevant to how workers interpret and integrate such events. This study contributes to PTG research by examining work-related meaning as a context-specific factor and by including events not meeting DSM criteria in analyses of traumatic events experienced by workers.
From a practical perspective, meaning-centered approaches should be understood as complementary to, rather than substitutes for, organizational prevention and clinical support. In workplace mental health interventions, priority should be given to preventing hazardous exposures, reducing psychosocial risks such as workplace bullying and excessive emotional labor, and ensuring access to appropriate psychological or medical care. Emphasizing the meaning of work should not be interpreted as encouraging early return to work, increasing work demands, or placing responsibility for recovery solely on individual workers. Within a safe and supportive organizational context, meaning-centered practices may include structured reflection on work values, opportunities to discuss role purpose and contribution, or integration of meaning-of-work components into broader psychosocial support programs. These practices should be considered one component of broader psychosocial support rather than a stand-alone intervention for workers' mental health. PTG should not be interpreted as an expected or required outcome after trauma. For workers experiencing persistent distress, symptom stabilization, safety, and professional support should be prioritized over growth-oriented approaches.
However, this study has several limitations. First, because this study used a cross-sectional design, temporal or causal relationships among traumatic events experienced, meaning of work, and PTG cannot be established. Reverse or reciprocal associations are also possible; for example, workers with higher PTG may retrospectively attribute greater meaning to their work.
Second, owing to issues related to the standardization of traumatic event measurement instruments, there are limitations in making comparisons across studies. Sufficient consistency in measurement has not been ensured because various traumatic event scales are often combined or event lists are expanded and modified. Future research should employ more standardized instruments for validation. Third, participants were recruited through a professional online survey panel over a relatively short period, which may have introduced selection bias related to internet access, motivation to participate, or psychological characteristics. In addition, office workers accounted for more than half of the sample, whereas other occupational groups were relatively underrepresented. Therefore, the demographic and occupational composition of the sample may have influenced the observed patterns of traumatic events experienced and may limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader working population.
Finally, traumatic events experienced were not distinguished by domain, such as work-related versus personal domains. Future research should examine domain-specific traumatic events and their associations with PTG across industries. The present models were intentionally parsimonious, consisting of a single predictor, meaning of work, and PTG, and did not control for trauma-related or psychosocial factors such as elapsed time since trauma, perceived trauma severity, social support, baseline mental health status, organizational support, and personality traits. Therefore, the possibility that these unmeasured factors influenced the observed associations cannot be excluded, and the findings should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, the observed indirect associations should be interpreted as constrained and preliminary estimates rather than as a comprehensive explanatory model of PTG among workers. Exploring additional psychosocial variables associated with the relationship between traumatic events experienced and PTG is important, particularly because no significant indirect association through meaning of work was found for events meeting DSM criteria. Future studies should employ more comprehensive longitudinal or multivariable models that include trauma-related characteristics, meaning in life, social support, organizational support, baseline mental health status, and personality factors.
CONCLUSIONS
Traumatic events experienced were widely reported in this worker sample, particularly events not meeting DSM criteria. Meaning of work was associated with PTG and showed a significant cross-sectional indirect association in the relationship between events not meeting DSM criteria and PTG. These exploratory findings suggest that meaning of work may be relevant to how workers interpret and integrate such events, particularly events not meeting DSM criteria. However, longitudinal and more comprehensive studies are needed before drawing conclusions about temporal ordering, causal mediation, or intervention effects. Workplace mental health strategies should prioritize organizational prevention, safe working environments, and access to appropriate clinical support, while meaning-centered approaches may be considered as complementary support.
Abbreviations
DSM
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
K-WAMI
Korean version of the Work and Meaning Inventory
LEC-5
Life Events Checklist for DSM-5
LSC-R-K
Korean version of the Lifetime Stressor Checklist-Revised
PTG
posttraumatic growth
PTGI-X
Posttraumatic Growth Inventory-Expanded
PTSD
posttraumatic stress disorder
SD
standard deviation
TIC
trauma-informed care
VIF
variance inflation factor
-
Funding
The article processing charge (APC) for this publication was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (Grant No. RS-2025-25462906).
-
Competing interests
Sang Baek Koh, a contributing editor of the Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, was not involved in the editorial evaluation or decision to publish this article. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
-
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Kim M, Koh SB, Kim Y. Data curation: Kim M. Funding acquisition: Koh SB. Methodology/formal analysis/validation: Kim M, Kim Y. Project administration: Kim M. Writing - original draft: Kim M. Writing - review & editing: Kim M, Koh SB, Kim Y.
NOTES
Table 1.
Participant characteristics (n = 328)
Table 2.
Frequency of traumatic events directly experienced (n = 328)
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics and correlations (n = 328)
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Total traumatic events experienced | 1 | ||||
| 2. Events meeting DSM criteria | 0.599** | 1 | |||
| 3. Events not meeting DSM criteria | 0.827** | 0.045 | 1 | ||
| 4. Meaning of work | 0.251** | 0.097 | 0.245** | 1 | |
| 5. Posttraumatic growth | 0.213** | 0.123* | 0.179** | 0.446** | 1 |
| Mean | 11.58 | 3.79 | 7.78 | 26.08 | 90.04 |
| SD | 2.60 | 1.46 | 2.09 | 7.57 | 26.01 |
| Skewness | –0.044 | 0.025 | 0.080 | 0.092 | –0.066 |
| Kurtosis | –0.178 | –0.232 | –0.306 | –0.052 | –0.082 |
Table 4.
Mediation model for the total number of traumatic events experienced
Table 5.
Mediation model for events not meeting DSM criteria
Table 6.
Mediation model for events meeting DSM criteria
- 1. Frazier P, Anders S, Perera S, Tomich P, Tennen H, Park C, et al. Traumatic events among undergraduate students: prevalence and associated symptoms. J Couns Psychol 2009;56(3):450–60.Article
- 2. Calhoun LG, Tedeschi RG. The foundations of posttraumatic growth: an expanded framework. In: Calhoun LG, Tedeschi RG, editors. Handbook of Posttraumatic Growth: Research and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge; 2014, 3–23.
- 3. Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J Trauma Stress 1996;9(3):455–71.ArticlePubMed
- 4. Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. Posttraumatic growth: conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychol Inq 2004;15(1):1–18.
- 5. Tedeschi RG, Moore BA, Greene TC. Posttraumatic growth as a pathway to wellness for individuals and organizations. Behav Sci (Basel) 2025;15(12):1653.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 6. Lee DH, Lee DH. Exploring predictive events for PTSD symptoms of Korean adults with Elastic Net regression analysis. Korean J Psychol Gen 2024;43(2):149–72.
- 7. Lee DH, Kim JY, Lee DH, Kang M. PTSD symptoms, psychological distress, and emotion regulation difficulties based on DSM criterion and trauma. Korean J Couns Psychother 2018;30(3):741–73.Article
- 8. Kim JY, Kim SH, Heo SJ, Lee DH. Types of trauma and psychological symptoms of Korean adults. J Rehabil Psychol 2023;30(2):219–45.
- 9. Kira I. The development-based taxonomy of stressors and traumas: an initial empirical validation. Psychology 2021;12(10):1575–614.ArticlePDF
- 10. Larsen SE, Pacella ML. Comparing the effect of DSM-congruent traumas vs. DSM-incongruent stressors on PTSD symptoms: a meta-analytic review. J Anxiety Disord 2016;38:37–46.ArticlePubMed
- 11. Berring LL, Holm T, Hansen JP, Delcomyn CL, Sondergaard R, Hvidhjelm J. Implementing trauma-informed care-settings, definitions, interventions, measures, and implementation across settings: a scoping review. Healthcare (Basel) 2024;12(9):908.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 12. Son G, Jang J, Hong E, Park S, Choi YK, Choi KH. The age of trauma: the prevalence and psychological impact of potentially traumatic exposures in South Korea. Front Psychiatry 2025;16:1558085.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 13. Chae SM. The trauma of young adults in Korea. Health Welf Issue Focus 2022;417:1–8.
- 14. Kim H, Choi S, Chae S. Effects of cumulative trauma on health. Korean J Health Educ Promot 2022;39(5):67–80.Article
- 15. Kim S, Kim GU, Park S. Prevalence of traumatic experiences in South Korean adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(11):3959.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 16. Ryu JH, Suh KH. Mediating effect of meaning of life moderated by trauma intensity on deliberate rumination of the traumatic experience and post-traumatic growth. J Korea Contents Assoc 2022;22(1):535–44.
- 17. Brooks S, Amlot R, Rubin GJ, Greenberg N. Psychological resilience and post-traumatic growth in disaster-exposed organisations: overview of the literature. BMJ Mil Health 2020;166(1):52–6.ArticlePubMed
- 18. Park CL. Making sense of the meaning literature: an integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychol Bull 2010;136(2):257–301.ArticlePubMed
- 19. Flood F. Reframing trauma: the transformative power of meaning in life, work, and community. J Psychiatry Psychiatr Disord 2018;2(5):145–66.Article
- 20. Zeligman M, Grossman L, Tanzosh A. Posttraumatic growth in trauma survivors: meaning making and locus of control. J Couns Pract 2019;10(2):1–21.Article
- 21. Triplett KN, Tedeschi RG, Cann A, Calhoun LG, Reeve CL. Posttraumatic growth, meaning in life, and life satisfaction in response to trauma. Psychol Trauma 2012;4(4):400–10.Article
- 22. Orovou E, Tzitiridou-Chatzopoulou M, Rigas N, Sarantaki A. Mapping the relationship between post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic growth and the mediating role of resilience. Clin Psychol Psychother 2026;33(2):e70249.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 23. Steger MF, Dik BJ, Duffy RD. Measuring meaningful work: the work and meaning inventory (WAMI). J Career Assess 2012;20(3):322–37.
- 24. Duffy RD, Blustein DL, Diemer MA, Autin KL. The psychology of working theory. J Couns Psychol 2016;63(2):127–48.ArticlePubMed
- 25. Herr RM, Brokmeier L, Baron BN, Mauss D, Fischer JE. The longitudinal directional associations of meaningful work with mental well-being: initial findings from an exploratory investigation. BMC Psychol 2023;11(1):325.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 26. Allan BA, Batz-Barbarich C, Sterling HM, Tay L. Outcomes of meaningful work: a meta‐analysis. J Manage Stud 2019;56(3):500–28.ArticlePDF
- 27. Charles-Leija H, Castro CG, Toledo M, Ballesteros-Valdes R. Meaningful work, happiness at work, and turnover intentions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023;20(4):3565.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 28. Allan BA, Dexter C, Kinsey R, Parker S. Meaningful work and mental health: job satisfaction as a moderator. J Ment Health 2018;27(1):38–44.ArticlePubMed
- 29. Passmore S, Hemming E, McIntosh HC, Hellman CM. The relationship between hope, meaning in work, secondary traumatic stress, and burnout among child abuse pediatric clinicians. Perm J 2020;24:19.087.ArticlePubMed
- 30. Kaye-Tzadok A, Icekson T. A phenomenological exploration of work-related post-traumatic growth among high-functioning adults maltreated as children. Front Psychol 2022;13:1048295.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 31. Weathers FW, Blake DD, Schnurr PP, Kaloupek DG, Marx BP, Keane TM. The life events checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5). Instrument available from the National Center for PTSD; https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/te-measures/life_events_checklist.asp. Updated 2013. Accessed September 30, 2025.
- 32. Choi KR, Kim D, Jang EY, Bae H, Kim SH. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the lifetime stressor checklist-revised in psychiatric outpatients with anxiety or depressive disorders. Yonsei Med J 2017;58(1):226–33.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 33. Kim SH, Lim S, Shin J, Lee DH, Lee DH. Validation of the Korean version of the posttraumatic growth inventory-expanded. Korean J Cult Soc Issues 2020;26(3):195–220.Article
- 34. Choi HG, Lee JM. Validation of Korean version of working as meaning inventory. Korean J Soc Pers Psychol 2017;31(4):1–25.Article
- 35. Hayes AF, Rockwood NJ. Conditional process analysis: concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. Am Behav Sci 2020;64(1):19–54.ArticlePDF
- 36. Curran PJ, West SG, Finch JF. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Methods 1996;1(1):16–29.Article
- 37. Hyun JH. Trauma-informed approach in mental health social work. In: Proceedings of the Korean Academy of Mental Health Social Work; 2020 Aug; Seoul, Korea; 12–37.
- 38. Kim B, Lee D, Lee D, Lee D. The relationship of trauma event experience on psychological and PTSD symptoms, and posttraumatic growth: mediating effect of stress coping ability. Korean J Health Psychol 2019;24(1):117–45.Article
REFERENCES
Figure & Data
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
Cite
XML Download- Related articles
-
- Association between working ≥10 hours per day and satisfaction with work environment among wage workers in Korea: a cross-sectional study using data from the 7th Korean Working Conditions Survey
- The association of shift work and TyG index among male workers in a chemical plant of Korea: a cross-sectional study
Meaning of work in the association between traumatic events experienced and posttraumatic growth among workers in South Korea: a cross-sectional study
Meaning of work in the association between traumatic events experienced and posttraumatic growth among workers in South Korea: a cross-sectional study
| Characteristic | No. (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 39.3 ± 10.7 |
| Sex | |
| Male | 175 (53.4) |
| Female | 153 (46.6) |
| Education | |
| High school or below | 32 (9.8) |
| Junior college | 106 (32.3) |
| College graduate or above | 190 (57.9) |
| Religion | |
| Yes | 126 (38.4) |
| No | 202 (61.6) |
| Marital status | |
| Single | 123 (37.5) |
| Married | 187 (57.0) |
| Cohabiting | 11 (3.4) |
| Divorced/separated/widowed | 7 (2.1) |
| Occupation | |
| Office | 178 (54.3) |
| Production | 29 (8.8) |
| Service | 64 (19.5) |
| Care and welfare | 24 (7.3) |
| Healthcare | 16 (4.9) |
| Education | 17 (5.2) |
| Company size | |
| Large enterprises | 105 (32.0) |
| Small and medium-sized enterprises | 104 (31.7) |
| Small businesses | 119 (36.3) |
| Years of service | 11.5 ± 8.5 |
| Event | No. (%) |
|---|---|
| Events meeting DSM criteria | |
| Natural disasters (floods, typhoons, storms, earthquakes) | 135 (41.2) |
| Fire or explosion | 145 (44.2) |
| Transportation accidents (car, train, ship, airplane crash, etc.) | 135 (41.2) |
| Serious accidents (at work, during leisure, at home) | 144 (43.9) |
| Exposure to toxic substances (hazardous chemicals, radiation) | 153 (46.6) |
| Physical assault (being hit, slapped, kicked, or beaten) | 128 (39.0) |
| Assault with a weapon (gun, knife, bomb) | 0 (0) |
| Sexual violence | 0 (0) |
| War exposure | 0 (0) |
| Captivity (kidnapping, abduction, hostage situation, prisoner of war) | 0 (0) |
| Life-threatening illness or injury | 131 (39.9) |
| Severe hardship such as frequent hunger, forced labor, homelessness | 126 (38.4) |
| Causing serious injury or death to another person | 148 (45.1) |
| Events not meeting DSM criteria | |
| Academic failure or difficulties | 144 (43.9) |
| Unwanted and uncomfortable sexual experiences | 134 (40.9) |
| Parental divorce or conflict | 146 (44.5) |
| Severe conflict with family | 127 (38.7) |
| Experiences of bullying or victimization | 125 (38.1) |
| Peer conflict (not involving one-sided bullying or victimization) | 129 (39.3) |
| Maladjustment to school life | 134 (40.9) |
| Serious illness of a family member or close acquaintance (e.g., cancer, heart disease) | 125 (38.1) |
| Severe financial difficulties | 133 (40.5) |
| Conflict with a romantic partner (e.g., breakup, betrayal) | 141 (43.0) |
| Illness or injury that interferes with daily life | 140 (42.7) |
| Negative experiences related to infectious diseases (e.g., COVID-19) | 136 (41.5) |
| Distressing events encountered through the media or others | 134 (40.9) |
| Shock due to the death of a celebrity | 123 (37.5) |
| Conflict with teachers | 144 (43.9) |
| Incarceration of oneself or a family member | 0 (0) |
| Placement in a child protection facility or experience of adoption | 0 (0) |
| Emotional or physical abuse or neglect | 143 (43.6) |
| Caring for a family member with a severe disability or illness | 123 (37.5) |
| Parental infidelity | 0 (0) |
| Bereavement due to the death of a close person | 135 (41.2) |
| Other highly stressful events or experiences | 139 (42.4) |
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Total traumatic events experienced | 1 | ||||
| 2. Events meeting DSM criteria | 0.599 |
1 | |||
| 3. Events not meeting DSM criteria | 0.827 |
0.045 | 1 | ||
| 4. Meaning of work | 0.251 |
0.097 | 0.245 |
1 | |
| 5. Posttraumatic growth | 0.213 |
0.123 |
0.179 |
0.446 |
1 |
| Mean | 11.58 | 3.79 | 7.78 | 26.08 | 90.04 |
| SD | 2.60 | 1.46 | 2.09 | 7.57 | 26.01 |
| Skewness | –0.044 | 0.025 | 0.080 | 0.092 | –0.066 |
| Kurtosis | –0.178 | –0.232 | –0.306 | –0.052 | –0.082 |
| Variable | β | SE | t | p-value | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mediation model (DV = meaning of work) | ||||||
| Constant | 17.634 | 1.848 | 9.543 | <0.001 | 13.999 | 21.269 |
| Total traumatic events experienced | 0.730 | 0.156 | 4.688 | <0.001 | 0.423 | 1.036 |
| Dependent variable model (DV = posttraumatic growth) | ||||||
| Constant | 40.090 | 6.603 | 6.072 | <0.001 | 27.101 | 53.079 |
| Total traumatic events experienced | 1.070 | 0.508 | 2.106 | 0.036 | 0.070 | 2.069 |
| Meaning of work | 1.440 | 0.175 | 8.232 | <0.001 | 1.096 | 1.784 |
| Effect estimates | ||||||
| Total effect | 2.120 | 0.537 | — | — | 1.059 | 3.182 |
| Direct effect | 1.070 | 0.508 | — | — | 0.070 | 2.069 |
| Indirect effect | 1.051 | 0.255 | — | — | 0.581 | 1.565 |
| Variable | β | SE | t | p-value | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mediation model (DV = meaning of work) | ||||||
| Constant | 19.165 | 1.568 | 12.224 | <0.001 | 16.081 | 22.249 |
| Events not meeting DSM criteria | 0.888 | 0.194 | 4.570 | <0.001 | 0.506 | 1.271 |
| Dependent variable model (DV = posttraumatic growth) | ||||||
| Constant | 44.527 | 5.993 | 7.430 | <0.001 | 32.737 | 56.317 |
| Events not meeting DSM criteria | 0.920 | 0.635 | 1.449 | 0.148 | –0.329 | 2.168 |
| Meaning of work | 1.471 | 0.175 | 8.388 | <0.001 | 1.126 | 1.815 |
| Effect estimates | ||||||
| Total effect | 2.226 | 0.678 | — | — | 0.893 | 3.559 |
| Direct effect | 0.920 | 0.635 | — | — | –0.329 | 2.168 |
| Indirect effect | 1.306 | 0.331 | — | — | 0.717 | 2.001 |
| Variable | β | SE | t | p-value | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mediation model (DV = meaning of work) | ||||||
| Constant | 24.187 | 1.157 | 20.912 | <0.001 | 21.912 | 26.463 |
| Events meeting DSM criteria | 0.500 | 0.284 | 1.759 | 0.080 | –0.059 | 1.059 |
| Dependent variable model (DV = posttraumatic growth) | ||||||
| Constant | 45.365 | 5.452 | 8.320 | <0.001 | 34.638 | 56.091 |
| Events meeting DSM criteria | 1.422 | 0.880 | 1.616 | 0.107 | –0.309 | 3.153 |
| Meaning of work | 1.506 | 0.171 | 8.827 | <0.001 | 1.170 | 1.842 |
| Effect estimates | ||||||
| Total effect | 2.175 | 0.974 | — | — | 0.260 | 4.090 |
| Direct effect | 1.422 | 0.880 | — | — | –0.309 | 3.153 |
| Indirect effect | 0.753 | 0.452 | — | — | –0.094 | 1.692 |
Table 1. Participant characteristics (n = 328)
Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation.
Table 2. Frequency of traumatic events directly experienced (n = 328)
Values are presented as number (%). Only direct experiences were analyzed; multiple responses were allowed. DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations (n = 328)
DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; SD: standard deviation.
Table 4. Mediation model for the total number of traumatic events experienced
Indirect effects were estimated using 5,000 bootstrap samples. SE: standard error; LLCI: lower limit of the 95% confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit of the 95% confidence interval; DV: dependent variable.
Table 5. Mediation model for events not meeting DSM criteria
Indirect effects were estimated using 5,000 bootstrap samples. DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; SE: standard error; LLCI: lower limit of the 95% confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit of the 95% confidence interval; DV: dependent variable.
Table 6. Mediation model for events meeting DSM criteria
Indirect effects were estimated using 5,000 bootstrap samples. DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; SE: standard error; LLCI: lower limit of the 95% confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit of the 95% confidence interval; DV: dependent variable.
