CSE beliefs refer to the perceived ability to meet the demands imposed on an individual by experiencing a traumatic event (Benight & Bandura, 2004). Traumatic events comprise situations that include physical threat to oneself or loved ones and can happen in a wide variety of contexts including military combat, physical assault, sexual assault, natural disasters, and man-made disasters among others (Breslau et al., 1998; Norris, 1992). Each different type of event may have unique recovery demands. For example, motor vehicle accident (MVA) survivors may have to deal with physical injuries, challenges with insurance companies, and loss of transportation, whereas sexual assault survivors may have to deal with physical injuries, fear of becoming pregnant if the victim is female, decision making related to reporting the crime, as well as the challenge of intimacy after the event. Neither one of these examples exhaust the potential challenges anyone may face after such experiences. They merely highlight some of the psychological and social demands trauma can impose on an individual. It is important to note that many, if not most, of the posttraumatic recovery demands for many individuals are completely foreign, compounding the coping challenges. Of course, this may not be the case for survivors of repeated trauma such as child abuse or soldiers who have been repeatedly deployed to combat zones, for example (see Chap. 7, this volume). Multiple exposures create additional posttraumatic burdens that complicate the coping process.

The duration of the traumatic exposure can vary greatly as well. Some events may be acute and time-limited stressors such as a MVA, whereas others may persist for months or even years (e.g., the aftermath of a natural disaster; see Chaps. 10, 12, and 13, this volume). Whether acute or chronic, recovering from a traumatic event challenges an individual’s capacity to cope. Thus, it is important to understand the evolving posttraumatic coping difficulties that an individual must navigate.

Self-efficacy beliefs play a critical role during this adaptation process (Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004). Indeed, the process of recovering from a traumatic event can push an individual’s capacity to cope to the limits and beyond (Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004). The novel coping demands require that the individual draw upon previous coping experiences in different domains (Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004). CSE beliefs are then developed through self-evaluation and self-regulative processes throughout recovery (e.g., success or failure feedback).

These feedback systems are described in the triadic reciprocal process (see Fig. 11.1). Individuals evaluate successes or failures as they engage in coping behaviors (e.g., seeking social support, managing intrusive thoughts) targeted to help recover from the tragic event. Indeed, as SCT posits, through our ability to use forethought and self-reflection, humans are able to influence the posttraumatic recovery environment through the skillful application of strategic planning and resource utilization. Successful coping experiences after the traumatic event can foster a sense of personal mastery, a powerful source of self-efficacy beliefs . Over time, perceived successful management of critical posttraumatic demands enhances personal beliefs in one’s coping capabilities, promotes effective posttraumatic adaptation, and may potentiate posttraumatic growth (Benight & Bandura, 2004; Cieslak, Benight, & Lehman, 2008). Conversely, many survivors experience a sense of complete personal failure due to a perfect storm of intrusive thoughts related to the trauma, serious on-going environmental challenges, and social isolation. Such thoughts drive a deeper sense of one’s inability to cope, increasing distress, and feelings of despair.

Research investigating the association between CSE beliefs and posttraumatic adaptation has been conducted with a variety of different populations and traumatic events including natural disaster (Benight, Antoni, Kilbourn, & Ironson, 1997; Benight & Harper, 2002; Benight et al., 1999b; Hirschel & Schulenberg, 2009) , physical assault (Johansen, Wahl, Eilertsen, & Weisaeth, 2007) ; inter-partner violence (Benight, Harding-Taylor, Midboe, & Durham, 2004; Lambert, Benight, Wong, & Johnson, 2013) , military combat (Solomon, Benbenishty, & Mulkulincer, 1991), reintegration of veterans after combat deployment (Smith, Benight, & Cieslak, 2013), terrorist attack (Benight et al., 2000), MVAs (Benight, Cieslak, Molton, & Johnson, 2008), and bereavement (Benight, Flores, & Tashiro, 2001). Studies have consistently demonstrated the predictive power of CSE beliefs with a variety of posttraumatic outcomes (Benight & Bandura, 2004; Luszczynska, Benight, & Cieslak, 2009b). The following sections briefly describe the results of various studies investigating the association between CSE beliefs and psychosocial outcomes in different traumatic stress settings.