Research on responses to trauma has historically focused on the negative repercussions of a struggle with adversity. However, more recently, researchers have begun to examine posttraumatic growth: the positive psychological change that emerges from the struggle with a potentially traumatic event. Associations have been found between posttraumatic growth and greater peritraumatic distress, greater objective severity of trauma exposure, greater perceived stressfulness of events, social support, female gender, cognitive and behavioural responses to trauma, and personality measures. Posttraumatic growth has been measured typically in individuals with varying levels of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and other psychological difficulties, such as depression and anxiety. Although some theory and research posits that higher resilience would prohibit posttraumatic growth, no studies have examined posttraumatic growth in a resilient sample. The Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010 and 2011 involved potentially traumatic events that saw the community struggle with a variety of challenges. However, in the midst of earthquake destruction, some positive initiatives emerged, driven by locals. The Gap Filler project (using city spaces left empty from fallen buildings for art and interactive community projects) and the Student Volunteer Army (groups of volunteers coordinated to help others in need) are examples of this. In this context, it seemed likely that posttraumatic growth was occurring and might be seen in individuals who were coping well with challenges. Culture is theorised to influence the posttraumatic growth process (Calhoun, Cann, & Tedeschi, 2010), and the nature of the trauma undergone is also likely to influence the process of growth. The current thesis measures posttraumatic growth quantitatively and qualitatively in a New Zealand sample. It measures and describes posttraumatic growth in a resilient population after the earthquake sequence of 2010 and 2011 in Canterbury, New Zealand. Findings are used to test current models of posttraumatic growth for individuals coping well after trauma and to elaborate on mechanisms proposed by models such as the comprehensive model of posttraumatic growth (Calhoun et al., 2010) and the organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity (Joseph & Linley, 2005). Correlates of posttraumatic growth are examined and likely supporting factors of posttraumatic growth are identified for this population. Study 1 used quantitative analysis to explore correlates of posttraumatic growth and found that greater posttraumatic growth related to greater peritraumatic distress, greater perceived stressfulness of earthquake events, greater objective stressfulness of earthquake events, greater difficulty with stressful life events, less satisfaction with social support, and female gender. Findings from Study 1 give important detail about the nature of distress included in the comprehensive model of posttraumatic growth (Calhoun et al., 2010) for this population. Levels of posttraumatic growth were lower than those in North American studies but similar to those in a Chinese study. The current sample, however, showed lower endorsement of Relating to Others than the Chinese study, perhaps because of cultural differences. Study 2 used qualitative analysis to examine the experience of posttraumatic growth in the sample. The theme of ‘a greater sense of community’ was found and adds to the comprehensive model of posttraumatic growth, in that an expression of posttraumatic growth (a greater connection with others) can inform ongoing social processing in the posttraumatic growth process. Having a formal or informal role in earthquake recovery appeared to influence self-concept and reflection; this elaborates on the influence of role on reflection in Calhoun et al.’s model. Findings illustrate possible mechanisms of the organismic valuing process theorised by Joseph and Linley (2005). Implications include the importance of providing opportunities for individuals to take on a role after a crisis, encouraging them to act to respond to difficulties, and encouraging them to meet personal needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Finding positive aspects to a difficult situation, as well as acknowledging adversity, can be supported in future to help individuals process their traumas. As a society, we can help individuals cope with adversity by providing ways they can meet their needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Community groups likely provide opportunities for members to act in ways that meet such needs. This will allow them to effectively act to meet their needs in times of crisis.
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
