The British journal of clinical psychology · 1997
Selective processing of concern-related information in depression.
Клиническое исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nunn J D, Mathews A, Trower P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The major question examined in this paper is whether selective attentional and interpretative processing of emotional information occurs in depression, and if so, whether it depends on a close match between the material used and current concerns.
DESIGN: Twenty-four depressed patients and the same number of matched controls were tested using two selective processing tasks (described below), and their performance related to self-reported sociotropic and autonomy-related concerns.
METHODS: Colour-naming interference and interpretation of ambiguous situations were assessed using material judged relevant to each of the Sociotropy-autonomy Scales.
RESULTS: Depression was associated with a general interference effect for all negative concern words, and more negative interpretations of ambiguous situations, while controls showed a converse bias in favour of all positive interpretations. There was no convincing evidence that this negative processing bias was proportional to the match between material and self-reported sociotropic or autonomous concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: Depressed patients showed evidence of cognitive biases favouring all negative self-related information, on both attentional and interpretative tasks. We suggest that such effects in depression may occur only under conditions allowing the elaborative processing of negative material related to oneself.
DESIGN: Twenty-four depressed patients and the same number of matched controls were tested using two selective processing tasks (described below), and their performance related to self-reported sociotropic and autonomy-related concerns.
METHODS: Colour-naming interference and interpretation of ambiguous situations were assessed using material judged relevant to each of the Sociotropy-autonomy Scales.
RESULTS: Depression was associated with a general interference effect for all negative concern words, and more negative interpretations of ambiguous situations, while controls showed a converse bias in favour of all positive interpretations. There was no convincing evidence that this negative processing bias was proportional to the match between material and self-reported sociotropic or autonomous concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: Depressed patients showed evidence of cognitive biases favouring all negative self-related information, on both attentional and interpretative tasks. We suggest that such effects in depression may occur only under conditions allowing the elaborative processing of negative material related to oneself.