To be aware or not aware: Do intrusions with and without meta-awareness differ?

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.102002
Catherine A. Keeping, Reginald D.V. Nixon, Victoria M.E. Bridgland, Melanie K.T. Takarangi
{"title":"To be aware or not aware: Do intrusions with and without meta-awareness differ?","authors":"Catherine A. Keeping,&nbsp;Reginald D.V. Nixon,&nbsp;Victoria M.E. Bridgland,&nbsp;Melanie K.T. Takarangi","doi":"10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.102002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>People sometimes re-experience traumatic events via intrusive memories that spontaneously and unintentionally intrude into consciousness (i.e., intrusions). Such intrusions can be experienced without explicit awareness (i.e., <em>meta-awareness</em>). However, we do not know whether intrusions with and without meta-awareness differ in how people experience them (i.e., characteristics) or react to them via maladaptive responses (i.e., suppression, negative interpretations), and therefore whether they are important to differentiate. To investigate this issue, we asked participants to watch a trauma analogue film and—during a subsequent unrelated reading task—intermittently probed them to capture and assess <em>one</em> film-related intrusion. Intrusion meta-awareness positively correlated with intrusion negativity, re-experiencing, and suppression, but not with how people interpreted the meaning of their intrusion. Our findings suggest intrusions with and without meta-awareness can differ in how they are experienced and associated with thought suppression—highlighting the importance of considering both types of intrusions in theory and practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"86 ","pages":"Article 102002"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000612","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People sometimes re-experience traumatic events via intrusive memories that spontaneously and unintentionally intrude into consciousness (i.e., intrusions). Such intrusions can be experienced without explicit awareness (i.e., meta-awareness). However, we do not know whether intrusions with and without meta-awareness differ in how people experience them (i.e., characteristics) or react to them via maladaptive responses (i.e., suppression, negative interpretations), and therefore whether they are important to differentiate. To investigate this issue, we asked participants to watch a trauma analogue film and—during a subsequent unrelated reading task—intermittently probed them to capture and assess one film-related intrusion. Intrusion meta-awareness positively correlated with intrusion negativity, re-experiencing, and suppression, but not with how people interpreted the meaning of their intrusion. Our findings suggest intrusions with and without meta-awareness can differ in how they are experienced and associated with thought suppression—highlighting the importance of considering both types of intrusions in theory and practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
意识到还是不意识到:有和没有元意识的入侵有区别吗?
人们有时会通过自发或无意地侵入意识的侵入性记忆(即侵入性记忆)重新经历创伤性事件。这种入侵可以在没有明确意识(即元意识)的情况下体验。然而,我们不知道有和没有元意识的入侵是否在人们如何体验它们(即特征)或通过不适应反应(即抑制,负面解释)对它们做出反应方面有所不同,因此它们是否重要。为了研究这个问题,我们要求参与者观看一部创伤模拟电影,并在随后的不相关阅读任务中间歇性地探测他们捕捉和评估与电影相关的入侵。入侵元意识与入侵消极性、再体验和抑制呈正相关,但与人们如何解释入侵的意义无关。我们的研究结果表明,有和没有元意识的干扰在体验方式和与思维抑制的关系上是不同的——强调了在理论和实践中考虑这两种类型的干扰的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The publication of the book Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958) by the co-founding editor of this Journal, Joseph Wolpe, marked a major change in the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. The book used principles from empirical behavioral science to explain psychopathological phenomena and the resulting explanations were critically tested and used to derive effective treatments. The second half of the 20th century saw this rigorous scientific approach come to fruition. Experimental approaches to psychopathology, in particular those used to test conditioning theories and cognitive theories, have steadily expanded, and experimental analysis of processes characterising and maintaining mental disorders have become an established research area.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Examining two of the ingredients of Cognitive therapy for adolescent social anxiety disorder: Back-translation from a treatment trial Special Issue Registered Report: Intentional suppression as a method to boost fear extinction Counterfactual thinking is associated with impoverished attentional control in women prone to self-critical rumination Neurocognitive performance in obsessive-compulsive disorder before and after treatment with cognitive behavioral therapy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1