被负面情绪蒙蔽和困扰:跨领域的心理灵活性有关联吗?

IF 2.1 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Affective science Pub Date : 2022-10-07 DOI:10.1007/s42761-022-00145-2
Ella K. Moeck, Jessica Mortlock, Sandersan Onie, Steven B. Most, Peter Koval
{"title":"被负面情绪蒙蔽和困扰:跨领域的心理灵活性有关联吗?","authors":"Ella K. Moeck,&nbsp;Jessica Mortlock,&nbsp;Sandersan Onie,&nbsp;Steven B. Most,&nbsp;Peter Koval","doi":"10.1007/s42761-022-00145-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Psychological inflexibility is theorized to underlie difficulties adjusting mental processes in response to changing circumstances. People show inflexibility across a range of domains, including attention, cognition, and affect. But it remains unclear whether common mechanisms underlie inflexibility in different domains. We investigated this possibility in a pre-registered replication and extension examining associations among attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility measures. Participants (<i>N</i> = 196) completed lab tasks assessing (a) <i>emotion-induced blindness</i>, the tendency for task-irrelevant emotional stimuli to impair attention allocation to non-emotional stimuli; (b) <i>emotional inertia</i>, the tendency for feelings to persist across time and contexts; and global self-report measures of (c) <i>repetitive negative thinking</i>, the tendency to repeatedly engage in negative self-focused thoughts (i.e., rumination, worry). Based on prior research linking repetitive negative thinking with negative affect inertia, on one hand, and emotion-induced blindness, on the other, we predicted positive correlations among all three measures of inflexibility. However, none of the three measures were related and Bayes factors indicated strong evidence for independence. Supplementary analyses ruled out alternative explanations for our findings, e.g., analytic decisions. Although our findings question the overlap between attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility measures, this study has methodological limitations. For instance, our measures varied across more than their inflexibility domain and our sample, relative to previous studies, included a high proportion of Asian participants who may show different patterns of ruminative thinking to non-Asian participants. Future research should address these limitations to confirm that common mechanisms do not underlie attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72119,"journal":{"name":"Affective science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s42761-022-00145-2.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blinded by and Stuck in Negative Emotions: Is Psychological Inflexibility Across Different Domains Related?\",\"authors\":\"Ella K. Moeck,&nbsp;Jessica Mortlock,&nbsp;Sandersan Onie,&nbsp;Steven B. Most,&nbsp;Peter Koval\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s42761-022-00145-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Psychological inflexibility is theorized to underlie difficulties adjusting mental processes in response to changing circumstances. People show inflexibility across a range of domains, including attention, cognition, and affect. But it remains unclear whether common mechanisms underlie inflexibility in different domains. We investigated this possibility in a pre-registered replication and extension examining associations among attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility measures. Participants (<i>N</i> = 196) completed lab tasks assessing (a) <i>emotion-induced blindness</i>, the tendency for task-irrelevant emotional stimuli to impair attention allocation to non-emotional stimuli; (b) <i>emotional inertia</i>, the tendency for feelings to persist across time and contexts; and global self-report measures of (c) <i>repetitive negative thinking</i>, the tendency to repeatedly engage in negative self-focused thoughts (i.e., rumination, worry). Based on prior research linking repetitive negative thinking with negative affect inertia, on one hand, and emotion-induced blindness, on the other, we predicted positive correlations among all three measures of inflexibility. However, none of the three measures were related and Bayes factors indicated strong evidence for independence. Supplementary analyses ruled out alternative explanations for our findings, e.g., analytic decisions. Although our findings question the overlap between attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility measures, this study has methodological limitations. For instance, our measures varied across more than their inflexibility domain and our sample, relative to previous studies, included a high proportion of Asian participants who may show different patterns of ruminative thinking to non-Asian participants. Future research should address these limitations to confirm that common mechanisms do not underlie attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Affective science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s42761-022-00145-2.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Affective science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42761-022-00145-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Affective science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42761-022-00145-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

理论上,心理灵活性是调整心理过程以应对不断变化的环境的困难的基础。人们在一系列领域表现出灵活性,包括注意力、认知和情感。但目前尚不清楚是否有共同的机制导致不同领域的不灵活。我们在一项预先注册的复制和扩展研究中调查了这种可能性,该研究考察了注意力、认知和情感不灵活测量之间的关联。参与者(N=196)完成了实验室任务,评估(a)情绪诱导的失明,即与任务无关的情绪刺激损害对非情绪刺激的注意力分配的趋势;(b) 情感惯性,即情感在时间和环境中持续存在的趋势;以及(c)重复性消极思维的全球自我报告测量,即反复从事消极的自我专注思维的倾向(即沉思、担忧)。基于先前的研究,一方面将重复性消极思维与消极情感惯性联系起来,另一方面将情绪诱导的失明联系起来,我们预测了三种衡量灵活性的指标之间的正相关性。然而,这三个指标都没有相关性,贝叶斯因素表明了独立性的有力证据。补充分析排除了对我们发现的其他解释,例如分析决策。尽管我们的研究结果对注意力、认知和情感不灵活测量之间的重叠提出了质疑,但这项研究有方法上的局限性。例如,我们的衡量标准在不同的不灵活领域有所不同,与之前的研究相比,我们的样本包括高比例的亚洲参与者,他们可能表现出与非亚洲参与者不同的沉思思维模式。未来的研究应该解决这些局限性,以证实共同的机制并不是注意力、认知和情感不灵活的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Blinded by and Stuck in Negative Emotions: Is Psychological Inflexibility Across Different Domains Related?

Psychological inflexibility is theorized to underlie difficulties adjusting mental processes in response to changing circumstances. People show inflexibility across a range of domains, including attention, cognition, and affect. But it remains unclear whether common mechanisms underlie inflexibility in different domains. We investigated this possibility in a pre-registered replication and extension examining associations among attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility measures. Participants (N = 196) completed lab tasks assessing (a) emotion-induced blindness, the tendency for task-irrelevant emotional stimuli to impair attention allocation to non-emotional stimuli; (b) emotional inertia, the tendency for feelings to persist across time and contexts; and global self-report measures of (c) repetitive negative thinking, the tendency to repeatedly engage in negative self-focused thoughts (i.e., rumination, worry). Based on prior research linking repetitive negative thinking with negative affect inertia, on one hand, and emotion-induced blindness, on the other, we predicted positive correlations among all three measures of inflexibility. However, none of the three measures were related and Bayes factors indicated strong evidence for independence. Supplementary analyses ruled out alternative explanations for our findings, e.g., analytic decisions. Although our findings question the overlap between attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility measures, this study has methodological limitations. For instance, our measures varied across more than their inflexibility domain and our sample, relative to previous studies, included a high proportion of Asian participants who may show different patterns of ruminative thinking to non-Asian participants. Future research should address these limitations to confirm that common mechanisms do not underlie attentional, cognitive, and affective inflexibility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Let’s Talk About It in the Morning: How Circadian Rhythms Impact Information Sharing on Social Media Within-Person Fluctuations in Objective Smartphone Use and Emotional Processes During Adolescence: An Intensive Longitudinal Study Culture and Awe: Understanding Awe as a Mixed Emotion. Speaking Well and Feeling Good: Age-Related Differences in the Affective Language of Resting State Thought. Mean Affect Moderates the Association between Affect Variability and Mental Health
×
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