情境在 "分担的痛苦减半 "中很重要:压力分担与心理压力关系的元分析》(Meta-Analysis of Distress Sharing-Psychological Distress Relations.

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical psychology & psychotherapy Pub Date : 2024-05-20 DOI:10.1002/cpp.2999
Sooyeon Kim, Sunkyung Yoon
{"title":"情境在 \"分担的痛苦减半 \"中很重要:压力分担与心理压力关系的元分析》(Meta-Analysis of Distress Sharing-Psychological Distress Relations.","authors":"Sooyeon Kim,&nbsp;Sunkyung Yoon","doi":"10.1002/cpp.2999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Can ‘a distress shared is a distress halved’ be universally applied? The relationship between sharing distress with others and individuals' psychological health may oscillate depending on how and where it is shared. This meta-analysis aimed to examine (1) whether the relationship between sharing distress and psychological distress is moderated by the manner of sharing (i.e. general tendency to share distress with others [general distress sharing] vs. ruminatively fixating on the negatives during the sharing [co-rumination]) and (2) cultural context (Eastern vs. Western). A total of 110 effect sizes from 105 studies (91 articles on general distress sharing and 84 articles on co-rumination) were included in the analysis with sharing manner as a moderator. For the cross-cultural analyses, 61 studies were included with 47 studies conducted in Western cultures and 15 studies conducted in Eastern cultures. Whereas generally sharing distress was negatively related to psychological distress, co-rumination showed a positive correlation with psychological distress. Culture significantly moderated co-rumination but not general distress sharing in relation to psychological distress. General distress sharing was consistently associated with decreased psychological distress across cultures. In contrast, co-rumination was related to deleterious psychological health only among Westerners, while Easterners showed a non-significant association with psychological distress. Our results align with the increasing importance of taking contextual factors into account in the field of emotion regulation literature.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10460,"journal":{"name":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contexts Matter in ‘a Distress Shared Is a Distress Halved’: A Meta-Analysis of Distress Sharing–Psychological Distress Relations\",\"authors\":\"Sooyeon Kim,&nbsp;Sunkyung Yoon\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cpp.2999\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Can ‘a distress shared is a distress halved’ be universally applied? The relationship between sharing distress with others and individuals' psychological health may oscillate depending on how and where it is shared. This meta-analysis aimed to examine (1) whether the relationship between sharing distress and psychological distress is moderated by the manner of sharing (i.e. general tendency to share distress with others [general distress sharing] vs. ruminatively fixating on the negatives during the sharing [co-rumination]) and (2) cultural context (Eastern vs. Western). A total of 110 effect sizes from 105 studies (91 articles on general distress sharing and 84 articles on co-rumination) were included in the analysis with sharing manner as a moderator. For the cross-cultural analyses, 61 studies were included with 47 studies conducted in Western cultures and 15 studies conducted in Eastern cultures. Whereas generally sharing distress was negatively related to psychological distress, co-rumination showed a positive correlation with psychological distress. Culture significantly moderated co-rumination but not general distress sharing in relation to psychological distress. General distress sharing was consistently associated with decreased psychological distress across cultures. In contrast, co-rumination was related to deleterious psychological health only among Westerners, while Easterners showed a non-significant association with psychological distress. Our results align with the increasing importance of taking contextual factors into account in the field of emotion regulation literature.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpp.2999\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpp.2999","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与他人分担痛苦就是将痛苦减半 "能否普遍适用?与他人分担痛苦与个人心理健康之间的关系可能会因分担痛苦的方式和地点而摇摆不定。本荟萃分析旨在研究:(1) 与他人分担困扰与心理困扰之间的关系是否会受到分担方式(即与他人分担困扰的一般倾向[一般困扰分担]与在分担过程中专注于负面情绪的反刍[共同反刍])和(2) 文化背景(东方与西方)的影响。共有来自 105 项研究的 110 个效应大小(91 篇关于一般苦恼分担的文章和 84 篇关于共同发泄的文章)被纳入以分担方式为调节因子的分析中。在跨文化分析中,共纳入了 61 项研究,其中 47 项研究在西方文化中进行,15 项研究在东方文化中进行。一般来说,分享痛苦与心理痛苦呈负相关,而共同辱骂与心理痛苦呈正相关。文化在很大程度上调节了共同倾诉与心理困扰之间的关系,但没有调节一般的困扰分担与心理困扰之间的关系。在不同的文化中,一般苦恼分担始终与心理压力的减少相关。相反,只有西方人的共同倾诉与有害的心理健康有关,而东方人的共同倾诉与心理困扰的关系并不明显。我们的研究结果表明,在情绪调节研究领域,考虑情境因素越来越重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Contexts Matter in ‘a Distress Shared Is a Distress Halved’: A Meta-Analysis of Distress Sharing–Psychological Distress Relations

Can ‘a distress shared is a distress halved’ be universally applied? The relationship between sharing distress with others and individuals' psychological health may oscillate depending on how and where it is shared. This meta-analysis aimed to examine (1) whether the relationship between sharing distress and psychological distress is moderated by the manner of sharing (i.e. general tendency to share distress with others [general distress sharing] vs. ruminatively fixating on the negatives during the sharing [co-rumination]) and (2) cultural context (Eastern vs. Western). A total of 110 effect sizes from 105 studies (91 articles on general distress sharing and 84 articles on co-rumination) were included in the analysis with sharing manner as a moderator. For the cross-cultural analyses, 61 studies were included with 47 studies conducted in Western cultures and 15 studies conducted in Eastern cultures. Whereas generally sharing distress was negatively related to psychological distress, co-rumination showed a positive correlation with psychological distress. Culture significantly moderated co-rumination but not general distress sharing in relation to psychological distress. General distress sharing was consistently associated with decreased psychological distress across cultures. In contrast, co-rumination was related to deleterious psychological health only among Westerners, while Easterners showed a non-significant association with psychological distress. Our results align with the increasing importance of taking contextual factors into account in the field of emotion regulation literature.

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
Clinical psychology & psychotherapy
Clinical psychology & psychotherapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
106
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy aims to keep clinical psychologists and psychotherapists up to date with new developments in their fields. The Journal will provide an integrative impetus both between theory and practice and between different orientations within clinical psychology and psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy will be a forum in which practitioners can present their wealth of expertise and innovations in order to make these available to a wider audience. Equally, the Journal will contain reports from researchers who want to address a larger clinical audience with clinically relevant issues and clinically valid research.
期刊最新文献
Blended CBT Intervention vs. a Guided Web-Based Intervention for Postpartum Depression: Results From a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Efficacy of Mindfulness Meditation on Patients With Stroke With Concurrent Coronary Heart Disease: A Randomised Controlled Trial Issue Information Impulsiveness in Substance Users: Metacognitive Beliefs and Repetitive Negative Thinking as Potential Maintenance Factors. The Grief Networks of Traumatic and Nontraumatic Deaths: Comparing Earthquake- and Illness-Related Losses.
×
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