Risk estimation in relation to anxiety and depression for low probability negative events

IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Amelia S. Dev, Hannah C. Broos, Maria M. Llabre, Patrice G. Saab, Kiara R. Timpano
{"title":"Risk estimation in relation to anxiety and depression for low probability negative events","authors":"Amelia S. Dev,&nbsp;Hannah C. Broos,&nbsp;Maria M. Llabre,&nbsp;Patrice G. Saab,&nbsp;Kiara R. Timpano","doi":"10.1016/j.brat.2024.104500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Foundational cognitive models propose that people with anxiety and depression show risk estimation bias, but most literature does not compute true risk estimation bias by comparing people's subjective risk estimates to their individualized reality (i.e., person-level objective risk). In a diverse community sample (<em>N</em> = 319), we calculated risk estimation bias by comparing people's subjective risk estimates for contracting COVID-19 to their individualized objective risk. Person-level objective risk was consistently low and did not differ across symptom levels, suggesting that for low probability negative events, people with greater symptoms show risk estimation bias that is driven by subjective risk estimates. Greater levels of anxiety, depression, and COVID-specific perseverative cognition separately predicted higher subjective risk estimates. In a model including COVID-specific perseverative cognition alongside anxiety and depression scores, the only significant predictor of subjective risk estimates was COVID-specific perseverative cognition, indicating that symptoms more closely tied to feared outcomes may more strongly influence risk estimation. Finally, subjective risk estimates predicted information-seeking behavior and eating when anxious, but did not significantly predict alcohol or marijuana use, drinking to cope, or information avoidance. Implications for clinical practitioners and future research are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48457,"journal":{"name":"Behaviour Research and Therapy","volume":"176 ","pages":"Article 104500"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behaviour Research and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796724000275","RegionNum":2,"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

Abstract

Foundational cognitive models propose that people with anxiety and depression show risk estimation bias, but most literature does not compute true risk estimation bias by comparing people's subjective risk estimates to their individualized reality (i.e., person-level objective risk). In a diverse community sample (N = 319), we calculated risk estimation bias by comparing people's subjective risk estimates for contracting COVID-19 to their individualized objective risk. Person-level objective risk was consistently low and did not differ across symptom levels, suggesting that for low probability negative events, people with greater symptoms show risk estimation bias that is driven by subjective risk estimates. Greater levels of anxiety, depression, and COVID-specific perseverative cognition separately predicted higher subjective risk estimates. In a model including COVID-specific perseverative cognition alongside anxiety and depression scores, the only significant predictor of subjective risk estimates was COVID-specific perseverative cognition, indicating that symptoms more closely tied to feared outcomes may more strongly influence risk estimation. Finally, subjective risk estimates predicted information-seeking behavior and eating when anxious, but did not significantly predict alcohol or marijuana use, drinking to cope, or information avoidance. Implications for clinical practitioners and future research are discussed.

低概率负面事件与焦虑和抑郁相关的风险评估
基本认知模型认为,焦虑症和抑郁症患者会出现风险估计偏差,但大多数文献并没有通过比较患者的主观风险估计和他们的个体化现实(即个人层面的客观风险)来计算真正的风险估计偏差。在一个多样化的社区样本(N = 319)中,我们通过比较人们对感染 COVID-19 的主观风险估计和他们的个体化客观风险来计算风险估计偏差。个人水平的客观风险一直较低,且在不同症状水平的人群中并无差异,这表明对于低概率的负面事件,症状较重的人群会因主观风险估计而出现风险估计偏差。焦虑、抑郁和 COVID 特异性持久性认知水平越高,主观风险估计值就越高。在一个包括 COVID 特异性持久性认知以及焦虑和抑郁得分的模型中,主观风险估计的唯一显著预测因素是 COVID 特异性持久性认知,这表明与所担心的结果更密切相关的症状可能会更强烈地影响风险估计。最后,主观风险估计值预测了焦虑时的信息搜寻行为和进食行为,但对酒精或大麻的使用、为应对而饮酒或信息回避没有显著的预测作用。本文讨论了对临床从业人员和未来研究的启示。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Behaviour Research and Therapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.30%
发文量
148
期刊介绍: The major focus of Behaviour Research and Therapy is an experimental psychopathology approach to understanding emotional and behavioral disorders and their prevention and treatment, using cognitive, behavioral, and psychophysiological (including neural) methods and models. This includes laboratory-based experimental studies with healthy, at risk and subclinical individuals that inform clinical application as well as studies with clinically severe samples. The following types of submissions are encouraged: theoretical reviews of mechanisms that contribute to psychopathology and that offer new treatment targets; tests of novel, mechanistically focused psychological interventions, especially ones that include theory-driven or experimentally-derived predictors, moderators and mediators; and innovations in dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices into clinical practice in psychology and associated fields, especially those that target underlying mechanisms or focus on novel approaches to treatment delivery. In addition to traditional psychological disorders, the scope of the journal includes behavioural medicine (e.g., chronic pain). The journal will not consider manuscripts dealing primarily with measurement, psychometric analyses, and personality assessment.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信