Do cognitive biases prospectively predict anxiety and depression? A multi-level meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

IF 13.7 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102552

Lisa M.W. Vos , Inés Nieto , Yağmur Amanvermez , Tom Smeets , Jonas Everaert

{"title":"Do cognitive biases prospectively predict anxiety and depression? A multi-level meta-analysis of longitudinal studies","authors":"Lisa M.W. Vos , Inés Nieto , Yağmur Amanvermez , Tom Smeets , Jonas Everaert","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cognitive biases have been implicated in the etiology and maintenance of depression and anxiety, but their utility in predicting future symptoms remains debated. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the overall effect size of their predictive effects and to identify moderators relevant to theory and methodology. The study protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO (record number: CRD42021232236). Searches of PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, PsyArXiv Preprints, and ProQuest Dissertations yielded 81 studies with 621 contrasts and 17,709 participants through December 2024. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results from a three-level meta-analysis revealed a small overall effect size (<em>β</em> = 0.04, 95 %-CI [0.02, 0.06], <em>p <</em> .001) and significant between- and within-study variance after removal of outliers. Equivalent effect sizes were found for the predictive utility of cognitive biases in children/adolescents and adults, for increased negative bias and decreased positive bias, and for anxiety and depression outcomes. The magnitude of the overall effect was moderated by the cognitive process, with significant effect sizes for interpretation bias and memory bias but not for attention bias. These findings support the predictive role of cognitive biases in anxiety and depression, with interpretation and memory biases emerging as key markers. These findings have implications for cognitive theories of depression and anxiety and for clinical interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 102552"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825000182","RegionNum":1,"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

Cognitive biases have been implicated in the etiology and maintenance of depression and anxiety, but their utility in predicting future symptoms remains debated. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the overall effect size of their predictive effects and to identify moderators relevant to theory and methodology. The study protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO (record number: CRD42021232236). Searches of PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, PsyArXiv Preprints, and ProQuest Dissertations yielded 81 studies with 621 contrasts and 17,709 participants through December 2024. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results from a three-level meta-analysis revealed a small overall effect size (β = 0.04, 95 %-CI [0.02, 0.06], p < .001) and significant between- and within-study variance after removal of outliers. Equivalent effect sizes were found for the predictive utility of cognitive biases in children/adolescents and adults, for increased negative bias and decreased positive bias, and for anxiety and depression outcomes. The magnitude of the overall effect was moderated by the cognitive process, with significant effect sizes for interpretation bias and memory bias but not for attention bias. These findings support the predictive role of cognitive biases in anxiety and depression, with interpretation and memory biases emerging as key markers. These findings have implications for cognitive theories of depression and anxiety and for clinical interventions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

23.10

自引率

1.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.