Belief Updating Deficits in Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 12.2 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-09-19 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102649

Reut Zabag , Yannick Vander Zwalmen , Tobias Kube , Kristof Hoorelbeke , Ernst H.W. Koster , Jutta Joormann

{"title":"Belief Updating Deficits in Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Reut Zabag , Yannick Vander Zwalmen , Tobias Kube , Kristof Hoorelbeke , Ernst H.W. Koster , Jutta Joormann","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Prior studies have found that depression is linked to altered belief updating, but the strength and conditions of this association, such as its dependence on valence, remain unclear. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis examined studies that measured depressive symptoms and alterations in belief updating, in both updating-to-positive and updating-to-negative information directions.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>The PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched for studies examining belief updating and depressive symptomatology, resulting in retrieval of 29 papers (<em>N</em> = 3,130 individuals). Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Downs and Black checklist and risk for publication bias was assessed visually with funnel plots, as well as statistically with Egger's test and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill procedure. Random effects models were used for calculating pooled effect sizes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We found evidence for a small, significant association (<em>r</em> = −0.11) between depressive symptoms and deficits in updating-to-positive information, but not for updating-to-negative information. Heterogeneity in both models was low. Exploratory subgroup analyses pointed to significant differences in the updating-to-positive direction based on the paradigm used, but this was not significant in the updating-to-negative direction. There were few concerns regarding the risk of bias and no evidence suggesting publication bias.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Depression is linked to a specific deficit in updating beliefs in response to positive disconfirming information, whereas no association was found with updating beliefs in response to negative information.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 102649"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","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/S0272735825001163","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

Background

Prior studies have found that depression is linked to altered belief updating, but the strength and conditions of this association, such as its dependence on valence, remain unclear. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis examined studies that measured depressive symptoms and alterations in belief updating, in both updating-to-positive and updating-to-negative information directions.

Method

The PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched for studies examining belief updating and depressive symptomatology, resulting in retrieval of 29 papers (N = 3,130 individuals). Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Downs and Black checklist and risk for publication bias was assessed visually with funnel plots, as well as statistically with Egger's test and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill procedure. Random effects models were used for calculating pooled effect sizes.

Results

We found evidence for a small, significant association (r = −0.11) between depressive symptoms and deficits in updating-to-positive information, but not for updating-to-negative information. Heterogeneity in both models was low. Exploratory subgroup analyses pointed to significant differences in the updating-to-positive direction based on the paradigm used, but this was not significant in the updating-to-negative direction. There were few concerns regarding the risk of bias and no evidence suggesting publication bias.

Conclusions

Depression is linked to a specific deficit in updating beliefs in response to positive disconfirming information, whereas no association was found with updating beliefs in response to negative information.

查看原文本刊更多论文

抑郁症信念更新缺陷：系统回顾与元分析。

背景：先前的研究发现，抑郁症与信念更新的改变有关，但这种联系的强度和条件，如对效价的依赖，尚不清楚。这项预先登记的系统回顾和荟萃分析检查了测量抑郁症状和信念更新变化的研究，包括更新到积极信息和更新到消极信息的方向。方法：在PsycINFO、MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆电子数据库中检索信念更新与抑郁症状学的相关研究，共检索29篇论文（N = 3130人）。偏倚风险采用Downs和Black检查表的改编版本进行评估，发表偏倚风险采用漏斗图进行视觉评估，采用Egger检验和Duval和Tweedie的修正和填充程序进行统计评估。随机效应模型用于计算合并效应大小。结果：我们发现证据表明抑郁症状与更新到积极信息的缺陷之间存在小而显著的关联（r = -0.11），但与更新到消极信息的缺陷无关。两种模型的异质性都很低。探索性亚组分析指出，基于所使用的范式，更新到积极方向的显着差异，但这在更新到消极方向上并不显着。几乎没有关于偏倚风险的担忧，也没有证据表明发表偏倚。结论：抑郁症与应对积极的不确定信息时更新信念的特定缺陷有关，而与应对消极信息时更新信念没有关联。

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

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.