↓ Skip to main content

Hostile interpretation bias in depression

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Affective Disorders, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hostile interpretation bias in depression
Published in
Journal of Affective Disorders, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.070
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hillary L. Smith, Berta J. Summers, Kirsten H. Dillon, Richard J. Macatee, Jesse R. Cougle

Abstract

Research suggests an important relationship between interpretation bias, hostility and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Extant literature has yet to examine hostile interpretation bias in clinically depressed samples; the current studies sought to fill this gap. Study 1 participants included undergraduates who met criteria for MDD (n=36) or no anxiety or mood diagnosis (n=35). Each participant completed a structured clinical interview along with measures of depression, hostile interpretation bias, and trait hostility. In Study 2, a sample of treatment-seeking individuals with elevated trait anger completed measures of depression, hostile interpretation bias, and trait anger. Study 1 demonstrated that, relative to the non-depressed group, individuals with depression displayed greater hostile interpretation bias but comparable levels of trait hostility. In Study 2, greater hostile interpretation bias was associated with greater depressive symptoms, and this relationship was independent of co-occurring trait anger. The correlational nature of these studies precludes interpretation of causal relationships between constructs. Additionally, replication of these results should be sought in a larger, more diverse sample. Overall, the findings suggest hostile interpretation bias may play a unique role in depression and could be a treatable feature of interpersonal mechanisms maintaining MDD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 45%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 32 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,580,524
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Affective Disorders
#960
of 10,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,320
of 353,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Affective Disorders
#19
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.