↓ Skip to main content

Rethinking a Negative Event: The Affective Impact of Ruminative versus Imagery-Based Processing of Aversive Autobiographical Memories

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Rethinking a Negative Event: The Affective Impact of Ruminative versus Imagery-Based Processing of Aversive Autobiographical Memories
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00082
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christien Slofstra, Maarten C. Eisma, Emily A. Holmes, Claudi L. H. Bockting, Maaike H. Nauta

Abstract

Ruminative (abstract verbal) processing during recall of aversive autobiographical memories may serve to dampen their short-term affective impact. Experimental studies indeed demonstrate that verbal processing of non-autobiographical material and positive autobiographical memories evokes weaker affective responses than imagery-based processing. In the current study, we hypothesized that abstract verbal or concrete verbal processing of an aversive autobiographical memory would result in weaker affective responses than imagery-based processing. The affective impact of abstract verbal versus concrete verbal versus imagery-based processing during recall of an aversive autobiographical memory was investigated in a non-clinical sample (n = 99) using both an observational and an experimental design. Observationally, it was examined whether spontaneous use of processing modes (both state and trait measures) was associated with impact of aversive autobiographical memory recall on negative and positive affect. Experimentally, the causal relation between processing modes and affective impact was investigated by manipulating the processing mode during retrieval of the same aversive autobiographical memory. Main findings were that higher levels of trait (but not state) measures of both ruminative and imagery-based processing and depressive symptomatology were positively correlated with higher levels of negative affective impact in the observational part of the study. In the experimental part, no main effect of processing modes on affective impact of autobiographical memories was found. However, a significant moderating effect of depressive symptomatology was found. Only for individuals with low levels of depressive symptomatology, concrete verbal (but not abstract verbal) processing of the aversive autobiographical memory did result in weaker affective responses, compared to imagery-based processing. These results cast doubt on the hypothesis that ruminative processing of aversive autobiographical memories serves to avoid the negative emotions evoked by such memories. Furthermore, findings suggest that depressive symptomatology is associated with the spontaneous use and the affective impact of processing modes during recall of aversive autobiographical memories. Clinical studies are needed that examine the role of processing modes during aversive autobiographical memory recall in depression, including the potential effectiveness of targeting processing modes in therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,890,958
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#6,165
of 10,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,079
of 316,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#57
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.