Looking for carrots, watching out for sticks: A gaze-contingent approach towards training contextual goal-dependent affective attention flexibility

Training-related improvements in mental well-being through reduction in negative interpretation bias: A randomized trial of online socio-emotional dyadic and mindfulness interventions

BACKGROUND

Effects of online contemplative practices, especially partner-based practices, on psychological well-being remain mixed, with sparse understanding of potential affective-cognitive mechanisms. The study aimed to assess the efficacy of two online contemplative interventions in improving depression, anxiety, emotion regulation (ER), and resilience, and to evaluate the mechanistic role of negative attention and interpretation biases.

METHODS

Employing a randomized controlled design (n = 285), we compared the efficacy of 10-week online mindfulness-based and partner-based socio-emotional dyadic interventions, both supported by weekly coaching sessions. Mental health aspects were assessed using validated self-report measures and negative biases using the mouse-contingent Scrambled Sentences Task.

RESULTS

Both interventions, compared to waitlist control, led to reductions in depression and ER difficulties, while trait anxiety decreased only after mindfulness training. Increases in multidimensional resilience were observed only after socio-emotional training and in stress recovery only after mindfulness-based training, both compared to waitlist control. Socio-emotional training led to significant reductions in negative interpretation bias and this mediated reductions in depression and trait anxiety. Neither training led to reductions in state anxiety or negative attention bias.

LIMITATIONS

The subclinical nature and overrepresentation of females in the sample limits generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that online mindfulness-based and socio-emotional partner-based interventions, supported by online coaching sessions, can reduce depression and ER difficulties. Though mindfulness practice reduced trait anxiety and enhanced stress recovery, socio-emotional training increased multidimensional resilience. Socio-emotional training reduced negative interpretation bias, which emerged as an intervention-specific mechanism. These findings highlight the potential benefits of online contemplative intervention approaches for psychological well-being.

The contextual goal dependent attentional flexibility (CoGoDAF) framework: A new approach to attention bias in depression

Successful adaptation to the environment requires attentional prioritization of emotional information relevant to the current situational demands. Accordingly, the presence of an attention bias (AB) for both positive and negative information may allow preferential processing of stimuli in line with the current situational goals. However, AB for negative information sometimes becomes maladaptive, being antithetical to the current adaptive needs and goals of an individual, such as in the case of affective disorders such as depression. Although difficulties in flexible shifting between emotional stimuli in depression have increasingly become a topic of discussion in the field, an integrative approach towards biased versus flexible emotional attentional processes remains absent. In the present paper, we advance a novel and integrative view of conceptualizing potentially aberrant affective attention patterns in depression as a function of the current contextual features. We propose that flexible emotional attention takes place as a result of attention prioritization towards goal-relevant emotional stimuli depending upon the current context of the individual. Specifically, the roles of context, distal and proximal goals, and approach and avoidance motivation processes are considered in a unified manner. The empirical, clinical, and interventional implications of this integrative framework provide a roadmap for future psychological and neurobiological experimental and translational research.

Interplay between uncertainty intolerance, emotion regulation, cognitive flexibility, and psychopathology during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-wave study

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a significant mental health burden on the global population. Studies during the pandemic have shown that risk factors such as intolerance of uncertainty and maladaptive emotion regulation are associated with increased psychopathology. Meanwhile, protective factors such as cognitive control and cognitive flexibility have been shown to protect mental health during the pandemic. However, the potential pathways through which these risk and protective factors function to impact mental health during the pandemic remain unclear. In the present multi-wave study, 304 individuals (18 years or older, 191 Males), residing in the USA during data collection, completed weekly online assessments of validated questionnaires across a period of five weeks (27th March 2020-1st May 2020). Mediation analyses revealed that longitudinal changes in emotion regulation difficulties mediated the effect of increases in intolerance of uncertainty on increases in stress, depression, and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, individual differences in cognitive control and flexibility moderated the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and emotion regulation difficulties. While intolerance of uncertainty and emotion regulation difficulties emerged as risk factors for mental health, cognitive control and flexibility seems to protect against the negative effects of the pandemic and promote stress resilience. Interventions aimed at enhancing cognitive control and flexibility might promote the protection of mental health in similar global crises in the future.

Psychological Resilience: An Affect-Regulation Framework

Exposure to adversity (e.g., poverty, bereavement) is a robust predictor of disruptions in psychological functioning. However, people vary greatly in their responses to adversity; some experience severe long-term disruptions, others experience minimal disruptions or even improvements. We refer to the latter outcomes-faring better than expected given adversity-as psychological resilience. Understanding what processes explain resilience has critical theoretical and practical implications. Yet, psychology's understanding of resilience is incomplete, for two reasons: (a) We lack conceptual clarity, and (b) two major approaches to resilience-the stress and coping approach and the emotion and emotion-regulation approach-have limitations and are relatively isolated from one another. To address these two obstacles,we first discuss conceptual questions about resilience. Next, we offer an integrative affect-regulation framework that capitalizes on complementary strengths of both approaches. This framework advances our understanding of resilience by integrating existing findings, highlighting gaps in knowledge, and guiding future research.

Now you see it, now you don’t: Relevance of threat enhances social anxiety-linked attentional bias to angry faces, but relevance of neutral information attenuates it

Temporary goals modulate attention to threat. We examined whether attentional bias to angry faces differs depending on whether a temporary background goal is neutral, or threat related, whilst also measuring social anxiety. Participants performed a dot probe task combined with a separate task that induced a temporary goal. Depending on the phase in this goal task, the goal made angry faces or neutral stimuli (i.e., houses) relevant. The dot probe task measured attention to combinations of angry faces, neutral but goal-relevant stimuli (i.e., houses), and neutral control stimuli. Attention was allocated to angry faces when an angry goal was active. This was more pronounced for people scoring high on social phobia. The neutral goal attenuated attention to angry faces and effects of social phobia were no longer apparent. These findings suggest that individual differences in social anxiety interact with current and temporary goals to affect attentional processes.

How Flexible are we in Regulating our Emotions? A Discussion on Current Conceptual Frameworks of Emotion Regulation Flexibility, Requirements for Future Research and Potential Practical Implications

Are we flexible in using different strategies to regulate our emotions during our daily functioning? What are the personal and situational mechanisms accounting for this complex set of emotion regulation (ER) processes? And to what extent different forms of ER flexibility are adaptive? Current empirical evidence challenges a static view of ER strategies as inherently adaptive or maladaptive. This has led contemporary accounts to consider the variation in use of ER strategies across time depending on the complex interplay of personal characteristics, specific situational demands, and motivational goals. However, despite the relevance of these new approaches and their obvious theoretical and practical implications, the study of ER flexibility is a relatively young research field, still lacking common integrative views. In this paper, I briefly discuss the shared and unique components across different theoretical frameworks of ER flexibility and make recommendations for future research to advance the understanding of this crucial phenomenon. I identify specific questions that may be contrasted through programmatic research lines and propose that the integration of cognitive mechanisms known to affect ER may help to advance the science of ER flexibility. I also enumerate a series of methodological approaches that can be used to tests proposed models of ER flexibility. Finally, I highlight potential practical implications that can be derived from these new research programs in order to improve interventions aimed at promoting adaptive ER flexibility and adaptive functioning.