Dataset Information

The role of cognitive biases and emotion regulation strategies when facing major stressors: ecological evidence during the COVID-19 lockdown of 2020 using a novel online cognitive bias assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Extant research supports a causal role of cognitive biases on stress regulation under experimental conditions. However, their contribution to psychological adjustment in the face of ecological major stressors has been largely unstudied.

Objective

We developed a novel online method to provide an ecological examination of attention and interpretation biases during major stress (ie, the COVID-19 lockdown suffered in March/April 2020) and tested their relations with the use of emotion regulation strategies (ie, reappraisal and rumination), to account for individual differences in psychological adjustment to major COVID-related stressors (ie, low depression and anxiety, high well-being and resilience).

Methods

Participants completed an online protocol evaluating the psychological impact of COVID-related stressors and the use of emotion regulation strategies in response to them, during the initial weeks of the lockdown of March/April 2020. They also completed a new online cognitive task, designed to remotely assess attention and interpretation biases for negative information. The psychometric properties of the online cognitive bias assessments were very good, supporting their feasibility for ecological evaluation.

Results

Structural equation models showed that negative interpretation bias was a direct predictor of worst psychological adjustment (higher depression and anxiety, lower well-being and resilience) (χ2 9 = 7.57; RMSEA = 0.000). Further, rumination mediated the influence of interpretation bias in anxiety (P = .045; 95% CI 0.03 to 3.25) and resilience (P = .001; 95% CI -6.34 to -1.65), whereas reappraisal acted as a mediator of the influence of both attention (P = .047; 95% CI -38.71 to -0.16) and interpretation biases (P=.04; 95% CI -5.25 to -0.12) in well-being.

Conclusions

This research highlights the relevance of individual processes of attention and interpretation during periods of adversity and identifies modifiable protective factors that can be targeted through online interventions.

Clinicaltrial

SUBMITTER: Blanco I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8565804 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Critics of positive psychology have questioned the validity of positive psychological assessment measures (PPAMs), which negatively affects the credibility and public perception of the discipline. Psychometric evaluations of PPAMs have shown that various instruments produce inconsistent factor structures between groups/contexts/times frames, that their predictive validity is questionable, and that popular PPAMs are culturally biased. Further, it would seem positive psychological researchers prioritize date-model-fit over measurement quality. To address these analytical challenges, more innovative and robust approaches toward the validation and evaluation of PPAMs are required to enhance the discipline's credibility and to advance positive psychological science. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) has recently emerged as a promising alternative to overcome some of these challenges by incorporating the best elements from exploratory- and confirmatory factor analyses. ESEM is still a relatively novel approach, and estimating these models in statistical software packages can be complex and tedious. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to provide novice researchers with a practical tutorial on how to estimate ESEM with a convenient online tool for Mplus. Specifically, we aim to demonstrate the use of ESEM through an illustrative example by using a popular positive psychological instrument: the Mental Health Continuum-SF. By using the MHC-SF as an example, we aim to provide (a) a brief overview of ESEM (and different ESEM models/approaches), (b) guidelines for novice researchers on how to estimate, compare, report, and interpret ESEM, and (c) a step-by-step tutorial on how to run ESEM analyses in Mplus with the De Beer and Van Zy ESEM syntax generator. The results of this study highlight the value of ESEM, over and above that of traditional confirmatory factor analytical approaches. The results also have practical implications for measuring mental health with the MHC-SF, illustrating that a bifactor ESEM Model fits the data significantly better than any other theoretical model.

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 is in place, little is known about how well the public understands these results. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the general public's grasp of the accuracy and significance of the results of the swab test.DesignWeb-based behavioural experiment.SettingItaly during the April 2020 lockdown.Participants566 Italian residents.Main outcome measuresParticipants' estimates of the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence; the predictive and diagnostic accuracy of the test; the behavioural impact of (positive vs negative) test results; the perceived usefulness of a short-term repetition of the test following positive or negative results; and rankings of causes for false positives and false negatives.ResultsMost participants considered the swab test useful (89.6%) and provided predictive values consistent with their estimates of test diagnostic accuracy and infection prevalence (67.0%). Participants acknowledged the effects of symptomatic status and geographical location on prevalence (all p<0.001) but failed to take this information into account when estimating the positive or negative predictive value. Overall, test specificity was underestimated (91.5%, 95% CI 90.2% to 92.8%); test sensitivity was overestimated (89.7%, 95% CI 88.3% to 91.0%). Positive results were evaluated as more informative than negative ones (91.6, 95% CI 90.2 to 93.1 and 41.0, 95% CI 37.9 to 44.0, respectively, p<0.001); a short-term repetition of the test was considered more useful after a positive than a negative result (62.7, 95% CI 59.6 to 65.7 and 47.2, 95% CI 44.4 to 50.0, respectively, p=0.013). Human error and technical characteristics were assessed as more likely to be the causes of false positives (p<0.001); the level of the viral load as the cause of false negatives (p<0.001).ConclusionsWhile some aspects of the swab for SARS-CoV-2 are well grasped, others are not and may have a strong bearing on the general public's health and well-being. The obtained findings provide policymakers with a detailed picture that can guide the design and implementation of interventions for improving efficient communication with the general public as well as adherence to precautionary behaviour.