No abstract

Background Extant research supports causal roles of cognitive biases in 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 for the ecological examination of attention and interpretation biases during major stress (ie, the COVID-19 lockdown 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-19–related stressors (ie, low depression and anxiety, and high well-being and resilience). Methods Participants completed an online protocol evaluating the psychological impact of COVID-19–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, and lower well-being and resilience; χ29=7.57; root mean square error of approximation=0.000). Further, rumination mediated the influence of interpretation bias in anxiety (P=.045; 95% CI 0.03-3.25) 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.

No abstract

Flexible use of emotion regulation (ER) strategies in daily life is theorized to depend on appraisals of occurring stressful events. Yet, to date, little is known about (a) how appraisals of the current situation modulate the use of ER strategies in daily life and (b) how individual differences in affective symptoms impact these relations among appraisals and ER strategy use. This study attempted to address these two limitations using a 5-day experience sampling protocol, with three surveys administered per day in a sample of 97 participants. Each survey measured momentary appraisals of stress intensity and controllability as well as ER strategy use (i.e., rumination, reappraisal, avoidance, and active coping). Results showed that, in situations of low-stress intensity, higher stress controllability was related to greater use of reappraisal and rumination. In situations of high-stress intensity, higher controllability was related to reduced use of rumination. This pattern of flexible use of ER strategies depending on momentary stress appraisals was found for both rumination and avoidance and occurred specifically in individuals reporting lower levels of depression and/or anxiety levels. These findings provide new insight into how flexible use of ER strategies in daily life is modulated by interactions between stress intensity and controllability appraisals at varying levels of affective symptoms.

The aim of the present research was to develop and test the efficacy of a novel online contingent attention training (i.e., OCAT) to modify attention and interpretation biases, improve emotion regulation, and reduce emotional symptom levels in the face of major stressors. Two proof-of-principle studies were carried out. In study 1, 64 undergraduates who were about to start a major stressful period (i.e., final exams) were randomized to undergo 10 days of active OCAT or a sham-control training. Emotion regulation (habitual use of rumination and reappraisal) and symptom levels (depression and anxiety) were assessed before and after the intervention. In study 2, the same 2 × 2 mixed design was used with 58 individuals from the general population undergoing a major stressful situation (the lockdown period at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020). In both studies, the OCAT group showed significant improvements on attention towards negative information and interpretation biases in comparison to the sham-control group. Additionally, changes in cognitive biases transferred to reductions of participants’ use of rumination and anxiety symptom levels. These results show preliminary evidence regarding the efficacy of the OCAT to target attention and interpretation biases as well as to improve emotion regulation processes and to buffer against the effects of major stressors.