Anxiety, Depression, and Explanation‐based Pessimism for Future Positive and Negative Events

MacLeod, Andrew K.; Tata, Philip; Kentish, John; Carroll, Frances Laverne; Hunter, Elaine

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0879(199703)4:1<15::aid-cpp112>3.0.co;2-#

Cited by 35 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have predominately shown mood disturbed individuals to overestimate the likelihood for negative events, but show no differences for their expectations for future positive events, relative to non-depressed controls (Dunning and Story, 1991;MacLeod and Cropley, 1995;MacLeod et al, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Consistent with past research the depressed patients were more pessimistic in their future expectations than the controls (MacLeod and Byrne, 1996;MacLeod et al, 1997). Specifically the depressives gave higher likelihood expectations for negative future events, but they also gave lower likelihood expectations for positive events, relative to the controls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Memory retrieval and subjective probability judgements in control and depressed participants

Cropley¹,

MacLeod²,

Tata³

2000

Clin. Psychol. Psychother.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies examined the relationship between memory recall and subjective probability judgement in an attempt to understand the mechanisms involved in depressive future thinking. In study 1, the relationship between general impression memory (GIM) latencies and subjective probability, and the relationship between specific event memory (SEM) latencies and subjective probability, were examined in normal mood individuals. Results demonstrated that GIM latencies were correlated with subjective probability. That is, participants who were faster to say they had experienced events in the past also thought themselves more likely to experience similar events in the future. In contrast, SEMs were not significantly correlated with subjective probability judgements. Study 2 tested the prediction that the same mechanism is operative in depression, but in this instance it is differential accessibility of negative memories which biases judgements for future events. As predicted, depressed patients, relative to controls, recalled more negative events and rated negative events as more likely to happen to them in the future. However, subjective probability judgements were not associated with the recall of either GIMs or SEMs in depressed patients, but GIMs were correlated with subjective probability judgements in the control participants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Memory retrieval and subjective probability judgements in control and depressed participants

Cropley¹,

MacLeod²,

Tata³

2000

Clin. Psychol. Psychother.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in emotional disorders such as anxiety or depression, individuals may show greater anticipation of negative future experiences (e.g., MacLeod & Byrne, 1996) and harbor excessive worry about the future (e.g., Borkovec, Ray, & Stöber, 1998; see also Bulley, Henry, & Suddendorf, 2017; Miloyan, Pachana, & Suddendorf, 2014). Negative thoughts towards the future can be maladaptive if one repeatedly engages in those thoughts, particularly given that repetitive future thinking has been linked to increased estimates in the perceived plausibility of an event’s occurrence (Szpunar & Schacter, 2013; Wu, Szpunar, Godovich, Schacter, & Hofmann, 2015) and increased accessibility of negative event outcomes (Byrne & MacLeod, 1997; MacLeod, Tata, Kentish, Carroll, & Hunter, 1997). Thus, it is critical to interrupt the cycle of repetitive thinking and reevaluate the perceived plausibility of anticipated negative future experiences, and one way to do so may be to consider alternative outcomes to negative future events.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, while event plausibility is a construct that influences one’s psychological well-being towards the event in question (Bentz et al, 2004, 2009; MacLeod et al, 1997), perceived event valence is also important. Research on affective forecasting has shown that individuals are quite inaccurate at estimating their emotional reactions to future experiences, often displaying an impact bias, whereby they overestimate the intensity of their emotional reactions, particularly for negative events (Andrade & Van Boven, 2010; Gilbert & Wilson, 2009; Wilson & Gilbert, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing for what might happen: An episodic specificity induction impacts the generation of alternative future events

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A critical adaptive feature of future thinking involves the ability to generate alternative versions of possible future events. However, little is known about the nature of the processes that support this ability. Here we examined whether an episodic specificity induction – brief training in recollecting details of a recent experience that selectively impacts tasks that draw on episodic retrieval – 1) boosts alternative event generation and 2) changes one’s initial perceptions of negative future events. In Experiment 1, an episodic specificity induction significantly increased the number of alternative positive outcomes that participants generated to a series of standardized negative events, compared with a control induction not focused on episodic specificity. We also observed larger decreases in the perceived plausibility and negativity of the original events in the specificity condition, where participants generated more alternative outcomes, relative to the control condition. In Experiment 2, we replicated and extended these findings using a series of personalized negative events. Our findings support the idea that episodic memory processes are involved in generating alternative outcomes to anticipated future events, and that boosting the number of alternative outcomes is related to subsequent changes in the perceived plausibility and valence of the original events, which may have implications for psychological well-being.

show abstract

“…9 The trust between members is developed and maintained through the burial society's recruitment process, in which existing members recruit members from their own close social network to regulate the risk of defaulting and other forms of malfeasance, such as fraud. Here, social and cultural characteristics of users are important in creating trust among members (see MacLeod, et al, 1997 andAmin andThrift, 1992). A burial society committee member indicated that the burial society is big, and is divided among varied constituencies for easy management.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Business and Climate Change Governance

Börzel¹,

Hamann²

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anxiety, Depression, and Explanation‐based Pessimism for Future Positive and Negative Events

Cited by 35 publications

References 17 publications

Memory retrieval and subjective probability judgements in control and depressed participants

Memory retrieval and subjective probability judgements in control and depressed participants

Preparing for what might happen: An episodic specificity induction impacts the generation of alternative future events

Business and Climate Change Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About