Memory retrieval and subjective probability judgements in control and depressed participants

Abstract

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.

A meta-analytic review of overgeneral memory: The role of trauma history, mood, and the presence of posttraumatic stress disorder.

“…To address conceivable heterogeneity, this article exclusively focuses only on OGM studies that utilized the most commonly used measure, AMT. In addition to us wishing to reduce unnecessary methodological heterogeneity (as we wished to look at outcome heterogeneity between samples), only three studies (Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000; Rottenberg et al, 2006; Sutherland & Bryant, 2005) used a measure other than the AMT. Of these, only one study (Rottenberg et al, 2006) focused on OGM, which found a significant difficulty among depressed patients in retrieving positive memories (but not negative memories).…”

A meta-analytic review of overgeneral memory: The role of trauma history, mood, and the presence of posttraumatic stress disorder.

“…To address conceivable heterogeneity, this article exclusively focuses only on OGM studies that utilized the most commonly used measure, AMT. In addition to us wishing to reduce unnecessary methodological heterogeneity (as we wished to look at outcome heterogeneity between samples), only three studies (Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000; Rottenberg et al, 2006; Sutherland & Bryant, 2005) used a measure other than the AMT. Of these, only one study (Rottenberg et al, 2006) focused on OGM, which found a significant difficulty among depressed patients in retrieving positive memories (but not negative memories).…”

Remembering the Past and Envisioning the Future in Bereaved Adults With and Without Complicated Grief

“…A computer task adapted from previous research (Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000;Dickson & Bates, 2006;McNally et al, 1994;Williams & Broadbent, 1986) assessed the specificity of autobiographical memories and future event simulations. We administered this task four times to assess four types of events: past events in which the deceased was present (i.e., autobiographical memory task with deceased; AMTwith), past events in which the deceased was not present (AMT-without), future events in which the deceased is present (i.e., future event task with deceased; FET-with), and future events in which the deceased is not present (FETwithout).…”

Facets of pejorative self-processing in complicated grief.

“…We examined this question by asking participants to estimate the likelihood of a series of negative hypothetical events happening to the self in the future, based on a task developed by Butler and Mathews (1983) in a study of clinical depression. Butler and Mathews found that clinically depressed participants rated negative events as more likely to happen to the self than did controls, relative to ratings of the same items when made for another identified person (see also Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000;Pyszczynski, Holt, & Greenberg, 1987). We supplemented Butler and Mathews's task by asking participants to generate estimates of negative event occurrence for others close to them as well as for unknown others.…”

A meta-analytic review of overgeneral memory: The role of trauma history, mood, and the presence of posttraumatic stress disorder.

“…To address conceivable heterogeneity, this article exclusively focuses only on OGM studies that utilized the most commonly used measure, AMT. In addition to us wishing to reduce unnecessary methodological heterogeneity (as we wished to look at outcome heterogeneity between samples), only three studies (Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000; Rottenberg et al, 2006; Sutherland & Bryant, 2005) used a measure other than the AMT. Of these, only one study (Rottenberg et al, 2006) focused on OGM, which found a significant difficulty among depressed patients in retrieving positive memories (but not negative memories).…”

Remembering the Past and Envisioning the Future in Bereaved Adults With and Without Complicated Grief

“…A computer task adapted from previous research (Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000;Dickson & Bates, 2006;McNally et al, 1994;Williams & Broadbent, 1986) assessed the specificity of autobiographical memories and future event simulations. We administered this task four times to assess four types of events: past events in which the deceased was present (i.e., autobiographical memory task with deceased; AMTwith), past events in which the deceased was not present (AMT-without), future events in which the deceased is present (i.e., future event task with deceased; FET-with), and future events in which the deceased is not present (FETwithout).…”

Facets of pejorative self-processing in complicated grief.

“…We examined this question by asking participants to estimate the likelihood of a series of negative hypothetical events happening to the self in the future, based on a task developed by Butler and Mathews (1983) in a study of clinical depression. Butler and Mathews found that clinically depressed participants rated negative events as more likely to happen to the self than did controls, relative to ratings of the same items when made for another identified person (see also Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000;Pyszczynski, Holt, & Greenberg, 1987). We supplemented Butler and Mathews's task by asking participants to generate estimates of negative event occurrence for others close to them as well as for unknown others.…”

A meta-analytic review of overgeneral memory: The role of trauma history, mood, and the presence of posttraumatic stress disorder.

“…To address conceivable heterogeneity, this article exclusively focuses only on OGM studies that utilized the most commonly used measure, AMT. In addition to us wishing to reduce unnecessary methodological heterogeneity (as we wished to look at outcome heterogeneity between samples), only three studies (Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000; Rottenberg et al, 2006; Sutherland & Bryant, 2005) used a measure other than the AMT. Of these, only one study (Rottenberg et al, 2006) focused on OGM, which found a significant difficulty among depressed patients in retrieving positive memories (but not negative memories).…”

Remembering the Past and Envisioning the Future in Bereaved Adults With and Without Complicated Grief

“…A computer task adapted from previous research (Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000;Dickson & Bates, 2006;McNally et al, 1994;Williams & Broadbent, 1986) assessed the specificity of autobiographical memories and future event simulations. We administered this task four times to assess four types of events: past events in which the deceased was present (i.e., autobiographical memory task with deceased; AMTwith), past events in which the deceased was not present (AMT-without), future events in which the deceased is present (i.e., future event task with deceased; FET-with), and future events in which the deceased is not present (FETwithout).…”

Facets of pejorative self-processing in complicated grief.

“…We examined this question by asking participants to estimate the likelihood of a series of negative hypothetical events happening to the self in the future, based on a task developed by Butler and Mathews (1983) in a study of clinical depression. Butler and Mathews found that clinically depressed participants rated negative events as more likely to happen to the self than did controls, relative to ratings of the same items when made for another identified person (see also Cropley, MacLeod, & Tata, 2000;Pyszczynski, Holt, & Greenberg, 1987). We supplemented Butler and Mathews's task by asking participants to generate estimates of negative event occurrence for others close to them as well as for unknown others.…”