Optimal and Normal Affect Balance in Psychotherapy of Major Depression: Evaluation of the Balanced States of Mind Model

Abstract

The reformulated balanced states of mind (BSOM) model (Schwartz, 1997) proposed new cognitive-affective set-point ratios based on a mathematical model of consciousness (Lefebvre, 1990) to differentiate among pathological, normal and optimal balances. Using data derived from the Affects Balance Scale (Derogatis, 1975), the reformulated set-points were empirically evaluated by tracking changes in affect balance SOM (ratio of positive to total affect) in 66 depressed male outpatients undergoing cognitive-behavior therapy (n = 45) or pharmacotherapy (n = 21). Confidence interval estimations indicated that across treatments both remitted (SOM = .35) and unremitted (SOM = .35) patients had pathological pretreatment affect balances near the predicted set-point (.38). At post-treatment, affect balance for remitted patients (SOM = .74) progressed to a normal dialogue near the predicted set-point (.72), whereas unremitted patients maintained a negative balance (SOM = .41). Using Hamilton and Global Assessment Scale ratings, remitted patients were classified into average and optimal responders. At post-treatment, average responders achieved an affect balance (SOM = .70) near the normal dialogue set-point (.72), whereas optimal responders progressed to an affect balance (SOM = .81) at the optimal dialogue set-point (.81), supporting the theoretical distinction between normal and optimal balance. A mathematically generated measure that distinguishes normality and optimality permits increased quantitative precision in comparative psychotherapy outcome research.

The role of temperament in the changes of coping in Type 2 diabetes: direct and indirect relationships

“…The fact that this situation was difficult for the patients can also be proven by the value of positivity ratio (PA/NA) of Type 2 diabetes patients: low during both measurements and only slightly exceeding 1:1 proportion (PA only minimally prevailing NA, especially in T2). It is estimated that positivity ratio in the overall population is reflected by 2:1 proportion (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), while values around or below one are characteristic for patients with depression, or those who did not experience remission of symptoms after therapy (Schwartz, Reynolds, Thase, Frank, Fasiczka & Haaga, 2002).…”

Los límites de las intervenciones positivas

“…Lo que se observa es que, más allá de que no exista un número mágico para describir cuándo esta tasa produce un incremento acelerado de sus beneficios (Brown, Sokal y Friedman, 2013), los resultados corroboran que tasas más bajas -igual o menor número de emociones positivas que negativas-se asocian a resultados negativos (e.g., Schwartz et al, 2002), las tasas intermedias -aproximadamente entre 2 y 4 emociones positivas por cada emoción negativa-muestran los mejores resultados de adaptación (Diehl, Hay y Berg, 2011;Kolanowski, Van Haitsma, Meeks y Litaker, 2014;Trute, Benzies, Worthington, Reddon y Moore, 2010). Y por últi-mo, también existe evidencia que muestra que tasas demasiado elevadas de emociones positivas frente a negativas pueden no aparecer asociadas a una mejoría en la adaptación, o incluso ser ligeramente desadaptativas.…”

Test of the dual‐belief system in women with and without phobic fear of spiders: a pilot study

“…For this integration, the conviction values were summarized separately for non-phobic and phobic emotions. These values of power were used to calculate a ratio for emotions by the formula of Schwartz (Schwartz, 1986;Schwartz et al, 2002).…”