Jackie K Gollan1, Denada Hoxha2, Kallio Hunnicutt-Ferguson3, Catherine J Norris4, Laina Rosebrock5, Lindsey Sankin6, John Cacioppo7. 1. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: j-gollan@northwestern.edu. 2. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: dhoxha@luc.edu. 3. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: kalliohf@gmail.com. 4. Swarthmore College, PA, USA. Electronic address: cnorris2@swarthmore.edu. 5. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: lainaerosebrock@gmail.com. 6. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: lsankin@gmail.com. 7. University of Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: cacioppo@uchicago.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Humans have the dual capacity to assign a slightly pleasant valence to neutral stimuli (the positivity offset) to encourage approach behaviors, as well as to assign a higher negative valence to unpleasant images relative to the positive valence to equally arousing and extreme pleasant images (the negativity bias) to facilitate defensive strategies. We conducted an experimental psychopathology study to examine the extent to which the negativity bias and the positivity offset differ in participants with and without major depression.. METHOD: Forty-one depressed and thirty-six healthy participants were evaluated using a structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders, questionnaires, and a computerized task designed to measure implicit affective responses to unpleasant, neutral, and pleasant stimuli. RESULTS: The negativity bias was significantly higher and the positivity offset was significantly lower in depressed relative to healthy participants.. LIMITATIONS: Entry criteria enrolling medication-free participants with minimal DSM-IV comorbidity may limit generalizability of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: This study advances our understanding of the positive and negative valence systems in depression, highlighting the irregularities in the positive valence system..
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Humans have the dual capacity to assign a slightly pleasant valence to neutral stimuli (the positivity offset) to encourage approach behaviors, as well as to assign a higher negative valence to unpleasant images relative to the positive valence to equally arousing and extreme pleasant images (the negativity bias) to facilitate defensive strategies. We conducted an experimental psychopathology study to examine the extent to which the negativity bias and the positivity offset differ in participants with and without major depression.. METHOD: Forty-one depressed and thirty-six healthy participants were evaluated using a structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders, questionnaires, and a computerized task designed to measure implicit affective responses to unpleasant, neutral, and pleasant stimuli. RESULTS: The negativity bias was significantly higher and the positivity offset was significantly lower in depressed relative to healthy participants.. LIMITATIONS: Entry criteria enrolling medication-free participants with minimal DSM-IV comorbidity may limit generalizability of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: This study advances our understanding of the positive and negative valence systems in depression, highlighting the irregularities in the positive valence system..
Authors: Greg J Siegle; Stuart R Steinhauer; Michael E Thase; V Andrew Stenger; Cameron S Carter Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: N Kyle Smith; Jeff T Larsen; Tanya L Chartrand; John T Cacioppo; Heather A Katafiasz; Kathleen E Moran Journal: J Pers Soc Psychol Date: 2006-02
Authors: Jan Nowacki; Katja Wingenfeld; Michael Kaczmarczyk; Woo Ri Chae; Ikram Abu-Tir; Christian Eric Deuter; Dominique Piber; Julian Hellmann-Regen; Christian Otte Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Manon van den Berg; Igor Magaraggia; Rudy Schreiber; Todd M Hillhouse; Joseph H Porter Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 4.415