| Literature DB >> 29340943 |
Tracy M Stewart1, Simon C Hunter2, Sinéad M Rhodes3.
Abstract
The CaR-FA-X model (Williams et al., 2007), or capture and rumination (CaR), functional avoidance (FA), and impaired executive control (X), is a model of overgeneral autobiographical memory (OGM). Two mechanisms of the model, rumination and executive control, were examined in isolation and in interaction in order to investigate OGM over time. Across two time points, six months apart, a total of 149 adolescents (13-16 years) completed the minimal-instruction autobiographical memory test, a measure of executive control with both emotional and nonemotional stimuli, and measures of brooding rumination and reflective pondering. The results showed that executive control for emotional information was negatively associated with OGM, but only when reflective pondering levels were high. Therefore, in the context of higher levels of reflective pondering, greater switch costs (i.e., lower executive control) when processing emotional information predicted a decrease in OGM over time.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescence; Emotion; Executive control; Overgeneral autobiographical memory; Rumination
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29340943 PMCID: PMC5880861 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-017-0779-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mem Cognit ISSN: 0090-502X
Fig. 1The CaR-FA-X model. Three processes contributing to overgeneral memory—capture and rumination (CaR), functional avoidance (FA), and impaired executive capacity and control (X)—can each have effects on cognition and behavior (e.g., problem solving), either independently or through their individual or combined effects on autobiographical memory. From “Autobiographical Memory Specificity and Emotional Disorder,” by J. M. G. Williams, T. Barnhofer, C. Crane, D. Hermans, F. Raes, E. Watkins, & T. Dalgleish, 2007, Psychological Bulletin, 133, p. 122–148. Copyright 2007 by the name American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission
Fig. 2An example of a block of trials within each condition during the internal shift task (constructed by author based on an image from De Lissnyder, Koster, Everaert, et al., 2012)
Mean scores, standard deviations, and t -tests (with effect sizes) for all W1 and W2 measures
| Wave 1 | Wave 2 |
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Autobiographical memory: AMT-MI Overgeneral memory | 4.04 | 2.23 | 4.16 | 2.49 | – 0.56 | 0.05 |
| Depressive symptoms: BDI-II | 15.85a | 11.96b | 14.84 | 11.33 | 1.81a | 0.30 |
| Anxiety symptoms:: MASC-II | 61.64a | 24.28b | 59.69a | 25.93b | 1.55a | 0.26 |
| Executive control: IST switch cost (Emotion) | 541.98 | 310.17 | 485.43 | 293.66 | 2.22* | 0.38 |
| Executive control: IST switch cost (Nonemotion) | 530.67 | 298.98 | 485.17 | 287.04 | 1.63 | 0.27 |
| Rumination: RRS brooding rumination | 11.36 | 3.57 | 10.74 | 3.67 | 2.58* | 0.43 |
| Rumination: RRS reflective pondering | 9.54 | 3.51 | 8.99 | 3.41 | 2.22* | 0.38 |
AMT-MI = autobiographical memory test–minimal instruction, BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory II, MASC-II = Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, IST = internal shift task, RRS = Ruminative Response Scale. aPooled estimates. bEstimates averaged from results of the five imputed data sets. *p < .05.
Bivariate pooled correlations
| 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 11. | 12. | 13. | 14. | 15. | 16. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. W2 overgeneral memory | .06 | .06 | .20** | .14* | .43*** | .23** | .20** | – .08 | – .07 | .13 | .03 | .19* | .07 | – .14 | – .12 |
| 2. Age | – | – .01 | .19** | .00 | – .06 | .20** | .22** | .07* | – .10* | .11 | – .05 | .03 | .13 | – .07 | .05 |
| 3. Gender | .38*** | .31*** | – .08 | .24** | .17* | – .03 | .01 | .32*** | .36*** | .25*** | .24*** | .16 | .09 | ||
| 4. W1 depression symptoms | – | .69*** | – .04 | .71*** | .58*** | – .14* | – .07 | .83*** | .60*** | .60*** | .63*** | – .07 | .03 | ||
| 5. W1 anxiety symptoms | – | – .06 | .65*** | .52*** | .05 | .06 | .65*** | .82*** | .54*** | .57*** | .11 | .13 | |||
| 6. W1 overgeneral memory | – | .12 | .07 | .02 | .06 | – .09 | .10 | .12 | – .09 | – .08 | – .09 | ||||
| 7. W1 brooding rumination | – | .67*** | – .09 | – .04 | .61*** | .55*** | .68*** | .63*** | – .05 | – .00 | |||||
| 8. W1 reflective pondering |
| – .15 | .03* | .48*** | .52*** | .50*** | .66*** | – .16 | – .09 | ||||||
| 9. W1 switch cost (emotion) | – | .44*** | – .15 | – .02 | – .02 | – .14 | .48*** | .45*** | |||||||
| 10. W1 switch cost (nonemotion) |
| – .07 | .06 | .07 | – .06 | .38*** | .33*** | ||||||||
| 11. W2 depression symptoms | – | .68*** | .69*** | .68*** | – .03 | .05 | |||||||||
| 12. W2 anxiety symptoms | – | .62*** | .65*** | .06 | .04 | ||||||||||
| 13. W2 brooding rumination | – | .65*** | – .06 | .01 | |||||||||||
| 14. W2 reflective pondering | – | – .12 | .02 | ||||||||||||
| 15. W2 switch cost (emotion) | – | .41*** | |||||||||||||
| 16. W2 switch cost (nonemotion) |
|
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Hierarchical regression analysis of the effects of W1 scores for brooding rumination, reflective pondering, and executive control for emotion and nonemotion on W2 overgeneral memory scores
| Step | Predictors | Dependent Variable: | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | ||
| 1. | Age | .06 | .06 | .07 |
| Sex | .02 | .02 | .02 | |
| W1 Depressive symptoms | .17 | .13 | .12 | |
| W1 Anxiety symptoms | .04 | .05 | .05 | |
| W1 Overgeneral memory | .45*** | .45*** | .45*** | |
| 2. | W1 Brooding rumination | – .01 | .04 | |
| W1 Reflective pondering | .06 | – .01 | ||
| W1 Switch cost (emotion) | – .04 | – .01 | ||
| W1 Switch cost (nonemotion) | – .07 | – .09 | ||
| 3. | W1 Switch cost (emotion) * Brooding | .16 | ||
| W1 Switch cost (emotion) * Reflect | – .28** | |||
| W1 Switch cost (nonemotion) * Brooding | – .14 | |||
| W1 Switch cost (nonemotion) * Reflect | .13 | |||
Pooled estimates are reported throughout table. ***p < .001, **p < .01.