The Influence of Implicit Theories of Depression on Treatment-Relevant Attitudes

How do fundamental emotion beliefs affect the rapid emotional processing? An ERP study

Beliefs about whether emotions are good or bad, controllable or uncontrollable are two fundamental emotion beliefs. Studies have confirmed the link between the two beliefs and emotional responses, but how emotion beliefs affect the process from emotional stimulus perception to emotion generation and automatic regulation is unclear. Answering this question helps to understand the role of emotion beliefs in emotional dysfunction and dysregulation and can provide a basis for effective emotion regulation. Therefore, the current study used event-related potential (ERP) measures to examine the time course and neural mechanisms by which emotional beliefs influence the processing of emotional pictures. One hundred participants were divided into four groups (25 per group) according to controllable or uncontrollable beliefs about emotions and good or bad beliefs about negative emotions, and viewed emotional negative and neutral pictures. Results showed that P2 was more positive in participants with emotion controllable vs. uncontrollable belief. The early posterior negativity (EPN) was more negative for unpleasant than neutral images in participants with emotion good and controllable beliefs as well as with bad and uncontrollable beliefs. On late positive potential (LPP), middle LPP (500-1000ms) was more positive in emotion good vs. bad belief holders and the late LPP (1000-2000 ms) was more positive for negative than neutral images in emotion uncontrollable belief holders. The findings suggest that fundamental emotion beliefs can affect individuals' early attention and late meaning evaluation towards unpleasant stimuli. Furthermore, they provide insight into altered beliefs about emotion in people with emotion dysfunction or dysregulation.

Explanatory models of mental illness among working professionals diagnosed with bipolar or depression in the United States

BACKGROUND

People diagnosed with mental illness develop a variety of explanatory models of their conditions in the face of uncertainty. Explanatory models matter because they are associated with internalized stigma and illness behaviors such as treatment preferences.

AIMS

This paper explores how working professionals in the United States draw on biological and/or environmental factors to explain the cause(s) of their diagnoses of bipolar or depression.

METHOD

Findings are derived from an analysis of transcripts of in-depth interviews with 52 individuals from across the United States who were invited to participate in a study of working professionals diagnosed with mental illness. About 25 self-identified as having bipolar disorder and 27 as having major depression. Transcript data were analyzed following the principles of flexible coding with the goal of establishing a typology of explanatory models of self-identified bipolar versus depression.

RESULTS

Six types of explanatory models emerged from the analysis. One was exclusively biological, a second was exclusively environmental, and the remaining four combined biological and environmental factors in different ways. Quotations from the interviews are provided to illustrate each type, and comparisons between types are made based on primary diagnosis (bipolar vs. depression), and self-reports of trauma and stressful experiences.

CONCLUSION

Implications for the future research on explanatory models and how they may impact people who are diagnosed with a mental illness across multiple dimensions of their lives are presented.

Examining associations between intelligence mindset, mental health symptom severity, and academic self-efficacy and performance

Individuals possess different beliefs regarding the malleability of intelligence, also known as intelligence mindsets. Despite evidence demonstrating a link between a growth mindset of intelligence-the belief that intelligence can develop through effort-and academic achievement, this link has not been closely examined from a mental health perspective. Given the increasing prevalence of mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, among undergraduate students, an important question is whether the well-established link between mental health symptom severity and academic outcomes depends on the intelligence mindset beliefs that individuals possess. A growth mindset of intelligence might buffer the negative impact of anxiety and depression on academic outcomes, whereas a fixed mindset-the belief that intelligence cannot be changed-might exacerbate this negative relationship. The present study examined data collected from 660 undergraduate psychology students in the United States to test whether intelligence mindset beliefs moderated the relationship between mental health symptom severity and various indicators of academic outcomes: academic self-efficacy, GPA, and perceived academic standing. Results revealed that intelligence mindset beliefs did not moderate the observed negative association between mental health symptom severity and academic outcomes. Findings indicate that promoting a growth mindset of intelligence might not be a particularly effective strategy for buffering university students from the negative impact of anxiety and depression on academic outcomes. However, this conclusion is limited by the cross-sectional design of the study, and future prospective research is necessary to further clarify the relationship between intelligence mindset, mental health, and academic outcomes.

Longitudinal associations between emotion malleability beliefs and avoidance in college students

Emotion malleability beliefs, or beliefs that emotions are changeable versus fixed, may be an important and modifiable determinant of emotion regulation strategy employment and psychological distress. The present study evaluated the prospective relationship between college students' emotion malleability beliefs, depression and anxiety symptom severity, cognitive and behavioural avoidance, social engagement, and cognitive reappraisal. Participants were college students (N = 177) who completed a battery of questionnaires at the beginning of the academic year and again at a 6-month follow-up. Linear regression analyses indicated that emotion malleability beliefs predicted anxiety and depression, although this effect was not found when controlling for baseline symptom severity. Increases in emotion malleability beliefs were associated with more cognitive reappraisal and less cognitive and behavioural avoidance at follow-up when controlling for baseline levels of each variable. To the extent that emotion malleability beliefs predicted less avoidance at follow-up, anxiety and depression symptom severity was lower. Results suggest that emotion malleability beliefs predict avoidance and related psychological outcomes across the academic year.