Sensitive maintenance: A cognitive process underlying individual differences in memory for threatening information

Dispositional styles of coping with threat influence memory for threatening information. In particular, sensitizers excel over repressors in their memory for threatening information after long retention intervals, but not after short ones. We therefore suggested that sensitizers, but not repressors, employ active maintenance processes during the retention interval to selectively retain threatening material. Sensitive maintenance was studied in 2 experiments in which participants were briefly exposed to threatening and nonthreatening pictures (Experiment 1, N = 128) or words (Experiment 2, N = 145). Following, we administered unannounced recognition tests before and after an intervening task that generated either high or low cognitive load, assuming that high cognitive load would impede sensitizers' memory maintenance of threatening material. Supporting our hypotheses, the same pattern of results was obtained in both experiments: Under low cognitive load, sensitizers forgot less threat material than repressors did; no such differences were observed under high cognitive load

Relationships between time of day, day of the week, and positive mood : exploring the role of the mood measure

This study examined the relationship between time of day, day of the week, and two measures of positive affect (PA). According to previous research and the circumplex model of affect, one scale was designed to assess the activation component of PA, the other one measured the pleasantness aspect. Subjects rated their mood three times a day for seven consecutive days. Consistent with our hypotheses, PA-Pleasantness showed a peak on the weekend, whereas PA-Activation remained stable throughout the week. Regarding time of day, maximum PA-Activation was reached in the afternoon. In contrast, the Pleasantness component of PA increased from morning to evening. Implications of these results as well as other findings concerning the differential content of "PA" measures are discussed regarding the fact that a certain scale is most appropriate and maximally valid for representing certain aspects of affective experience

Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der "Positive and Negative Affect Schedule" (PANAS)

Eine deutsche Adaptation der "Positive and Negative Affect Schedule" (PANAS) wird vorgestellt, die faktorielle Struktur analysiert, die Reliabilität geprüft und ihre externen Assoziationen beschrieben. Es konnte sowohl für die Version "aktueller Affekt" (N = 349; Instruktion: "wie fühlen Sie sich im Moment") als auch für die habituelle Affektivität (N = 480; Instruktion: "...im allgemeinen") eine eindeutige Zweifaktorenlösung mit den Komponenten "Positive Affektivität" (PA) und "Negative Affektivität" (NA) gesichert werden. Im Rahmen der differentiellen internen Validierung konnte mit Hilfe von vier weiteren Zeitinstruktionen ("wie fühlten Sie sich heute - in den letzten Tagen - in den letzten Wochen - im letzten Jahr") gezeigt werden, daß mit zunehmendem Zeitintervall der Einfluß des aktuellen Affekts auf den Affektbericht ab- und der des habituellen zunimmt. Habituelle PA und NA weisen weiterhin differentielle Assoziationen mit globalen Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen und Variablen aus den Bereichen Ängstlichkeit, Symptom- und Emotionsberichten sowie Streßbewältigung auf

Continuity and discontinuity in memory for threat

<p>Using a paradigm that allows a quasi-continuous tracking of memory performance over time, two experiments were designed to test the hypotheses that (a) persons with a cognitively avoidant style of coping with threat manifest a dissociation between (intact) short-term and (reduced) long-term retrieval of aversive information and (b) persons with a vigilant coping style recall aversive information particularly well after long retention intervals, provided they are free to think about aversive events. Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 75) showed that avoiders manifest a poor memory for aversive pictures after long retention intervals only. Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 95) replicated this finding. In addition, manipulation of the cognitive load during the retention interval influenced vigilants’ recall of aversive information in the predicted way. Results indicate that processes occurring during the retention interval are essential for individual difference in memory for aversive information and require similar attention as encoding, appraisal, and retrieval processes.</p