Symposia
Cognitive Science/ Cognitive Processes
Ivan Blanco, PhD
Assistant Professor
Autonomous University of Madrid
Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Extant experimental research supports the causal role of positive attention and interpretation biases in stress regulation. However, the contribution of these biases to psychological adjustment in the face of ecological major stressors has been largely unstudied. The aim of this study was to analyze the relation of positive biases with differential uses of emotion regulation strategies (i.e., reappraisal and rumination) to account for psychological adjustment to major stress (i.e., low depression and anxiety, and high well-being and resilience). For this purpose, we developed a novel online method for the ecological examination of attention and interpretation biases during the COVID-19 lockdown experienced in March/April 2020. One-hundred participants completed an online protocol evaluating the psychological impact of COVID-19–related stressors and the use of emotion regulation strategies in response to them, during the initial weeks of the lockdown of March/April 2020. They also completed the new online cognitive task designed to remotely assess attention and interpretation biases for positive vs. negative information. The psychometric properties of the online cognitive bias assessments were very good, supporting their feasibility for ecological assessment (α = .88). Structural equation modelling showed that positive interpretation bias was a direct predictor of better psychological adjustment (lower depression and anxiety, and higher well-being and resilience; χ2 (9) = 7.6; RMSEA = 0.001). Further, rumination mediated the influence of positive interpretation bias in anxiety (Effect= -1.53; p =.045; 95% CI = -0.03 - -3.25) and resilience (Effect= 3.74; p = .001; 95% CI = 6.34 to 1.65), whereas reappraisal acted as a mediator of the influence of both positive attention (Effect= 13.21; p =.047; 95% CI = 38.71 to 0.16) and interpretation biases (Effect= 1.93; p = .04; 95% CI = 5.25 to 0.12) in well-being. An alternative model, where the use of emotion regulation strategies acted as predictor variables and cognitive biases as mediators to account for psychological adjustment outcomes, was also tested. This alternative model showed worst fit than the hypothetical model (χ2 (15) = 137.2; RMSA = 0.321). This research highlights the relevance of individual processes of attention and interpretation during periods of adversity and identifies modifiable protective factors that can be targeted through online interventions to enhance psychological adjustment to major stressors.