憂鬱情緒與反芻型式對情緒調節與未來事件思考的影響

Abstract

研究背景與目的： 自Teasdale ( 1988 ) 提出差別活化假說 ( differential activation hypothesis ) 後，有些憂鬱症研究者開始探討憂鬱症者使用的情緒調節策略與效能，並發現憂鬱症者所使用的自我關注式反芻為較不具適應性的情緒調節策略，因為自我關注式反芻會增強憂鬱的情緒反應與負向認知，進而導致憂鬱症狀的維持與惡化。近年的一些研究則發現，自我關注式反芻並不全然給個體帶來壞處，其中經驗感受式反芻可做為具適應性的自我關注式反芻，並成為有效的情緒調節策略，然而較少研究探討經驗感受式反芻對未來事件思考的影響。本研究旨擬探討在低落情緒狀態時，個體的憂鬱傾向與使用的反芻型式情緒調節策略，對其情緒修復之效果與其對未來事件思考之影響。 研究方法：本研究先對103位受試者實施負向情緒誘發與前測作業，然後將受試者分派至分析評價式反芻組或經驗感受式反芻組，最後進行後測作業與實驗操弄檢核。進入正式資料分析的為其BDI總分大於10分與小於6分的兩組受試者，分別有40人與46人，共86人。資料分析方式以正負向情緒狀態與未來事件思考指標後測分數為依變項，前測分數做為共變項，採2 ( 高 / 低憂鬱 ) x 2 ( 分析評價 / 經驗感受 ) 的二因子完全受試者間共變數分析。 研究結果：在被誘發低落情緒後，低憂鬱組判斷自身的正向未來事件比負向未來事件更可能發生，顯示有明顯的情緒不一致效應，但高憂鬱組判斷自身的正負向未來事件可能性並無顯著差異；另一方面，與低憂鬱組的受試者相比，高憂鬱組受試者判斷負向未來事件更可能發生。與分析評價式組相比，經驗感受式反芻組的受試者判斷負向未來事件更可能發生，有較好的正向情緒修復效果，以及正向未來事件思考的特定性較高。 研究討論：在被誘發低落情緒後，相較於分析評價式反芻，個體使用經驗感受式反芻能產生更多的正向情緒修復量，以及更特定的正向未來事件思考，顯示經驗感受式反芻的良好影響主要在正向情感 ( positive affect ) 向度的認知與情緒層面；然而，經驗感受式反芻卻增加負向未來事件之發生可能性，此與原假設不符。本研究分別以Haye等人 ( 1996 ) 提出的經驗逃避概念以及林宛貞 ( 2010 ) 的研究角度對這些結果加以討論。 研究貢獻：本研究支持過去研究中，經驗感受式反芻 ( 內觀 ) 對個體有良好的影響，本研究也發現經驗感受式對正負向情感向度的認知與情緒之影響是不同的，本研究認為在負向情緒脈絡下，使用經驗感受反芻可能促使情緒不一致的產生，使得正向認知較容易被產生與提取，進而提升正向情緒。另外，本研究發現經驗感受式反芻可能增加負向未來事件的預期，建議使用經驗感受法做臨床介入時仍需謹慎評估個體的特質與憂鬱程度。

Since Teasdale ( 1988 ) proposed differential activation hypothesis, researchers began to focus on emotion regulation strategies used by depressive individuals. They found that depressive individual tended to ruminate about their depressed mood and symptoms. Depressive rumination will enhance depressed mood and negative cognition, and even maintain the depressive episode. Recently, research showed that compared to depressive rumination, experiential rumination could be a more adaptive emotional regulation strategy, but few studies discussed how experiential rumination influenced episodic future thinking. In this study, the authors investigated how dysphoria and modes of rumination influenced emotion regulation and episodic future thinking under negative mood induction. First, the authors induced negative mood on 103 subjects. After all subjects completed the negative mood induction and pre-tests, they were randomly assigned to analytic rumination or experiential rumination. Finally, all subjects completed post-tests and manipulation check. The authors chose BDI cut point scores > 10 to be dysphoric group and BDI < 6 to be nondysphoric group. Using these criteria, we finally screened 86 subjects to do data analysis. A 2(dysphoric/ nondysphoric group) x 2 (analytic/experiential rumination) two way ANCOVA was conducted with pre-test scores as covariate. The present study showed that under negative mood induction, nondysphoric group showed mood-incongruent effect. Compared to negative future events, nondysphoric group considered positive future events as being more likely to happen, but dyphoric group did not have such mood-incongruent effect. Compared to nondysphoric group, dysphoric group thought negative future events as more likely to happen. Compared to analytic rumination group, experiential rumination group tended to think negative future events as more likely to happen, showed better positive mood recovery, and enhanced the specificity of positive future events. We concluded that under negative mood context, experiential rumination would have more adaptive effect on positive mood recovery and positive future thinking specificity, indicating that the adaptive effects of experiential rumination was on the positive affect axon. Taken together, the present study supported that experiential rumination was more adaptive, and found that experiential rumination has different effects on positive and negative affect axon. Finally, since that the present study found experiential rumination could probably increase the negative future expectancy, it is suggested that individual’s characteristics and depressed symptoms should be taken into consideration carefully before using experiential rumination or mindfulness as a clinical intervention.