The role of information processing as an underlying mechanism in the experience of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration; two dissociable dimension of trait anxiety.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4941875/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The role of information processing as an underlying mechanism in the experience of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration; two dissociable dimension of trait anxiety.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4941875/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose.

While long considered a unitary dimension, research has moved towards a multidimensional understanding of trait anxiety. Most relevant to this study, is the conceptualisation of two dissociable dimensions of trait anxiety; anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration. Despite the consolidation of this understanding over the past decade, the mechanisms underlying these two dimensions are not well established. The present study examined the novel role of information processing in the experience of anxiety reactivity and perseveration, specifically, how enhanced processing of situational information influences reactivity, and how enhanced processing of implicational information influences perseveration.

Method.

Undergraduate university students (N = 142) completed an experimental session, where they encountered an interview-based stressor. As participants approached this stressor, they were provided with information reflecting one of the two content categories, intended to encourage a situational or implicational processing mode. To facilitate measurement of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration, state anxiety was assessed at crucial junctures across the experimental session.

Results.

Our findings did not provide evidence for the role of enhanced processing of situational information in the experience of anxiety reactivity, nor the role of enhanced processing of implicational information in the experience of anxiety perseveration. An experimental manipulation involving valence revealed that receiving positive information reduced the intensity of state anxiety elevations, in the aftermath of the information processing task.

Conclusions.

Findings are discussed with reference to limitations and future extensions that could investigate the potential role of cognitive biases in this proposed relationship between enhanced information processing and anxiety reactivity and perseveration.

Anxiety

Emotion

Cognitive Processes

Reactivity

Perseveration

Anxiety is the most prevalent mental health concern in Australia, with approximately 3.2 million Australians experiencing an anxiety related condition between 2020 and 2021 alone (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Not all anxiety is maladaptive, often serving the adaptive purpose of prompting individuals to avoid potential environmental threats (Gutiérrez-García & Contreras, 2013). However, when the experience of anxiety is out of proportion to the current situation, this can cause significant emotional and cognitive disturbances, limiting the quality of life for the affected individual (Gutiérrez-García & Contreras, 2013). Due to the significant individual variability in the experience of anxiety, research has focused on identifying the mechanisms underpinning the experience of anxiety, with the goal of limiting the impairment associated with this prevalent mental health concern.

A well-established predictor of anxiety-related dysfunction is trait anxiety, which refers to the general tendency of an individual to experience elevations in anxiety in response to a stressful event (Endler & Kocovski, 2001). Trait anxiety has been identified as a factor contributing to the aetiology of anxiety-related disorders (Knowles & Olatunji, 2020), making research into the construct itself, and the contributing mechanisms, an important element in extending our understanding of anxiety.

Until recently, trait anxiety has commonly been considered a unitary dimension that is frequently assessed using questionnaires such as the trait version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T; Spielberger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1983), which requires individuals to report on the frequency with which they experience specific anxiety symptoms ‘in general’. Theoretically, however, a number of different types of anxious disposition could underlie variation in trait anxiety scores. Research by Rudaizky and colleagues (2012, 2014) has revealed that two dimensions of anxious disposition each account for unique variance in trait anxiety scores (Rudaizky et al., 2012). One dimension, referred to as anxiety reactivity, reflects individual differences in the magnitude of state anxiety responses elicited by a stressor. For example, in response to an impending examination, most people would experience some elevation in state anxiety. However, individuals who experience greater reactivity tend to exhibit more intense state anxiety reactions. The other dimension, referred to as anxiety perseveration, reflects individual differences in the persistence of a state anxiety elevation once elicited (Rudaizky et al., 2012). For example, following an examination, most people would experience anxiety reducing emotions such as relief. However, individuals who experience greater perseveration tend to remain elevated, even after leaving the examination room.

Over the last decade, the suggestion has been made within the literature that different mechanisms may independently drive variation in anxiety reactivity and in anxiety perseveration (Gole et al., 2012). However, to the authors’ knowledge, the present study is the first to systematically assess the cognitive mechanisms underlying these two dimensions of anxiety vulnerability. Distinguishing these mechanisms could have important applications for the broader literature concerning the basis of anxiety vulnerability, through the extension of current conceptual models of trait anxiety that seek to explain individual differences in this phenomenon (see Knowles & Olatunji, 2020). Cognitive theorists have suggested that individual differences in anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration reflect the differing impact of alternative types of information which people process (Rudaizky et al., 2014). Building on this foundation, the present study’s hypotheses, concerning processes underpinning anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration, were derived from the broader emotion literature.

Distinguishing the cognitive mechanisms that differentially contribute to variation in anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration, respectively, has important theoretical implications for advancing the understanding of individual differences in trait anxiety. Cognitive models of anxiety, while recognising that focusing on negative content elevates trait anxiety, do not differentiate between the processing styles that may differentially give rise to elevated anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration (Rudaizky et al., 2012). By exploring the influence of these styles, it becomes possible for us to better understand how varied information and/or content can influence individuals’ responses to stressful events, in both the short and longer term. This opens the possibility of examining how manipulating the information people process, prior to a stressful event, impacts the level of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration they experience both throughout and after the event (Rudaizky et al., 2012). Developing a methodology that could reduce the magnitude of these dissociable dimensions of trait anxiety, could potentially help individuals cope better with stressful situations as they arise, be it an interview or exam (Rudaizky et al., 2012).

Relevant to understanding individual differences in anxiety reactivity is literature focusing on emotional regulation (Davis et al., 2011). Research by Kross and colleagues (2005, 2014) posits that thinking about a situation in a manner that involves focusing on situational details, leads to heightened emotional arousal. There is evidence to support this. For example, a study by Bornstein and colleagues (2020) identified that when participants tended to process situational details concerning a stressful event (e.g., writing how and in what order the event happened), they experienced greater elevation of negative emotions than did those who tended to process implicational details. Though Kross and colleagues did not distinguish the impact of processing situational and implicational information and anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration, their findings suggest that elevated anxiety reactivity, reflecting more intense state anxiety response to a stressor, could be driven by the processing of situational information concerning the stressor. Therefore, the second hypothesis under test in the current study is that processing situational information about a stressful event leads to greater anxiety reactivity (but not to greater perseveration) in response to this event.

Relevant to understanding anxiety perseveration is literature focusing on repetitive thoughts, such as depressive rumination (a process akin to anxiety perseveration). Within this literature base, there is evidence to suggest that preferential processing of information, which is decontextualised and abstract in nature, is one of the crucial processes which differentiates dysfunctional from functional repetitive thoughts (Watkins & Teasdale, 2004). More specifically, Watkins’ (2008) Processing Mode Theory posits that utilising an implicational processing mode inhibits adaptive emotional processing of negative/stressful events (White & Wild, 2016). By disrupting the formation of a cohesive and specific narrative concerning a situation or event, negative interpretations are strengthened, giving rise to repetitive negative, or intrusive thoughts (White & Wild, 2016). Thus, Watkins and colleague propose that processing implication information, that focuses on the reasons for, and the consequences of an event, increases repetitive negative thinking and so elevates negative affect (Watkins et al., 2008).

There is evidence to support Watkin’s theory, with increased processing of implicational information processing mode being found to elevate negative affect (Kambara et al., 2019). Most relevant to the present research, one study identified that individuals who were presented with statements that contained abstract thoughts about the reasons for, and the consequences of a past event experienced longer duration of negative mood and arousal following a stressful event (Ehring et al., 2009). Another study by Altan-Atalay and colleagues (2022) exposed participants to a stressful situation and employed a manipulation that required participants to either process implication information (by answering questions such as “why is this happening to me?”), or non-implicational information (by answering questions such as “how can I solve the problem at hand?”). They found that participants who were induced to process implicational information experienced higher levels of subsequent state rumination (Altan-Atalay et al., 2022). It is important to note that while these studies provide support for Watkin’s theory, the methodology does not distinguish between the impact that processing implicational information has on anxiety reactivity and on anxiety perseveration. Therefore, the current literature base is unable to determine whether the processing of implicational information contributes to elevated anxiety perseveration specifically. However, given Watkins’ theory and this preliminary empirical support, it is plausible to suggest that elevated anxiety perseveration, reflecting greater persistence of the anxious response once elicited, could be increased by the processing of implicational information. The first hypothesis tested in the current study is therefore that processing information which is implicational in nature leads to greater anxiety perseveration (but not anxiety reactivity) in the wake of a stressful event.

The current study sought to test these two hypotheses concerning the contribution of information processing to the expression of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration by examining whether participants who process either situational or implication information about an upcoming stressor respectively exhibit heighted anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration in response to this event. Participants were told that would be exposed to a lab-based stressor, which took the form of a simulated interview. At several junctures across the experimental session, both as they approached this stressor and also after they had completed it, participants’ state anxiety was assessed using a visual analogue scale. This made it possible to compute separate measures of their anxiety reactivity (i.e., reflecting state anxiety elevation elicited by the approaching interview) and anxiety perseveration (i.e., reflecting persistence of anxiety following the interview). To examine the impact of processing either situational or implicational information on each dimension of anxiety response, every participant was required to process either one or the other type of information concerning the stressor. This information was presented in the form of video clips, in which supposed former participants shared either situational information about the interview or implicational information about the interview.

While information type was the main experimental manipulation, consideration was given to the valence of the information, given the wealth of research that implicates negative information in the experience of anxiety (Mogg & Bradley, 2016) and rumination (Watkins & Roberts, 2020). This gave rise to an exploratory manipulation whereby each information type category was broken into two separate conditions: positive and negative. Given the well-established link between negatively valenced information and elevated anxiety-linked responses, it is plausible to suggest that only the processing of negative situational and implicational information would give rise to anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration, respectively. To ensure that any effects observed could be attributed to the processing of negative situational or implicational information (and not to the processing of situational or implicational information more generally) this between-subjects manipulation led to participants being presented either with exclusively negative or exclusive positive (implicational or situational) information about the upcoming interview.

With the original hypotheses, and exploratory manipulation in mind, the present study predicts that participants who are required to process negative information concerning the upcoming Interview Challenge that is situational in nature, as compared to those who are required to process negative information that is implicational in nature or that is positive, will experience greater anxiety reactivity (but not perseveration) during the period when they are introduced to the Interview Challenge. Additionally, it is predicted that participants who are required to process negative information concerning the upcoming Interview Challenge that is implicational in nature, as compared to those who are required to process negative information that is situational in nature or that is positive, will experience greater anxiety perseveration (but not reactivity) in the period following participation in the Interview Challenge.

Participants

One hundred and forty-one undergraduate psychology students were recruited via a university online research participation system. Using G*Power version 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007), an a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the minimum sample size required to test the experimental hypotheses. To achieve sufficient power to detect a medium effect size (f = .25) with 80% probability, and a conservative .20 correction between repeated measures, a sample size of 116 is required. Therefore, the obtained sample of 141 participants is sufficient to test the current hypotheses. Across the 141 participants (111 females, 29 males, and one non-binary/other), ages ranged from 17 to 59 (M = 19.70, SD = 5.46). Eighty-three participants (59%) identified their ethnicity as Caucasian, 52 participants (37%) reported they are of Asian descent, four participants (3%) identified as Hispanic, and two participants (1%) reported they are of Middle Eastern descent. Participants were compensated with partial course credit for taking part in the current study, which was approved by the University of Western Australia’s Human Research Ethics Office (2021/ET000074). This research was conducted in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2023) and all research procedures were completed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Participants gave written informed consent and were able to terminate the experiment at any time.

Materials

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et el., 1983) was administered to measure individual differences in participants’ trait anxiety at the commencement of the experimental session. The 20-item trait anxiety scale (STAI-T) asks individuals to report on the frequency of their general feelings of anxiety by indicating how they “generally feel”, for example, “I am happy”. Responses are provided using a 4-point Likert scale which ranges from ‘Almost Never’, to ‘Almost Always’, with higher scores indicating greater trait anxiety. The STAI-T is a highly reliable measure of trait anxiety, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from good (.86) to excellent (.95) (Spielberger et al., 1983). Additionally, the STAI-T demonstrates adequate (.73) to good (.85) convergent validity with other widely used measures of anxiety (e.g., the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and the Anxiety Scale Questionnaire) (Maynard et al., 2010). In the current sample, the STAI-T demonstrated excellent internal consistency (a = .93).

Visual Analogue State Anxiety Measure.

In order to permit computation of variation in anxiety reactivity and in anxiety perseveration, state anxiety was assessed at critical junctures across the experimental session, using a one-item visual analogue anxiety measure, adapted from a measure developed by Davey et al. (2007). On each such assessment, participants were presented with a 10 cm horizontal line on the screen, anchored at the left end with the words “not at all anxious” and anchored at the right with the words “extremely anxious”. Instructions were presented on the screen which asked participants to “Use the mouse to move the marker on the screen to the point on the scale that accurately reflects how anxious you currently are”. Davey et al., (2007) demonstrated that the visual analogue version of the single item state anxiety scale has adequate predictive validity (p = .78) with the STAI-S (STAI; Spielberger et el., 1983), a highly reliable (Cronbach’s a range .86 to .95; Spielberger et al., 1983) measure of state anxiety. Given the recurrent nature of anxiety assessments throughout the experimental session, a one item measure of state anxiety was chosen due to its brief duration and sensitivity in detecting subtle differences in participants emotional experience across time.

Stimuli

Video Clip Stimuli

To enable the processing of information that is situational or implicational in nature, and negative or positive in valence, 16 video clips were created. These video clips were split evenly across four content categories: negative situational, positive situational, negative implicational, and positive implicational content. These video clips presented “actors”, students between the ages of 17 and 25, recruited from the community, who delivered pre-written scripts. These scripts were developed by the research team to present situational or implicational information, that was also positive or negative in nature. Each video had a duration of precisely one minute (see online supplementary materials for further details concerning video development).

Using Adobe Premier Pro® (Version 22.0, Adobe Inc., 2022), the sixteen video clips were edited to ensure uniform size, clarity, and duration. Each video measured 26 cm x 26 cm and was positioned in the centre of the screen.

Experimental Tasks

Information Processing Task.

The purpose of this task was to require participants to process one of the four categories of information (situational negative information, situational positive information, implicational negative information, or implicational positive information) concerning the forthcoming event, to determine how processing information differing in valence and content influences anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration. In each condition, participants were exposed to four video clips, which presented information from the same information valence and information type categories (e.g., situational positive), with a short break between the presentation of each clip. The clips were presented in the centre of the screen 6 cm from the left and right edges of the screen (see Fig. 1 for visual exemplar of stimuli presentation). Participants were told to “please pay close attention, as you will be asked questions about these video clips later”. This instruction was included to ensure that participants adequately attended to the video clip stimuli.

Interview Challenge Stressor.

The interview challenge stressor was modelled on the interview platform Vieple (Vieple, 2022), which is a video interviewing platform commonly utilised for remote and first round interviews. The platform allows for standardised and structured interviews to be conducted, with candidates answering pre-prepared questions via video recordings. The interview challenge stressor followed this general set up by presenting participants with questions on a computer screen, before providing them with a brief preparation window, after which they are given a limited amount of time to provide an answer to the question. While going through these stages, participants view themselves on screen and their responses are recorded.

A screenshot of each component of the interview challenge can be found in Fig. 2. At the commencement of the interview task, the experimenter set up the interface, with the participant’s video inside the white box, enabling them to view themselves answering the interview questions. This self-evaluation was included to increase task-related anxiety (Righi et al., 2009). Next, participants were presented with an instruction screen that introduced the format of the preparation component of the interview challenge. Participants were told they would be presented with an interview question and given one minute to prepare to answer this question, with a yellow progress bar indicating the elapsed time.

Following these instructions, participants were presented with the first question and given one minute to prepare. Once this one minute had elapsed, a second instruction screen was presented, which introduced the format of the answering component of the interview challenge. Participants were told the recording of their answer would commence on the next screen and they would be given two minutes to answer the question, which would be indicated using a red progress bar. On the next screen, participants were recorded for two minutes while they answered the question. The interview challenge comprised four questions, all of which followed the format described above. The questions were taken from various general knowledge domains including, politics, history, geography, and science.

Post Stressor Breathing Focus Task

The purpose of this task was to facilitate assessment of anxiety perseveration in the period following the interview challenge. Adapted from Levinson and colleagues (2012) Breath Awareness Task, this nine-minute task was designed to have low working memory demand, to allow the cognitive capacity to think about the interview challenge. Participants were instructed “Be aware of the movement of your breath, breathe normally and with each exhale, press the letter E. “If you suddenly realize that your attention was completely off task, that’s ok. Press the control button, and gently bring the attention back to your breath.” Throughout this nine-minute task, state anxiety was assessed every three minutes, using the visual analogue state anxiety measure.

Procedure

Participants completed the study individually in sound-attenuated rooms, in a quiet laboratory setting at the University of Western Australia. The experimental session commenced with participants providing informed written consent, before completing a brief demographic information questionnaire. Following this, participants completed a battery of questionnaires, which included the STAI-T, and the baseline state anxiety measure, which commenced the anxiety reactivity assessment phase.

Participants then viewed information, which introduced the interview challenge stressor, before completing the stressor introduction state anxiety measure. Instructions for the video clip task were subsequently presented on screen, before participants were exposed to four videos from the category they had been randomly assigned to. Once they had viewed these videos, participants completed the post video clips state anxiety measure, which concluded the anxiety reactivity assessment phase.

Participants next completed the Interview Challenge stressor, which was followed by the post interview state anxiety assessment, which commenced the anxiety perseveration assessment phase. The final component of the experimental session was the breathing focus task, which required participants to report on their state anxiety every three minutes throughout the nine-minute task. These measurements formed the breath task state anxiety measurements one, two, and three. At the end of the breath task, the perseveration assessment phase concluded (see Fig. 3 for an overview of the lab-based experimental session).

Assessment of Anxiety Reactivity and Anxiety Perseveration

The visual analogue state anxiety measure was included at various points throughout the experimental session (see Fig. 3) to facilitate assessment of anxiety reactivity, and anxiety perseveration. There were seven assessment points, one which served as a baseline measure of state anxiety, two which served as reactivity assessment points, and four which served as perseveration assessment points.

Assessing Anxiety Reactivity

The first reactivity assessment point was taken after participants were introduced to the interview challenge stressor and informed, they would complete this interview during the second half of the experimental session. This assessment point will be referred to as the stressor introduction state anxiety assessment. The second reactivity assessment point was taken after participants were exposed to the four video clips. This assessment point will be referred to as the post video clip state anxiety assessment.

Assessing Anxiety Perseveration

The initial perseveration assessment point was taken after participants completed the interview challenge. This assessment point will be referred to as the post interview state anxiety assessment point. Following this assessment point, participants completed the breath awareness perseveration task, during which, three further measurements of state anxiety were taken at three-minute intervals throughout this task. These assessment points will be referred to as breath task state anxiety assessment one, two, and three

Data Preparation

Two participants did not complete the study and so were excluded. Outliers were removed based on the Mahalanobis Distance for the detection of multivariate outliers (Aguinis et al., 2013). Seven variables were entered into the outlier analysis, corresponding to the state anxiety measurements across both the anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration assessment periods. Distances were interpreted using p < .001 and corresponding chi-square values with the degrees of freedom equal to the number of variables entered into the analysis (see Dashdondov & Kim (2021) for additional methodological details concerning outlier detection using Mahalanobis Distance). Based on this methodology, six additional participants were excluded from the final data set, resulting in a final sample size of 134.

Success of intended anxiety induction by interview challenge

To determine whether the introduction to the interview challenge was effective at inducing elevated state anxiety, mean state anxiety scores at the baseline and stressor introduction measurement points were subjected to a paired samples t-test. Results revealed a significant difference between participants’ anxiety scores at the baseline measurement point (M = 38.1, SD = 28.2) and the stressor introduction (M = 62.0, SD = 26.9) measurement point t(133) = 11.3, p < .001, d = .98, indicating that the introduction to the interview challenge induced significant elevations in state anxiety.

Did processing of negative situational information uniquely impact anxiety reactivity?

Mean state anxiety scores at the Stressor Introduction and Post Video Clips measurement points were subjected to a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA, with the between-subjects factors of Valence (Positive vs. Negative) and Information Type (Situational vs. Implicational), the within-subjects factor of Time (Stressor Introduction vs. Post Video Clips), and the STAI-T covariate. The hypothesis under test predicts that we should find a significant Information Type × Valence × Time interaction, due to participants who have been exposed to negative situational information exhibiting a disproportionately greater increase in state anxiety, when compared to those who have been exposed to negative implicational or positive information.

Results revealed no significant main effect of Time F(1, 129) = 3.37, p = .069, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.03.\:\)A significant interaction between Valence and Time F(1, 129) = 6.50, p = .012, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.05\:\)was identified. Follow up analyses revealed that following the presentation of the video clips, individuals who received positive information experienced a significant reduction in state anxiety, t(64) = 5.38, p < .001, d = .67, conversely, participants who received negative information did not experience a significant reduction in state anxiety t(68) = .77, p = .45, d = .09.

Critically, results revealed no significant interaction between Information Type, Valence, and Time F(1, 129) = .04, p = .84, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.00.\:\:\text{A}\text{d}\text{i}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\text{a}\text{l}\text{l}\text{y},\:\)no significant interactions were identified between Information Type and Time F(1, 129) = 2.16, p = .144, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.02\), nor Information Type and Valence F(1, 129) = .99, p = .32, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.01,\:\)Similarly, there were no further significant main effects; Information Type F(1, 129) = .08, p = .78, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.00\), and Valence F(1, 129) = .95, p = .33, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.01.\)[1]

Did processing of negative implicational information uniquely impact anxiety perseveration?

Mean state anxiety scores across the four perseveration time points were subjected to a 4 × 2 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA with the between-subjects factors of Valence (Positive vs. Negative) and Information Type (Situational vs. Implicational), the within-subjects factor of Time (Post Interview, Breath Task 1, Breath Task 2, and Breath Task 3), and the STAI-T covariate. Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated χ² (5) = 151.36, p < .001. Consequently, Huynh-Feldt corrected results are reported.

Results revealed a significant main effect of Time F(1.91, 246.63) = 6.05, p = .003, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\) .05, indicating that participants’ mean state anxiety significantly differed across the four measurement points in the perseveration assessment period. Specifically, state anxiety significantly decreased across each of the four assessment points throughout the anxiety perseveration assessment phase (see Table 3). Results revealed no significant interaction between Information Type and Time F(1.91, 246.63) = 1.93, p = .149, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.02\), indicating that participants experienced comparable levels of state anxiety at each measurement point throughout the perseveration assessment period, irrespective of the information type they were exposed to. Additionally, there was no significant interaction between Time and Valence F(1.91, 246.63) = 2.52, p = .085, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.02,\) Information Type and Valence F(1, 129) = .35, p = .55, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.00\), nor a significant three-way interaction between Time, Information Type, and Information Valence F(1.91, 246.63) = 1.52, p = .22, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.01.\) Similarly, there were no further significant main effects; Information Type F(1, 129) = .32, p = .57, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.00\), and Valence F(1, 129) = .08, p = .78, \(\:{{\eta\:}_{p}}^{2}=\:.00.\)[2]

Table 3

*Mean (and SD) State Anxiety Scores in Each Condition Across Perseveration Assessment Points*
Assessment Point	Implicational Negative	Implicational Positive	Situational Negative	Situational Positive
Post Interview	44.91(34.18)	38.26(29.50)	37.80(29.02)	45.26(26.27)
Breath Task 1	26.97(25.28)	22.09(22.38)	29.83(26.09)	28.68(20.27)
Breath Task 2	21.24(22.82)	14.41(16.45)	21.46(21.43)	17.61(18.50)
Breath Task 3	15.97(19.69)	11.03(15.62)	18.57(23.12)	14.06(18.28)

The present study serves as an initial investigation into the cognitive mechanisms underlying anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration, two dissociable dimensions of trait anxiety. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study that has sought to explore the impact of processing information that is situational or implicational in nature on the experience of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration. Drawing from literature focusing on rumination and emotional regulation, two hypotheses were formulated to test what may give rise to anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration in the context of a stressful event. It was hypothesised that processing of negative information which is situational in nature leads to greater anxiety reactivity (but not perseveration) in the lead up to a stressful event. In line with this account and the experimental valence manipulation, it was predicted that anxiety reactivity effects will be greater for those who process negative information that is situational in nature, as compared to those who process negative information that is implicational in nature and those who are exposed to positive information. It was additionally hypothesised that processing negative information which is implicational in nature leads to greater anxiety perseveration (but not anxiety reactivity) in the wake of a stressful event. Accordingly, it was predicted that participants who are exposed to negative information concerning the upcoming Interview Challenge that is implicational in nature, would experience greater anxiety perseveration effects, compared to those who are exposed to negative information that is situational in nature and those who are exposed to positive information.

Results revealed that processing the negative situational information contained in the video clips did not significantly influence participants’ experience of state anxiety during the anxiety reactivity assessment period. Thus, these findings do not support the first hypothesis under test. This result is inconsistent with the support for this theoretical account found in the emotional regulation literature (Bornstein et al, 2020). This discrepancy could be explained by methodological variations between the present study and Bornstein and colleagues (2020) study. For one, the present study utilised pre-recorded videos to induce a processing mode, which constrained participants to viewing information that might not have been in line with how they would naturally process a stressful situation. In contrast, Bornstein and colleagues (2020) asked participants to draw from their own past experiences, to provide a retelling of a stressful interpersonal experience, which was then coded as either situational or implicational in construal (Bornstein et al., 2020). This difference may have impacted the level of psychological distance perceived by the participants (i.e., listening to others’ experiences, rather than drawing from their own, may have attenuated the intensity of the emotional experience). There is evidence to support this, with Verduyn and colleagues (2012) finding that the duration of negative emotions was decreased when individuals processed an event from a self-distanced perspective (seeing themselves as an observer), compared to individuals who processed the event from a self-immersed perspective (first-person). This experimental finding was grounded in, and subsequently supported, Kross (2009) notion that emotional intensity is increased when individuals process and conceptualise events from their own, first-person perspective, compared to an observers distant, fly on the wall perspective.

The present results additionally revealed that the processing exposure of negative implicational information, presented in the video clips, did not significantly influence participants’ experience of state anxiety during the anxiety perseveration assessment period. Therefore, the second hypothesis under test was not supported, as the processing of negative implicational information did not lead to greater anxiety perseveration. This result contrasts with those found in the depressive rumination literature, which highlight the contribution of the implicational processing mode to depressed mood and ruminative cognitions (Kambara et al., 2019; Watkins & Teasdale, 2004). One candidate explanation for our non-significant effect could be that individuals did not experience substantial anxiety perseveration in the wake of the interview challenge stressor. This explanation is given weight by the finding that state anxiety significantly reduced across the anxiety perseveration assessment phase, irrespective of valence and information type contained in the videos. Perhaps, this significant decrease in state anxiety during the perseveration assessment phase, which follows exposure to the interview challenge task itself, is due to a mismatch between expectancies formed during the reactivity assessment phase and the experience of the stressor itself during the anxiety perseveration assessment phase. It is plausible that while participants’ state anxiety was elevated by both the introduction to the interview challenge stressor, the stressor itself did not match their expectations in terms of difficulty, or arousal. This could have elicited feelings of surprise and relief (Gaschler et al., 2014), and a subsequent drop in state anxiety. Relief has been described a “tension reducing emotion” (Pekrun et al., 2007 pp. 25), which is linked to a reduction in subjective negative states, such as state anxiety. Research examining expectation mismatch and prediction error lend weight to this suggestion, as it has been identified that a mismatch between predictions and/or expectations of outcomes, and the actual outcome itself can influence performance, and the experience of anxiety (White et al., 2017; Gaschler et al., 2014).

A condition requiring processing of positive situational information, and a condition requiring processing of positive implicational information, were also included to disentangle the impact of processing situational vs implicational information from the impact of processing negative vs positive information. The valence of the video clips emerged as a factor which influenced participants’ anxiety reactivity. More specifically, while participants who processed positive information (situational or implicational) experienced a reduction in their level of state anxiety following their viewing of the video clips, individuals who were exposed to negative information remained elevated in their state anxiety ratings after viewing the video clips. This finding is consistent with a significant body of research that implicates the processing of negative information in the experience of heightened state anxiety, and anxiety related dysfunction (Bar-Haim et al., 2007, Mathews & MacLeod, 2005). Of note, valence of processed information influenced only anxiety reactivity, without having any impact on anxiety perseveration. Prior research into anxiety reactivity and perseveration has not considered the influence of valence on the experience of these independent dimensions, making this a novel finding. This finding will be important to consider when aiming to target elevated anxiety, as exposure to positive information may only attenuate anxiety reactivity, and not anxiety perseveration.

As an additional endeavour, this research sought to conduct analyses akin to those presented in Rudaizky and colleagues' (2014) study. These analyses aimed to explore the ability of in vivo measures of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration to explain independent variance in trait anxiety scores. The study found that only anxiety perseveration accounted for independent variance in trait anxiety scores, contrasting with Rudaizky et al., (2014), but aligning with Mann (2020), who also identified anxiety perseveration as the sole independent predictor. Differences in experimental design may explain the discrepancy; Rudaizky et al. 's (2014) study used a stressor where participants anticipated a speech without delivering it, while the current study and Mann's methodology involved a simulated interview or speech with preparation time. Furthermore, Rudaizky and colleagues (2014) allowed more time for participants to experience anxiety reactivity, by assessing state anxiety across a five-minute window. In contrast, the present study assessed participants' state anxiety immediately after exposing them to the video clips, providing less opportunity for anxiety reactivity to develop.

Although the present design did elicit elevations in state anxiety during the anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration assessment phases, future studies could modify the study protocol, with the goal of increasing the degree to which participants experience anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration. For example, such refinements may involve amending the questions involved in the interview, to reflect topics of relevance to undergraduate samples (e.g., housing, climate change, and education). Increasing the personal relevance of experimental stimuli to undergraduate participants could be a pathway to increased engagement with the stressor (Grafton et al., 2012), and greater negative affectivity, characteristic of anxiety perseveration (Grafton et al., 2012). Additionally, it could be the case that the lack of anxiety reactivity effects in the present study were at least in part driven by a ceiling effect, occurring as a result of the stressor introduction. It is plausible that participants anticipation of the interview challenge stressor elevated anxiety to a point that eclipsed any further elevation that could have been elicited by the information contained in the videos. To avoid this, future experimental designs should endeavour to assess anxiety in a manner that acknowledges the contribution of the stressor introduction, and the subsequent exposure to information concerning the interview, to provide a holistic measure of reactivity. By including both in the measure of anxiety reactivity, this probable ceiling effect will be accounted for. To achieve this, researchers could utilise a design similar to the one found in Rudaizky and colleagues (2014) study, where the stressor was introduced prior to a five-minute anxiety reactivity assessment phase. This allowed participants ample time to develop elevations in state anxiety, and ensured the measure was appropriately capturing elevations that resulted from information concerning the potential stressor (Rudaizky et al., 2014).

Despite its strengths, the present study has several limitations of note. First, the current study did not recruit participants based on their level of trait anxiety, instead electing to recruit a convenience sample of undergraduates. It could be the case that impact of processing situational information and implicational information, on anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration respectively, may be more evident in people with high levels of trait anxiety. The design of the present study precluded the detection of effects that may only exist for participants with high levels of trait anxiety. Future research could overcome this limitation by recruiting participants using a measure of trait anxiety, such as the STAI-T (Spielberger, 1983), to enable comparing the impact of processing situational information and implicational information on anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration experienced by participants high in trait anxiety, compared to participants low in trait anxiety.

An additional limitation is that the present study was not able to determine the natural processing style of participants, which may vary across individuals in terms of whether this involves a preference for, or tendency to selectively process, either situational information style or implicational information. Instead, individuals in the current study were presented with pre-selected information, which was either situational or implicational in nature, and so the information they were required to process may not have aligned with their own information processing preferences. It could be the case that some individuals who have a tendency to preferentially process situational information were given implicational information in this study, which may have led to diminished anxiety reactivity and/or perseveration (and vice versa) with the implicational processing style. Future extensions of this work could employ methodology that permits identification of participants’ information processing biases (e.g., by asking participants to report on the contents of their thoughts). This could help uncover individual differences in information processing biases which may drive preferential processing of either situational or implicational information, potentially resulting in differing levels of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration. Hence, we suggest that this is an important future direction for research in this field.

To summarise, in the present study the processing of negative situational and negative implicational information about an upcoming stressor did not serve to differentially influence the degree to which participants exhibited anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration in response to this stressor. Nonetheless, these findings build on previous work by Watkins (2008) and Kross (2005, 2014), as this is the first study to examine the influence of exposure to information which is either abstract and decontextualised in nature (implicational) or distinct and situation specific in nature (situational), on the two distinct facets of trait anxiety. From this foundational study, we hope further research will be conducted to illuminate the information processing biases implicated in the experience of anxiety reactivity and perseveration, furthering our theoretical, and applied understanding of these dimensions of trait anxiety.

Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Declaration of consent for publication
All individuals whose likeness appear in this manuscript have given written consent for publication for research purposes. The images are the copyright of the University of Western Australia

Funding sources

The authors acknowledge the support provided by an Australian Research Council Research Training Program Scholarship awarded to Sophia Moore.

Author Contribution

S.M: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Visualisation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. L.D: Supervision, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. M.M: Writing – review & editing, Resources. C.M: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. L.N: Supervision, Project Administration, Software, Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Adobe (2022). Adobe Premier Pro (Version 22.5) [Computer Software]. Adobe. https://www.adobe.com/apps/all/all-platforms/pdp/premiere-pro?source=apps
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-Practice Recommendations for Defining, Identifying, and Handling Outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112470848
Altan-Atalay, A., Kaya-Kızılöz, B., İlkmen, Y. S., & Kozol, E. (2022). Impact of abstract vs. concrete processing on state rumination: An exploration of the role of cognitive flexibility. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 74, 101691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2021.101691
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022). 2020–2021 National study of mental health and wellbeing. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/mental-health/national-study-mental-health-and-wellbeing/2020-21
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. Psychological bulletin, 133(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1
Bornstein, O., Katzir, M., Simchon, A., & Eyal, T. (2020). Differential effects of abstract and concrete processing on the reactivity of basic and self-conscious emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 35(4), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1848804
Boyes, M. E., Carmody, T. M., Clarke, P. J. F., & Hasking, P. A. (2017). Emotional reactivity and perseveration: Independent dimensions of trait positive and negative affectivity and differential associations with psychological distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.025
Dashdondov, K., & Kim, M. H. (2021). Mahalanobis Distance Based Multivariate Outlier Detection to Improve Performance of Hypertension Prediction. Neural Processing Letters. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-021-10663-y
Davey, H. M., Barratt, A. L., Butow, P. N., & Deeks, J. J. (2007). A one-item question with a Likert or Visual Analog Scale adequately measured current anxiety. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(4), 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.07.015
Davis, J. I., Gross, J. J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2011). Psychological distance and emotional experience: What you see is what you get. Emotion, 11(2), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021783
Ehring, T., Szeimies, A., & Schaffrick, C. (2009). An experimental analogue study into the role of abstract thinking intrauma-related rumination. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 285–293. https://doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.12.011
Endler, N. S., & Kocovski, N. L. (2001). State and trait anxiety revisited. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15(3), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(01)00060-3
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Gallucci, M. (2019). GAMLj: General analyses for linear modules. [jamovi module] Retrieved from https://github.com/gamlj/
Gaschler, R., Schwager, S., Umbach, V. J., Frensch, P. A., & Schubert, T. (2014). Expectation mismatch: Differences between self-generated and cue-induced expectations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 46(1), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.009
Gole, M., Köchel, A., Schäfer, A., & Schienle, A. (2012). Threat engagement, disengagement, and sensitivity bias in worry-prone individuals as measured by an emotional go/no-go task. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 43(1), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.07.002
Grafton, B., Watkins, E., & MacLeod, C. (2012). The ups and downs of cognitive bias: Dissociating the attentional characteristics of positive and negative affectivity. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.578066
Gutiérrez-García, A. G., & Contreras, C. M. (2013). Anxiety: an adaptive emotion. New insights into anxiety disorders, 1(2), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.5772/53223
Kambara, K., Kira, Y., & Ogata, A. (2019). Impact of repetitive thought and processing mode on goal striving. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2019.101481
Knowles, K. A., & Olatunji, B. O. (2020). Specificity of trait anxiety in anxiety and depression: Meta-analysis of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Clinical psychology review, 82, 101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101928
Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking why does not hurt. Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological science, 16(9), 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600
Kross, E., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Park, J., Burson, A., Dougherty, A., Shablack, H., Bremner, R., Moser, J., & Ayduk, O. (2014). Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism: how you do it matters. Journal of personality and social psychology, 106(2), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035173
Levinson, D. B., Smallwood, J., & Davidson, R. J. (2012). The Persistence of Thought: Evidence for a Role of Working Memory in the Maintenance of Task-Unrelated Thinking. Psychological Science, 23(4), 375–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611431465
Mann, G. (2020). An investigation into the contribution of executive function to anxiety perseveration vulnerability [Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Australia]. UWA Research Repository. https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/100843758/THESIS_DOCTOR_OF_PHILOSOPHY_MANN_Georgina_Wright_2020.pdf
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annual review of clinical psychology, 1, 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143916
Maynard, D. M. B., Campbell, M. H., Devonish, D., Leon, T., Emmanuel, M. K., & Roberti, J. W. (2010). Psychometric Properties and Factorial Structure of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait Version (STAI-T) in Caribbean University Students. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 20(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2010.10820337
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2016). Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification. Behaviour research and therapy, 87, 76–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.001
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in Education (pp. 13–36). Academic.
Righi, S., Mecacci, L., & Viggiano, M. P. (2009). Anxiety, cognitive self-evaluation and performance: ERP correlates. Journal of anxiety disorders, 23(8), 1132–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.07.018
Rudaizky, D., Page, A. C., & MacLeod, C. (2012). Anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration represent dissociable dimensions of trait anxiety. Emotion, 12(5), 903–907. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025612
Rudaizky, D., & MacLeod, C. (2014). Anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration represent independent dimensions of anxiety vulnerability: an in vivo study. Anxiety stress and coping, 27(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2013.853047
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (form Y). Consulting Psychologists.
Verduyn, P., Van Mechelen, I., Kross, E., Chezzi, C., & Van Bever, F. (2012). The relationship between self-distancing and the duration of negative and positive emotional experiences in daily life. Emotion (Washington D C), 12(6), 1248–1263. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028289
Vieple (2022). Video Interviewing. https://vieple.com/video-interviewing
Watkins, E., & Teasdale, J. D. (2004). Adaptive and maladaptive self-focus in depression. Journal of affective disorders, 82(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2003.10.006
Watkins, E., Moberly, N. J., & Moulds, M. L. (2008). Processing mode causally influences emotional reactivity: distinct effects of abstract versus concrete construal on emotional response. Emotion (Washington D C), 8(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.364
Watkins, E. R., & Roberts, H. (2020). Reflecting on rumination: Consequences, causes, mechanisms and treatment of rumination. Behaviour research and therapy, 127, 103573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103573
White, R., & Wild, J. (2016). Why or How: The Effect of Concrete Versus Abstract Processing on Intrusive Memories Following Analogue Trauma. Behavior Therapy, 47(3), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.02.004
White, S. F., Geraci, M., Lewis, E., Leshin, J., Teng, C., Averbeck, B., Meffert, H., Ernst, M., Blair, J. R., Grillon, C., & Blair, K. S. (2017). Prediction Error Representation in Individuals With Generalized Anxiety Disorder During Passive Avoidance. The American journal of psychiatry, 174(2), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.15111410

[1] Analyses were additionally run using linear mixed effects modelling. Result revealed were comparable to ANOVA results reported above, showing the pattern of results is robust to variation in analysis method. See online supplementary materials for linear mixed effects model.

[2] Analyses were additionally run using linear mixed effects modelling. Result revealed were comparable to ANOVA results reported above, showing the pattern of results is robust to variation in analysis method. See online supplementary materials for linear mixed effects model.

No competing interests reported.

OnlineSupplementaryMaterials.docx

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
11 Nov, 2024
Reviews received at journal
23 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
14 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
14 Oct, 2024
Reviews received at journal
03 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
31 Aug, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
30 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
21 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
21 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
20 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

The role of information processing as an underlying mechanism in the experience of anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration; two dissociable dimension of trait anxiety.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose.

Method.

Results.

Conclusions.

Figures

Introduction

Method

Participants

Materials

Stimuli

Video Clip Stimuli

Experimental Tasks

Post Stressor Breathing Focus Task

Procedure

Assessment of Anxiety Reactivity and Anxiety Perseveration

Assessing Anxiety Reactivity

Assessing Anxiety Perseveration

Results

Data Preparation

Success of intended anxiety induction by interview challenge

Did processing of negative situational information uniquely impact anxiety reactivity?

Did processing of negative implicational information uniquely impact anxiety perseveration?

Discussion

Declarations

Funding sources

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Footnotes

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1