Habermas Tilmann, Delarue Iris, Eiswirth Pia, Glanz Sarah, Krämer Christin, Landertinger Axel, Krainhöfner Michelle, Batista João, Gonçalves Miguel M
Department of Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Psychology Research Centre, School of Psychology, Universidade de Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Front Psychol. 2021 Mar 2;12:624644. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624644. eCollection 2021.
Reasoning may help solving problems and understanding personal experiences. Ruminative reasoning, however, is inconclusive, repetitive, and usually regards negative thoughts. We asked how reasoning as manifested in oral autobiographical narratives might differ when it is ruminative versus when it is adaptive by comparing two constructs from the fields of psychotherapy research and narrative research that are potentially beneficial: innovative moments (IMs) and autobiographical reasoning (AR). IMs captures statements in that elaborate on changes regarding an earlier personal previous problem of the narrator, and AR capture the connecting of past events with other parts of the narrator's life or enduring aspects of the narrator. A total of = 94 university students had been selected from 492 students to differ maximally on trait rumination and trait adaptive reflection, and were grouped as ruminators ( = 38), reflectors ( = 37), and a group with little ruminative and reflective tendencies ("unconcerned," = 19). Participants narrated three negative personal experiences (disappointing oneself, harming someone, and being rejected) and two self-related experiences of more mixed valence (turning point and lesson learnt). Reflectors used more IMs and more negative than positive autobiographical arguments (AAs), but not more overall AAs than ruminators. Group differences were not moderated by the valence of memories, and groups did not differ in the positive effect of narrating on mood. Trait depression/anxiety was predicted negatively by IMs and positively by AAs. Thus, IMs are typical for reflectors but not ruminators, whereas the construct of AR appears to capture reasoning processes irrespective of their ruminative versus adaptive uses.
推理可能有助于解决问题和理解个人经历。然而，反刍性推理没有定论、重复，且通常涉及消极想法。我们通过比较心理治疗研究和叙事研究领域中两个可能有益的概念：创新时刻（IMs）和自传推理（AR），来探究在口头自传叙事中表现出来的反刍性推理与适应性推理有何不同。IMs捕捉那些阐述叙述者早期个人先前问题变化的陈述，而AR捕捉过去事件与叙述者生活的其他部分或叙述者的持久方面的联系。从492名学生中选取了总共94名大学生，使他们在特质反刍和特质适应性反思方面差异最大，并分为反刍者组（n = 38）、反思者组（n = 37）和一个反刍和反思倾向较弱的组（“不关心组”，n = 19）。参与者讲述了三个负面个人经历（令自己失望、伤害他人和被拒绝）以及两个正负价态混合的自我相关经历（转折点和吸取的教训）。反思者使用了更多的IMs，且负面自传性论据（AAs）多于正面，但总体AAs并不比反刍者多。记忆的价态并未调节组间差异，且各组在叙述对情绪的积极影响方面没有差异。特质抑郁/焦虑与IMs呈负相关，与AAs呈正相关。因此，IMs是反思者而非反刍者的典型特征，而AR这一概念似乎捕捉到了推理过程，无论其是反刍性还是适应性的运用。
