• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

比较标准影响着有精神病理学症状和无精神病理学症状个体日常对幸福程度高低的判断:一项基于日记的调查。

Comparison standards shape everyday judgments of low and high wellbeing in individuals with and without psychopathology: a diary-based investigation.

作者信息

Meyer Thomas, Sickinghe Marthe, Matera Vanessa, Morina Nexhmedin

机构信息

Institute of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 19;14(1):4063. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-54681-x.

DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-54681-x
PMID:38374170
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10876573/
Abstract

People can easily rate and express their current levels of wellbeing, but the cognitive foundations for such judgments are poorly understood. We examined whether comparisons to varying standards underlie fluctuating wellbeing judgments within-person (i.e., throughout daily episodes) and between-person (i.e., high vs. low levels of psychopathology). Clinical and non-clinical participants recorded subjective affect for each distinct episode for one week. Participants briefly described current, best, and worst daily episodes, which we coded for presence and type of comparison standard (social, past temporal, criteria-based, counterfactual, prospective temporal, and dimensional). Participants also rated their engagement with these standards and the respective affective impact. During best episodes, participants reported more downward (vs. upward) comparisons that resulted in positive affective impact. In worst episodes, upward (vs. downward) comparisons were more frequent. In best and worst episodes, we most frequently identified past-temporal and criteria-based comparisons, respectively. The clinical group engaged more often with all potential standard types during worst daily episodes and was more negatively affected by comparative thoughts, amid consistently more negative affect levels across all episode types. Our data suggest that judgments of affect and wellbeing may indeed rely on comparative thinking, whereby certain standards may characterize states of negative affect and poor mental health.

摘要

人们能够轻松地对自己当前的幸福水平进行评分并表达出来,但对于此类判断的认知基础却知之甚少。我们研究了与不同标准的比较是否构成了个体内部(即,在日常各个时段)以及个体之间(即,高与低精神病理学水平)幸福感判断波动的基础。临床和非临床参与者记录了一周内每个不同时段的主观情感。参与者简要描述了当前、最佳和最差的日常时段,我们对其中比较标准(社会、过去时段、基于标准、反事实、未来时段和维度)的存在情况和类型进行了编码。参与者还对他们与这些标准的关联程度以及相应的情感影响进行了评分。在最佳时段,参与者报告了更多导致积极情感影响的向下(而非向上)比较。在最差时段,向上(而非向下)比较更为频繁。在最佳和最差时段,我们分别最常识别出过去时段和基于标准的比较。临床组在最差的日常时段更频繁地涉及所有潜在的标准类型,并且在所有时段类型中始终处于更高的消极情感水平,受比较性思维的负面影响更大。我们的数据表明,情感和幸福感判断可能确实依赖于比较性思维,据此某些标准可能表征消极情感状态和不良心理健康状况。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff62/10876573/9bc80417924e/41598_2024_54681_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff62/10876573/1f4477219943/41598_2024_54681_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff62/10876573/9bc80417924e/41598_2024_54681_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff62/10876573/1f4477219943/41598_2024_54681_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff62/10876573/9bc80417924e/41598_2024_54681_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison standards shape everyday judgments of low and high wellbeing in individuals with and without psychopathology: a diary-based investigation.比较标准影响着有精神病理学症状和无精神病理学症状个体日常对幸福程度高低的判断:一项基于日记的调查。
Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 19;14(1):4063. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-54681-x.
2
How do I know how I am doing? Use of different types of comparison in judgment of well-being in patients seeking psychological treatment and healthy controls.我如何知道自己做得如何?在寻求心理治疗的患者和健康对照者的幸福感判断中使用不同类型的比较。
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2022 Nov;14(4):1369-1388. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12339. Epub 2022 Jan 10.
3
How we compare: A new approach to assess aspects of the comparison process for appearance-based standards and their associations with individual differences in wellbeing and personality measures.如何比较:一种评估基于外观的标准比较过程各个方面的新方法,以及它们与幸福感和个性测量个体差异的关联。
PLoS One. 2023 Jan 11;18(1):e0280072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280072. eCollection 2023.
4
Should I have been more careful or less careless? The comparative nature of counterfactual thoughts alters judgments of their impact.我应该更小心些还是少些粗心大意呢?反事实思维的比较性质改变了对其影响的判断。
Cognition. 2023 Jun;235:105402. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105402. Epub 2023 Feb 16.
5
Letter to the Editor: CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES IN THE ICD-11 VS. DSM-5 CLASSIFICATION OF MOOD DISORDERS.给编辑的信:《ICD-11 与 DSM-5 心境障碍分类的趋同与分歧》
Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2021;32(4):293-295. doi: 10.5080/u26899.
6
Social-Judgment Comparisons in Daily Life.日常生活中的社会判断比较
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2024 Jan;50(1):38-57. doi: 10.1177/01461672221115558. Epub 2022 Sep 2.
7
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
8
Relief in everyday life.日常生活中的缓解。
Emotion. 2023 Oct;23(7):1844-1868. doi: 10.1037/emo0001191. Epub 2022 Dec 1.
9
Crying over spilled milk? A network analysis of aversive well-being comparison, brooding rumination and depressive symptoms.为打翻的牛奶哭泣?厌恶的幸福感比较、沉思反刍和抑郁症状的网络分析。
J Affect Disord. 2023 Oct 15;339:520-530. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.07.088. Epub 2023 Jul 17.
10
Cognitive factors underlying the impact of postmigration stressors on subjective well-being: Well-being comparisons and self-efficacy.移民后应激源对主观幸福感影响的认知因素:幸福感比较与自我效能感。
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2023 Oct 28. doi: 10.1002/cpp.2928.

本文引用的文献

1
Selection of social comparison standards in cardiac patients with and without experienced defibrillator shock.有和无经历过除颤器电击的心脏病患者中社会比较标准的选择。
Sci Rep. 2024 Mar 6;14(1):5551. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51366-3.
2
Transdiagnostic psychiatry: Symptom profiles and their direct and indirect relationship with well-being.跨诊断精神病学:症状概况及其与幸福感的直接和间接关系。
J Psychiatr Res. 2023 May;161:218-227. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.03.003. Epub 2023 Mar 9.
3
Aversive well-being comparisons in dysphoria and the role of brooding rumination.
抑郁中的厌恶幸福感比较及沉思反刍的作用。
Br J Clin Psychol. 2023 Jun;62(2):444-458. doi: 10.1111/bjc.12418. Epub 2023 Mar 5.
4
How we compare: A new approach to assess aspects of the comparison process for appearance-based standards and their associations with individual differences in wellbeing and personality measures.如何比较:一种评估基于外观的标准比较过程各个方面的新方法,以及它们与幸福感和个性测量个体差异的关联。
PLoS One. 2023 Jan 11;18(1):e0280072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280072. eCollection 2023.
5
Habitual aversive and appetitive well-being comparisons in dysphoria: Introducing the Comparison Standards Scale for well-being.抑郁障碍中习惯性厌恶和喜好幸福感的比较:引入幸福感比较标准量表。
J Affect Disord. 2023 Feb 1;322:132-140. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.11.012. Epub 2022 Nov 11.
6
The scientific value of numerical measures of human feelings.人类情感数值测量的科学价值。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Oct 18;119(42):e2210412119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2210412119. Epub 2022 Oct 3.
7
How do I know how I am doing? Use of different types of comparison in judgment of well-being in patients seeking psychological treatment and healthy controls.我如何知道自己做得如何?在寻求心理治疗的患者和健康对照者的幸福感判断中使用不同类型的比较。
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2022 Nov;14(4):1369-1388. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12339. Epub 2022 Jan 10.
8
Comparisons Inform Me Who I Am: A General Comparative-Processing Model of Self-Perception.比较告诉我我是谁:自我感知的一般比较加工模型。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2021 Nov;16(6):1281-1299. doi: 10.1177/1745691620966788. Epub 2021 Feb 22.
9
How am I doing compared to different standards? Comparative thinking and well-being following exposure to a vehicle-ramming attack.与不同标准相比,我的表现如何?遭遇车辆冲撞袭击后的比较性思维与幸福感。
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020 Nov 26;11(1):1834179. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2020.1834179.
10
When Beliefs Face Reality: An Integrative Review of Belief Updating in Mental Health and Illness.当信念面对现实:心理健康与疾病中信念更新的综合综述
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2021 Mar;16(2):247-274. doi: 10.1177/1745691620931496. Epub 2020 Aug 20.