Stöber J
Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802-3104, USA.
Behav Res Ther. 1998 Jul-Aug;36(7-8):751-6. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00027-8.
Both lay concept and scientific theory claim that worry may be helpful for defining and analyzing problems. Recent studies, however, indicate that worrisome problem elaborations are less concrete than worry-free problem elaborations. This challenges the problem solving view of worry because abstract problem analyses are unlikely to lead to concrete problem solutions. Instead the findings support the avoidance theory of worry which claims that worry suppresses aversive imagery. Following research findings in the dual-coding framework [Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston; Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.], the present article proposes that reduced concreteness may play a central role in the understanding of worry. First, reduced concreteness can explain how worry reduces imagery. Second, it offers an explanation why worrisome problem analyses are unlikely to arrive at solutions. Third, it provides a key for the understanding of worry maintenance.
大众观念和科学理论都认为,担忧可能有助于界定和分析问题。然而,最近的研究表明,令人担忧的问题阐述不如无忧无虑的问题阐述具体。这对担忧的解决问题观点提出了挑战,因为抽象的问题分析不太可能导致具体的问题解决方案。相反,这些发现支持了担忧的回避理论,该理论认为担忧会抑制厌恶意象。基于双重编码框架的研究结果[佩维奥,A.(1971年)。意象与言语过程。纽约:霍尔特、莱因哈特和温斯顿;佩维奥,A.(1986年)。心理表征:一种双重编码方法。纽约:牛津大学出版社。],本文提出,具体性降低可能在理解担忧方面发挥核心作用。首先,具体性降低可以解释担忧如何减少意象。其次,它解释了为什么令人担忧的问题分析不太可能得出解决方案。第三,它为理解担忧的持续存在提供了关键。