Most of our measures of a key cognitive process don't agree
摘要
《自然》本周发表的一项研究指出，用于测量认知重评这一关键情绪能力的多种方法，彼此结果并不一致，可能并未测量同一对象。认知重评是认知行为疗法的重要基础，指个体重新解读引发负面情绪的情境以降低其影响，该能力与情绪韧性相关。研究意味着目前尚缺乏可靠手段评估这一概念的实际影响。该刊罕见发表此类“无显著效果”结果，也反映出科学出版中对阴性结果的一贯排斥。
It's widely acknowledged that it's nearly impossible to publish negative results in scientific journals. "We didn't see anything" is a much harder sell than finding that a hypothesis is clearly right. Findings of no effect tend to either be shuffled off to low-profile journals or left behind as unpublished lab lore.
The high-profile journal Nature, however, made a notable exception this week, publishing a study that tells us that a bunch of methods we have been using to try to measure a key emotional ability don't seem to be measuring the same thing. The results mean that we don't have a good way to measure the impact of a concept that is the basis of a key method in therapy.
Inconsistencies
One of the most successful forms of therapy is cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT. In part, CBT is based on getting people to step back and engage in "cognitive reappraisal." This requires people to think over a situation that has caused a negative emotional response and find ways to reinterpret it so that it has less impact on them. The ability to engage in this process has been linked to emotional resilience.
转载信息
评论 (0)
暂无评论，来留下第一条评论吧