Interpersonal contrast avoidance as a mechanism for the maintenance of worry.

Despite consistent links between interpersonal problems and worry, mechanisms explaining this relationship remain unknown. The Contrast Avoidance Model (CAM; Newman & Llera, 2011) posits that individuals at risk for chronic worry and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) fear sudden negative mood shifts, using worry to perpetuate negative moods and avoid these negative emotional contrasts. We propose interpersonal (IP) contrast avoidance (e.g., acting friendly to prevent others from causing mood shifts) as a novel explanation for interpersonal dysfunction in worriers. This study investigated IP contrast avoidance and worry in two samples. A nonclinical sample ranging in GAD symptoms (Study 1; N = 92) reported IP problems at baseline then IP contrast avoidance and worry over eight weeks (637 diaries). As expected, baseline IP problems prospectively predicted worry indirectly through chronic IP contrast avoidance. Affiliative, submissive, cold, and total IP contrast avoidance strategies predicted same-week and lagged next-week worry increases; affiliative, submissive, and total strategies also predicted maintenance of worry over eight weeks in growth models. Lastly, Study 2 showed the relevance of IP contrast avoidance strategies in a treatment-seeking clinical sample (N = 40), correlating with interpersonal problems and worry. Overall, results provide proof-of-concept for extending the CAM to the interpersonal domain.

Disgust uniquely predicts coping and interpersonal processes beyond anxiety and dysphoria in the context of naturalistic stressors.

BACKGROUND: Disgust is theorized to serve a unique function of motivating avoidance of noxious stimuli and setting interpersonal boundaries to prevent contamination. Research has established the relevance of disgust to OCD, posttraumatic stress, and phobias, suggesting transdiagnostic features. However, research has not always accounted for overlap of disgust with other negative emotions, obscuring unique contributions. Moreover, studies have not disentangled between-person (mean levels) and within-person (state) effects. The present study examined within- and between-person relationships of disgust, anxiety, and dysphoria with responses to daily social stressors. We expected disgust would uniquely predict cognitive avoidance and boundary-setting interpersonal behavior. METHOD: Individuals (N = 159) meeting ADIS-V anxiety/depressive disorder criteria (n = 55) and healthy controls (n = 104) completed online journals about naturalistic social stressors over five weeks (1,923 records), reporting disgust, anxiety, dysphoria, and responses to social stressors. RESULTS: As expected, disgust uniquely predicted lower acceptance, greater thought suppression, greater self-assertion, and less prosocial behavior, above and beyond anxiety and dysphoria. Several disgust effects were present at both between- and within-person levels, suggesting the relevance of both mean disgust and state fluctuations. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate unique relevance of disgust for how individuals respond to social stressors.

A review of EMA assessment period reporting for mood variables in substance use research: Expanding existing EMA guidelines.

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) is an increasingly popular approach in substance use research for capturing reliable, in-situ, self-reported information about fluctuating variables, such as mood, over time. Current EMA guidelines do not sufficiently address the reporting of assessment periods (e.g., right now, past 30 min). Given the importance of time in EMA studies, variation and ambiguity in assessment period reporting risks misinterpretation of procedures and findings. The following study reviewed the methodological reporting of EMA assessment periods in substance use research. A search conducted in PsychINFO and PubMed using the terms "ecological momentary assessment" OR "EMA" AND "mood" AND "substance use" yielded 36 unique search results. The references of these results were hand searched and resulted in 126 additional studies. After deleting duplicates and applying inclusion criteria, 56 studies were included in the review. Review of these studies illustrated (1) variability and ambiguity in study assessment periods (2) within-study incongruence between assessment period descriptions and associated EMA prompts, (3) and a large temporal range of retrospective assessment periods across studies. Each of these findings are illustrated and discussed using examples from the literature. From these examples, assessment period reporting guidelines are proposed to improve EMA reporting clarity. Such improvements will facilitate increased synthesis of EMA research and position future researchers to investigate the validity and reliability of EMA data captured with different lengths of retrospection.