4.3 Article

The effectiveness of dual-task interventions for modulating emotional memories in the laboratory: A meta-analysis

Journal

ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA
Volume 220, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103424

Keywords

Memories; Working memory; Emotion; EMDR; Dual-tasks

Funding

  1. VICI grant by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [453-15-005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dual-task interventions have been shown to reduce the vividness and emotionality of both negative and positive memories in laboratory studies, supporting the effectiveness of such interventions in attenuating emotional memories.
Dual-tasks (e.g., making horizontal eye-movements) while recollecting a memory are often used both in the lab and the clinic (such as in EMDR therapy) to attenuate emotional memories and intrusive mental images. According to working memory theory, dual-task interventions are effective because they limit cognitive resources available for the processing of emotional memories. However, there is still ongoing debate about the extent to which and under what conditions dual-task interventions are effective to interfere with emotional memories. In this meta-analysis, we assessed k = 53 laboratory studies investigating the effects of dual-task interventions on negative and positive memories. The effects were measured with the raw mean reduction in vividness and emotionality self-report ratings of emotional memories before compared to after the intervention on 100-point rating scales. Results showed that the dual-task interventions made both negative and positive memories less vivid (mean reduction negative images = 9.18, 95% CI [7.06, 11.29]; mean reduction positive images = 11.73, 95% CI [8.59, 14.86]) and less emotional (mean reduction negative images = 6.22, 95% CI [4.50, 7.94]; mean reduction positive images = 6.71, 95% CI [2.21, 11.20]). Several moderators were tested and are discussed in the light of working memory theory.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available