4.4 Article

Characteristics of intrusive memories in a community sample of depressed, recovered depressed and never-depressed individuals

Journal

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages 234-243

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2011.01.003

Keywords

Depression; Memory; Intrusive memories; Memory characteristics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An accumulating body of evidence has revealed that intrusive autobiographical memories of negative events play a role in depression. Despite increasing understanding of the phenomenological experience of these memories, previous research in this area has been conducted in either nonclinical samples, or in clinical samples without an adequate control group. This study aimed to replicate and extend findings with dysphoric samples by comparing the content and characteristics of intrusive memories in clinically depressed (n = 25), recovered (n = 30) and never-depressed (n = 30) participants. Participants completed mood measures, and a battery of self-report questionnaires that indexed intrusive memory frequency, avoidance and characteristics. Intrusive memories were common and shared strikingly similar characteristics across the three groups. The key finding was that depressed participants reported higher levels of intrusion-related distress, associated emotions (especially sadness and helplessness), interference as a result of the memories and memory vividness compared to the never-depressed group. Despite similar levels of intrusion, there were group differences in avoidance such that depressed participants reported higher levels of avoidance than the never-depressed group. These results provide further support for the proposal that clinical interventions for depression could usefully incorporate components that aim to reduce intrusive autobiographical memories and target avoidance strategies. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available