4.6 Article

Negative affectivity, sensory processing hypersensitivity, sleep quality and dreams: A conceptual model for generalised anxiety disorder in adults

期刊

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 368-377

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-021-01428-w

关键词

Negative affectivity; Sensory processing hypersensitivity; Dreams; Sleep quality; Generalized anxiety disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to investigate the direct and indirect effects of negative affectivity and sensory processing hypersensitivity on dreams and sleep quality in patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). The results show a significant positive relationship between negative affectivity and sensory processing hypersensitivity with dreams and sleep quality. Sensory processing hypersensitivity moderates the relationship between negative affectivity and dreams and sleep quality in GAD patients.
Background: This study is aimed to examine the direct and indirect effects of negative affectivity (NA) and sensory processing hypersensitivity (SPH) in the explanation of variations in dreams and sleep quality based on Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in outpatients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Methods: Mean age for women (N = 100) and men (N = 100) were 26.53 and 31.74 years, respectively. The participants responded to a demographic sheet, the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales- 21 (DASS-21), the Highly Sensitive Persons Scale (HSPS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and the Mannheim Dream Questionnaire (MADRE) measures in this study. Results: The results showed a significant positive and direct connection between NA and SPH with dreams and sleep quality. SPH in outpatients with GAD moderated the relationship of NA with dreams and sleep quality. Finally, dreams and sleep quality had significant positive relationships in this sample. Conclusion: This conceptual model for dreams and sleep quality is beneficial for developing psychotherapeutic interventions in outpatients with GAD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据