The effect of the cognitive style of acceptance on negative mood in a recovered depressed sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study employed an experimental design to examine: (1) the predictors of the ability to engage in acceptance in individuals with a history of depression, and (2) the effect of acceptance on a negative mood state and altering attitudes toward feeling sad. METHODS: Sixty-five recovered depressed participants received instruction in the metacognitive style of acceptance before a negative mood induction. The degree to which the participants engaged in acceptance was then rated by independent raters. RESULTS: Forty percent of the sample failed to adhere to an attitude of acceptance. Participants with higher levels of anxiety and greater negative attitudes toward sadness were less able to engage in acceptance. Participants who optimally engaged in acceptance demonstrated greater reduction in their negative mood and increased metacognitive beliefs about acceptance after the use of the technique compared to those who failed to adhere to acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: These results imply that acceptance can be difficult to learn, and there may be identifiable individual differences that predict the ability to engage in acceptance. The implications of these results for future research and clinical practice are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".