Seeing light at the end of the tunnel: Positive prospective mental imagery and optimism in depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimism is associated with positive outcomes across many health domains, from cardiovascular disease to depression. However, we know little about cognitive processes underlying optimism in psychopathology. The present study tested whether the ability to vividly imagine positive events in one's future was associated with dispositional optimism in a sample of depressed adults. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were conducted, using baseline (all participants, N=150) and follow-up data (participants in the control condition only, N=63) from a clinical trial (Blackwell et al., 2015). Vividness of positive prospective imagery, assessed on a laboratory-administered task at baseline, was significantly associated with both current optimism levels at baseline and future (seven months later) optimism levels, including when controlling for potential confounds. Even when depressed, those individuals able to envision a brighter future were more optimistic, and regained optimism more quickly over time, than those less able to do so at baseline. Strategies to increase the vividness of positive prospective imagery may aid development of mental health interventions to boost optimism.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".